Hebrews 9:18-22

῝Οθεν οὐδ᾿ ἡ πρώτη χωρὶς αἵματος ἐγκεκαίνισται. Λαληθει. σης γὰρ πάσης ἐντολῆς κατὰ νόμου ὐπὸ Μωϋσέως παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων καὶ τράγω, μετὰ ὕδατος καὶ ἐρίου κοκκίνου καὶ ὑσσώπου, αὐτό τε τὸ βιβλίον καὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν ἐῤῥάντισε, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ αἵμα τῆς διαθήκης, ἧς ἐνετείλατο πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεός· Καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν δὲ καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεὺη τῆς λειτουργίας τῷ αἵματι ὁμοίως ἐῤῥάντισε. Καὶ σχεδὸν ἐν αἵματι πάντα καθαρίζεται κατὰ τὸν νόμον, αὶ χωρὶς αἵματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις.

῞Οθεν, “unde;” “hence,” “therefore.” Syr., מֶטוּל חָנָה, “propter hoc,” “quia,” “propter.” “For this cause.” “And hence it is,” Arab. ᾿Εγκεκαίνισται Syr., אֶשְׁתַּיְיַת, “was confirmed;” “dedicatum fuit,” “was dedicated,” “consecrated,” “separated unto sacred use.”

Λαληθείσης γὰρ πάσης ἐντολῆς κατὰ νόμον. Syr., “when the whole command was enjoined.” Vulg. Lat., “lecto omui mandato legis,” “the command of the law being read;” taking ἐντολὴ and νόμος for the same. Arias, “exposito secundum legem.” Most, “cum recitasset;” “having repeated,” “recited,” namely, out of the book.

Μόσχων καὶ τράηων . The Syriac reads only דַעְגֶלְתָא, “of an heifer;” as the Arabic omits τράγων also, “of goats;” it may be in compliance with the story in Moses, without cause, as we shall see. Σχεδόν is omitted in the Syriac.

Hebrews 9:18. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry: and almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. What we have before observed is fully confirmed in this discourse, namely, that the apostle intended not to argue absolutely and precisely from the name and nature of a testament properly so called, and the use of it among men. For he makes use of these things no further but as unto what such a testament hath in common with a solemn covenant; which is, that they are both confirmed and ratified by death. Wherefore it was necessary that the new testament, as it was a testament, should be confirmed by death; and as it had the nature of a covenant, it was to be so by such a death as was accompanied by bloodshedding. The former was proved before, from the general nature and notion of a testament; the latter is here proved at large from the way and manner whereby the first covenant was confirmed or dedicated.

But the apostle in this discourse doth not intend merely to prove that the first covenant was dedicated with blood, which might have been despatched in a very few words; but he declares moreover, in general, what was the use of blood in sacrifices on all occasions under the law; whereby he demonstrates the use and efficacy of the blood of Christ, as unto all the ends of the new covenant. And the ends of the use of blood under the old testament he declares to have been two, namely, purification and pardon; both which are comprised in that one of the expiation of sin. And these things are all of them applied unto the blood and sacrifice of Christ in the following verses.

In the exposition of this context we must do three things:

1. Consider the difficulties that are in it.

2. Declare the scope, design, and force of the argument contained in it.

3. Explain the particular passages of the whole.

FIRST. Sundry difficulties there are in this context; which arise from hence, that the account which the apostle gives of the dedication of the first covenant and of the tabernacle seems to differ in sundry things from that given by Moses, when all things were actually done by him, as it is recorded, Exodus 24. And they are these that follow:

1. That the blood which Moses took was the blood of calves and goats, whereas there is no mention of any goats or their blood in the story of Moses.

2. That he took water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, to sprinkle it withal; whereas none of them are reported in that story.

3. That he sprinkled the book in particular; which Moses doth not affirm.

4. That he sprinkled all the people; that is, the people indefinitely, for all the individuals of them could not be sprinkled.

5. There are some differences in the words which Moses spake in the dedication of the covenant, as laid down verse 20.

6. That he sprinkled the tabernacle with blood, and all the vessels of it; when at the time of the making and solemn confirmation of the covenant the tabernacle was not erected, nor the vessels of its ministry yet made.

For the removal of these difficulties some things must be premised in general, and then they shall all of them be considered distinctly:

First, This is taken as fixed, that the apostle wrote this epistle by divine inspiration. Having evidence hereof abundantly satisfactory, it is the vainest thing imaginable, and that which discovers a frame of mind disposed to cavil at things divine, if from the difficulties of any one passage we should reflect on the authority of the whole, as some have done on this occasion. But I shall say with some confidence, he never understood any one chapter of the epistle, nay, nor any one verse of it aright, who did or doth question its divine original. There is nothing human in it, that savors, I mean, of human infirmity, but the whole and every part of it is animated by the wisdom and authority of its Author. And those who have pretended to be otherwise minded on such slight occasions as that before us, have but proclaimed their own want of experience in things divine. But,

Secondly, There is nothing, in all that is here affirmed by the apostle, which hath the least appearance of contradiction unto any thing that is recorded by Moses in the story of these things; yea, as I shall show, without the consideration and addition of the things here mentioned by the apostle, we cannot aright apprehend nor understand the account that is given by him. This will be made evident in the consideration of the particulars, wherein the difference between them is supposed to consist.

Thirdly, The apostle doth not take his account of the things here put together by him from any one place in Moses, but gathers up what is declared in the Law, in several places unto various ends. For, as hath been declared, he doth not design only to prove the dedication of the covenant by blood, but to show also the whole use of blood under the law, as unto purification and remission of sin. And this he doth to declare the virtue and efficacy of the blood of Christ under the new testament, whereunto he makes an application of all these things in the verses ensuing. Wherefore he gathers into one head sundry things wherein the sprinkling of blood was of use under the law, as they are occasionally expressed in sundry places. And this one observation removes all the difficulties of the context; which all arise from this one supposition, that the apostle gives here an account only of what was done at the dedication of the first covenant. So, in particular, by the addition of those particles, καὶ δέ, Hebrews 9:21, which we well render “moreover,” he plainly intimates that what he affirms of the tabernacle and the vessels of its ministry was that which was done afterwards, at another time, and not when the covenant was first confirmed.

On these grounds we shall see that the account given of these things by the apostle is a necessary exposition of the record made of them by Moses, and no more.

1. He affirms that Moses took the blood μόσχων καὶ τράγων, “of calves and goats,” And there is a double difficulty herein: for,

(1.) The blood that Moses so used was the blood of oxen, Exodus 24:5; which seems not to be well rendered by μόσχων, “of calves.” But this hath no weight in it. For פָּרִים, the word there used, signifies all cattle of the herd, great and small, every thing that is “generis bovini.” And there is no necessity from the words that we should render פָּרִים there by “oxen,” nor μόσχων here by “calves;” we might have rendered both words by “bullocks.” But,

(2.) There is no mention at all of goats in the story of Moses; and, as we observed, it is here omitted by the Syriac translator, but without cause.

Ans. [1.] There were two sorts of offerings that were made on this occasion;

1st , Burnt-offerings;

2dly , Peace-offerings: Exodus 24:5, “They offered burnt- offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings.”

