Notes on the Old and New Testaments

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who R through

in removing ceremonial uncleanness, and in rendering it proper that he who had been polluted should be per mitted again to approach and worship God. The apostle goes on to argue that if they had such an efficacy, it was fair to presume that the blood of Christ would have far greater effi cacy, and would reach to the con science itself, and make that pure.

14. How much more shall the blood of Christ. As being infinitely more precious than the blood of an 'animal could possibly be. Jf the blood of an animal had any efficacy at all, even in removing ceremonial pollutions, how much more is it reasonable to suppose may be effected by the blood of the Son of God! ^ Who through the eternal spirit. This expression is very difficult, and has given rise to a great variety of interpretations. Some MSS. instead of eternal here, read holy, making it refer directly to the Holy Spirit. See Wetstein. These va rious readings, however, are not re garded as of sufficient authority to lead to a change in the text, and are of importance only as showing that it was an early opinion that the Holy Spirit is here referred to. The prin cipal opinions which have been enter tained of the meaning of this phrase, are the following. (1.) That which regards it as referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. This was the opinion of Owen, Doddridge, and archbishop Tillotson. (2.) That which refers it to the divine na ture of Christ. Among those who have maintained this opinion, are Beza, Ernesti, Wolf, Vitringa, Storr, and the late Dr. J. P. Wilson. MSS. Notes. (3.) Others, as Grotius, Ro-.«enmuller, Koppe, understand it as meaning endless or immortal life, in contradistinction from the Jewish sa crifices which were of a perishable nature, and which needed so often to be repeated. (4.) Others regard it as referring to the glorified person of the

Saviour, meaning that in his exalted or spiritual station in heaven, he pre» sents the efficacy of his blood. (5.) Others suppose that it means divine influence, and that the idea is, that Christ was actuated and filled with a divine influence when he offered up himself as a sacrifice; an influence which was not of a temporal and fleeting nature, but which was eter nal in its efficacy. This is the inter pretation preferred by Prof. Stuart. For an examination of these various opinions, see his ' Excursus, xviii.' on this epistle. It is difficult, if not im possible, to decide what is the true meaning of the passage amidst this diversity of opinion; but there are some reasons which seem to me to make it probable that the Holy Spirit is intended, and that the idea is, that Christ made his great sacrifice under the extraordinary influences of that Eternal Spirit. The reasons which lead me to this opinion, are the fol lowing. (1.) It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament. It is pre sumed that the great body of sober, plain, and intelligent readers of the Bible, on perusing the passage, sup pose that it refers to the Holy G host, the third person of the Trinity. There are few better and safer rules for the interpretation of a volume designed like the Bible for the mass of man kind, than to abide by the sense in which they understand it. (2.) This interpretation is one which is most naturally conveyed by the language of the original. The phrase the spirit — TO irvfvfjia — has so far a technical and established meaning in the New Testament as to denote the Holy Ghost, unless there is something in the connexion which renders such an application improper. In this case there is nothing certainly which ne cessarily forbids such an application. The high names and classical authori ty of those who have held this opinion the eternal Spirit offered him self without l spot to God: purge a your conscience from dead wor God?

are a sufficient guarantee of this. (3.) This interpretation accords with the fact that the Lord Jesus is repre sented as having been eminently en dowed with the influences of the Holy Spirit. Comp. Notes on John iii. 34. Though he was divine, yet he was also a man, and as such was under influences similar to those of other pious men. The Holy Spirit is the source and sustainer of all piety in the soul, and it is not improper to suppose that the man Christ Jesus was in a remarkable manner influenced by the Holy Ghost in his readiness to obey God and to suffer according to his will. (4.) If there was ever any occasion on which we may suppose he was influenced by the Holy "Ghost, that of his sufferings and death here referred to may be supposed eminent ly to have been such an one. It was expressive of the highest state of piety — of the purest love to God and man — which has ever existed in the hu man bosom; it was the most trying time of his own life! it was the pe riod when there would be the most strong temptation to abandon his work, and as the redemption of the whole world was dependent on that act, it is reasonable to suppose that the richest heavenly grace would be there imparted to him, and that he would then be eminently under the influence of that spirit which was granted not ' by measure unto him.' Notes, John iii. 34. (5.) This repre sentation is not inconsistent with the belief that the sufferings and death of the Redeemer were voluntary, and had all the merit which belongs to a voluntary transaction. Piety in the heart of a Christian now is not less voluntary because it is produced and cherished by the Holy Ghost, nor is there less excellence in it because the Holy Ghost imparts strong faith in the time of temptation and trial. It seems to me, therefore, that the mean ing of this expression is, that th( Lord Jesus was led by the strong in« fluences of the Spirit of God to~ dt> | vote himself as a sacrifice for in. It | was not by any temporary influence; not by mere excitement; it was by the influence of the Eternal Spirit of God, and the sacrifice thus offered could, therefore, accomplish effects which would be eternal in their cha racter. It was not like the offering made by the Jewish high priest which was necessarily renewed every year, but it was under the influenced one who was eternal, and the effects of whose influence might be everlasting. It may be added, that if this is a cor rect exposition, it follows that the Holy Ghost is eternal, and must, there fore, be divine. ^[ Offered himself. That is, as a sacrifice. He did not offer a bullock or a goat, but he offer ed himself. The sacrifice of one's self is the highest offering which he can make; in this case it was the high est which the universe had to make. ^[ Without spot. Marg. ' Or fault.11 The animal that was offered in the Jewish sacrifices was to be without blemish. See Lev. i. 10; xxii. 19 — 22. It was not to be lame, or blind, or diseased. The word which is here used and rendered ' without spot'— apupos— refers to this fact— that there was no defect or blemish. The idea is,_ that the Lord Jesus, the great sa crifice, was perfect. See ch. vii. 26. ^ Purge your conscience. That is, cleanse, purify, or sanctify your con science. The idea is, that this offer ing would take away whatever ren dered the conscience defiled or sinful. The offerings of the Jews related in the main to external purification, and were not adapted to give peace to a troubled conscience. They could ren der.the worshipper externally pure so that he might draw near to God and not be excluded by any ceremonial pollution or defilement j but the mind

15 And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testa ment, that by means of death, for the redemption of the trans-

the heart, the conscience, they could not make pure. They could not re move that which troubles a man when he recollects that he has violated a holy law and has offended God, and when he looks forward to an awful judgment-bar. The word conscience here is not to be understood as a dis tinct and independent faculty of the soul, but as the soul or mind itself re flecting and pronouncing on its own acts. The whole expression refers to a mind alarmed by the recollection of guilt— for it is guilt only that dis turbs a man's conscience. Guilt ori ginates in the soul's remorse and de spair; guilt makes a man troubled when he thinks of death and the judgment; it is guilt only which alarms a man when he thinks of a holy God; and it is nothing but guilt that makes the entrance into another world terrible and awful. If a man had no guilt he would never dread his Maker, nor would the presence of his God be ever painful to him (comp. Gen. iii. 6 — 10); if a man had no guilt he would not fear to die — for what have the innocent to fear any where? The universe is under the government of a God of goodness and truth, and, under such a government, how can those who have done no wrong have any thing to dread? The fear of death, the apprehension of the judgment to come, and the dread of God, are strong and irrefragable proofs that every man is a sinner. The only thing, therefore, which ever disturbs the conscience and makes death dreadful, and God an object of aversion, and eternity awful, is GUILT. If that is removed, man is calm and peaceful; if not, he is the victim of wretchedness and despair, ^f From dead works. From works that are deadly in their nature-, or that lead to death. Or it may mean from works that have no spirituality and no life. By * works' here the apostle does not

gressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance:

refer to their outward religious acts particularly, but to the conduct of the life, to what men do; and the idea is. that their acts are not spiritual and saving but such as lead to death. See Note, ch. vi. 1. ^ To serve the living God. Not in outward form but in sincerity and in truth; to be his true friends and worshippers. The phrase 'the living God' is commonly used in the Scriptures to describe the true God as distinguished from idols which are represented as dead, or without life. Ps. cxv. 4—7. The idea in this verse is, that it is only the sacrifice made by Christ which can remove the stain of guilt from the soul. It could not be done by the blood of bulls and of goats — for that did not furnish relief to a guilty conscience, but it could be done by the blood of Christ. The sacrifice which he made for sin was so pure and of such value, that God can consistently pardon, the offender and restore him to his favour. That blood too can give peace — for Christ poured it out in behalf of the guilty. It is not that he took part with the sinner against God; it is not that he endeavours to convince him who has a troubled conscience that he is need lessly alarmed, or that sin is not as bad as it is represented to be, or that it does not expose the soul to danger. Christ never took the part of the sin ner against God; he never taught that sin was a small matter, or that it did not expose to danger. He ad mitted all that is said of its evil. But he provides for giving peace to the guilty conscience by shedding his blood that it may be forgiven, and by revealing a God of mercy who is wil ling to receive the offender into favour, and to treat him as though he had never sinned. Thus the troubled con science may find peace; and thus, though guilty, man may be delivered from the dread of the wrath to come. 15. And for this cause. With this

