1 Various READING.—Though the textus receptus omits odx, it is restored in most of the critical editions. Tischendorf in its favour appeals to all the uncial mss., by far the most of the others, most of the versions, and many fathers. This passage is one in which the a. v. differs from the tewtus receptus.—Ep.
432 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. X.
good things to come,” and so could not effect that which was to be done only by the good things themselves. Here the same truth is proved “ab effectu,” or “& signo,” from a demonstrative sign and evidence of it in their repetition.
The present argument, therefore, of the apostle is taken from a sign of the wmpotency and insufficiency which he had before asserted. There is, as was observed, a variety in the original copies, some having the negative particle odx, others omitting it. If that note of negation be allowed, the words are to be read by way of interroga- tion, “ Would they not have ceased to be offered?” that is, they would have done so, or, God would not have appointed the repetition of them. If it be omitted, the assertion is positive, “They would have then ceased to be offered;” there was no reason for their con- tinuance, nor would God have appointed it. And the notes of the inference, éve/ dy, are applicable unto either reading: ‘ For then in that case, on this supposition that they could perfect the worshippers, would they not (or, they would) have ceased to be offered? There would have been rest given unto them, a stop put to their offering.’ That is, God would have appointed them to have been offered once, and no more. So the apostle observes signally of the sacrifice of Christ, that he “once offered” himself, that he offered “once for all;” because by one offering, and that once offered, he did perfect them that were sanctified or dedicated unto God thereby.
That which the apostle designs to prove, is that they did not by their own force and efficacy for ever perfect the church, or bring it unto that state of justification, sanctification, and acceptance with God, which was designed unto it, with all the privileges and spiritual worship belonging unto that state. That this they did not do he declares in the words following, by a notable instance included in their repetition. For all means of any sort, as such, do cease when their end is attained. The continuance of their use is an evidence that the end proposed is not effected.
In opposition unto this argument in general it may be said, ‘That this reiteration or repetition of them was not because they did not perfectly expiate sins, the sins of the offerers, all that they had com- mitted and were guilty of before their offering; but because those for whom they were offered did again contract the guilt of sin, and so stood in need of a renewed expiation hereof.’
In answer unto this objection, which may be laid against the foundation of the apostle’s argument, I say there are two things in the expiation of sin: first, The effects of the sacrifice towards God, in making atonement; secondly, The application of those effects unto our consciences. The apostle treats not of the latter, or the means of the application of the effects and benefits of the expiation
\ "Evel ay
"Exaicuyro TpooPepoweevert.
4
VER. 2, 3.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 433
of sin unto our consciences, which may be many, and frequently re-
peated. Of this nature are still all the ordinances of the gospel; and so also are our own faith and repentance. The principal end, in particular, of that great ordinance of the supper of the Lord, which by his own command is frequently to be repeated, and ever was so in the church, is to make application unto us of the virtue and effi- cacy of the sacrifice of Christ in his death unto our souls. Fora renewed participation of the thing signified is the only use of the frequent repetition of the sign. So renewed acts of faith and re- pentance are continually necessary, upon the incursions of new acts of sin and defilement. But by none of these is there any atonement made for sin, or an expiation of it; only the one, the great sacrifice of atonement, is applied unto us, not to be repeated by us. But the apostle treats only of that we mentioned in the first place, the effi- cacy of sacrifices to make reconciliation and atonement for sin before God; which the Jews expected from them. And actings towards God need no repetition, to make application of them unto him. Wherefore God himself being the only object of sacrifices tor the expiation of sin, what cannot be effected towards him and with him by one and at once, can never be done by repetition of the same.
Supposing, therefore, the end of sacrifices to be the making of atonement with God for sin, and the procurement of all the privi- leges wherewith it is accompanied,—which was the faith of the Jews concerning them,—and the repetition of them doth invincibly prove that they could not of themselves effect what they were applied unto or used for; especially considering that this repetition of them was enjoined to be perpetual, whilst the law continued in force. If they could at any time have perfected the worshippers, they would have ceased to be offered; for unto what end should that continuance serve? To abide in a show or pretence of doing that which is done already, doth no way answer the wisdom of divine institutions.