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 respects unto what went before. 2. The subject-matter spoken of: 'the blood of bulls and goats.' 3. What is denied concerning it: it could not take away sin. 4. The modification of this negative proposition: it was impossible they should do so.'

1. The illative conjunction, yap, for,' declares what is spoken to be introduced in the proof and confirmation of what was before affirmed. And it is the closing argument against the imperfection and impotency of the old covenant, the law, priesthood, 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 the foundation of all his other reasonings unto this purpose. For if, in the nature of the thing itself, it was impossible that the sacrifices 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, ver. 11, of this chapter, and ch. xiii. 10-12.

2. The subject spoken of is aiua тavρwv kαι трaуwv, 'the blood of bulls and goats.' The reason why the apostle expresseth them by bulls and goats, which were calves and kids of the goats, hath been declared on ch. ix. 11, 12. And some things must be observed concerning this description of the old sacrifices.

1st. 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 atonement 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 Lev. xvii. 11, 12. And in the shedding of it there was an indication of the desert of sin in the offerer.

2dly. He recals them by this expression of their sacrifices, 'the blood of bulls and goats,' to 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 is a tacit opposition unto the matter of that sacrifice, whereby sin was really to be expiated, which was the precious blood of Christ, as Heb. ix. 13, 14.

3. That which is denied of these sacrifices, is, apaiɛv áμaptias, 'the taking away of sins.' The thing intended is variously expressed

by the apostle, as by ἱλασκεσθαι τας ἁμαρτιας, Heb. ii. 17 ; καθαρισμον ποιησαι, ch. i. 3; καθαρίζεσθαι, καθαιρείν την συνειδησιν, ch. ix. 14; αθέτησις ἁμαρτίας, ch. ix. 26; αναφερειν ἁμαρτιας, ver. 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 of the law and its sacrifices, and ascribes unto that of 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 satisfaction 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 to the whole design of the context. Impossibile est' (saith Slichtingius) 'ut sanguis taurorum et hircorum peccata tollat; hoc est, efficiat ut homines in posterum à peccatis abstinerent, et sic nullam amplius habeant peccatorum conscientiam, sive ullas eorum pœnas metuant; quam enim quæso vim ad hæc præstandum sanguis animalium habere potest? Itaque hoc dicit, taurorum et hircorum sanguinem eam vim nequaquam habere, et ut habeat, impossibile esse, ut homines à peccatis avocet, et ne in posterum peccent, efficiat.' And Grotius after him speaks to the same purpose, ‘Αφαιρειν ἁμαρτιας, quod suprà αθετειν et αναφερειν, est extinguere peccata, quod sanguis Christi facit, cum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus dat nobis auxilia necessaria impetrandi; pecudum sanguis nihil efficit tale.'

1st. Nothing can be more alien from the design of the apostle, and scope of the context. They are both of them to prove, that the sacrifices of the law could not expiate sins, could not make atonement for them, could not make reconciliation with God, could not produce the effect which the sacrifice of Christ alone was appointed and ordained unto. They were only signs and figures of it. They could not effect that which the Hebrews looked for from them, and by them. And that which they expected by them was, that by them they should make atonement with God for their sins. Wherefore, the apostle denies that it was possible they should effect what they looked for from them, and nothing else. It was not that they should be arguments to turn them from sin unto newness of life, so as that they should sin no more. By what way, and on what consideration, they were means to deter men from sin, I have just declared. But they can produce no one place in the whole law, to give countenance unto such an apprehension that this was their end; so that the apostle had no need to declare their insufficiency with respect thereunto. Especially, the great anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation, was appointed so expressly to make atonement for sin, to procure its pardon, to take away its guilt in the sight of God, and from the conscience of the sinner, that he should not be punished according unto the sentence of the law; as that it cannot be denied. This is that which the apostle declares, that of themselves

they could not effect or perform, but only typically, and by way of representation.