16 For where a testament j sity is, there must also of neces-, tor.

be the death of the testa- view; that is, to make an effectual atonement for sin, and to provide a way by which the troubled conscience may have peace. ^[ He is the Media tor. See Notes on Gal. iii. 19, 20. He is the Mediator between God and man in respect to that new covenant which he has made, or that new dis pensation by which men are to be saved. He stands between God and man — the parties at variance — and undertakes the work of mediation and reconciliation. ^ Of the New Testa ment. Not testament — for a testament, or will, needs no mediator; but of the •new covenant, or the new arrange ment or disposition of things under which he proposes to pardon and save the guilty. See Notes on vs. 16, 17. % That by means of death. His own death as a sacrifice for sin. The old covenant or arrangement also con templated death — but it was the death •of an animal. The purposes of this were to be effected by the death of the Mediator himself; or this cove nant was to be ratified in his blood. ^[ For the redemption of the transgres sions that were under the first testa-.ment. The covenant or arrangement under Moses. The general idea here is, that these were offences for which.no expiation could be made by the sacrifices under that dispensation, or from which the blood then shed could not redeem. This general idea may include two particulars. (1.) That they who had committed transgres sions under that covenant, and who could not be fully pardoned by the imperfect sacrifices then made, would receive a full forgiveness of all their sins in the great day of account through the blood of Christ. Though the blood of bulls and goats could not -expiate, yet they offered that blood in faith; they relied on the promised mercy of God; they looked forward to a perfect sacrifice— and now the blood of the great atonement offered as a full expiation for all their sins, would be the ground of their acquittal I in the last day. (2.) That the blood! of Christ would now avail for the re- I mission of all those sins which could not be expiated by the sacrifices of fered under the law. It not only contemplated the remission of all the offences committed by the truly pious under that law, but would now avail to put away sin entirely. No sacri fice which men could offer would avail, but the blood of Christ would remove all that guilt. ^[ That they which are called. Alike under the old covenant and the new. ^[ Might, receive the promise of eternal inherit ance. That is, the 'fulfilment of the promise; or that they might be made partakers of eternal blessings. That blood is effectual alike to save those under the ancient covenant and the new — so that they will be saved in the same manner, and unite in the same song of redeeming love.

it is used with reference to the insti tution or celebration of the Lord's Supper. In the Sep!u?gint it occurs not far from three hundred times, in considerably more than two hundred of which, it is the translation of the He brew word JTH3,— Bcrith. In one instance (Zech. xi'. 14) it is the trans lation of the Avord brotfier/iood; once (Deut. ix. 5) of "lin— word; once

( Jer.xxxiv.l8), of ' Avords of the cove nant;' once (Lev. xxvi. 11), of ta bernacle; once (Exod. xxxi. 7), of testimony, it occurs once (Ezek. xvi. 8), where the reading of the Greek and Hebrew text is doubtful; and it occurs three times (I. Sam. xi. 2; xx. 8; I. Kings viii. 9), where there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. From this use of the word by the authors of the Septuagint, it is evident that they regarded it as the proper translation of the Hebrew — /T'13,— Bcrith, and as conveying the same sense which that word does. It cannot be reasonably doubted that the writers of the New Testament were led to the use of the word, in part, at least, by the fact that they found it occurring so frequently in the version in common use, but it cannot be doubted also that they re garded it as fairly conveying the sense of the word fVhS—Beriih. On no principle can it be supposed that in spired and honest men would use a word in referring to transactions in the Old Testament which did not fairly convey the idea which the writers of the Old Testament meant to express. The use being thus re garded as settled, there are some facts in reference to it which are of great ' importance in interpreting the New Testament, and in understanding the nature of the ' covenant,' which God makes with man. These facts are the following. (1.) The word — diatheke — is not that which properij denotes compact, agreement, or cove nant. That word is (rvvdrjKrj—synthe/te — or in other forms o-w'dfo-is and or if the word a'atheke is used in that signification it is only remotely and as a secondary mean ing. See Passoic; comp. the Septua gint in Isa. xxviii. 15; xxx. 1; Dan. xi. 6, and Wisdom i. 16; I. Mac. x. 26; II. Mac. xiii. 25; xiv. 26. It is not the word which a Greek would have employed to denote a compact or covenant He would have employed it to denote a disposition, ordering, or arrangement of things, whether of religious rites, civil customs, or pro perty; or if used with reference to a compact, it would have been with the idea of an arrangement or ordering of matters, not with the primary no tion of an agreement with another. (2.) The word properly expressive of a covenant or compact — (rvvdr]Krj — is never used in the New Testament. In ail the allusions to the transactions between God and man, this word never occurs. From some cause, the writers and speakers in the New Tes tament seem to have supposed that the word would leave an impression which they did not wish to leave. Though it might have been supposed that in speaking of the various trans actions between God and man they would have selected this word, yet with entire uniformity they have avoided it. No one of them— though the word diadrjivj—diatheke — has been used by no less than six of them — has been betrayed in a single instance into the use of the word o-vvOrjKrj — syntlti-ltc, or has differed from the other writers in the language employed. This cannot be supposed to be the result of concert or collusion, but it must have been founded on some rea son Avhich operated equally on all their minds. (3.) In like manner, and with like remarkable uniformity, the word <rvv6f]Krj — syntheke — is never used in the Septuagint Avith reference to any arrangement or ' covenant' be tween God and man. Once indeed in the Apocrypha, and but once, it in used in that sense. In the three only other instances in which it occurs in the Septuagint, it is with reference to compacts between man and man. Isa. xxviii. 15; xxx. 1; Dan. xi. 6. This remarkable fact that the authors of that version never use the word to de note any transaction between God and man, shows that there must have been some reason for it which acted on their minds with entire uniformity. (4.) It is no less remarkable that nei ther in the Septuagint nor the New Testament is the word 8ia6r]Krj — dia theke — ever used in the sense of will or testament, unless it be in the case before us. This is conceded on all hands, and is expressly admitted by Prof. Stewart (Com. on Heb. p. 439), though he defends this use of the word in this passage. — A very im portant inquiry presents itself here which has never received a solution generally regarded as satisfactory. It is, why the word SiaBrjK-q — diatheke — was selected by the writers of the New Testament to express the nature of the transaction between God and man in the plan of salvation. It might be said indeed that they found this word uniformly used in the Sep tuagint, and that they employed it as expressing the idea which they wished to convey with sufficient accuracy. But this is only removing the diffi culty one step further back. Why did the Lxx. adopt this word? Why did they not rather use the common and appropriate Greek word to re press the notion of a covenant? A suggestion on this subject has already been made in the notes on ch. viii. 6. Comp. Bib. Repository, vol. xx. p. 55. Another reason may, however, be suggested for this remarkable fact which is liable to no objection. It is, that in the apprehension of the au thors of the Septuagint, and of the "writers of the New Testament, the word SiadrjKrj— diatheke— in its origi nal and proper signification fairly conveyed the sense of the Hebrew word — Berith, and that the Avord avvdrjKr] — synthtke — or compact, agree ment would not express that; and that they never meant to be understood as conveying the idea either that Got entered into a COMPACT or COVENANT with man, or that he made a WILL. They meant to represent him as mak ing an arrangement, a disposition, an ordering of things, by which his ser vice might be kept up among his people, and by which men might be saved; but they were equally remote from representing him as making a compact or a will. In support of this there maybe alleged (1.) the remark able uniformity in which the word diadrjKij — diatheke — is used, showing that there was pf)U«e settled principle from which they n.-ver departed; and (2.) used mainly the meaning of the word itself. Prof. Stuart has, un doubtedly, given the accurate original sense of the word. " The real, genuine, and original meaning of diadrjKrj [dia theke] is, arrangement, disposition, or disposal of a thing." p. 440. The word from which it is derived — diari- Qrftii — means to place apart or asun der, and then to set, arrange, dispose in a certain order. — Passow. From this original signification is derived the use which the word has with sin gular uniformity in the Scriptures. It denotes the arrangement, disposi tion, or ordering of things which God made in relation to mankind, by which he designed to keep up his worship on earth, and to save the soul. It means neither covenant nor will; neither compact nor legacy; neither agreement nor testament. It is an arrangement of an entirely different order from either of them, and the sacred writers, with an uniformity which could have been secured only by the presiding influence of the One Eternal Sprit, have avoided the sug gestion that God made with man either a compact or a will. We have no word which precisely expresses this idea, and hence our conceptions are constantly floating between a compact and a will, and the views which we have are as unsettled as they are unscriptural. The simple idea is, that God has made an ar rangement by which his worship may be celebrated and souls saved. Under the Jewish economy this arrangement assumed one form; under the Chris tian another. In neither was it a compact or covenant between two parties in such a sense that one party would be at liberty to reject the terms pi'oposed; in neither was it a testa ment, or will, as if God had left a le gacy to man, but in both there were some things in regard to the arrange ment such as are found in a covenant or compact. One of those things — equally appropriate to a compact be tween man and man and to this ar rangement, the apostle refers to here — that it implied in all cases the death of the victim. If these remarks are well-founded, they should be allowed materially to shape our views in the interpretation of the Bible. Whole treatises of divinity have been written on a mistaken view of the meaning of this word— understood as meaning covenant. Volumes of angry contro versy have been published on the na ture of the " covenant" with Adam, and on its influence on his posterity. The only literal " covenant" which can be supposed in the plan of re demption is that between the Father and the Son — though even the exist ence of such a covenant is rather the result of devout and learned imagin ing than of any distinct statement in the volume of inspiration. The sim ple statement there is, that God has made an arrangement for salvation, the execution of which he has intrust ed to his Son, and has proposed it to man to be accepted as the only arrange ment by which man can be saved, and which he is not at liberty to disregard. — There has been much difference of opinion in reference to the meaning of the passage here, and to the design of the illustration introduced. If the word used — 8iadrjKrj — means testa ment, in the sense of a will, then the sense of that passage is that ' a will is of force only when he who made it dies, for it relates to a disposition of his property after his death.' The force of the remark of the apostle then would be, that the fact that the

Lord Jesus made or expressed his will to mankind, implied that he would die to confirm it; or that since in the ordinary mode of making a will, it was of force only when he who made it was dead, therefore it was necessary that the Redeemer should die, in order to confirm and ratify that which he made. But the objections to this, which appears to have been the view of our translators, seem to me to be insuperable. They are these. (1.) The word SiaO^Kr) — diatheke — is not used in this sense in the New Testament elsewhere. See the remarks above. (2.) The Lord Jesus made no such will. He had no property, and the commandments and instructions which he gave to his dis ciples were not of the nature of a will or testament. (3.) Such an illustration would not be pertinent to the design of the apostle, or in keeping with his argument. He is comparing the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and the point of comparison in this chapter relates to the question about the efficacy of sacrifice in the two ar rangements. He showed that the ar rangement for blood-shedding by sa crifice entered into both; that the high priest of both offered blood as an expiation; that the holy place was entered with blood, and that conse quently there was death in both the arrangements, or dispensations. The former arrangement or dispensation was ratified with blood, and it was equally proper that the new arrange ment should be also. The point of comparison is not that Moses made a will or testament which could be of force only when he died, and that the same thing was required in the new dispensation, but it is that the former covenant was ratified by blood, or by the death of a victim, and that it might be expected that the new dis pensation would be confirmed, and that it was in fact confirmed in the same manner. In this view of the argument, what pertinency would there be in introducing in illustration respecting a will, and the manner in which it became efficient. Comp.