The distinct expression of them proves the offerings to have been distinct: וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים, “they offered burnt-offerings, and they sacrificed,” or “slew peace-offerings.” And as for the peace-offerings, it is said that they were of bullocks or oxen; but it is not said of what sort the burnt-offerings were. Yea, and it may be that although bullocks only are mentioned, yet that goats also were sacrificed in this peace-offering; for it is so far from being true what Ribera observes on the place, that a goat was never offered for a peace-offering, that the contrary unto it is directly expressed in the institution of the peace-offering, Leviticus 3:12. Wherefore the blood of goats might be used in the peace-offering, though it be not mentioned by Moses. But,

[2.] The apostle observes, that one end of the sacrifice at the dedication of the first covenant was purging and making atonement, Hebrews 9:22-23; for in all solemn sacrifices blood was sprinkled on the holy things, to purify them and make atonement for them, Leviticus 16:14; Leviticus 16:19-20. Now this was not to be done but by the blood of an expiatory sacrifice; it was not to be done by the blood of peace-offerings. Wherefore the burnt-offerings mentioned by Moses were expiatory sacrifices, to purge and make atonement. And this sacrifice was principally of goats, Leviticus 16:9. Wherefore the text of Moses cannot be well understood without this exposition of the apostle. And we may add hereunto, also, that although the blood of the peace-offering was sprinkled on the altar, Leviticus 3:13, yet was it not sprinkled on the people, as this blood was; wherefore there was the use of the blood of goats also, as a sin-offering, in this great sacrifice.

[3.] In the dedication of the priests these two sorts of offerings were conjoined, namely, peace-offerings and sin-offerings, or burnt-offerings for sin, as here they were. And therein expressly the blood of goats was used, namely, in the sin-offering, as the blood of bullocks was in the peace- offering, Leviticus 9:3-4. Neither is there mention anywhere of burnt- offerings or sin-offerings and peace-offerings to be offered together, but that one of them was of goats; and therefore was so infallibly at this time, as the apostle declares.

2. It is affirmed in the text, that he took the blood with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled it; but there is mention of none of these things in the story of Moses, but only that he sprinkled the blood. But the answer hereunto is plain and easy. Blood under the law was sprinkled either in less or greater quantities. Hereon there were two ways of sprinkling. The one was with the finger; when a small quantity of blood, it may be, some few drops of it, were to be sprinkled, it was done with the finger, Leviticus 8:15; Leviticus 16:14. The quantity being small, though the blood were unmixed, and almost congealed, it might be so sprinkled. But there was a sprinkling whereunto a greater proportion of blood was required; as namely, when a house was to be sprinkled, and thereby purified. This was done by mixing running water with the blood, and then sprinkling it with scarlet wool and hyssop, Leviticus 14:50-52. For these things were needful thereunto. The water prevented the blood from being so congealed as that it could not be sprinkled in any quantity; the scarlet wool took up a quantity of it out of the vessel wherein it was; and the bunch of hyssop was the sprinkler. Whereupon, when Moses sprinkled the altar, book, and people, he did it,by one of these two ways, for other there was none. The first way he could not do it, namely, with his finger, because it was to be done in a great quantity; for Moses took that half of it that was to be sprinkled on the people and put it into basins, Exodus 24:6; Exodus 24:8. It was therefore infallibly done this latter way, according as our apostle declares.

3. It is added by the apostle that he sprinkled the book; which is not expressed in the story. But the design of the apostle is to express at large the whole solemnity of the confirmation of the first covenant, especially not to omit any thing that blood was applied unto; because in the application he refers the purification and dedication of all things belonging unto the new covenant unto the blood of Christ. And this was the order of the things which concerned the book: Moses coming down from the mount, told the people by word of mouth all things which God had spoken unto him, or the sum and substance of the covenant which he would make with them: Exodus 24:3, “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD,” that is, the words spoken on mount Sinai, the ten commandments; “and all the judgments,” that is, all the laws contained in Exodus 21-23, with this title, אֵלֶּא הַמִּשְׁפָּמִים, “These are the judgments,” Exodus 21:1. Upon the oral rehearsal of these words and judgments, the people gave their consent unto the terms of the covenant:

“All the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said, will we do,” Exodus 24:3. Hereon Moses made a record, or “wrote all the words of the LORD” in a book, Exodus 24:4. This being done, the altar and pillars were prepared, Exodus 24:4. And it is evident that the book which he had written was laid on the altar, though it be not expressed. When this was done, “he sprinkled the blood on the altar,” Exodus 24:6. After which, when the book had been sprinkled with blood as it lay on the altar, it is said, “He took the book,” that is, from off the altar, “and read in the audience of the people,” Exodus 24:7. The book being now sprinkled with blood, as the instrument and record of the covenant between God and the people, the very same words which were before spoken unto the people are now recited or read out of the book. And this could be done for no other reason, but that the book itself, being now sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, was dedicated to be the sacred record thereof.

4. In the text of Moses it is said that he sprinkled the people; in explanation whereof the apostle affirms that he sprinkled all the people. And it was necessary that so it should be, and that none of them should be excluded from this sprinkling; for they were all taken into covenant with God, men, women, and children. But it must be granted, that for the blood to be actually sprinkled on all individuals in such a numberless multitude is next unto what is naturally impossible: wherefore it was done in their representatives; and what is done towards representatives as such, is done equally towards all whom they do represent. And the whole people had two representatives that day:

(1.) The twelve pillars of stone, that were set up to represent their twelve tribes; and, it may be, to signify their hard and stony heart under that covenant, Exodus 24:4. Whereas those pillars were placed close by the altar, some suppose that they were sprinkled, as representing the twelve tribes.

(2.) There were the heads of their tribes, the chief of the houses of their fathers, and the elders, who drew nigh unto Moses, and were sprinkled with blood in the name and place of all the people, who were that day taken into covenant.

5. The words which Moses spake unto the people upon the sprinkling of the blood are not absolutely the same in the story and in the repetition of it by the apostle. But this is usual with him in all his quotations out of the Old Testament in this epistle. He expresseth the true sense of them, but doth not curiously and precisely render the sense of every word and syllable in them.