2dly. He declares directly and positively what he intends by this taking away of sin, and the ceasing of legal sacrifices thereon, ver. 17, 18, Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more; now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.' The cessation of offerings for sin, follows directly on the remission of sin, which is the effect of expiation and atonement; and not upon the turning away of men from sin for the future. It is therefore our justification, and not our sanctification, that the apostle discourseth of.

3dly. The words themselves will not bear this sense. For the object of αφαιρειν, that which it is exercised about, is ἁμαρτιας. It is an act upon sin itself, and not immediately upon the sinner. Nor can it signify any thing but to take away the guilt of sin, that it should not bind over the sinner unto punishment; whereon conscience for sin is taken away. But to return.

4. The manner of the negation is, that advvarov, it was 'impossible' that it should be otherwise. And it was so,

1st. From divine institution. Whatever the Jews apprehended, they were never designed of God to that end, and therefore had no virtue or efficacy for it communicated to them. And all the virtue of ordinances of worship depends on their designation to their end. The blood of bulls and goats as offered in sacrifice, and carried into the most holy place, was designed of God to represent the way of taking away sin, but not by itself to effect it, and it was therefore impossible that so it should do.

2dly. It was impossible from the nature of the things themselves, inasmuch as there was not a condecency to the holy perfections of the divine nature, that sin should be expiated, and the church perfected by the blood of bulls and goats. For, First. In this there would have been no condecency to his infinite wisdom. For God having declared his severity against sin, with the necessity of its punishment to the glory of his righteousness and sovereign rule over his creatures, what condecency could there have been herein to infinite wisdom? What consistency between the severity of that declaration, and the taking away of sin by such an inferior beggarly means, as that of the blood of bulls and goats? A great appearance was made of infinite displeasure against sin, in the giving of the fiery law, in the curse of it, in the threatenings of eternal death; should all have ended in an outward show, there would have been no manner of proportion to be discerned between the demerit of sin, and the means of its expiation. So that, Secondly. It had no condecency to divine justice. For, 1. As I have elsewhere proved at large, sin could not be taken away without a price, a ransom, a compensation and satisfaction made to justice, for the injuries it received by sin. In satisfaction to justice by way of compensation for injuries or crimes, there must be a proportion between the injury and the reparation of it, that justice may be as much exalted and glorified in the one, as it was depressed and debased in the other. But there could be no such thing between the demerit of sin, and the affront

put on the righteousness of God on the one hand, and a reparation by the blood of bulls and goats on the other. No man living can apprehend wherein any such proportion should lie or consist: nor was it possible that the conscience of any man could be freed from a sense of the guilt of sin, who had nothing to trust to but this blood to make compensation or atonement for it. 2. The apprehension of it, (namely, a suitableness to divine justice, in the expiation of sins by the blood of bulls and goats,) must needs be a great incentive to profane persons, to the commission of sin. For if there be no more in sin and the guilt of it, but what may be expiated and taken away at so low a price, but what may have atonement made for it by the blood of beasts, why should they not give satisfaction to their lusts by living in sin? Thirdly. It would have had no consistency with the sentence and sanction of the law of nature, In the day thou eatest, thou shalt die.' For although God reserved to himself the liberty and right of substituting a surety in the room of a sinner, to die for him, namely, such an one as should by his suffering and dying, bring more glory to the righteousness, holiness, and law of God, than either was derogated from them by the sin of man, or could be restored to them by his eternal ruin; yet was it not consistent with the veracity of God in that sanction of the law, that this substitution should be of a nature no way cognate, but ineffably inferior to the nature of him that was to be delivered. For these, and other reasons of the same kind, which I have handled at large elsewhere, it was 'impossible,' as the apostle assures us, that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.' And we may observe,

Obs. I. It is possible that things may usefully represent what it is impossible that in and by themselves they should effect.-This is the fundamental rule of all institutions of the old testament. Wherefore,

Obs. II. There may be great and eminent uses of divine ordinances and institutions, although it be impossible that by themselves, in their most exact and diligent use, they should work out our acceptance with God. And it belongs to the wisdom of faith, to use them to their proper end, not to trust to them, as to what they cannot of themselves effect.