Notes on ver. 18. It seems clear, therefore, to me, that the word ren dered testament here is to be taken in the sense in which it is ordinarily used in the New Testament. The opinion that the word here means such a divine arrangement as is conmonly denoted a " covenant," and not testament, is sanctioned by not a few names of eminence in criticism, such as Pierce, Boddridge, Michaelis, Steudel, and the late Dr. J. P. Wil son. Bloomfield says that the con nexion here demands this. The prin cipal objections to this view arc, (1.) that it is not proved that no covenants or compacts were valid except such as Avere made by the intervention of sacrifices. (2.) That the word reniered testator— ^t-aBf^fvos— cannot re fer to the death of an animal slain for the purpose of ratifying a cove nant, but must mean either a testator, or a contractor, i. e., one of two con tracting parties. (3.) That the word rendered dead (ver. 17)— vacpois — means only dead men, and never is applied to the dead bodies of animals. See Stuart on the Heb. p. 442. These objections to the supposition that the passage refers to a covenant or com pact, Prof. Stuart says are in his view insuperable, and they are certainly entitled to grave consideration. Whe ther the view above presented is one which can be sustained, we may be better able to determine after an ex amination of the words and phrases which the apostle uses. Those ob jections which depend wholly on the philological argument derived from the words used, will be considered of course in such an examination. It is to be remembered at the outset, (1.) that the word o~iadr]KT] — dlatheke — is never used in the New Testament in the sense of testament, or will, unless in this place; (2.) that it is never used in this sense in the Septuagint; and (3.) that the Hebrew word rPli-lfe- rith — neverh&s this signification. This if admitted. See Stuart on the Heb. pp. 439, 440. It must require very strong reasons to prove that it has this meaning here, and that Paul has employed the word in a sense differ- ng from its uniform signification elsewhere in the Bible. Comp., how- ver, the remarks of Prof. Stuart in Bib. Repos. vol. xx. p. 364. f There 'mist also of necessity be. — avdyxr). — That is, it is necessary in order to confirm the covenant, or it would not be binding in cases where this did not occur. The necessity in the case is imply to make it valid or obligatory. So we say now there must * necessa rily' be a seal, or a deed would not be valid. The fair interpretation of this is, that this was the common and es tablished custom in making a ' cove nant' with God, or confirming the arrangement with him in regard to salvation. To this it is objected (see the first objection above), that " it is yet to be made out that no covenants were valid except those by the inter vention of sacrifices." In reply to this, we may observe, (1.) that the point to be made out is not that this was a custom in compacts between man and man, but between man and {his Maker. There is no evidence, as it seems to me, that the apostle alludes to a compact between man and man. The mistake on this subject has arisen partly from the use of the word ' testament' by our translators, in the sense of will— supposing that it must refer to some transaction relating to jman or.ly; and partly from the inisertion of the word ' men' in ver. 17 in the translation of the phrase — eVl vfxpols — ' upon the dead,' or ' over the dead.' But it is not necessary to sup pose that there is a reference here to any transaction between man and man at all, as the whole for^e of the I illustration introduced by the apostle [will be retained if we suppose him speaking only of a covenant between man and God. Then his assertion will be simply that in the arrange ment between God and man there was a necessity of the death of some thing, or of the shedding of blood in order to ratify it. This view will save the necessity of proof that the custom of ratifying compacts between man and man by sacrifice prevailed. Whetner that can be made out or not, the assertion of the apostle may be true, that in the arrangement which God makes with man, sacrifice was neces sary in order to confirm or ratify it. (2.) The point to be made out is, not that such a custom is or was univer sal among all nations, but that it was the known and regular opinion among the Hebrews that a sacrifice was ne cessary in a ' covenant' with God, in the same way as if we should say that a deed was not valid without a seal, it would not be necessary to show this in regard to off nations, but only that it is the law or the custom in the nation where the writer lived, and at the time when he lived. Other na tions may have very different modes of confirming or ratifying a deed, and the same nation may have different methods at various times. The fact or custom to which I suppose there is allusion here, is that of sacrificing an animal to ratify the arrangement be tween man and his Maker, commonly called a ' covenant.' In regard to the existence of such a custom, particu larly among the Hebrews, we may make the folloAving observations. It was the common mode of ratifying the ' covenant' between God and man. That was done over a sacrifice, or by the shedding of blood. So the cove nant with Abraham was ratified by slaying an heifer, a she-goat, a ram, a turtle-dove and a young pigeon. The animals AVCTC divided and a burning lamp passed between them. Gen. xv. 9, 18. So the covenant made AA'ith the HebrcAvs in the Avilderness was ratified in the same manner. Ex. \ xxiv. 6. seq. Thus in Jer. xxxiv. 18, j God speaks of the ' men that had transgressed his covenant which they had made before him when they cut \ the calf in twain and passed between \ the parts thereof ' See also Zech. ix. I 11. Indeed all the Jewish sacrifices! were regarded as a ratification of the! covenant. It Avas ueA-er supposed that it was ratified or confirmed in a pro per manner Avithout such a sacrifice.

Instances occur, indeed, in which there was no sacrifice offered when a covenant was made betAveen man and man (see Gen. xxiiL 16; xxiv. 9; Deut. xxv. 7. 9; Ruth iv. 7); but these cases do not establish the point that the custom did not prevail of ra tifying a covenant with God by the blood of sacrifice. Further; the terms used in the HebreAv in regard to mak ing a covenant Avith God, prove that it was understood to be ratified by sacrifice, or that the death of a victim was necessary. f_JT"]Il JTTD — karath Berith} « to cut a covenant'— the Avord /")"13 kurath meaning to cut; to cut off; to cut doAvn; and the allusion being to the victims offered in sacri fice, and cut in pieces on occasion oi entering into a covenant. See Gen. xv. 10; Jer. xxxiv. 18, 19. The same idea is expressed in the Greek phrases opKia Tepvetv, Tepvew (TTrovdds, and in the Latin icere focdus. Comp. Virgil JUn. viii. 641.

Et caesd jungebant fcedera pored. These considerations shoAv that it was the common sentiment, alike among the Hebrews and the heathen, that a covenant Avith God was to be rati fied or sanctioned by sacrifice; and the statement of Paul here is, that the death of a sacrificial victim was needful to confirm or ratify such a covenant with God. It was not se cure, or confirmed, until blood Avas thus shed. This Avas Avell understood among the HebreAvs, that all their covenant transactions with God Avere to be ratified by a sacrifice; and Paul says that the same principle must apply to any arrangement between God and luen. Hence he goes on to show that it was necessary that a sa crificial victim should die in the new covenant which God established by man through the Mediator. See ver. 23. This I understand to be the sum of the argument here. It is net that every contract made between man and man Avas to be ratified or confirmed by a sacrifice — for the apos tle is not discussing that point; but it is that every similar transaction with God must be based on such a sacrifice, and that no covenant with him coukl be complete without such a sacrifice. This was provided for in the ancient dispensation by the sa crifices which were constantly offer ed in their worship; in the new, by the one great sacrifice offered on the cross. Hence all our approaches to God are based on the supposition of such a sacrifice, and are, as it were, ratified over it. We ratify or confirm such a covenant arrangement, not by offering the sacrifice anew, but by re calling it in a proper manner when we celebrate the death of Christ, and when in view of his cross we solemnly pledge ourselves to be the Lord's. f The death of the testator. Accord ing to our common version, the death of him who makes a will. But if the views above expressed are correct, this should be rendered the covenanter^ or, ' the victim set apart to be slain.' The Greek will admit of the transla tion of the word toutfepansi diathemenos, by the word covenanter, if the word diaQrjKTj — diatheke—is rendered covenant. To such a translation here as would make the word refer to a vic tim slain in order to ratify a covenant, it is obje.ted that ' the word lias no such meaning anywhere else. It must either mean a testator, or a contractor, i. e, one of two covenanting parties. But where is the death of a person covenanting made necessary in order to confirm the covenant?' — Prof. Stu art, in loc. To this objection I re mark respectfully, (1.) that the word is never used in the sense of testator either in the New Testament or the Old, unless it be here. It is admitted of the word SiadfjKri — diatheke — by Prof. Stuart himself, that it never means will, or testament, unless it be here, and it is equally true of the word used here that it never means one who makes a will. If, therefore, it should be that a meaning quite un common, or wholly unknown in the usage of the Scriptures, is to be as signed to the use of the word here, why should it be assumed that that unusual meaning should be that of making a will, and not that of con firming a covenant? (2.) If the apos tle used the word diadfjKr) — diatkekt— in the sense of a covenant in this pas sage, nothing is more natural than that he should use the corresponding word Siadepevos — diathemcnos — in the sense of that by which a covenant was ratified. He wished to express the idea that the covenant was al ways ratified by the death of a victim —a sacrifice of an animal under the law, and the sacrifice of the Redeemer under the gospel— and no word would so naturally convey that idea as the one from which the word covenant was derived. It is to be remembered also that there was no word to express that thought. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek furnished such a word; nor have we now any word to express that thought, but are obliged to use circumlocution to convey the idea. The word covenanter would not do it; nor the words victim, or sacrifice. We can express the idea only by some phrase like this — ' the victim set apart to be slain to ratify the covenant.' But it was not an unusual thing for the apostle Paul to make use of a word in a sense quite peculiar to him self. Comp. II. Cor. iv. 17. (3.) The word SiaTiOrjui — diatithem i— properly means, to place apart, to set in orde>\ to arrange. It is rendered appoint in Luke x'xii. 29 -, made, and make, with reference to a covenant, Acts iii. 25 -t Heb. via. 10; x. 16. It occurs no where else in the New Testament, except in the passage before us. The idea of placing, laying, disposing, ar ranging, &c., enters into the wordas to place wares or merchandize for sale, to arrange a contract, &c. See Passow. The fair meaning of the word here, may be, whatever goes to arrange, dispose, or settle the cove nant, or to make the covenant secure and firm. If the reference be to a compact, it cannot relate to one of the contracting parties, because the death of neither is necessary to con firm it. But it may refer to tha* which was well-known as an est*

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it

Wished opinion, that a covenant with God was ratified only by a sacrifice. Still, it must be admitted that this use of the word is not elsewhere found, and the only material question is, whether it is to be presumed that the apostle would employ a word in a single instance in a peculiar signifi cation, where the connexion would not render it difficult to be understood. This must be admitted, that he might, whichever view is taken of the mean ing of this passage, for on the suppo sition that he refers here to a will, it is conceded that he uses the word in a sense which does not once occur elsewhere either in the Old Testa ment or the New. It seems to me, therefore, that the word here may, without impropriety, be regarded as referring to the victim that was slain \ in order to ratify a covenant with God, \ and that the meaning is, that such a j covenant was not regarded as con- j firmed until the victim was slain. It j may be added that the authority of! Michaelis, Macknight, Doddridge, I Bloomfield, and Dr. J. P. Wilson, is a proof that such an interpretation can not be a very serious departure from the proper use of a Greek word.

