But the argument of the apostle against the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ, from the necessity of his suffering therein, is full of light and evidence; for, —
(1.) It was inconsistent with the wisdom, goodness, grace, and love of God, that Christ should often suffer in that way which was
necessary unto the offering of himself, namely, by his death and
blood-shedding. It was not consistent with the wisdom of God to provide that as the ultimate and only effectual means of the expia-
‘tion of sin which was insufficient for it; for so it would have been
if the repetition of it had been necessary. Nor was it so with his unspeakable love unto his Son, namely, that he should frequently suffer an ignominious and cursed death. It is the eternal object of the admiration of men and angels, that he should do it once. Had it been done often, who could have understood the love of the
Father unto the Son, and not rather have conceived that he re-
garded him not in comparison of the church? whereas indeed his love to him is greater than that unto all others, and the cause of it. And moreover, it would have been highly dishonourable unto the Son of God, giving an appearance that his blood was of no more value or excellency than the blood of beasts, the sacrifice whereof was often repeated.
(2) It was impossible, from the dignity of his person. Such a repetition of suffering was not consistent with the glory of his per- son, especially as it was necessary to be demonstrated unto the sal- vation of the church. That he once “emptied himself, and made himself of no reputation,” that he might be “ obedient unto death, the death of the cross,” proved a stumbling-block unto the unbe- lieving Jews and Gentiles. The faith of the church was secured
398 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. Ix.
by the evident demonstration of his divine glory which immediately ensued thereon. But as the frequent repetition hereof would have been utterly inconsistent with the dignity of his divine person, so the most raised faith could never have attained a prospect of his glory.
(3.) It was altogether needless, and would have been useless. For, as the apostle demonstrates, “ by one offering” of himself, and that once offered, “he put away sin,” and “ for ever perfected them that are sanctified.”
Wherefore the argument of the apostle is firm on this supposition, that if he were often to offer himself then was he often to suffer also. But that he should so do, was, as inconsistent with the wisdom of God and the dignity of his own person, so altogether needless as _ unto the end of his offering. And,— 3
Obs. I. As the sufferings of Christ were necessary unto the ex- piation of sin, so he suffered neither more nor oftener than was necessary.
2. The argument is also built on another supposition, namely, that there was a necessity for the expiation of the sin of all that were to be saved from the foundation of the world. For otherwise it might be objected, that there was no need at all that Christ should either offer or suffer before. he did so, and that now it may be yet necessary that he should often offer himself, seeing that all sins before were either punished absolutely, or their sins were ex- piated and themselves saved some other way. And those by whom this supposition is rejected, as it is by the Socinians, can give no colour of force unto the argument of the apostle, although they in- vent many allusions, whereby they endeavour to give countenance unto it. But whereas he discourseth of the only way and means of the expiation of sin, to prove that it was done at once, by the one offering of Christ, which needed no repetition, he supposeth, (1.) That sin entered into the world from the foundation of it, or imme- diately upon its foundation, namely, in the sin and apostasy of our first parents. (2.) That notwithstanding this entrance of it, many who were sinners, as the patriarchs from the beginning, and the whole Israel of God under the old testament, had their sins ex- piated, pardoned, and were eternally saved. (8.) That none of the sacrifices which they offered themselvés, none of the religious ser- vices which they performed, either before or under the law, could expiate sin, or procure the pardon thereof, or consummate them in conscience before God. (4.) That all this, therefore, was effected by virtue of the sacrifice or one offering of Christ. Hence it follows unavoidably, that if the virtue of this one offering did not extend unto the taking away of all their sins, then he must often have suf- fered and offered from the foundation of the world, or they must
(oo
VER. 26.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 899
all have perished, at least all but only those of that generation wherein he might have once suffered. But this he did not, he did not thus often offer himself; and therefore there was no need that he should so do, though it was necessary that the high priest under the law should repeat his every year. For if the virtue of his one offering did extend itself unto the expiation of the sins of the church from the foundation of the world, before it was offered, much more might and would it extend itself without any repetition unto the expiation of the sins of the whole church unto the end of the world, now it is actually offered. ‘This is the true force and reason of the argument in these words, which is cogent and conclusive. And we may hence observe, that,—