Obs. III. It was utterly impossible that sin should be taken away before God, and from the conscience of the sinner, but by the blood of Christ.-Other ways men are apt to betake themselves to for this end, but in vain. It is the blood of Jesus Christ alone that cleanseth us from all our sins, for he alone was the propitiation for them.

Obs. IV. The declaration of the insufficiency of all other ways for the expiation of sin, is an evidence of the holiness, righteousness, and severity of God against sin, with the unavoidable ruin of all unbelievers.

Obs. V. Herein also consists the great demonstration of the love, grace, and mercy of God, with an encouragement to faith, in that when the old sacrifices neither would nor could perfectly expiate sin, he would not suffer the work itself to fail, but provided a way that should be infallibly effective of it, as is declared in the following verses.

VER. 5-10.-THE provision that God made to supply the defect and insufficiency of legal sacrifices, as to the expiation of sin, peace of conscience with himself, and the sanctification of the souls of the worshippers, is declared in this context. For the words contain the blessed undertaking of our Lord Jesus Christ, to do, fulfil, perform, and suffer all things required in the will, and by the wisdom, holiness, righteousness, and authority of God to the complete salvation of the church, with the reasons of the efficacy of what he so did, and suffered to that end. And we must consider both the words themselves, so far especially as they consist in a quotation out of the Old Testament, with the validity of his inferences from the testimony which he chooseth to insist on to this purpose.

VER. 5-10,-Διο εισερχομενος εις τον κόσμον, λεγει Θυσιαν και προσφοραν ουκ ηθέλησας, σωμα δε κατηρτίσω μοι. 'Ολοκαυτώματα και περι ἁμαρτιας ουκ ενδοκησας. Τοτε ειπον· Ιδου ήκω, (εν κεφαλιδι βιβλιου γεγραπται περι εμου,) του ποιησαι, ὁ Θεος, το θελημα σου Ανωτερον λεγων· ότι θυσίαν και προσφοραν και ὁλοκαυτώματα και περι ἁμαρτιας ουκ ηθέλησας, ουδε ευδόκησας" αίτινες κατα τον νομον προσφερονται. Τοτε ειρηκεν Ιδου ήκω του ποιησαι, ὁ Θεός, το θέλημα σου" Αναιρει το πρωτον, ἵνα το δεύτερον στηση. Εν ᾧ θεληματι ἡγιασμενοι εσμεν οἱ δια της προσφορας του σωματος του Ιησου Χριστου εφάπαξ.

Some few differences may be observed in the ancient and best translations.

Διο. Vul. Lat. ideo quapropter. Syr. Nam bun; for this, for this cause.' Θυσίαν και προσφοραν: hostiam et oblationem, sacrificium, victimam. The Syriac renders the words in the plural number, 'sacrifices' and ' offerings. Σωμα δε κατηρτίσω μοι, aptasti, adaptasti mihi; præparasti, perfecisti; 'a body hast thou prepared,' i. e. fitted for me, wherein I may do thy will.' Syr. But thou hast clothed me with a body;' very significantly, as unto the thing intended, which is the incarnation of the Son of God. The Ethiopic renders this verse somewhat strangely, And when he entered into the world, he saith, Sacrifices and offerings I would not: thy body he hath purified unto me.' Making them, as I suppose, the words of the Father. Ovx ευδόκησας; Vulg. non tibi placuerant; reading the preceding words in the nominative case, altering the person and number of the verb. Syr. NN, Thou didst not require,' non approbasti; that is, 'they were not well pleasing, nor accepted with God,' as unto the end of the expiation of sin. Ιδού ήκω, ecce adsum, venio. Ουκ ηθέλησας ουδε ευδόκησας. The Syriac omitteth the last word, which yet is emphatical in the discourse.

Τοτε ειρηκεν ; Vul. tunc dixi, then I said; that is, ειπον, for he said;' for the apostle doth not speak these words, but repeats the words

of the Psalmist.

The reading of the words out of the Hebrew by the apostle, shall be

considered in our passage.