6. The last difficulty in this context, and that which hath an appearance of the greatest, is in what the apostle affirms concerning the tabernacle and all the vessels of it; namely, that Moses sprinkled them all with blood. And the time which he seems to speak of, is that of the dedication of the first covenant. Hence a twofold difficulty doth arise; first, as unto the time; and secondly, as unto the thing itself. For at the time of the dedication of the first covenant, the tabernacle was not yet made or erected, and so could not then be sprinkled with blood. And afterwards, when the tabernacle was erected, and all the vessels brought into it, there is no mention that either it or any of them was sprinkled with blood, but only anointed with the holy oil, Exodus 40:9-11. Wherefore, as unto the first, I say the apostle doth plainly distinguish what he affirms of the tabernacle from the time of the dedication of the first covenant. The manner of his introduction of it, καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν δέ , “And moreover the tabernacle,” doth plainly intimate a progress unto another time and occasion. Wherefore the words of Exodus 40:21, concerning the sprinkling of the tabernacle and its vessels, do relate unto what follows, Exodus 40:22, “and almost all things are by the law purged with blood;” and not unto those that precede, about the dedication of the first covenant: for the argument he hath in hand is not confined unto the use of blood only in that dedication, but respects the whole use of the blood of sacrifices under the law; which in these words he proceeds unto, and closeth in the next verse. And this wholly removes the first difficulty. And as unto the second, expositors generally answer, that aspersion or sprinkling with blood did commonly precede unction with the holy oil. And as unto the garments of the priests, which were the vessels or utensils of the tabernacle, it was appointed that they should be sprinkled with blood, Exodus 29:21; and so it may be supposed that the residue of them were also. But to me this is not satisfactory. And be it spoken without offense, expositors have generally mistaken the nature of the argument of the apostle in these words. For he argues not only from the first dedication of the tabernacle and its vessels, which, for aught appears, was by unction only, but making, as we observed before, a progress unto the further use of the blood of sacrifices in purging, according to the law, he giveth an instance in what was done with respect unto the tabernacle and all its vessels, and that constantly and solemnly every year; and this he doth to prove his general assertion in the next verse, that “under the law almost all things were purged with blood.” And Moses is here said to do what he appointed should be done. By his institution, that is, the institution of the law, the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were sprinkled with blood. And this was done solemnly once every year; an account whereof is given, Leviticus 16:14-16; Leviticus 16:18-20. On the solemn day of atonement, the high priest was to sprinkle the mercy-seat, the altar, and the whole tabernacle with blood, to make an atonement for them, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, the tabernacle remaining among them in the midst of their uncleanness, Leviticus 16:16. This he takes notice of, not to prove the dedication of the first covenant and what belonged thereunto with blood, but the use of blood in general to make atonement, and the impossibility of expiation and pardon without it. This is the design and sense of the apostle, and no other. Wherefore we may conclude, that the account here given concerning the dedication of the first covenant, and the use of blood for purification under the law, is so far from containing any thing opposite unto or discrepant from the records of Moses concerning the same things, that it gives us a full and clear exposition of them.

SECONDLY. The second thing to be considered, is the nature of the argument in this context; and there are three things in it, neither of which must be omitted in the exposition of the words.

He designeth,

1. To prove yet further the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the mediator of the new testament, both as it had the nature of a testament and that also of a solemn covenant.

2. To declare the necessity of the kind of his death, in the way of a sacrifice by the effusion of blood; because the testament, as it had the nature of a solemn covenant, was confirmed and ratified thereby.

3. To manifest the necessity of shedding of blood in the confirmation of the covenant, because of the expiation, purging, and pardon of sin thereby. How these things are proved, we shall see in the exposition of the words.

THIRDLY, There are in the words themselves,

1. A proposition of the principal truth asserted, Hebrews 9:18.

2. The confirmation of that proposition: which is twofold;

(1.) From what Moses did, Hebrews 9:19;

(2.) From what he said, Hebrews 9:20.

3. A further illustration of the same truth, by other instances, Hebrews 9:21.

4. A general inference or conclusion from the whole, comprising the substance of what he intended to demonstrate, Hebrews 9:22. In the proposition there are five things considerable:

1. A note of introduction; “whereupon.”

2. The quality of the proposition, it is negative; “ neither was.”

3. The subject spoken of; “the first.”

4. What is affirmed of it; it was “ dedicated.”

5. The way and manner thereof; it was “not without blood.”

1. The note of introduction is in the particle ὅδεν, which the apostle frequently makes use of in this epistle, as a note of inference in those discourses which are argumentative. We render it by “therefore,” and “wherefore;” here, “whereupon.” For it intimates a confirmation of a general rule by especial instances. He had before laid it down as a general maxim, that a testament was to be confirmed by death. For thereupon the first testament was confirmed with the blood of sacrifices shed in their death. ‘Wherefore let not any think it strange that the new testament was confirmed by the death of the testator; for this is so necessary, that even in the confirmation of the first there was that which was analogous unto it. And moreover, it was death in such a way as was required unto the confirmation of a solemn covenant.'

2. The proposition hath a double negative in it, οὐδέ, and χωρὶς αἵματος, “neither was it without blood;” that is, it was with blood, and could not otherwise be.

3. The subject spoken of is ἡ πρώτη, “the first;” that is διαθήκη, “testament,” or “covenant.” And herein the apostle declares what he precisely intended by the first or old covenant, whereof he discoursed at large, Hebrews 8. It was the covenant made with the people at Horeb; for that and no other was dedicated in the way here described. And, to take a brief prospect into this covenant, the things ensuing may be observed:

(1.) The matter of it, or the terms of it materially considered, before it had the formal nature of a covenant. And these were all the things that were written in the book before it was laid on the altar; namely, it was that epitome of the whole law which is contained in Chapter s 20-23, of Exodus And other commands and institutions that were given afterwards belonged unto this covenant reductively. The substance of it was contained in the book then written.

(2.) The manner of the revelation of these terms of the covenant. Being proposed on the part of God, and the terms of it being entirely of his choosing and proposal, he was to reveal, declare, and make them known. And this he did two ways:

[1.] As unto the foundation and substance of the whole in the decalogue. He spake it himself on the mount, in the way and manner declared, Exodus 19:20.

[2.] As unto the following judgments, statutes, and rites, directive of their walking before God, according to the former fundamental rule of the covenant. These he declared by revelation unto Moses; and they are contained in Chapter s 21-23.

(3.) The manner of its proposal. And this also was twofold:

[1.] Preparatory. For before the solemn covenanting between God and the people, Moses declared all the matter of it unto the people, that they might consider well of it, and whether they would consent to enter into covenant with God on those terms; whereon they gave their approbation of them.

[2.] Solemn, in their actual and absolute acceptance of it, whereby they became obliged throughout their generations. This was on the reading of it out of the book, after it was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant on the altar, Exodus 24:7.

(4.) The author of this covenant was God himself: “The covenant which the Load hath made with you,” verse 8. And immediately after, he is thereon called “the God of Israel,” verse 10; which is the first time he was called so, and it was by virtue of this covenant. And the pledge or token of his presence, as covenanting, was the altar, the altar of Jehovah; as there was a representative pledge of the presence of the people in the twelve pillars or statues.

(5.) Those with whom this covenant was made were “the people;” that is, “all the people,” as the apostle speaks, none exempted or excluded. It was made with the “men, and women, and children,” Deuteronomy 31:12; even all on whom was the blood of the covenant, as it was on the women; or the token of the covenant, as it was on the male children in circumcision; or both, as in all the men of Israel.

(6.) The manner on the part of the people of entering into covenant with God, was in two acts before mentioned:

[1.] In a previous approbation of the matter of it;

[2.] In a solemn engagement into it. And this was the foundation of the church of Israel.

