Page images


to offer them, but they were to be abolished, and something else to be brought in that might supply their room and defect.

What was wanting in these sacrifices the apostle ascribes to the law whereby they were instituted. (1.) The law could not do it; that is, the ceremonial law could not do it. The law which instituted and appointed these sacrifices could not accomplish that end of the institution by them. And with this expression of it he subjoins a reason of this weakness of the law: "It had a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things” themselves,—an obscure representation of those good things which, when they were instituted and in force, were perdovra, to come, though now actually exhibited and existent; that is, Jesus Christ himself, and the good things of the gospel accompanying of him. It had but a “shadow" of these things, not the "image,"—that is, the substance of them; for so I had rather understand "image" here substantially, as that may be called the image of a picture by which it is drawn, than to make oric and cirúv here to differ but gradually, [i. e., in degree,] as the first rude shape and proportion and the perfect limning of any thing do. The reason, then, why all the solemn, operose, burdensome service of old could not of itself take away sin, is because it did not contain Christ in it, but only had a shadow of him.

(2.) The apostle instances, in particular, by what means the law could not do this great work of “making the comers thereunto perfect;" FOŪS PODEP Xoju évous,—that is, those who come to God by it, the worshippers; which is spoken in opposition to what is said of Christ, Heb. vii. 25, “He is able to save to the uttermost rous sporse youéνους,” , vous,"_" those that come to God by him.” The word expresseth any man under the consideration of one coming to God for acceptation; as chap. xi. 6, “He that cometh unto God," -- As7 Tòn POOEPXÓMSVON, These it could not make perfect; that is, it could not perfectly atone God, and so take away their sins that the conscience should no more be troubled or tormented with the guilt of sin, as chap. x. 2-4. By what could not the law do this? By those sacrifices which it offered year by year continually.

Not to speak of sacrifices in general, the sacrifices of the Jews may be referred to four heads:

(1.) The daily sacrifice of morning and evening, which is instituted Exod. xxix. 38, 39; which being omitted, was renewed by Nehemiah, chap. x. 33, and wholly taken away for a long season by Antiochus, according to the prophecy of Daniel, chap. xi. 31. This is the juge sacrificium, typifying Christ's constant presence with his church in the benefit of his death always.

(2.) Voluntary and occasional, which had no prefixed time nor matter; so that they were of such creatures as God had allowed to be sacrificed, they were left to the will of the offerer, according as oc

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

casion and necessity were by providence administered. Now, of these sacrifices there was a peculiar reason, that did not, as far as I can find, belong unto any of the rest. The judicial government of that nation being, as their own historian, Josephus, calls it, @couparia, and immediately in the hand of God, he appointed these voluntary sacrifices, which were a part of his religious worship, to have a place also in the judicial government of the people; for whereas he had appointed death to be the punishment due to every sin, he allowed that for many sins sacrifice should be offered for the expiating of the guilt contracted in that commonwealth of which himself was the governor. Thus for many sins of ignorance and weakness, and other perversities, sacrifice was offered, and the guilty person died not, according to the general tenor of the law, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all these things.” Hence David, in his great sin of murder and adultery, flees to mere mercy, acknowledging that God had appointed no sacrifice for the expiation of those sins as to the guilt political contracted in that commonwealth, though otherwise no sins nor sinners were excluded from the benefit of sacrifices, Ps. li. 16. This was their political regard; which they had and could have only on this account, that God was the supreme political governor of that people, their lord and king.

(3.) Sacrifices extraordinary on solemn occasions, which seem some of them to be mixed of the two former kinds, stated and voluntary. Such was Solomon's great sacrifice at the dedication of the temple. These partly answered the sacrifice instituted at the dedication of the altar and tabernacle, partly the free-will offerings which God allowed the people, according to their occasions, and appointed them for them.

