their consciences charged them with the guilt of sin, through an apprehension that their sacrifices could not perfectly expiate it. And this they found themselves led unto by God's institution of their repetition, which had not been done, if they could ever make the worshippers perfect.

It is quite otherwise as unto conscience for sin remaining in believers under the New Testament; for they have not the least sense or fear concerning any insufficiency or imperfection in the sacrifice whereby it is expiated. God hath ordered all things concerning it, so as to satisfy the consciences of all men in the perfect expiation of sin by it; only they who are really purged by it may be in the dark sometimes, as unto their personal interest in it.

But it may be objected, that if the sacrifices, neither by their native efficacy, nor by the frequency of repetition, could take away sin, so as that they who came unto God by them could have peace of conscience, or be freed from the trouble of a continual condemnatory sentence in themselves; then was there no true real peace with God under the Old Testament, for other way of attaining it there was none. But this is contrary unto innumerable testimonies of Scripture, and the promises of God made then unto the church. In answer hereunto, I say, the apostle did not, nor doth in these words declare, what they did and could, or could not attain unto under the old testament; only what they could not attain by the means of their sacrifices; so he declares it in the next verse, for in them remembrance is made of sins. But in the use of them, and by their frequent repetition, they were taught to look continually unto the great expiatory sacrifice; whose virtue was laid up for them in the promise, whereby they had peace with God.

Obs. I. The discharge of conscience from its condemning right and power, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, is the foundation of all the other privileges which we receive by the gospel.-Where this is not, there is no real participation of any other of them.

Obs. II. All peace with God is resolved into a purging atonement made for sin: 'being once purged.'

Obs. III. It is by a principle of gospel light alone, that conscience is directed to condemn all sin, and yet to acquit all sinners that are purged. Its own natural light can give it no guidance herein.

VER. 3.—But in those sacrifices, there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

It is the latter part of the foregoing assertion; namely, that the worshippers were not purged or perfected by them, in that they had still remaining a conscience for sin, which is proposed unto confirmation; for this being a matter of fact, might be denied by the Hebrews. Wherefore the apostle proves the truth of his assertion, from an inseparable adjunct of the yearly repetition of these sacrifices according unto divine institution.

There are four things to be opened in the words. 1. The introduction of the reason intended, by an adversative conjunction, adλa, ‘but.'

4.

2. The subject spoken of, those sacrifices.' 3. What belonged unto them by divine institution, which is a renewed remembrance of sin. The seasons of it; it was to be made every year.

1. The note of introduction gives us the nature of the argument insisted on: Had the worshippers been perfect, they would have had no more conscience for sins.' But,' saith he, it was not so with them, for God appoints nothing in vain; and he had not only appointed the repetition of these sacrifices, but also that in every repetition of them there should be a remembrance made of sin, as of that which was yet to be expiated.

2. The subject spoken of is expressed in these words, ev avrais, 'in them.' But this relative is remote from the antecedent which is in the first verse, by the interposition of the second, wherein it is repeated: we transfer it hither from the first verse in our translation, but in these sacrifices.' And we supply the defect of the verb substantive by 'there is;' for there is no more in the original than, 'but in them a remembrance again of sins.' The sacrifices intended are principally those of the solemn day of expiation; for he speaks of them that were repeated yearly, that is, once every year. Others were repeated every day, or as often as occasion did require, these only were so yearly; and these are peculiarly fixed on, because of the peculiar solemnity of their offering, and the interest of the whole people at once in them. By these therefore they looked for the perfect expiation of sin.

3. That which is affirmed of these sacrifices, is, their inseparable adjunct, that in them there was avaμvnois àμapriwv, a remembrance of sin' again; that is, there was so by virtue of divine institution, whereon the force of the argument doth depend. For this remembrance of sin by God's own institution, was such as sufficiently evidenced that the offerers had yet a conscience condemning them for sins. Respect is had unto the command of God unto this purpose, Lev. xvi. 21, 22. Avaμvnois is an express remembrance, or a remembrance expressed by confession or acknowledgment; see Gen. xli. 9, xlii. 21. For where it respects sin, it is a recalling of it unto the sentence of the law, and a sense of punishment; see Num. v. 15; 1 Kings xvii. 18. And hereby the apostle proves effectually that these sacrifices did not make the worshippers perfect. For notwithstanding their offering of them, a sense of sin still returned upon their consciences, and God himself had appointed, that every year they should make such an acknowledgment and confession of sin, as should manifest that they stood in need of a farther expiation than could be attained by them.