This is that covenant whereof there is afterwards in the Scripture such frequent mention, between God and that people, the sole foundation of all especial relation between him and them. For they took the observation of its terms on themselves for their posterity in all generations, until the end should be. On their obedience hereunto, or neglect hereof, depended their life or death in the land of Canaan. No farther did the precepts and promises of it in itself extend. But whereas it did not disannul the promise that was made unto Abraham, and confirmed with the oath of God, four hundred years before, and had annexed unto it many institutions and ordinances prefigurative and significant of heavenly things, the people under it had a right unto, and directions for the attaining of an eternal inheritance. And something we may hence observe.

Obs. 1. The foundation of a church-state among any people, wherein God is to be honored in ordinances of instituted worship, is laid in a solemn covenant between him and them. So it was with this church of Israel. Before this they served God in their families, by virtue of the promise made unto Abraham, but now the whole people were gathered into a church-state, to worship him according to the terms, institutions, and ordinances of the covenant. Nor doth God oblige any unto instituted worship but by virtue of a covenant. Unto natural worship and obedience we are all obliged, by virtue of the law of creation and what belongs thereunto. And God may, by a mere act of sovereignty, prescribe unto us the observation of what rites and ordinances in divine service he pleaseth. But he will have all our obedience to be voluntary, and all our service to be reasonable. Wherefore, although the prescription of such rites be an act of sovereign pleasure, yet God will not oblige us unto the observance of them but by virtue of a covenant between him and us, wherein we voluntarily consent unto and accept of the terms of it, whereby those ordinances of worship are prescribed unto us, And it will hence follow,

(1.) That men mistake themselves, when they suppose that they are interested in a church-state by tradition, custom, or as it were by chance, they know not how. There is nothing but covenanting with God that will instate us in this privilege. And therein we do take upon ourselves the observance of all the terms of the new covenant. And they are of two sorts:

[1.] Internal and moral, in faith, repentance, and obedience;

[2.] Such as concern the external worship of the gospel, in the ordinances and institutions of it.

Without such a covenant formally or virtually made, there can be no church-state. I speak not at all of any such covenants as men may make or have made among themselves, and with God, upon a mixture of things sacred, civil and political, with such sanctions as they find out and agree upon among themselves. For whatever may be the nature, use, or end of such covenants, they no way belong unto that concerning which we treat. For no terms are to be brought hereinto but such as belong directly unto the obedience and ordinances of the new testament. Nor was there any thing to be added unto or taken from the express terms of the old covenant. whereby the church-state of Israel was constituted And this was the entire rule of God's dealing with them. The only question concerning them was, whether they had kept the terms of the covenant or no. And when things fell into disorder among them, as they did frequently, as the sum of God's charge against them was that they had broken his covenant, so the reformation of things attempted by their godly kings before, and others after the captivity, was by inducing the people to renew this covenant, without any addition, alteration, or mixture of things of another nature.

(2.) That so much disorder in the worship of God under the gospel hath entered into many churches, and that there is so much negligence in all sorts of persons about the observance of evangelical institutions, so little conscientious care about them, or reverence in the use of them, or benefit received by them; it is all much from hence, that men understand not aright the foundation of that obedience unto God which is required in them and by them. This, indeed, is no other but that solemn covenant between God and the whole church, wherein the church takes upon itself their due observance. This renders our obedience in them and by them no less necessary than any duties of moral obedience whatever. But this being not considered as it ought, men have used their supposed liberty, or rather, fallen into great licentiousness in the use of them, and few have that conscientious regard unto them which it is their duty to have.

Obs. 2. Approbation of the terms of the covenant, consent unto them, and solemn acceptance of them, are required on our part, unto the establishment of any covenant between God and us. and our participation of the benefits of it. Thus solemnly did the people here enter into covenant with God, whereby a peculiar relation was established between him and them. The mere proposal of the covenant and the terms of it unto us, which is done in the preaching of the gospel, will not make us partakers of any of the grace or benefits of it. Yet this is that which most content themselves withal. It may be they proceed to the performance of some of the duties which are required therein; but this answers not the design and way of God in dealing with men. When he hath proposed the terms of his covenant unto them, he doth neither compel them to accept of them nor will be satisfied with such an obedience. He requires that upon a due consideration of them, we do approve of them, as those which answer his infinite wisdom and goodness, and such as are of eternal advantage unto us; that they are all equal, holy, righteous, and good. Hereon he requires that we voluntarily choose and consent unto them, engaging ourselves solemnly unto the performance of them all and every one. This is required of us, if we intend any interest in the grace and glory prepared in the new covenant.

Obs. 3. It has been the way of God from the beginning, to take children of covenanters into the same covenant with their parents. So he dealt with this people in the estabhsnment of the first covenant; and he hath made no alteration herein in the establishment of the second. But we must proceed with the exposition of the words.

4. Of this covenant it is affirmed, that it “was consecrated with blood,” or “was not dedicated without blood.” ᾿Εγκαινίζω is “solemnly to separate any thing unto a sacred use.” חָנַךְ is the same in Hebrew. But it is not the sanction of the covenant absolutely that the apostle intends in this expression, but the use of it. The covenant had its sanction, and was confirmed on the part of God, in offering of the sacrifices. In the killing of the beasts, and offering of their blood. did the ratification of the covenant consist. This is included and supposed in what is signified by the dedication of it. But this is not an effect of the shedding and offering of blood, but only of the sprinkling of it on the book and the people. Thereby had it its ἐγκαίνισμος, its “consecration” or “dedication unto sacred use,” as the instrument of the peculiar church relation between God and that people, whereof the book was the record. So was every thing consecrated unto its proper use under the law, as the apostle declares. This, therefore, is the meaning of the words: ‘That first covenant, which God made with the people at mount Sinai, wherein he became their God, the God of Israel, and they became his people, was dedicated unto sacred use by blood, in that it was sprinkled on the book and the people, after part of the same blood had been offered in sacrifice at the altar.'Hence it follows that this, which belongs so essentially unto the solemn dedication and confirmation of a covenant between God and the church, was necessary also unto the dedication and confirmation of the new covenant, which is that which is to be proved.

Obs. 4. It is by the authority of God alone that any thing can be effectually and unchangeably dedicated unto sacred use, so as to have force and efficacy given unto it thereby. But this dedication may be made by virtue of a general rule, as well as by an especial command.

5. The assertion of the apostle concerning the dedication of the first covenant with blood is confirmed by an account of the matter of fact, or,

First, What Moses did therein, Hebrews 9:19.

Hebrews 9:19. “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people.”

There are two things considerable in the words:

1. The person made use of in the dedication of the covenant; which was Moses.

2. What he did therein; which is referred unto two heads:

(1.) His speaking or reading the terms of the covenant, every precept out of the book;

(2.) His sprinkling of the book and people with blood.

1. Moses was the internuncius between God and the people in this great transaction. On God's part he was immediately called unto this employment, Exodus 3. And on the part of the people he was chosen, and desired by them to transact all things between God and them, in the making and confirmation of this covenant; because they were not able to bear the effects of God's immediate presence, Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:22-27. And this choice of a spokesman on their part God did approve of, verse 28. Hence he became in a general sense a μεσίτης , a mediator between God and men, in the giving of the law, Galatians 3:19. Whatever, therefore, was done by Moses in this whole affair of the dedication of the covenant, on the part of God or of the people, was firm and unalterable, he being a public person authorized unto this work. And,

Obs. 1. There can be no covenant between God and men but in the hand or by virtue of a mediator. The first covenant, in the state of innocency, was immediately between God and man. But since the entrance of sin it can be so no more. For,

(1.) Man hath neither meetness nor confidence to treat immediately with God. Nor,

(2.) Any credit or reputation with him, so as to be admitted as an undertaker in his own person. Nor,

(3.) Any ability to perform the conditions of any covenant with God.