(4.) Appointed sacrifices on solemn days; as on the sabbath, new moons, passover, feast of weeks, lesser and greater jubilee, but especially the solemn anniversary sacrifice of. expiation, when the high priest entered into the holy place with the blood of the beast sacrificed, on the tenth day of the month Tisri. The institution of this sacrifice you have Lev. xvi. throughout. The matter of it was one

. bullock, and two goats, or kids of goats, verses 3, 5. The manner was this:-[1.] In the entrance, Aaron offered one bullock peculiarly for himself and his house, verse 6. [2.] Lots were cast on the two goats, one to be a sin-offering, the other to be azazel, verses 8, 9. [3.] The bullock and goat being slain, the blood was carried into the holy place. [4.] Azazel, having all the sins of the people confessed over him, was sent into the wilderness to perish, verse 21. [5.] The end of this sacrifice was atonement and cleansing, verse 30. Of the whole nature, ends, significancy, and use of this sacrifice, as of others, elsewhere; at present I attend only to the thesis proposed.

Now, if perfect atonement and expiation might be expected from any of the sacrifices so instituted by God, certainly it might be from

[ocr errors]


this; therefore this doth the apostle choose to instance in. This was the sacrifice offered κατ' ενιαυτόν and εις το διηνεκές. But these, saith he, could not do it; the law by them could not do it. And this he proves with two arguments:

1st. From the event: Heb. x. 2, 3, “For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there was a remembrance again made of sins every year.” The words of the second verse are to be read with an interrogation, conclusive in the negative: “Would they not have ceased to have been offered?" that is, certainly they would. And because they did not do so, it is evident from the event that they could not take away sin. In most copies the words are, Eπει αν επαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι. Those that add the negative particle oix put it for oixí, as it is frequently used.

2dly. From the nature of the thing itself: Verse 4, “For it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” The reason in these words is evident and plain, especially that of verse 4. There is a twofold impossibility in the thing:

(1st.) In regard of impetration. It was impossible they should really atone God, who was provoked. First, the conjunction between the sinner and the sacrificed beast was not such or so near (being only that of possessor and possessed) that really, and beyond representation and type, the blood of the one could satisfy for the sin of the other. Much less, secondly, was there an innate worth of the blood of any beast, though never so innocent, to atone the justice of God, that was offended at sin, Micah vi. 6, 7. Nor, thirdly, was there any will in them for such an undertaking or commutation. The sacrifice was bound with cords to the horns of the altar; Christ went willingly to the sacrifice of himself.

(2dly.) In regard of application. The blood of common sacrifices being once shed was a dead thing, and had no more worth nor efficacy; it could not possibly be a “living way" for us to come to God by, nor could it be preserved to be sprinkled upon the conscience of the sinner.

Hence doth the apostle make it evident, in the first place, that Cbrist was not to offer any of the sacrifices which former priests had offered, first, Because it was utterly impossible that by such sacrifices the end of the sacrifice which he was to offer should be accomplished. This also he proves, secondly, Because God had expressly disallowed those sacrifices as to that end. Not only it was impossible in the nature of the thing itself, but also God had absolutely rejected the tender of them as to the taking away sin and bringing sinners to God.

But it may be said, “Did not God appoint them for that end and purpose, as was spoken before? The end of the sacrifice in the day

[ocr errors]

of expiation was to atone and cleanse: Lev. xvi. 30, 'On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you' (for the priest made an atonement actively, by offering the sacrifice; the sacrifice itself passively, by undergoing the penalty of death: Christ, who was both priest and sacrifice, did both.)” I answer, They were never appointed of God to accomplish that end by any real worth and efficacy of their own, but merely to typify, prefigure, and point out, him and that which did the work which they represented; and so served, as the apostle speaks, “ until the time of reformation, Heb. ix. 10. They served the use of that people in the under-age condition wherein God was pleased to keep them.

But now that God rejected them as to this end and purpose, the apostle proves by the testimony of David, speaking of the acceptance of Christ: Ps. xl. 6, 7, “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come,” etc.; which the apostle insists on, Heb. x. 5-9. There are several accounts upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard and not to approve or accept of sacrifices which yet were of his own institution:–First, In respect of the hypocrisy of the offerers. That people being grown formal and corrupt, trusted in sacrifices and the work wrought in them, and said that by them they should be justified: God, expressing his indignation against such sacrifices, or the sacrifices of such persons, rejects the things themselves wherein they trusted, that is, in reference to them that used them. This is the intention of the Holy Ghost, Isa. i. 12, 13. But this is not the cause of their rejection in this place of the psalmist, for he speaketh of them who walked with God in uprightness and waited for his salvation, even of himself and other saints, as appears in the context, verse 1, etc. Secondly, Comparatively. They are rejected as to the outward work of them, in comparison of his more spiritual worship, as Ps. 1. 12–14. But neither are they here rejected on that account; nor is there mention of any opposition between the outward worship of sacrifice and any other more spiritual and internal part thereof, but between sacrifice and the boring of the ears, or preparing of the body of Christ, as expressly, verse 6.

