2. From the nature of the thing itself, ver. 4. 'For it was not possible, that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.' The reason in these words is evident and plain, especially that of ver. 4. There is a twofold impossibility in the thing.

1. 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; Mich. 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.

2. 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 Christ was not to offer any of the sacrifices which former priests had offered, 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,

2. Because God had expressly disallowed of 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 of expiation was (Lev. xvi. 30.) to atone, and cleanse; '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 for to accomplish that end, by any real worth and efficacy of their own, but merely to ty

pify, 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, Psal. 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,' &c. which the apostle insists on, ver. 6-9. 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. 1. 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 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 walketh with God in uprightness, and waited for his salvation; even of himself and other saints, as appears in the context, ver. 5. &c. 2. Comparatively; they are rejected as to the outward work of them, in comparison of his more spiritual worship; as Psal. 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 ear, or preparing of the body of Christ, as expressly, ver. 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 thate nd are they rejected.

And here in our passage may we remove what the Raco

vian catechism gives us, as the difference between the expiation under the Old Testament, and that under the New, concerning which, Chap. de Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. q. 5. they thus inquire.

'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 besides 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

Quodnam est discrimen inter veteris, et novi fœderis peccatorum expiationem? -Expiatio peccatorum sub novo fædere, 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 fœdere, 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 pœna fuit proposita. Quod si talia Deus alicui condonabat, id non vi fœderis fiebat, sed misericordia Dei singulari, quam Deus citra fœdus, et quando, et cui libuit exhibebat : sub novo vero fœdere 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 eo non perseveret; verum per veram panitentiam resipiscat, nec ad illud peccatum amplius relabatur. Posterior vero causa est, quod sub prisco fœdere ad eum modum peccatorum expiatio peragebatur, ut pœna temporaria tantum, ab iis, quorum peccata expiabantur, tolleretur: sub novo vero ea est expiatio, ut non solum pœnas temporarias, verum etiam æternas amoveat, et loco pœnarum, æter nam vitam in fœdere promissam, iis quorum peccata fuerint expiata offerat. Mun. Ch. Sacerdot. Q. 5.

De

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. 1. Sundry things are here splendidly supposed by our catechists, than which nothing could be imagined or invented more false: as 1. 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. 2. That those under the Old Testament were not pardoned or saved by Christ. 3. That death temporal was all that was threatened by the law. 4. That God forgave sin, and not in, or by the covenant. 5. That there were no promises of eternal life under the Old Testament, &c. on these and the like goodly principles, is this whole discourse erected ; let us now consider their assertions. The first is,

1. That expiation by legal sacrifices was only for some sins and not of all; as sins of infirmity and ignorance, not great crimes: wherein, 1. They suppose, that the legal sacrifices did by themselves, and their own efficacy, expiate sin, which is directly contrary to the discourse of the apostle now insisted on. 2. Their affirmation hereon is most false : Aaron making an atonement for sin, confessed over the goat all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, in all their sins; Lev. xvi. 21. and besides, all manner of sins are comprised under those expressions of ignorances and infirmities.

2. They say, 'for greater sins there was then no expiation, but death was threatened to them.' But then, 1. None that ever committed such sins were saved; for without expiation there is no salvation. 2. Death was threatened, and inflicted without mercy for some sins, as the law with its judicial additaments was the rule of the judaical polity; and for those sins, there was no sacrifice for a deliverance from death temporal; but death was threatened to every sin, small and great, as the law was a rule of moral obedience unto God; and so in respect of sacrifices there was no distinction. This difference of sacrifices for some sins, and not for others in particular, did depend merely on their use by God's appointment in the commonwealth of that people, and had no regard to the spiritual expiation of sin, which they typified.

3. That God forgave the sins of his people of old, by singular mercy, and not by virtue of his covenant, is a bold figment. God exercises no singular mercy, but in the covenant thereof; Eph. ii. 12.

4. Their condition of expiation (by the way) under the New Testament, that the sinner fall not again into the same sin, is a matter that these men understand not; but this is no place to discuss it.

5. That the expiation under the Old Testament reached only to the removal of temporal punishment, is another imagination of our catechists. It was death eternal that was threatened, as the punishment due to the transgression of the law, as it was the rule of obedience to God, as hath been proved; even the death that Christ delivered us from; Rom. v. 12, &c. Heb. ii. 14, 15. God was atoned by those sacrifices, according to their way of making atonement, Lev. xvi. 30. so that the punishment avoided was eternal punishment. 2. Neither is this indeed spoken by our catechists, as though they believed any punishment should be eternal; but they only hide themselves in ambiguity of the expression, it being annihilation they intend thereby. 3. The πρτоν Veudos of this discourse is, that expiation by sacrifices was no other, than what was done really by the sacrifices themselves, so everting their typical nature and institution, and divesting them of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, which they did represent.

6. It is confessed, that there is a difference between the expiation under the Old Testament, and that under the New; but this of application and manifestation, not of impetration and procurement. This is Jesus Christ,' the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.'

But they plead proof of Scripture for what they say in the ensuing question.

'Q. How dost thou demonstrate both these?

'A. That the sins, which could not be expiated under the Old Testament, are all expiated under the New, Paul witnesseth, Acts xiii. 38, 39. and the same is also affirmed;

e Qua ratione vero utrumque demonstras?-Peccata, quæ sub vetere fœdere expiari non potuere omnia sub novo expiari testatur Apostolus Paulus, in Actis, cap. xiii. 38, 39. idem habetur; Rom. iii. 25. Heb. ix. 15. Quod vero ea ratione expientur peccata sub novo fædere, ut etiam æterna pœna amoveatur, et vita æterna donetur, habetur Heb. ix. 12. ubi sup, Q. 6.