17. For a testament. Such an ar rangement as God enters into with man. See the remarks on ver. 16. ^ Is of force. Is ratified or confirmed — in the same way as a deed or com pact is confirmed by affixing a seal. ^[ After men are dead. CTTI vfKpois. * Over the dead.' That is, in accord ance with the view given above, after the animal is dead; or over the body of the animal slain for sacrifice, and to confirm the covenant. " For a co venant is completed or confirmed over dead sacrifices, seeing it is never of force as long as the victim set apart for its ratification is still living." MS. Notes of Dr. J P. Wilson. To this interpretation it is objected, that " veKpols — nekrois — means only dead men; but men surely were not sacri ficed by the Jews, as a mediating

is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

sacrifice in order to confirm a cove nant." Prof. Stuart in loc. In regard to this objection, and to the proper meaning of the passage, we may re mark (1.) that the word ' men' is not in the Greek, nor is it necessarily im plied unless it be in the use of the Greek word rendered dead. The proper translation is, ' upon, or over the dead.' The use of the word ' men' here by our translators would seem to limit it to the making of a will. (2.) It is to be presumed, unless there is positive proof to the contrary, that the Greeks and Hebrews used the word dead as it is used by other peo ple, and that it might refer to deceased animals, or vegetables, as well as to men. A sacrifice that had been offeree7 was dead; a tree that had fallen wai dead; an animal that had been torn by other wild animals was dead. It is possible that a people might have one word to refer to dead men, and another to dead animals, and another to dead vegetables; but what is the evidence that the Hebrews or the Greeks had such words? (3.) What is the meaning of this very word — vfKpos — nekros — in ch. vi. 1; ix. 14 of this very epistle when it is applied to works — ' dead works' — if it never refer to any thing but men? Comp. James ii. 17. 20. 26; Eph. ii. 1.5; Rev. iii. 1. In Eccl. ix. 4, it is applied to a dead lion. I suppose, therefore, that the Greek phrase here will admit of the interpretation which the ' exi gency of the place' seems to demand, and that the idea is, that a covenant with God was ratified over the ani mals slain in sacrifice, and was not considered as confirmed until the sa crifice was killed. <ft Otherwise. Since — 67T6i. That is, unless this takes place it will be of no force. ^[ It is of no strength. It is not strong — icr^vf 4 — it is not confirmed or ratified. «|[ While the testator liveth. Or while the ani mal selected to confirm the covenant is alive. It can be confirmed only by its being slain. A full examination

18 Whereupon first testament was without blood.

19 For a when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according1 to the law, he took the hlood of calves and of

of the meaning of this passage (Heb. ix. 16, 17) may be found in an article in the Biblical Repository, vol. xx. pp. 51 — 71, and in Prof. Stuart's reply to that article. Bib. Eepos. xx. pp. 356 —331.

18. Whereupsn. r'o6fv _ y hence. Or since this is a settled principle, or •an indisputable fact, it occurred in accordance with this, that the first covenant was confirmed by the shed ding of blood. The admitted princi ple which the apostle had stated, that the death of the victim was necessary to confirm the covenant, was the rea son why the first covenant was rati fied with blood. If there were any doubt about the correctness of the in terpretation given above, that vs. 16, 17, refer to a covenant, and not a will, this verse would seem to be enough to remove it. For how could the fact that a will is not binding until he who makes it is dead, be a reason why -a covenant should be confirmed by blood? What bearing would such a fact have on the question whether it ought or ought not to be confirmed in this manner? Or how could that fact, though it is universal, be given -as a reason to account for the fact that the covenant made by the instru mentality of Moses was ratified with Dlood? No possible connexion can be seen in such reasoning. But adonit that Paul had stated in vs. 16, 17, a general principle that in all cove nant transactions with God, the death of a victim was necessary, and every thing is plain. We then see why he offered the sacrifice and sprinkled the Talood. It was not on the basis of such reasoning as this: ' the death of a man who makes a will is indispensa ble before the will is of binding force, THEREFORE it was that Moses con firmed the covenant made with our fa thers by the blood of a sacrifice;' but >by such reasoning as this: ' It is a great principle that in order to ratify a covenant between God and his peo ple a victim should be slain, therefore it was that Moses ratified the old co venant in this manner, and therefore it was also that the death of a victim was necessary under the new dispen sation.' Here the reasoning of Paul is clear and explicit; but who could see the force of the former? Prof. Stuart indeed connects this verse with ver. 15, and says that the course of thought is. ' The new covenant of re demption from sin was sanctioned by the death of Jesus; consequently, or wherefore ( oQev} the old covenant which is a type of the new, was sanc tioned by the blood of victims.' But is this the reasoning of Paul? Does he say that because the blood of a Me diator was to be shed under the new dispensation, and because the old was a type of this, that THEREFORE the old was confirmed by blood? ]s he not rather accounting for the shedding of blood at all, and showing that it was necessary that the blood of the Mediator should be shed, rather than assuming that, and from that arguing that a typical shedding of blood was needful? Besides, on this supposition, why is the statement in vs. 16, 17, introduced? What bearing have these verses in the train of thought? What are they but an inexplicable obstruc tion? ^ The first testament. Or ra ther covenant— the word testament being supplied by the translators. ^f Was dedicated. Marg. Purified,. The word used to ratify, to confirm, to consecrate, to sanction. Literally, to renew. 4 Without blood. It was ratified by the blood of the animals that were slain in sacrifice. The blood was then sprinkled on the prin cipal objects that were regarded as holy under that dispensation.

goats, with water, and a scarlet both the book, and all the pecr \vool, and hyssop, and sprinkled » or purple.

he had recited all the kiw, and had given all the commandments intrust ed him to deliver. Ex. xxiv. 3. ^[ He took the blood of calves and of goats. This passage has given great perplex ity to commentators from the fact that Moses in his account of the trans actions connected with the ratifica tion of the covenant with the people, (Ex. xxiv.) mentions only a part of the circumstances here referred to. He says nothing of the blood of calves and of goats; nothing of water, and scarlet-wool, and hyssop; nothing of sprinkling the book, the tabernacle, or the vessels of the ministry. It has been made a question, therefore, whence Paul obtained a knowledge of these circumstances? Since the account is not contained in the Old Testament, it must have been either by tradition, or by direct inspiration. The latter supposition is hardly pro bable, for (1.) the information here can hardly be regarded as of suffi cient importance to have required an original revelation; for the illustration would have had sufficient force to sustain his conclusion if the literal account in Exodus only had been given, that Moses sprinkled the peo ple; but (2.) such an original act of inspiration here would not "have been consistent with the object of the apostle. In that argument it was es sential that he should state only the facts about the ancient dispensation which were admitted by the Hebrews themselves. Any statement of his own about things which they did not concede to be true, or which was not well understood as a custom, might have been called in question, and would have done much to invalidate the entire force of the argument. It is to be presumed, therefore, that the facts here referred to had been pre served by tradition; and in regard to this, and the authority due to such a tradition, we may remark, (1.) that it is well known that the Jews had a great number of traditions which they carefully preserved; (2.) that there is no improbability in the supposition that many events in their history would be preserved in this manner,, since in the small compass of a vo lume like the Old Testament it can not be presumed that all the events of their nation had been recorded; (3.) though they had many traditions of a trifling nature, and many which, were false (comp. Notes on Matt. xv. 2), yet they doubtless had many that were true; (4.) in referring to those traditions, there is no impropriety in supposing that Paul may have been guided by the Spirit of inspiration in selecting only those which were true; and (5.) nothing is more probable than what is here stated. If Moses sprin kled ' the people;' if he read ' the book of the law' then (Ex. xxiv. 7), and if this was regarded as a solemn act of ratifying a covenant with God, no thing would be more natural than that he should sprinkle the book of the covenant, and even the taberna cle and its various sacred utensils. We are to remember also, that it was common among the Hebrews to sprin kle blood for the purpose of conse crating, or as an emblem of purifying. Thus Aaron and his sons and their garments were sprinkled with blood when they were consecrated to the office of priests, Ex. xxix. 19—21; the blood of sacrifices was sprinkled on the altar, Lev. i. 5. 11; iii- 2. 13; and blood was sprinkled before the veil of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 16, 17; comp. Lev. vi 27; vii. 14. So Josephus speaks of the garments of Aaron and of his sons being sprinkled with " the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring Avater." Having conse crated them and their garments, he says, " for seven days together, he did the same to the tabernacle, and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oils and with blood of bulls and of rams." Ant. B. iii. ch. viiu