But a difficulty doth here arise of no small importance. For what the apostle denies unto these offerings of the law, that he ascribes unto the one only sacrifice of Christ. Yet notwithstanding this sacrifice and its efficacy, it is certain that believers ought not only once a-year, but every day, to call sin to remembrance, and to make confession thereof. Yea, our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath taught us to pray every day for the pardon of our sin, wherein there is a calling of them unto remembrance. It doth not therefore appear wherein the difference lies between the efficacy of their sacrifices, and that of Christ,

seeing after both of them there is equally a remembrance of sin again to be made.

Answ. The difference is evident between these things. Their confession of sin was in order unto, and preparatory for, a new atonement and expiation of it. This sufficiently proves the insufficiency of those that were offered before. For they were to come unto the new offerings, as if there had never been any before them. Our remembrance of sin, and confession of it, respects only the application of the virtue and efficacy of the atonement once made, without the least desire or expectation of a new propitiation. In their remembrance of sin, respect was had unto the curse of the law which was to be answered, and the wrath of God which was to be appeased: it belonged unto the sacrifice itself, whose object was God. Ours respects only the application of the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ unto our own consciences, whereby we may have assured peace with God. The sentence or curse of the law was on them, until a new atonement was made; for the soul that did not join in this sacrifice was to be cut off: but the sentence and curse of the law was at once taken away, Eph. ii. 14—16. And we may observe,

Obs. IV. An obligation unto such ordinances of worship as could not expiate sin, nor testify that it was perfectly expiated, was part of the bondage of the church under the old testament.

Obs. V. It belongs unto the light and wisdom of faith, so to remember sin, and make confession of it, as not therein, or thereby, to seek after a new atonement for it, which is made once for all. Confession of sin is no less necessary under the new testament, than it was under the old, but not for the same end. And it is an eminent difference between the spirit of bondage, and that of liberty by Christ: the one so confesseth sin, as to make that very confession a part of atonement for it; the other is encouraged unto confession, because of the atonement already made, as a means of coming unto a participation of the benefits of it. Wherefore, the causes and reasons of the confession of sin under the new testament, are, 1. To affect our own minds and consciences with a sense of the guilt of sin in itself, so as to keep us humble and filled with self-abasement. He who hath no sense of sin, but only what consists in dread of future judgment, knows little of the mystery of our walk before God, and obedience unto him, according unto the gospel. 2. To engage our souls unto watchfulness for the future against the sins we do confess; for in confession we make an abrenunciation of them. 3. To give unto God the glory of his righteousness, holiness, and aversation from sin. This is included in every confession we make of sin; for the reason why we acknowledge the evil of it, why we detest and abhor it, is its contrariety unto the nature, holy properties, and will of God. 4. To give unto him the glory of his infinite grace and mercy in the pardon of it. 5. We use it as an instituted means to let in a sense of the pardon of sin into our own souls and consciences, through a fresh application of the sacrifice of Christ, and the benefits thereof, whereunto confession of sin is required. 6. To exalt Jesus Christ in our hearts, by the application of ourselves unto him, as the only procurer and purchaser of mercy and pardon;

VOL. IV.

without which, confession of sins is neither acceptable unto God, nor useful unto our own souls. But we do not make confession of sin, as a part of a compensation for the guilt of it, nor as a means to give some present pacification unto conscience, that we may go on in sin, as the manner of some is.

VER. 4.-Αδυνατον γαρ αἷμα ταυρων και τραγων αφαίρειν ἁμαρτίας.

There is no difficulty in the words, and very little difference in the translations of them. The Vulgar renders apaipav by the passive, Impossible est enim sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata, It is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats.' The Syriac renders apaiρev by 77, which is to purge or cleanse, unto the same purpose.