Obs. 2. A mediator may be either only an internuncius, a messenger, a daysman; or also a surety and an undertaker. Of the first sort was the mediator of the old covenant; of the latter, that of the new.

Obs. 3. None can interpose between God and a people in any sacred office, unless he be called of God and approved of the people, as was Moses.

2. That which Moses did in this affair was first in way of preparation. And there are three things in the account of it:

(1.) What he did precisely.

(2.) With respect unto whom.

(3.) According to what rule or order he did it:

(1.) He “spake every precept.” Vulg. Lat., “lecto omni mandato,” “having read every command;” which is the sense intended. Λαληθείσης is as much in this place as “recited.” So it is rendered by most translators, “cum recitasset;” that is, when he had read in the book. For his first speaking unto the people, Exodus 24:3, is not here intended, but his reading in the audience of the people, Exodus 24:7. He spake what he read, that is, audibly; so it is in the story, “He read it in the audience of the people,” so as that they might hear and understand. It is added by the apostle, that he thus read, spake, recited “every precept” or “command.” “He took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people,” saith the text; that is, the whole book, and all that was contained in it, or “every precept.” And the whole is reduced by the apostle unto precepts, It was νόμος ἐντολῶν, Ephesians 2:15; “a law, a system of precepts.” And it is so called to intimate the nature of that covenant. It consisted principally in precepts or commandments of obedience, promising no assistance for the performance of them. The new covenant is of another nature; it is a “covenant of promises.” And although it hath precepts also requiring obedience, yet is it wholly founded in the promise, whereby strength and assistance for the performance of that obedience are given unto us. And the apostle doth well observe that Moses read “every precept unto all the people;” for all the good things they were to receive by virtue of that covenant depended on the observation of every precept. For a curse was denounced against every one that continued not “in all things written in the book of the law to do them,” Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10.And we may observe,

Obs. 4. A covenant that consisted in mere precepts, without an exhibition of spiritual strength to enable unto obedience, could never save sinners. The insufficiency of this covenant unto that end is that which the apostle designs to prove in all this discourse. But thereon a double inquiry may be made:

[1.] Why God gave this covenant, which was so insufficient unto this great end? This question is proposed and answered by the apostle, Galatians 3:19.

[2.] How then did any of the people yield obedience unto God, if the covenant exhibited no aid or assistance unto it? The apostle answereth in the same place, that they received it by faith in the promise, which was given before, and not disannulled by this covenant.

Obs. 5. In all our dealings with God respect must be had unto every one of his precepts. And the reason hereof is given by the apostle James, namely, that the authority of God is the same in every one of them, and so may be despised in the neglect of the least as well as of the greatest, James 2:10-11.

(2.) To whom did Moses thus read every precept? It was, saith the apostle, “to all the people.” In the story it is said indefinitely, “In the audience of the people;” as afterwards, “He sprinkled the people.” The apostle adds the note of universality in both places; “all the people.” For whereas these things were transacted with the representatives of the people, (for it was naturally impossible that the one-half of the individuals of them should hear Moses reading,) they were all equally concerned in what was said and done. Yet I do believe, that after Moses first “told the people,” that is, the elders of them, “all the words of the LORD,” Exodus 24:3, there were means used by the elders and officers to communicate the things, yea, to repeat the words unto all the people, that they might be enabled to give their rational consent unto them. And we may observe,

Obs. 6. The first eminent use of the writing of the book of the law, (that is, of any part of the Scripture, for this book was the first that was written,) was, that it might be read unto the people. He gave not this book to be shut up.by the priests; to be concealed from the people, as containing mysteries unlawful to be divulged, or impossible to be understood. Such conceits befell not the minds of men, until the power and ends of religion being lost, some got an opportunity to order the concerns of it unto their own worldly interest and advantage.

Obs. 7. This book was both written and read in the language which the people understood and commonly spake. And a rule was herein prescribed unto the church in all ages; if so be the example of the wisdom and care of God towards his church may be a rule unto us.

Obs. 8. God never required the observance of any rites or duties of worship without a previous warranty from his word. The people took not on them, they were not obliged unto obedience, with respect unto any positive institutions, until Moses had read unto them every precept out of the book.

Obs. 9. The writing of this book was an eminent privilege, now first granted unto the church, leading unto a more perfect and stable condition than formerly it had enjoyed. Hitherto it had lived on oral instructions, from traditions, and by new immediate revelations; the evident defects whereof were now removed, and a standard of divine truth and instruction set up and fixed among them.

(3.) There is the rule whereby Moses proceeded herein, or the warranty he had for what he did: “According unto the law.” He read every precept according to the law. It cannot be the law in general that the apostle intends, for the greatest part of that doctrine which is so called was not yet given or written; nor doth it in any place contain any precept unto this purpose. Wherefore it is a particular law, rule, or command, that is intended; according unto the ordinance or appointment of God. Such was the command that God gave unto Moses for the framing of the tabernacle: “See thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” Particularly, it seems to be the agreement between God and the people, that Moses should be the internuncius, the interpreter between them. According unto this rule, order, or divine constitution, Moses read all the words from God out of the book unto the people. Or it may be, “the law” may here be taken for the whole design of God in giving of the law; so as that “according unto the law,” is no more but, according unto the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God in giving of the law, with all things that belong unto its order and use. And it is good for us to look for God's especial warranty for what we undertake to do in his service.

The second thing in the words is, what Moses did immediately and directly towards the dedication or consecration of this covenant. And there are three things to this purpose mentioned:

(1.) What he made use of.

(2.) How he used it.

(3.) With respect unto what and whom:

(1.) The first is expressed in these words: “He took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop.” He took the blood of the beasts that were offered for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, Exodus 24:5-6; Exodus 24:8. Unto this end, in their slaying he took all their blood in basins, and made an equal division of it. The one half he sprinkled on the altar, and the other half he sprinkled on the people. That which was sprinkled on the altar was God's part; and the other was put on the people. Both the mutual stipulation of God and the congregation in this covenant, and the equality of it, or the equity of its terms, were denoted hereby. And herein lies the principal force of the apostle's argument in these words: ‘Blood was used in the dedication of the first covenant. This was the blood of the beasts offered in sacrifice unto God. Wherefore both death, and death by blood-shedding, was required unto the confirmation of a covenant So also, therefore, must the new covenant be confirmed; but with blood and a sacrifice far more precious than they were.'

This distribution of blood, that half of it was on the altar, and half of it on the people, the one to make atonement, the other to purify or sanctify, was to teach the twofold efficacy of the blood of Christ, in making atonement for sin unto our justification, and the purifying of our natures in sanctification.