20 Saying, This is the blood a

§ 6. These circumstances show the strong probability of the truth of what is here affirmed by Paul, while it is impossible to prove that Moses did not sprinkle the book and the taber nacle in the manner stated. The mere omission by Moses cannot de monstrate that it was not done. On the phrase ' the blood of calves and of goats,' see note on ver. 12. ^f With water. Agreeably to the declaration of Josephus that ' spring water was used.' In Lev. xiv. 49 — 51, it is ex pressly mentioned that the blood of the bird that was killed to cleanse a house from the plague of leprosy should be shed over running water, and that the blood and the water should be sprinkled on the walls. It has been suggested also (see Bloomfield), that the use of water was necessary in order to prevent the blood from coagulating, or so as to make it pos sible to sprinkle it. ^[ And scarlet wool. Marg. Purple. The word here used denotes crimson, or deep-scai'let. Tl>e colour was obtained from a small insect which was found adhering to the shoots of a species of oak in Spain and in Western Asia, of about the size of a pea. It was regarded as the most valuable of the colours for dye ing, and was very expensive. Why the wool used by Moses was of this colour is not known, unless it be be cause it was the most expensive of colours, and thus accorded with every thing employed in the construction of the tabernacle and its utensils. Wool appears to have been used in order to absorb and retain the blood. •JT And hyssop. That is, a bunch of hyssop intermingled with the wool, or so connected with it as to constitute a convenient instrument for sprinkling. Comp. Lev. xiv. 51. Hyssop is a low shrub, regarded as one of the smallest of the plants, and hence put in con trast with the cedar of Lebanon. It sprung out of the rocks or walls, I. Kings iv. 33, and was used for pur poses of purification. The term seems to have comprised not only the com-

of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

mon hyssop, but also lavender and other aromatic plants. Its fragrance as well as its size, may have suggest ed the idea of using it in the sacred services of the tabernacle. ^[ And sprinkled both the book. This circum stance is not mentioned by Moses, but it has been shown above not to be im probable. Some expositors, however, in order to avoid the difficulty in the passage, have taken this in connexion with the word Aa/3«i/ — rendered ' he took' — meaning, ' taking the blood, and the book itself;' but the more natural and proper construction is, that the book was sprinkled with the blood. ^[ And all the people. Moses says, ' and sprinkled it on the people.' Ex. xxiv. 8. We are not to suppose that either Moses or Paul designs to say that the blood was actually sprinkled on each one of the three millions of people in the wilderness, but the meaning doubtless is that the blood was sprinkled over the people, though in fact it might have fallen on a few. So a man now standing on an elevated place, and surrounded by a large assembly, if he should sprinkle water over them from the place where he stood, might be said to sprinkle it on the people, though in fact but few might have been touched by it. The act would be equally sig nificant whether the emblem fell on few or many.

20. Saying, Tins is the blood of the testament. Of the covenant. See Notes on vs. 16, 17. That is, this is the blood by which the covenant is ratified. It was the means used to confirm it; the sacred and solemn form by which it was made sure. When this was done the covenant between God and the people was con firmed—as a covenant between man and man when it is sealed. *[ Which God hath enjoined unto you. In Ex. xxiv. 8, " which God hath made with you." The language used by Paul, ' which God hath enjoined'' — eVeretXaro — commanded — shows that

2T Moreover* lie sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the minis-

he did not regard this as strictly of the nature of a covenant, or compact When a compact is made between parties, one does not enjoin or com mand the other, but it is a mutual agreement. In the transactions be tween God and man, though called ^^—Bcrith, or diadrjKT], diatheke, the idea of a covenant or compact is so far excluded that God never loses his right to command or enjoin. It is not a transaction between equals, or an agreement; it is a solemn arrangement on the part of God which he proposes to men, and which he enjoins them to embrace; which they are not in deed at liberty to disregard, but which when embraced, is appropriately rati fied by some solemn act on their part. Comp. Notes on ch. viii. 6.

SI. He sprinkled— both the taber nacle. This circumstance is not stated by i xes. On the probability that this was done, see Notes in ver. 19. The account of setting up the taber nacle occurs in Ex. xl. In that ac count it is said that Moses anointed the tabernacle with the holy anoint ing oil. Vs. 9— 11. Josephus (Ant. B. III. ch. viii. § 6), says that he con secrated it and the vessels thereto be longing with the blood of bulls and of rams. This was undoubtedly the tra dition in the time of Paul, and no one can prove that it is not correct. «[[ And all the vessel? of the ministry. Employed in the service of God. The altar, the laver (Ex. xl. 10, 11), the censers, dishes, bowls, &c., which were used in the tabernacle.

22. And almost all things. It is a general custom to purify'every thing by blood. This rule was not univer sal, for some things were purified by fire and water (Num. xxxi. 22, 23), and some by water only. Num. xxxi..24; Lev. xvi. 26. 28. But the excep tions to the general rule were few. Almost every thing in the tabernacle

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood b is no remission.

and temple service was consecrated or purified by blood. ^[ And without shedding of blood is no remission. Bemission or forgiveness of sins. That is, though some things Avere purified by fire and water, yet when the mat ter pertained to the forgiveness of sins, it was universally true that no sins were pardoned except by the shedding of blood. Some impurities might be removed by water and fire, but the stain of sin could be removed only by blood. This declaration re ferred in its primary meaning, to the Jewish rites, and the sense is, that under that dispensation it was uni versally true that in order to the for giveness of sin blood must be shed. But it contains a truth of higher order and importance still. It is universally true that sin never has been, and never will be forgiven, except in connexion with, and in virtue of the shedding of blood. It is on this principle that the plan of salvation by the atone ment is based, and on this that God in fact bestows pardon on men. There is not the slightest evidence that any man has ever been pardoned except through the blood shed for the renm sion of sins. The infidel who rejects the atonement has no evidence that his sins are pardoned; the man who lives in the neglect of the gospel, though he has abundant evidence that he is a sinner, furnishes none that his sins are forgiven; and the Mussulman and the heathen can point to no proof that his sins are blotted out. It remains to be demonstrated that one single member of the human family has ever had the slightest evi dence of pardoned sin, except through the blood of expiation. In the divine arrangement there is no principle better established than this, that all sin which is forgiven is remitted through the blood of the atonement; a principle which has never been de- sary that the patterns of things

23 It was therefore neces- j 24 For Christ is not entered

into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear*1 in the presence of in the heavens should be

fied with these; but the hea venly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

parted from hitherto, and which never will be. It follows, therefore, (1.) that no sinner can hope for forgiveness except through the blood of Christ; (2.) that if men are ever saved they must be willing to rely on the merits of that blood; (3.) that all men are on a level in regard to salvation, since all are to be saved in the same way; and (4.) that there will be one and the same song in heaven — the song of redeeming love.

23. The patterns of things in the hea vens. The tabernacle and its various utensils. See notes on ch. viii. 5. ^[ Be purified with these. With water and blood, and by these ceremonies. ^But the heavenly things themselves. The heavenly tabernacle or sanctuary into which Christ has entered, and where he performs the functions of his min istry. The use of the word purified here applied to heaven, does not im ply that heaven was before unholy, but it denotes that it is now made ac cessible to sinners; or that they may come and worship there in an accept able manner. The ancient tabernacle was purified or consecrated by the blood of the victims slain, so that men might approach with acceptance and •vrorship; the heavens by purer blood are rendered accessible to the guilty. The necessity for ' better sacrifices' in regard to the latter was, that it was designed to make the conscience pure, and because the service in heaven is more holy than any rendered on earth. ^[ With belter sacrifices than these. To wit, the sacrifice made by the offering of the Lord Jesus on the cross. This infinitely surpassed in value all that had been offered under the Jewish dispensation.

24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands. Into the temple or tabernacle. The Jewish high priest alone entered into the most holy place; and the other priests into the holy place. Jesus being of the tribe of Judah, and not of Levi, never entered the temple proper. He had access only to the courts of the temple, in the same way as any other Jew had. See Notes on Matt. xxi. 12. He has entered into the true temple— heaven — of which the earthly tabernacle was the type. ^| Which are the figures of the true. Literally, the antitypes — dvriTwra. The word properly means that which is formed after a model, pattern, or type; and then that which corresponds to something or answers to it. The idea here is, that the type or fashion— t\ie true figure or form — was shown to Moses in the Mount, and then the tabernacle Avas made after that model, or corresponded to it. The tine original figure is heaven itself; the tabernacle was an antitype of that — or was so formed as in some sense to correspond to it. That is, it corresponded in regard to the matters under consideration — the most holy place denoted heaven; the mercy-seat and the shekinah were symbols of the presence of God, and of the fact that he shows mercy in heaven; the entrance of the high priest was em blematical of the entrance of the Re deemer into heaven; the sprinkling of the blood there was a type of what the Redeemer would do in heaven. ^[ Now to appear in the presence of God for us. As the Jewish high priest appeared before the shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence in the tabernacle, so Christ appears before God himself in our behalf in heaven. He has gone to plead for our salva tion; to present the merits of his blood as a permanent reason why we should be saved. Notes, Rom. viii. 34;: Heb. vii. 25.

25 ]>ior yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the founda-

25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often. The Jewish high priest entered the most holy place with blood once every year. In this respect theoffering made by Christ, and the work which he performed, differed from that of the Jewish high priest. It was not needful that he should en ter the holy place but once. Having entered there he permanently remains there. ^[ With the blood of others. That is, with the blood of calves, and goats. This is a second point in which the work of Christ differs from that of the JeMrish high priest. Christ entered there with his own blood. Notes on ver. 12.

26. For then must he often have suffered. That is, if his blood had no more efficacy than that which the Jewish high priest offered, and which was so often repeated, it would have been necessary that Christ should have often died. ^[ But now once. Once for all; once in the sense that it is not to be repeated again — a?ra£. *§ In the end of the world. In the last dispensation or economy; that under which the affairs of the world will be wound up. See the phrase fully ex plained in Notes ch. i. 2, and Acts ii. 17; I. Cor. x. 11, andlsa. ii. 2. ^ Hath he appeared. He has been manifested in human form. *§ To put away sin. (1.) To remove the punishment due to sin, or to provide a way of pardon; and (2.) to remove the stain of sin from the soul. See Notes on ver. 14. If By the sacrifice of himself. See Notes on ch. i. 3; ii. 14; vii. 27.