VER. 4.—For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.

This is the last determinate resolution of the apostle concerning the insufficiency of the law and its sacrifices for the expiation of sin, and the perfecting them who come unto God, as unto their consciences. And there is in the argument used unto this end, an inference from what was spoken before, and a new enforcement from the nature or subject-matter of these sacrifices.

Something must be observed concerning this assertion in general, and an objection that it is liable unto. For by the blood of bulls and goats, he intends all the sacrifices of the law. Now if it be impossible that they should take away sin, for what end then were they appointed? Especially, considering that in the institution of them, God told the church that he had given the blood to make atonement on the altar, Lev. xvii. 11. It may therefore be said, as the apostle doth in another place, with respect unto the law itself; if it could not by the works of it justify us before God, to what end then served the law? To what end serve these sacrifices, if they could not take away sin?

The answer which the apostle gives with respect unto the law in general, may be applied unto the sacrifices of it, with a small addition from a respect unto their special nature. For as unto the law, he answers two things: 1. That it was added because of transgressions, Gal. iii. 19. 2. That it was a schoolmaster to guide and direct us unto Christ, because of the severities wherewith it was accompanied, like those of a schoolmaster, not in the spirit of a tender father. And thus it was as unto the end of these sacrifices.

1. They were added unto the promise because of transgressions. For God in them, and by them, did continually represent unto sinners the curse and sentence of the law; namely, that the soul that sinneth must die; or that death was the wages of sin. For although in sacrifices there was allowed a commutation, that the sinner himself should not die, but the beast that was sacrificed in his stead, which belonged unto their second end of leading unto Christ, yet they all testified unto that sacred truth, that it is the judgment of God, that they who com

mit sin are worthy of death.' And this was, as the whole law, an ordinance of God to deter men from sin, and so to put bounds unto transgressions. For when God passed by sin with a kind of connivance, winking at the ignorance of men in their iniquities, not giving them continual warnings of their guilt, and the consequents thereof in death, the world was filled and covered with a deluge of impieties. Men saw not judgment speedily executed, nor any tokens or indications that so it would be, therefore was their heart wholly set in them to do evil. But God dealt not thus with the church. He let no sin pass without a representation of his displeasure against it, though mixed with mercy, in a direction unto the relief against it, in the blood of the sacrifice. And therefore he did not only appoint these sacrifices, on all the especial occasions of such sins and uncleanness, as the consciences of particular sinners were pressed with a sense of; but also once a-year there was gathered up a remembrance of all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the whole congregation, Lev. xvi.

2. They were added as the teaching of a schoolmaster to lead unto Christ. By them was the church taught and directed to look continually unto, and after that sacrifice which alone could really purge and take away all iniquity. For God-appointed no sacrifices until after the promise of sending the seed of the woman to break the head of the serpent. In his so doing, was his own heel to be bruised, in the suffering of his human nature, which he offered in sacrifice unto God, which these sacrifices did represent. Wherefore, the church, knowing that these sacrifices did call sin to remembrance, representing the displeasure of God against sin, which was their first end; and that although there was an intimation of grace and mercy in them by the commutation and substitution which they allowed, yet that they could not of themselves take away sin, it made them the more earnestly, and with longing desires, look after him and his sacrifice, who should perfectly take away sin, and make peace with God, wherein the principal exercise of grace under the old testament did consist.

3. As unto their especial nature, they were added as the great instruction in the way and manner whereby sin was to be taken away. For although this arose originally from God's mere grace and mercy, yet was it not to be executed and accomplished by sovereign grace and power alone. Such a taking away of sin would have been inconsistent with his truth, holiness, and righteous government of mankind, as I have elsewhere at large demonstrated. It must be done by the interposition of a ransom and atonement, by the substitution of one who was no sinner in the room of sinners, to make satisfaction unto the law, and justice of God for sin. Hereby sacrifices became the principal means of directing the faith of the saints under the old testament, and the means whereby they acted it, on the original promise of their recovery from apostasy.

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.