(2.) With this blood he took the things mentioned with respect unto its use, which was sprinkling. The manner of it was in part declared before. The blood being put into basons, and having water mixed with it to keep it fluid and aspersible, he took a bunch or bundle of hyssop bound up with scarlet wool, and dipping it into the basons, sprinkled the blood, until it was all spent in that service.

This rite or way of sprinkling was chosen of God as an expressive token or sign of the effectual communication of the benefits of the covenant unto them that were sprinkled. Hence the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ unto sanctification is called the sprinkling of his blood, 1 Peter 1:2. And our apostle compriseth all the effects of it unto that end under the name of “the blood of sprinkling,” Hebrews 12:24 And I fear that those who have used the expression with some contempt, when applied by themselves unto the sign of the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ in baptism, have not observed that reverence of holy things that is required of us. For this symbol of sprinkling was that which God himself chose and appointed, as a meet and apt token of the communication of covenant mercy; that is, of his grace in Christ Jesus unto our souls. And,

Obs. 10. The blood of the covenant will not benefit or advantage us without an especial and particular application of it unto our own souls and consciences. If it be not as welt sprinkled upon us as it was offered unto God, it will not avail us. The blood of Christ was not divided, as was that of these sacrifices, the one half being on the altar, the other on the people; but the efficacy of the whole produced both these effects, yet so, as that the one will not profit us without the other. We shall have no benefit el the atonement made at the altar, unless we have its efficacy on our own souls unto their purification. And this we cannot have unless it be sprinkled on us, unless particular application be made of it unto us by the Holy Ghost, in and by an especial act of faith in ourselves.

(3.) The object of this act of sprinkling was “the book” itself “and all the people.” The same blood was on the book wherein the covenant was recorded, and the people that entered into it. But whereas this sprinkling was for purifying and purging, it may be inquired unto what end the book itself was sprinkled, which was holy and undefiled. I answer, There were two things necessary unto the dedication of the covenant, with all that belonged unto it:

[1.] Atonement;

[2.] Purification. And in both these respects it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled.

[1.] As we observed before, it was sprinkled as it lay upon the altar, where atonement was made. And this was plainly to signify that atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against that book, or the law contained in it. Without this, that book would have been unto the people like that given to Ezekiel, that was “written within and without; and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe,” Ezekiel 2:10. Nothing but curse and death could they expect from it. But the sprinkling of it with blood as it lay upon the altar was a testimony and assurance that atonement should be made by blood for the sins against it; which was the life of the things.

[2.] The book in itself was pure and holy, and so are all God's institutions; but unto us every thing is unclean that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. So afterwards the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were purified every year with blood, “because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions,” Leviticus 16:16. Wherefore on both these accounts it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled.

The blood thus sprinkled was mingled with water. The natural reason of it was, as we observed, to keep it fluid and aspersible. But there was a mystery in it also. That the blood of Christ was typified by this blood of the sacrifices used in the dedication of the old covenant, it is the apostle's design to declare. And it is probable that this mixture of it with water might represent that blood and water which came out of his side when it was pierced. For the mystery thereof was very great. Hence that apostle which saw it, and bare record of it in particular, John 19:34-35, affirms likewise that “he came by water and blood,” and not by blood only, 1 John 5:6. He came not only to make atonement for us with his blood, that we might be justified, but to sprinkle us with the efficacy of his blood, in the communication of the Spirit of sanctification, compared unto water.

For the sprinkler itself, composed of scarlet wool and hyssop, I doubt not but that the human nature of Christ, whereby and through which all grace is communicated unto us, (“for of his fullness we receive, and grace for grace,”) was signified by it; but the analogy and similitude between them are not so evident as they are with respect unto some other types. The hyssop was a humble plant, the meanest of them, yet of a sweet savor, 1 Kings 4:33; so was the Lord Christ amongst men in the days of his flesh, in comparison of the tall cedars of the earth. Hence was his complaint, that he was as “a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,” Psalms 22:6. And the scarlet wool might represent him as red in the blood of his sacrifice. But I will not press these things, of whose interpretation we have not a certain rule.

Secondly, The principal truth asserted is confirmed by what Moses said, as well as what he did:

Hebrews 9:20. “Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”

The difference between the words of Moses and the repetition of them by the apostle is not material, as unto the sense of them. הִנֵּה , “behold,” in Moses, is rendered by τοῦτο, “this;” both demonstrative notes of the same thing. For in pronouncing of the words Moses showed the blood unto the people; and so, “Behold the blood,” is all one as if he had said, “This is the blood.” The making of the covenant in the words of Moses is expressed by כָּרַת, “hath cut,” “divided,” solemnly made. This the apostle renders by ἐνετείλατο “hath enjoined” or “commanded you.” And this he doth partly to signify the foundation of the people's acceptance of that covenant, which was the authority of God enjoining them or requiring them so to do; partly to intimate the nature of the covenant itself, which consisted in precepts and injunctions principally, and not absolutely in promises, as the new covenant doth. The last words of Moses, “Concerning all these words,” the apostle omits; for he includes the sense of them in that word, “Which God hath commanded you.” For he hath respect therein both unto the words themselves written in the book, which were precepts and injunctions, as also the command of God for the acceptance of the covenant.

That which Moses said is, “This is the blood of the testament.” Hence the apostle proves that death, and the shedding of blood therein, was necessary unto the consecration and establishment of the first testament. For so Moses expressly affirms in the dedication of it, “This is the blood of the covenant;” without which it could not have been a firm covenant between God and the people. Not, I confess, from the nature of a covenant in general, for a covenant may be solemnly established without death or blood; but from the especial end of that covenant, which in the confirmation of it was to prefigure the confirmation of that new covenant which could not be established but with the blood of a sacrifice. And this adds both force and evidence unto the apostle's argument. For he proves the necessity of the death and blood-shedding or sacrifice of Christ in the confirmation of the new covenant from hence, that the old covenant, which in the dedication of it was prefigurative hereof, was not confirmed without blood. Wherefore, whereas God had solemnly promised to make a new covenant with the church, and that different from, or not according unto the old (which he had proved in the foregoing chapter), it follows unavoidably that it was to be confirmed with the blood of the mediator (for by the blood of beasts it could not be); which is that truth wherein he did instruct them. And nothing was more cogent to take off the scandal of the cross and of the sufferings of Christ.

For the enunciation itself, “This is the blood of the covenant,” it is figurative and sacramental. The covenant had no blood of its own; but the blood of the sacrifices is called “the blood of the covenant,” because the covenant was dedicated and established by it. Neither was the covenant really established by it; for it was the truth of God on the one hand, and the stability of the people in their professed obedience on the other, that the establishment of the covenant depended on. But this blood was a confirmatory sign of it, a token between God and the people of their mutual engagement in that covenant. So the paschal lamb was called “the LORD'S passover,” because it was a sign and token of God's passing over the houses of the Israelites when he destroyed the Egyptians, Exodus 12:11-12. With reference it was unto those sacramental expressions which the church under the old testament was accustomed unto, that our Lord Jesus Christ, in the institution of the sacrament of the supper, called the bread and the wine, whose use he appointed therein, by the names of his body and blood; and any other interpretation of the words wholly overthrows the nature of that holy ordinance.