27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die. Or, ' since it is appointed unto men to die once only.' The ob ject of this is to illustrate the fact

tion of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is unto men once to die this b the judgment;

that Christ died but once for sin, and that is done by showing that the most important events pertaining to man occur but once. Thus it is with death. That does not, and cannot occur many times. It is the great lavr of our being that men die but once, and hence the same thing was to be expected to oc cur in regard to him who made the atonement. It could not be supposed that this great law pertaining to man would be departed from in the case of him who died to make the atone ment, and that he would repeatedly undergo the pains of death. The same thing was true in regard tothe judgment. Man is to be judged once and but once. The decision is to be final, and is not to be repeated. In like manner there was a fitness that the great Redeemer should die' but once, and that his death should, without being repeated, determine the destiny of man. There was a remark able oneness in the great events which most affected men; and neither death, the judgment, nor the atonement could be repeated. In regard to the declaration here that ' it is appointed unto men once to die,' we may ob serve, (1.) that death is the result of appointment. Gen. iii. 19. It is not the effect of chance or hap-hazarcl. It is not a ' debt of nature.' It is not the condition to which man wassubject by the laws of his creation. It is not to be accounted for by themere principles of physiology. God could as well have made the heart to play for ever as for fifty years. Death is no more the regular result of phy sical laws than the guillotine and the gallows are. It is in all cases the result of intelligent appointment, and- for an adequate cause. (2.) That cause, or the reason of that appointment, is sin. Notes, Rom. vi. 23. This is the adequate cause; this explains the whole of it. Holy beings do not die. There is not the slightest proof that an angel in heaven has died, or that any perfectly holy being has ever died except the Lord Jesus. In every death, then, we have a demonstration that the race is guilty; in each case \f mortality we have an effecting menento that we are individually trans gressors. (3.) Death occurs but once in this world. It cannot be repeated if we should desire to have it repeated. Whatever truths or facts then pertain to death, whatever lessons it is cal culated to convey, pertain to it as an event which is not to occur again. That which is to occur but once in an eternity of existence acquires, from that very fact, if there were no other circumstances, an immense import ance. What is to be done but once, we should wish to be done well. We should make all proper preparation for it: we should regard it with sin gular interest. If preparation is to be made for it, we should make all which we expect ever to make. A man who is to cross the ocean but once; to go aAvay from his home never to return, should make the right kind of preparation. He cannot come back to take that which he has forgotten; to arrange that Avhich he has neg lected; to give counsel which he has flailed to do; to ask forgiveness for offences for which he has neglected to seek pardon. And so of death. A man who dies, dies but once. He cannot come back again to make pre paration if lie has neglected it; to re pair the evils which he has caused by a wicked life; or to implore pardon for sins for which he had failed to ask forgiveness. Whatever is to be done with reference to death, is to be done once for all before he dies. (4.) Death occurs to all. ' It is appointed unto men' — to the race. It is not an appointment for:>ne, but for all. No one is appointed by name to die; and not an individual is designated as one who shall escape. No exception ia made in favour of youth, beauty, or blood; no rank or station is exempt; no merit, no virtue, no patriotism, no talent, can purchase freedom from it. In every other sentence which goes out against men there may be some hope of reprieve. Here there is none. We cannot meet an individual who is not under sentence of death. It is not only the poor wretch in the dungeon doomed to the gallows who is to die, it is the rich man in his palace; the gay trifler in the assembly room; -the friend that we embrace and love; and she whom we meet in the crowded saloon of fashion with all the graces of accomplishment and adorning. Each one of these is just as much under sentence of death as the poor wretch in the cell, and the execution on any one of them may occur be fore his. It is too for substantially the same cause, and is as really de served. It is for sin that all are doom ed to death, and the /acf that we must die should be a constant remem brancer of our guilt. (5.) As death is to occur to us but once, there is a cheering interest in the reflection that when it is passed it is passed for ever. The dying pang, the chill, the cold sweat, are not to be repeated. Death is not to approach us often — he is to be allowed to come to us but once. When we have once passed through the dark valley, we shall have the as surance that we shall never tread its gloomy way again. Once, then, let us be willing to die — since we can die but once; and let us rejoice in the assurance which the gospel fur nishes, that they who die in the Lord leave the world to go where death in any form is unknown. ^[ But after this the judgment. The apostle does not say how long after death this will be, nor is it possible for us to know. Acts i. 7; comp. Matt. xxiv. 36. We may suppose, however, that there will be two periods in which there will be an act of judgment passed on those who die. (1.) Immediately after death when they pass into the eternal world, when their destiny will

28 So Christ a was once of-

be made known to them. This seems to be necessarily implied in the sup position that they will continue to live, and to be happy or miserable after death. This act of judgment may not be formal and public, but it will be such as to show them what must be the issues of the final day, and as the result of that interview with God they will be made happy or miserable until the final doom shall be pronounced. (2.) The more public and formal act of judgment, when the whole world will be assembled at the bar of Christ. Matt. xxv. The de cision of that day will not change or reverse the former; but the trial will be of such a nature as to bring out all the deeds done on earth, and the sen tence which will be pronounced will be in view of the universe, and will fix the everlasting doom. Then the body will have been raised; the af fairs of the world will be wound up; the elect will all be gathered in, and the state of retribution will commence, to continue for ever. The main thought of the apostle here may be, that after death will commence a state of retribution which can never change. Hence there was a propriety that Christ should die but once. In that future world he would not die to make atonement, for there all will be fixed and final. If men, therefore, neglect to avail themselves of the benefits of the atonement here, the opportunity will be lost for ever. In that change less state which constitutes the eter nal judgment no sacrifice will be again offered for sin, there will be no opportunity to embrace that Saviour who was rejected here on earth.

28. So Christ was once offered. As men are to die but once; and as all beyond the grave is fixed by the judgment so that his death there would make no change in the destiny, there was a propriety that he should die but once for sin. The argument is, there is one probation only, and therefore there was no need of but one fered to bear the sins of many;b sacrifice, or of his dying but once. If death were to occur frequently in the existence of each individual, and if each intermediate period were a state of probation, then there might be a propriety that an atonement should be made with reference to each state. Or if beyond the grave there were a state of probation still, then also there might be a propriety that an atoning sacrifice should be offered there. But since neither of these things is true, there was a fitness that the great victim should die but once. *§ To bear the sins of many. To suffer and die on account of their sins. See Notes on Isa, liii. 6. 11; Gal. iii. 13. The phrase does not mean (1.) that Christ was a sinner — for that was in no sense true. See ch. vii. 26. Nor. (2.) that he literally bore the penalty due to transgression — for that is equally untrue. The penalty of the law for sin is all which the law when exe cuted inflicts on the offender for his transgression, and includes in fact remorse of conscience, overwhelming despair, and eternal punishment. But Christ did not suffer for ever, nor did he experience remorse of conscience, nor did he endure utter despair. Nor (3.) does it mean that he was literally punished for our sins. Punishment pertains only to the guilty. An inno cent being may suffer for what an other does, but there is no propriety in saying that he is punished for it A father suffers much from the mis conduct of a son, but we do not say that he is punished for it; a child suffers much from the intemperance of a parent — but no one would say that it was a punishment on the child. Men always connect the idea of criminality with punishment, and when we say that a man is punish ed, we suppose at once that there is guilt. The phrase here means simply, that Christ endured suffer ings in his own person which, if they had been inflicted on us, would have been the proper punishment of jind unto them that look a for

Jiim shall he appear b the se- sin. He who was innocent interposed, and received on himself what was de scending to meet us, and consented to be treated as he would have de served if he had been a sinner. Thus he bore what was due to us; and this in Scripture phrase is what is meant by bearing our iniquities. See Notes, Isa. liii. 4. ^[ And unto them that look for him. To his people. It is one of the characteristics of Christians that they look for the return of their Lord. Titus 'ii. 13; II. Pet. iii. 12; comp. Notes I. Thess. i. 10. They fully believe that he will come. They earnestly desire that he will come. II. Tim. iv. 8; Rev. xxii. 20. They are waiting for his appearing. I. Thess. i. 10. He left the world and ascended to heaven, but he will again return to the earth, and his people are looking for that time as the period when they shall be raised up from their graves; when they shall be pub licly acknowledged to be his, and when they shall be admitted to hea ven. See Notes on John xiv. 3. ^[ Shall he appear the second time. He first appeared as the man of sorrows to make atonement for sin. His second appearance will be as the Lord of his people, and the Judge of the quick and the dead. Matt. xxv. 31; see Notes Acts i. 11. The apostle does not say when this would be, nor is any inti mation given in the Scriptures when it will occur. It is on the contrary everywhere declared that this is con cealed from men (Acts i. 7; Matt, xxiv. 36), and all that is known re specting the time is, that it will be suddenly and at an unexpected mo ment. JNJatt. xxiv. 42. 44. 50. ^ With out sin. That is, when he comes again he will not make himself a sinoffering; or will not come in order to make atonement for sin. It is not implied that when he came the first time he was in any sense a sinner, but that lie came then with reference to sin, or that the main object of his incarnation was to ' put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.' When he comes the second time, it will be with reference to another object. % Unto salvation. That is, to receive his, friends and followers to eternal salva tion. He will come to save them from all their sins and temptations; to raise them from their graves; to place them at his right hand in glory, and to confirm them in the everlasting in heritance which he has promised to all who truly love him, and who wait for his appearing.

In view of this anticipated return of the Redeemer, we may remark —

(1.) There is a propriety that the Lord Jesus should thus return. He came once to be humbled, despised, and put to death; and there is a fit ness that he should come to be ho noured in his own world.

(2.) Every person on earth is inte rested in the fact that he will return, for " every eye shall see him." Rev. i. 7. All who are now in their graves, and all who now live, and all who will hereafter live, will behold the Re deemer in his glory.

(3.) It will not be merely to gaze upon him, and to admire his magnifi cence that they will see him. It will be for greater and more momen tous purposes — with reference to an eternal doom.

(4.) The great mass of men are not prepared to meet him. They donot believe that he will return; they do not desire that he should appear; they are not, ready for the solemn in terview which they will have with him. His appearing now would over whelm them with surprise and horror. There is nothing in the future which they less expect and desire than the second coming of the Son of God, and in the present state of- the world his appearance would produce almost universal consternation and despair

It would be like the coming of the flood of waters on the old world; like the sheets of flame on the cities of the plain; or as death now comes to the great mass of those who die.

