These things do evidently express the wisdom of God in their institution, although of themselves they could not take away sin. And those by whom these ends of them are denied, as they are by the Jews and Socinians, can give no account of any end of them which should answer the wisdom, grace, and holiness of God.
This objection being removed, I shall proceed unto the exposition of the words in particular. And there are four things in them as a negative proposition: 1. The illative conjunction, declaring its re-
“spect unto what went before. 2. The subject-matter spoken of;
Ph) i
“the blood of bulls and goats.” 38. What is denied concerning it; “it could not take away sins.” 4. The modification of this negative proposition; “it was impossible they should do so.”
1. The illative conjunction, “ for,” declares what is spoken to be introduced in the proof and confirmation of what was before affirmed. And itis the closing argument against the imperfection and impotency of the old covenant, the law, priest- hood, and sacrifices of it, which the apostle maketh use of. And indeed it is comprehensive of all that he had before insisted on; yea, it is
Tap.
2 Dissertation on Diyine Justice, miscellaneous works, yol. x. p. 481.—Eb.
442 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [ CHAP. X.
the foundation of all his other reasonings unto this purpose. For if in the nature of.the thing itself it was impossible that the sacri- fices consisting of the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, then however, whensoever, and by whomsoever they were offered, this effect could not be produced by them. Wherefore in these words the apostle puts a close unto his argument, and ‘resumes it no more in this epistle, but only once or twice makes mention of it in the way of an illustration to set forth the excellency of the sacrifice of
Christ; as verses 11, 12, of this chapter, and chap. xiii, 10-12, _ 2. The subject spoken of is “the blood of bulls and goats.” The reason why the apostle expresseth them by “bulls and
Mee TH coats,” which were calves and kids of the goats, hath
wad rpdyey,
must be observed concerning this description of the old sacrifices: —
(1.) That he makes mention of the “blood” of the sacrifices only, whereas in many of them the whole bodies were offered, and the fat of them all was burned on the altar, And this he doth for the ensuing reasons: [1.] Because it was the blood alone whereby atone- ment was made for sin and sinners. The fat was burned with incense, only to show that it was accepted as a sweet savour with God. [2.] Because he had respect principally unto the anniversary sacrifice, unto the consummation whereof, and atonement thereby, the carrying the blood into the holy place did belong, [3.] Because life natural is in an especial manner in the blood, which signified that atonement was to be made by death, and that by the effusion of blood, as it was in the sacrifice of Christ. See Ley. xvii. 11, 12. And in the shedding of it there was an indication of the desert of sin in the offerer.
(2.) He recalls them, by this expression of their sacrifices, “the
been declared on chap. ix. 11, 12. And some things —
blood of bulls and goats,” unto a due consideration of what effect — :
might be produced by them. They were accompanied with great
solemnity and pomp of ceremony in their celebration, Hence arose _
a great esteem and veneration of them in the minds of the people. But when all was done, that which was offered was but “ the blood of bulls and goats.” And there isa tacit opposition unto the matter
of that sacrifice whereby sin was really to be expiated, which was —
“the precious blood of Christ,” as chap. ix. 13, 14 8. That which is denied of these sacrifices, is d&poipery cmoprias, the “taking away of sins.” The thing intended is va-
"A@eipsiy riously expressed by the apostle, as by irdoxsodas reg
Beprias, be iy ewopring, Chap. i. 17; xadapromry roijoou, chap. 1. 3; xada-
piteodcs, xodcelpsiv rhy ovve/dnow, Chap. ix. 14; adérnorg &mapriag, verse 26; cvapips c&wapriag, verse 28;—to “make reconciliation,” to “purge sin,” to “purge the conscience,” to “ abolish sin,” to “ bear
it.” And that which he intendeth in all these expressions, which —
he denies to the law and its sacrifices, and ascribes unto that of
‘- a
VER. 4] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 443
Christ, is the whole entire effect thereof, so far as it immediately respected God and the law. For all these expressions respect the guilt of sin, and its removal, or the pardon of it, with righteousness before God, acceptance and peace with him. ‘To “take away sin,” is to make atonement for it, to expiate it before God by a satisfac- tion given, or price paid, with the procurement of the pardon of it, according unto the terms of the new covenant.
The interpretation of these words by the Socinians is contrary unto the signification of the words themselves, and the whole design of the context: “‘ Impossibile est,’ saith Schlichtingius, ‘ut sanguis tau-
_ rorum et hircorum peccata follat;’ hoc est, efficiat ut homines in
posterum a peccatis abstinerent, et sic nullam amplius habeant pec- catorum conscientiam, sive ullas eorum poenas metuant; quam enim quseso vim ad hee prestandum sanguis animalium habere potest? Itaque hoe dicit, taurorum et hircorumsanguinem eam vim nequaquam habere, et ut habeat, impossibile esse, ut homines & peccatis avocet, et ne in posterum peccent efficiat.” And Grotius after him speaks to the same purpose: “’ A gaspe?v awaprias, quod supra ddersiv et dvapépery, est extinguere peccata, sive facere ne ultra peccetur. Id sanguis Christi facit, tum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus dat nobisauxilia necessaria impetrandi. Pecudumsanguisnihilefticit tale.”