Wherefore this blood was a confirmatory sign of the covenant. And it was so,

1. From God's institution; he appointed it so to be, as is express in the words of Moses.

2. From an implication of the interest of both parties in the blood of the sacrifice; God, unto whom it was offered; and the people, on whom it was sprinkled. For it being the blood of beasts that were slain, in this use of it each party as it were engaged their lives unto the observation and performance of what was respectively undertaken by them.

3. Typically, in that it represented the blood of Christ, and fore-signified the necessity of it unto the confirmation of the new covenant. See Zechariah 9:11; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25. So was it “the blood of the covenant,” in that it was a sign between God and the people of their mutual consent unto it, and their taking on themselves the performance of the terms of it, on the one side and the other.

Obs. 11. The condescension of God in making a covenant with men, especially in the ways of the confirmation of it, is a blessed object of all holy admiration. For,

1. The infinite distance and disproportion that is between him and us, both in nature and state or condition;

2. The ends of this covenant, which are all unto our eternal advantage, he standing in no need of us or our obedience; 3. The obligation that he takes upon himself unto the performance of the terms of it, whereas he might righteously deal with us in a way of mere sovereignty;

4. The nature of the assurance he gives us thereof, by the blood of the sacrifice, confirmed with his oath; do all set forth the ineffable glory of this condescension. And this will at length be made manifest in the eternal blessedness of them by whom this covenant is embraced, and the eternal misery of them by whom it is refused.

The apostle having given this full confirmation unto his principal assertion, he adds, for the illustration of it, the use and efficacy of blood, that is, the blood of sacrifices, unto purification and atonement.

Hebrews 9:21. “Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.”

The manner of the introduction of this observation, Hebrews 9:21, by καὶ ὁμοίως, “and in like manner,” doth manifest that this is not a continuation of the former instance, in that which belongs thereunto; but that there is a proceed unto another argument, to evince the further use of the sprinkling of blood unto purification and atonement under the old testament. For the design of the apostle is not only to prove the necessity of the blood of Christ in sacrifice, but also the efficacy of it in the taking away of sins. Wherefore he shows that as the covenant itself was dedicated with blood, which proves the necessity of the blood of Christ unto the confirmation of the new covenant; so all the ways and means of solemn worship were purged and purified by the same means, which demonstrates its efficacy.

I will not absolutely oppose the usual interpretation of these words; namely, that at the erection of the tabernacle, and the dedication of it with all its vessels and utensils, there was a sprinkling with blood, though not expressly mentioned by Moses, for he only declares the unction of them with the holy oil, Exodus 40:9-11. For as unto the garments of Aaron and his sons, which belonged unto the service of the tabernacle, and were laid up in the holy place, it is expressly declared that they were sprinkled with blood, Exodus 29:21; and of the altar, that it was sprinkled when it was anointed, though it be not said wherewith. And Josephus, who was himself a priest, affirms that “all the things belonging unto the sanctuary were dedicated with the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices;” which things are usually pleaded for this interpretation. I shall not, as I said, absolutely reject it; yet because it is evident that the apostle makes a progress in these words, from the necessity of the dedication of the covenant with blood unto the use and efficacy of the sprinkling of blood in all holy administrations, that they might be accepted with God, I choose rather to refer the words unto that solemn sprinkling of the tabernacle and all the vessels of it by the high priest with blood of the expiatory sacrifice which was made annually, on the day of atonement. This the introduction of these words by καί and ὁμοίως ; doth declare. As the covenant was dedicated with the sprinkling of blood, so in like manner afterwards, the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were sprinkled with blood unto their sacred use.

All the difficulty in this interpretation is, that Moses is said to do it, but that which we intend was done by Aaron and his successors. But this is no way to be compared with that of applying it unto the dedication of the tabernacle, wherein there is no mention made of blood or its sprinkling, but of anointing only. Wherefore Moses is said to do what he appointed to be done, what the law required which was given by him. So “Moses” is frequently used for the law given by him: Acts 15:21, “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day;” that is, the law. Moses, then, sprinkled the tabernacle, in that by an everlasting ordinance he appointed that it should be done. And the words following, Acts 15:22, declare that the apostle speaks not of dedication, but of expiation and purification.

This sprinkling, therefore, of the tabernacle and its vessels, was that which was done annually, on the day of atonement, Leviticus 16:14-16; Leviticus 16:18. For thereon, as the apostle speaks, “both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry were sprinkled with blood;” as the ark, the mercy-seat, and the altar of incense. And the end of it was to purge them because of the uncleannesses of the people; which is that the apostle intends. And that which we are taught herein is, that,

Obs. 1. In all things wherein we have to do with God, whereby we approach unto him, it is the blood of Christ, and the application of it unto our consciences, that gives us a gracious acceptance with him. Without this all is unclean and defiled.

Obs. 2. Even holy things and institutions, that are in themselves clean and unpolluted, are relatively defiled, by the unholiness of them that use them; defiled unto them. So was the tabernacle, because of the uncleannesses of the people among whom it was. For unto the unclean all things are unclean.

From this whole discourse the apostle makes an inference which he afterwards applies at large unto his present purpose.

Hebrews 9:22. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

There are two parts of this verse, or there is a double assertion in it:

1. That “almost all things are by the law purged with blood.”

2. That “without shedding of blood is no remission.”

1. In the first of these there is considerable the assertion itself, and the limitation of it.

(1.) The assertion itself is, that “by the law all things were purged with blood; κατὰ τὸν νόμον according unto the law;” the rules, the commands, the institutions of it; in that way of worship, faith, and obedience, which the people were obliged unto by the law. According unto the law, there was a necessity of the blood of sacrifices, for the purging of sin and making of atonement. This he infers and concludes from what he had said before, concerning the dedication of the covenant and the purification of the tabernacle with all the vessels of its ministry. And from hence he designs to prove the necessity of the death of Christ, and the efficacy of his blood for the purging of sin, whereof those legal things were types and representations. Of these legal purifications, or purgings by blood, we have treated already.

(2.) The limitation of this assertion is in the word σχεδόν, “almost.” Some few purifications there were under the law that were not by blood. Such, as some judge, was that by the ashes of a heifer mingled with water; whereof we have treated on verse 13. But I am not certain that this may be esteemed a purification without blood. For the heifer whose ashes were used in it was first slain, and its blood poured out; afterwards the blood as well as the flesh was burnt and reduced unto ashes. Wherefore that way of purification cannot be said to be without blood. And it was a type of the purifying efficacy of the blood of Christ, who offered himself a whole burnt-offering unto God, through the fire of the eternal Spirit. But there were two sorts of purifications under the law wherein blood was neither formally nor virtually applied or used. The one was by fire, in things that would endure it, Numbers 31:23 (and the apostle speaks of things as well as persons, as the word πάντα declares); the other was by water, whereof there were many instances. See Exodus 19:10; Leviticus 16:26; Leviticus 16:28; Leviticus 22:6-7. All other purifications were ἐν αἵματι, “in blood;” ἐν for διὰ; δι᾿ αἵματος, by the offering and sprinkling of blood.