(5.) Christians are prepared for his coming. They believe in it. They •desire it; they are expecting it. In this they are distinguished from all the world besides, and they would be ready to hail his coming as that of a friend, and to rejoice in his appear ance as that of their Saviour.

(6) Let us then live in habitual preparation for his advent. To each one of us he will come soon; to all he will come suddenly. Whether he come to remove us by death, or whe ther in the clouds of heaven to judge the world, the period is not far dis tant when we shall see him. Yes, our eyes shall behold the Son of God in his glory! That which we have long desired— a sight of our Saviour who died for us, shall soon, very soon be granted unto us. No Christian begins a week or a day in which there is not a possibility that before its close he may have seen the Son of God in his glory; none lies down upon his bed at night who may not, when the morning dawns upon this world, be gazing with infinite delight on the glories of the Great Redeemer in the heavens.

THE general subject of this chap ter is the sacrifice which Christ has made for sin, and the consequences •which flow from the fact that he has made a sufficient atonement. In chap ter IX., the apostle had shown that the Jewish rites were designed to be tem porary and typical, and that the offer ings which were. made under that dispensation could never remove sin. In this chapter he shows that the true sacrifice had been made by which sin could be pardoned, and that certain very important consequences followed from that fact. The subject of sacri fice was the most important part of the Jewish economy, and was also

. the essential thing in the Christian | dispensation, and hence it is that the i apostle dwells upon it at so great! length. The chapter embraces the following topics.

I. The apostle repeats what he had j said before about the inefficacy of the I sacrifices made under the law. Vs.

1 —4. The law was a mere shadoAV of good things to come, and the sacri fices which were made under it could never render those who offered them perfect. This was conclusively proved by the fact that they continued con stantly to be offered/

II. Since this was the fact in re gard to those sacrifices, a better offer • ing had been provided in the gospe. by the Redeemer. Vs. 5: — 10. A body had been prepared him for this work; and when God had said that he had no pleasure in the offerings under the law, Christ had come and offered his body once for all in order that any effectual atonement might be made for sin.

III. This sentiment the apostle fur ther illustrates by showing how this one great offering was connected with the forgiveness of sins. Vs. 11 — 18. Under the Jewish dispensation sacri fices were repeated every day; but under the Christian economy when the sacrifice was once made, he who had offered it sat down for ever on the right hand of God, for his great work was done. Having done this, he looked forward to the time Avhen his work would have full effect, and when his enemies would be made his footstool. That this was to be the effect of the offering made by the Messiah, the apostle then shows from the Scriptures themselves, where it is said (Jcr. xxxi. 33, 34), that under the gospel the laws of God would be written on the heart, and sin would be remembered no more. There must then be. the apostle inferred, some way by which this was to be secured, and this was by the great sacrifice on the cross, which had the effect of per fecting for ever those who were sanc tified.

IV. Since it was a fact that such of the things, can never with

OR the law, having a sha dow a of good things to come, and not the v&ry image an atonement had been made; that one great offering for sin had been presented to God which was never to be repeated, there were certain con sequences which followed from that, which the apostle proceeds to state. Vs. 19—25. They were these (a), the privilege of drawing near to God with full assurance of faith (ver. 22); (6) the duty of holding fast the pro fession of faith without wavering (ver. 23); (c) the duty of exhorting one another to fidelity and to good works (ver. 24); ((/) the duty of assembling for public worship, since they had a High Priest in heaven, and might now draw near to God. Ver. 25.

V. As a reason for fidelity in the divine life, and for embracing the of fer of mercy now made through the one sacrifice on the cross, the apostle urges the consequences which must follow from the rejection of that atone ment, and especially after having been made acquainted with the truth. Vs. 26 — 31. The result, says he, must be certain destruction. If that was rejected, there could remain nothing but a fearful looking for of judgment, for there was no other Avay of salva tion. In support of this, the apostle refers to what was the effect under the law of Moses for disobedience, and says that under the greater light of the gospel much more fearful results must follow.

VI. The chapter closes(vs. 32—39) with an exhortation to fidelity and perseverance. The apostle reminds those to whom he Avrote of what they had already endured; encourages them by the commendation of what they had already done, and especially by the kindness which they had shown to him; says that they had need only of patience, and that the time of their deliverance from all trial was not far off, for that lie who vras to come would those sacrifices which they of fered year by year continually make the comers thereunto per fect.

come; says that it was their duty to love by faith, but that if any one drew back, God could have no pleasure in him. Having thus at the close of the chapter alluded to the subject of faith, he proceeds in the following chapter to illustrate its value at length. The object of the whole is to encourage Christians to make strenuous efforts for salvation; to guard them against the danger of apostacy; and to exhort them to bear their trials with patience and with submission to the will of God.

1. For the law, having a shadow. That is, the whole of the Mosaic eco nomy was a shadow; for so the word law is often used. The word shadow here refers to a rough outline of any thing, a mere sketch, such as a car penter draws with a piece of chalk, or such as an artist delineates when he is about to make a picture. He sketches an outline of the object which he designs to draw, which has some resemblance to it, but is not the 'very image;' for it is not yet com plete. The words rendered ' the very image' refer to a painting or statue which is finished, where every part is an exact copy of the original. The ' good things to come' here refer to the future blessings which would be conferred on man by the gospel. The idea is, that under the ancient sacri fices there was an imperfect represen tation; a dim outline of the blessings which the gospel would impart to men. They were a typical represen tation; they were not such that it could be pretended that they would answer the purpose of the things themselves which they were to repre sent, and would make those who offer ed them perfect. Such a rude outline; such a mere sketch, or imperfect de lineation, could no more answer the purpose of saving the soul than the

2 For then1 would they not have ceased to be offered? be-

rough sketch which an architect makes would answer the purpose of a house, or than the first outline which a painter draws would answer the purpose of a perfect and finished por trait. All that could be done by either would be to convey some distant and obscure idea of what the house or the picture might be, and this was all that was done by the law of Mo ses. ^[ Can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year con tinually. The sacrifices here parti cularly referred to were those which were offered on the great day of atone ment. These were regarded as the most sacred and efficacious of all, and yet the apostle says that the very fact that they were offered every year showed that there must be some de ficiency about them, or they would have ceased to be offered. •[[ Make the comers thereunto perfect. They could not free them from the stains of guilt; they could not give ease to a troubled conscience; there was in them no efficacy by which sin could be put way. Comp. Notes on ch. vii. 11; ix. 9.

2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Marg. ' Or they ivould have.' The sense is the same. The idea is, that the very fact that they were repeated showed that there was some deficiency in them as to the matter of cleansing the soul from sin. If they had answered all the purposes of a sacrifice in putting away guilt, there would have been no need of repeating them in this manner. They were in this respect like medi cine. If that which is given to a patient heals him, there is no need of repeating it; but if it is repeated often it shows that there was some defi ciency in it, and if taken periodi cally through a man's life, and the disease should still remain, it would show that it was not sufficient to effect his cure. So it was with the offerings made by the Jews.

cause that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sius.

They were offered every year, and indeed every day, and still the disease of sin remained. The conscience was not satisfied; and the guilty felt that it was necessary that the sacri fice should be repeated again and again. *fi Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. That is, if their sacrifices had so availed as to remove their past sins, and to procure for giveness, they would have had no more trouble of conscience on account of them. They would not have felt that it was necessary to make these sacrifices over and over again in order to find peace. "When a man has full evidence that an atonement has been made which will meet all the de mands of the law, and which secures the remission of sin he feels that it is enough. It is all that the case de mands, and his conscience may have peace. But when he does not feel this, or has not evidence that his sins are all forgiven, those sins will rise to remembrance, and he will be alarmed. He may be punished for them after all. Thence it follows that if a man Avants peace he should have good evidence that his sins are forgiven through the blood of the atonement. No temporary expedient; no attempt to cover them up; no effort to forget them will answer the purpose. They must be blotted out if he will have peace — and that can be only through a perfect sacrifice. By the use of the word rendered ' con science' here, it is not meant that he who was pardoned would have no consciousness that he was a sinner, or that he would forget it, but that he would have no trouble of conscience; he would have no apprehension of future wrath. The pardon of sin does not cause it to cease to be remembered. He who is forgiven may have a deeper conviction of its evil than he had ever lad before. But he will not be trou bled or distressed by it as if it were

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

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. b

to expose him to the wrath of God. The remembrance of it will humble him; it will serve to exalt his con ceptions of the mercy of God and the glory of the atonement, but it will no longer overwhelm the mind with the dread of hell. This effect, the apostle says, was not produced on the minds of those who offered sacrifices every year. The very fact that they did it, showed that the conscience Avas not at peace.

3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. The reference here is to the sacrifices made on the great day of atonement. This occurred once in a year. Of course as often as a sacri fice was offered, _„ was an acknow ledgment of guilt on the part of those for whom it was made. As these sacrifices continued to be offered every year, they who made the offering were reminded of their guilt and their desert of punishment. All the efficacy which could be pretended to belong to those sacrifices, was that they made expiation for the past year. Their efficacy did not extend into the future, nor did it embrace any but those who were engaged in o!!'ering them. These sacrifices, therefore, could not make the atonement which man needed. They could not make the conscience easy; they could not be regarded as i a sufficient expiation for the time to j come, so that the sinner at any time | could plead an offering which was j already made as a ground of pardon, and they could not meet the wants of all men in all lands and at all times. These things are to be found only in that great sacrifice made by the Re deemer on the cross.