Their rejection, then, here mentioned, is in reference to that which is asserted in opposition to them, and in reference to the end for which that is asserted. Look to what end Christ had a body fitted and prepared, for and to that end, and the compassing of it, are all sacrifices rejected of God. Now, this was to take away sin, so that as to that end are they rejected.

And here, in our passage, may we remove what the Racovian Catechism gives us as the difference between the expiation under the old testament and that under the new; concerning which, cap. de Mun. Chris. Sacer. q. 5, they thus inquire:

[ocr errors]

Q. What is the difference between the expiation of sin in the old and new testament

A. The expiation of sins under the new testament is not only much different from that under the old, but also is far better and more excellent; and that chiefly for two causes. The first is, that under the old testament, expiation by those legal sacrifices was appointed only for those sins which happened upon imprudence and infirmity; from whence they were also called infirmities and ignorances : but for greater sins, such as were manifest transgressions of the command of God, there were no sacrifices instituted, but the punishment of death was proposed to them; and if God did forgive such to any, he did not do it by virtue of the covenant, but of singular mercy, which God, beside the covenant, did afford when and to whom he would. But under the new covenant, not only those sins are expiated which happen by imprudence and infirmity, but those also which are transgressions of most evident commands of God, whilst he who happened so to fall doth not continue therein, but is changed by true repentance, and falleth not into that sin again. The latter cause is, because under the old testament expiation of sins was so performed that only temporal punishment was taken away from them whose sins were expiated; but under the new the expiation is such as not only takes away temporal but eternal punishment, and in their stead offers eternal life, promised in the covenant, to them whose sins are expiated.'

Thus they. Some brief animadversions will give the reader a clear account of this discourse :-Sundry things are here splendidly supposed by our catechists, than which nothing could be imagined or invented more false; as, that the covenant was not the same for substance under the old and new testament, before and after the coming of Christ in the flesh; that those under the old testament were not pardoned or saved by Christ; that death temporal was all that was threatened by the law; that God forgave sin, and not in or by the covenant; that there were no promises of eternal life under the old testament, etc. On these and the like goodly principles is this whole discourse erected. Let us now consider their assertions.

The first is, That expiation by legal sacrifices was only for some sins, and not for all, as sins of infirmity and ignorance, not great crimes: wherein, First, They suppose that the legal sacrifices did by themselves and their own efficacy expiate sin; which is directly

1" Quodnam est discrimen inter veteris, et novi fæderis peccatorum expiationem ?-Expiatio peccatorum sub novo foedere non solum distat ab expiatione peccatorum sub vetere plurimum, verum etiam longe præstantior et excellentior est: id vero duabus potissimum de causis. Prior est, quod sub vetere fædere, iis tantum peccatis expiatio, per illa legalia sacrificia, constituta fuit, quæ per imprudentiam vel per infirmitatem admissa fuere, unde etiam infirmitates et ignorantiæ nuncupabantur. Verum pro peccatis gravioribus, quæ transgressiones erant mandati Dei manifestæ, nulla sacrificia instituta fuerant, sed mortis poena fuit proposita. Quod si talia Deus alicui condonabat, id non vi føderis fiebat, sed misericordia Dei singulari, quam Deus citra fædus, et quando et cui libuit exhibebat. Sub novo vero foedere peccata expiantur, non solum per imprudentiam et infirmitatem admissa, verum etiam ea quæ apertissimorum Dei mandatorum sunt transgressiones, dummodo is cui labi ad eum modum contigerit, in co non perseveret, verum per veram pænitentiam resipiscat, nec ad illud peccatum amplius relabatur. Posterior vero causa est, quod sub prisco fædere ad eum modum peccatorum expiatio peragebatur, ut poena temporaria tantum ab iis quorum peccata er. piabantur tolleretur; sub novo vero ea est expiatio, ut non solum poenas temporarias, verum etiam æternas amoveat, et loco pænarum, æternam vitam, in foedere promissam, iis quorum peccata fuerint expiata, offerat."

« PreviousContinue »