From the consideration of the purifications mentioned, the apostle adds the limitation of “almost.” For the conceit of some of the ancients, that σχεδόν is as much as fere, and is to be joined with “purged,” “were almost purged,” that is, they were so only ineffectually, is most improper; for it is contrary to the natural construction of the words and the direct intention of the apostle. Only we may observe, that the purifications which were by fire and water were of such things as had no immediate influence into the worship of God, or in such cases as wherein the worship of God was not immediately concerned; nor of such things wherewith conscience was defiled. They were only of external pollutions, by things in their own nature indifferent, and had nothing of sin in them. And the sacred institutions which were not concerning the immediate worship of God, nor things which in themselves did defile the consciences of men, were as hedges and fences about those which really did so. They served to warn men not to come near those things which had a real defilement in themselves. See Matthew 15:16-20.

Thus “almost all things,” that is, absolutely all which had any inward, real moral defilement, “were purged with blood,” and directed unto the purging efficacy of the blood of Christ. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 1. There was a great variety of legal purifications. For as all of them together could not absolutely purge sin, but only direct unto what would do so, so none of them by themselves could fully represent that one sacrifice by blood whereby all sin was to be purged; therefore were they multiplied.

Obs. 2. This variety argues that in ourselves we are ready to be polluted on all occasions. Sin cleaveth unto all that we do, and is ready to defile us even in our best duties.

Obs. 3. This variety of institutions was a great part of the bondage state of the church under the old testament; a yoke that they were not able to bear. For it was almost an insuperable difficulty to attain an assurance that they had observed them all in a due manner; the penalties of their neglect being very severe. Besides, the outward observation of them was both burdensome and chargeable. It is the glory of the gospel, that we are directed to make our address by faith on all occasions unto that one sacrifice by the blood of Christ, which cleanseth us from all our sins. Howbeit many that are called Christians, being ignorant of the mystery thereof, do again betake themselves unto other ways for the purification of sin, which are multiplied in the church of Rome.

Obs. 4. The great mystery wherein God instructed the church from the foundation of the world, especially by and under legal institutions, was, that all purging of sin was to be by blood. This was that which by all sacrifices from the beginning, and all legal institutions, he declared unto mankind. Blood is the only means of purging and atonement. This is the language of the whole law. All was to manifest that the washing and purging of the church from sin was to be looked for from the blood of Christ alone.

2. The second assertion of the apostle is, that “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” Some would have these words to contain an application of what was spoken before unto the blood of Christ; but it is manifest that the apostle yet continues in his account of things under the law, and enters on the application of them not before the next verse. Wherefore these words, κατὰ τὸν νόμου, “according to the law,” or by virtue of its institutions, are here to be repeated: “By the law, without shedding of blood,” that is, in sacrifice, “there is no remission.” Yet though that season be particularly intended, the axiom is universally true, and applicable unto the new covenant; even under it, without shedding of blood is no remission.

The curse of the law was, that he that sinned should die; but whereas there is no man that liveth and sinneth not, God had provided that there should be a testification of the remission of sins, and that the curse of the law should not be immediately executed on all that sinned. This he did by allowing the people to make atonement for their sins by blood; that is, the blood of sacrifices,” Leviticus 17:11. For hereby God signified his will and pleasure in two things:

(1.) That by this blood there should be a political remission granted unto sinners, that they should not die under the sentence of the law as it was the rule of the government of the nation. And in this sense, for such sins as were not politically to be spared no sacrifice was allowed.

(2.) That real spiritual forgiveness, and gracious acceptance with himself, were to be obtained alone by that which was signified by this blood; which was the sacrifice of Christ himself.

And whereas the sins of the people were of various kinds, there were particular sacrifices instituted to answer that variety. This variety of sacrifices, with respect unto the various sorts or kinds of sins for which they were to make atonement, I have elsewhere discussed and explained. Their institution and order are recorded, Leviticus 1:7. And if any person neglected that especial sacrifice which was appointed to make atonement for his especial sin, he was left under the sentence of the law, politically and spiritually; there was no remission. Yea also, there might be, there were, sins that could not be reduced directly unto any of those for whose remission sacrifices were directed in particular. Wherefore God graciously provided against the distress or ruin of the church on either of these accounts. For whether the people had fallen under the neglect of any of those especial ways of atonement, or had contracted the guilt of such sins as they knew not how to reduce unto any sort of them that were to be expiated, he had graciously prepared the great anniversary sacrifice, wherein public atonement was made for all the sins, transgressions, and iniquities of the whole people, of what sort soever they were, Leviticus 16:21. But in the whole of his ordinances he established the rule, that “without shedding of blood was no remission.”

There seems to be an exception in the case of him who was so poor that he could not provide the meanest offering of blood for a sin-offering; for he was allowed by the law to offer “the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour” for his sin, and it was forgiven him, Leviticus 5:11-13. Wherefore the word σχεδόν, “almost,” may be here again repeated, because of this single case. But the apostle hath respect unto the general rule of the law. And this exception was not an ordinary constitution, but depended on the impossibility of the thing itself, whereunto it made a gracious condescension. And this necessity ofttimes of itself, without any constitution, suspends a positive law, and gives a dispensation unto the infringers of it. So was it in the case of David when he ate of the shew- bread in his hunger; and as to works of necessity and mercy on the Sabbath-day: which instances are given by our Savior himself. Wherefore the particular exception on this consideration did rather strengthen than invalidate the general rule of the law. Besides, the nearest approach was made unto it that might be. For fine flour is the best of the bread whereby man's life is sustained; and in the offering of it the offerer testified that by his sin he had forfeited his own life and all whereby it was sustained: which was the meaning of the offering of blood.

The expositors of the Roman church do here greatly perplex themselves, to secure their sacrifice of the mass from this destroying sentence of the apostle. For a sacrifice they would have it to be, and that for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead; yet they say it is an unbloody sacrifice. For if there be any blood shed in it, it is the blood of Christ, and then he is crucified by them afresh every day; as indeed in some sense he is, though they cannot shed his blood. If it be unbloody, the rule of the apostle is, that it is no way available for the remission of sins. Those that are sober have no way to deliver themselves, but by denying the mass to be a proper sacrifice for the remission of sins: which is done expressly by Estius upon the place. But this is contrary unto the direct assertions contained in the mass itself, and raseth the very foundation of it.

Now, if God gave them so much light under the old testament, as that they should know, believe, and profess, that “without shedding of blood is no remission,” how great is the darkness of men under the new testament, who look, seek, or endeavor any other way after the pardon of sin, but only by the blood of Christ!

Obs. 5. This is the great demonstration of the demerit of sin, of the holiness, righteousness, and grace of God. For such was the nature and demerit of sin, such was the righteousness of God with respect unto it, that without shedding of blood it could not be pardoned. They are strangers unto the one and the other who please themselves with other imaginations. And what blood must this be? That the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin was utterly impossible, as our apostle declares. It must be the blood of the Son of God, Romans 3:24-25; Acts 20:28. And herein were glorified both the love and grace of God, in that he spared not his only Son, but gave him up to be a bloody sacrifice in his death for us all.