4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take I

5 Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith,c Sacri fice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou pre pared

away sins. The reference here is to the sacrifices which were made on the great day of the atonement, for on that clay the blood of bulls and of goats alone was offered. See Notes on ch. ix. 7. Paul here means to say, doubtless, that it was not possible that the blood of these animals should make a com plete expiation so as to purify the conscience, and so as to save the sin ner from deserved wrath. According to the divine arrangement, expiation was made by those sacrifices for offences of various kinds against the ritual law of Moses, and pardon for such offences was thus obtained. But the meaning here is, that there was no efficacy in the blood of a mere ani mal to -wash away a moral offence. It could not repair the law; it could not do any thing to maintain the jus tice of God; it had no efficacy tc make the heart pure. The mere shedding of the blood of an animal never could make the soul pure. This the apostle states as a truth which must be admitted at once as indispu table, and yet it is probable that many of the Jews had imbibed the opinion that there was such efficacy in blood shed according to the divine direction, as to remove all stains of guilt from the soul. See Notes ch. ix. 9. 10.

5. Wherefore. This word shows that the apostle means to sustain what he had said by a reference to the Old Testament itself. Nothing could be more opposite to the pre vailing Jewish opinions about the efficacy of sacrifice, than what he had just said. It was, therefore, of the highest importance to defend the position which he had laid down by authority which they would not presume to call in question, and he therefore makes his appeal to their own Scriptures. ^[ When he cometh into the world. When the Messiah came, for the passage evi dently referred to him. The Greek is, ' Wherefore coming into the world, he saitli.' It has been made a ques tion when this is to be understood as spoken — whether when he was born, or when he entered on the work of his ministry. Grotius understands it of the latter. But it is not material to a proper understanding of the pas sage to determine this. The simple idea is, that since it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, Christ coming into the Avorld made arrangements for a better sacrifice. ^[ He saith. That is, this is the language denoted by his great undertaking; this is what his coming to make an atone ment implies. We are not to suppose that Christ formally used these words on any occasion — for we have no re cord that he did — but this language is that which appropriately expresses the nature of his work. Perhaps also the apostle means to say that it was originally employed in the Psalm from which it is quoted in reference to him, or was indited by him with reference to his future advent. ^[ Sa crifice and offering t/iou wouldest not. This is quoted from Ps. xl. G. 8. There has been much perplexity felt by expositors in reference to this quo tation, and after all which has been written, it is not entirely removed. The difficulty relates to these points. (1.) To the question whether the Psalm originally had any reference to the Messiah. The Psalm appears to have pertained merely to David, and it would probably occur to no one on reading it to suppose that it referred to the Messiah, unless it had been so applied by the apostle in this place. (2.) There are many parts of the Psalm, it has been said, which cannot, without a very forced inter pretation, be applied to Christ. See vs. 2. 12. 14 — 16. (3.) The argument of the apostle in the expression " a body hast thou prepared me," seems to be based on a false translation of the Septuagint which he has adopted, and it is difficult to see on what prin ciples he has done it. It is not the i design of these Notes to go into an: extended examination of questions of! this nature. Such examination must be sought in more extended commenj taries, and in treatises expressly rej lating to points of this kind. On the design of Ps. xl., and its applicability to the Messiah, the reader may con sult Prof. Stuart on the Hebrews, Ex cursus xx. and Kuinoel in loc. After the most attentive examination which I can give of the Psalm, it seems to me probable that it is one of the Psalms which had an original and i exclusive reference to the Messiah, | and that the apostle has quoted it just as it was meant to be understood by the Holy Spirit, as applicable to him. The reasons for this opinion are briefly these. (1.) There are such Psalms, as is admitted by all. The Messiah was the hope of the Jewish people; he was made the subject of their most sublime prophecies, and nothing was more natural than that he should be the subject of the songs of their sacred bards. By the spirit of inspiration they saw him in the distant future in the various circum stances in which he would be placed, and they dwelt with delight upon the vision. Comp. Intro, to Isaiah, § 7. iii. (2.) The fact that it is here ap plied to the Messiah, is a strong cir cumstance to demonstrate that it had an original applicability to him. This proof is of two kinds. First, that it is so applied by an inspired apostle, which, with all Avho admit his inspira tion seems decisive of the question. Second, the fact that he so applied it shows that this was an ancient and admitted interpretation. The apostle Avas writing to those who had been Jews, and whom he was desirous to convince of the truth of what he \vas alleging in regard to the nature of the Hebrew sacrifices. For this purpose it was necessary to appeal to the Scriptures of the Old Testament but it cannot be supposed that he would adduce a passage for proot

•whose relevancy would not be admit ted. The presumption is that the passage was in fact commonly ap plied as here. (3.) The whole of the Psalm may be referred to the Messiah without any thing forced or unnatural. The Psalm throughout seems to be made up of expressions used by a suffering person, who had indeed bean delivered from some evils, but who was expecting many more. The principal difficulties in the way of such an interpretation relate to the following points. - (a.) In ver. 2, the speaker in the Psalm says, "He brought me up out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock," and on the ground of this he gives thanks to God. But there is no real difficulty in supposing that this may refer to the Messiah. His enemies often plotted against his life; laid snares for him and endea voured to destroy him, and it may be that he refers to some deliverance from such machinations. If it is objected to this that it is spoken of as having been uttered ' when he came into the world,' it may be replied, that that phrase does not necessarily refer to the time of his birth, but that he ut tered this sentiment sometime during the period of his incarnation. ' He coming into the world for the purpose of redemption made use of this lan guage.' In a similar manner we would say of Lafayette, that ' he, coming to jhe United States to aid in the cause of liberty, suffered a wound in battle.' That is, during the period in which j he was engaged in this cause, he suf fered in this manner. (6.) The next objection or difficulty relates to the application of ver. 12 to the Messiah. * Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of my head; therefore my heart faileth me.' To meet this, some have suggested that he refers to the sins of men which he took upon himself, and which he here speaks of as his own. But it is not true that the- Lord Jesus so took upon himself the sins of others that they could be called his. They were not his, for he was in every sense ' holy, harmless, and undefiled.' The true solution of this difficulty, pro bably, is, that the word rendered iniquity — "1137 — means calamity, mis fortune, trouble. See Ps. xxxi. 10; I. Sam. xxviii. 10; II. Kings vii. 9; Ps. xxxviii. 6; comp. Ps. xlix. 5. The proper idea in the word is that of turning away, curving, making crook ed; and it is thus applied to any thing which is perverted or turned from the right way; as Avhen one is turned from the path of rectitude, or commits sin; when one is turned from the way of prosperity or happi ness, or is exposed to calamity. This seems to be the idea demanded by the scope of the Psalm, for it is not a peni tential Psalm, in which the speaker is recounting his sins, but one in which be is enumerating his sorrows; prais ing God in the first part of the Psalm for some deliverance already experi enced, and supplicating his interposi tion in view of calamities that he saw to be coming upon him. This interpre tation also seems to be demanded in ver. 12 of the Psalm by the parallel ism. In the former part of the verse, the word to which 'iniquity' corre sponds, is not sin, but evil, i. e., cala mity.

If the word, therefore, be used here as it often is, and as the scope of the Psalm and the connexion seem to de mand, there is no solid objection against applying this verse to the Messiah, (c.) A third objection to this application of the Psalm to the Messiah is, that it cannot be supposed that he would utter such imprecations on his enemies as are found in vs. 14, 15. ' Let them be ashamed and con founded; let them be driven back ward; let them be desolate.' To this it may be replied, that such impreca tions are as proper in the mouth of the Messiah as of David; but particu larly, it may be said also, that they are improper in the mouth of neither. Both David and the Messiah did in fact utter denunciations against the enemies of piety and of God. God does the same thing in his word and by his Providence. There is no evi dence of any malignant feeling in this; nor is it inconsistent with the highest benevolence. The lawgiver who says that the murderer shall die, may have a heart full of benevolence; the judge who sentences him to death, may do it with eyes filled with tears. The objections, then, are not of such.'t nature that it is improper to regard this Psalm as wholly applicable to the Messiah. (4.) The Psalm cannot be applied with propriety to David, nor do we know of any one to whom it can be but to the Messiah. When was it true of David that he said that he ' had come to do the will of God in view of the fact that God did not re quire sacrifice and offerings?' In what ' volume of a book' was it writ ten of him before his birth that he « delighted to do the will of God?' When was it true that he had ' preach ed righteousness in the great congre gation?' These expressions are such as can be applied properly only to the Messiah, as Paul does here; and tak ing all these circumstances together, it will probably be regarded as the most proper interpretation to refer the whole Psalm at once to the Redeemer, and thus to suppose that Paul has used it in strict accordance with its original design. The other difficulties referred to will be considered in the exposition of the passage. — The difference be tween sacrifice and offering is, that the former refers to bloody sacrifices; the latter to any oblation made to God — as a thank-offering; an offering of flour, oil, £c. See Notes on Isa. ill. When it is said ' sacrifice and offer ing thou wouldest not.' the meaning is not that such oblations were in no sense acceptable to God — for as his appointment, and when offered with a sincere heart, they doubtless were; but that they were not as acceptable to him us obedience, and especially as the ex pression is used here that they could not avail to secure the forgiveness of sins. They were not in their own nature such as was demanded to make an expiation for sin, and hence a body was prepared for the Messiah by which a more perfect sacrifice could be made. The sentiment here ex pressed occurs more than once in the Old Testament. Thus, I. Sam. xv. 22. " Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." Hos. vi. 6. " For I de sired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings." Comp. Ps. li. 16, 17. " For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit." This was an indisputable principle of the Old Testament, though it was much obscured and forgotten in the com mon estimation among the Jews. In accordance with this principle the Messiah came to render obedience o/ the highest order, even to such an ex tent that he was willing to lay down his own life. ^[ But a body hast thou prepared me. This is one of the pas sages which has caused a difficulty in understanding this quotation from the Psalm. The difficulty is, that it differs from the Hebrew, and that the apostle builds an argument upon it. It is not unusual indeed in the New Testament to make use of the lan guage of the Septuagint even where it varies somewhat from the Hebrew; and where no argument is based on such a passage, there can be no cMfficulty in such a usage, since it is not uncommon to make use of the lan guage of others to express our own thoughts. But the apostle does not appear to have made such a use of the passage here, but to have applied it in the way of argument. The ar gument, indeed, does not rest wholly, perhaps not principally, on the fact that a ' body had been prepared' for the Messiah; but still this was evi dently in the view of the apostle an important consideration, and this is the passage on which the proof of this is based. Tho Hebrew (Ps. xl.