Fourthly, In the last place, the apostle passeth that sentence con- cerning them all, whose truth he had before sufficiently confirmed, “They cannot,” they never could, “take away sins.” They could not wepieAciy, “ take them out of the way;” that is, absolutely, perfectly, as the word denotes. They could not do it before God, the judge, by making a sufficient atonement for them, verse 4; they could not do it as unto the conscience of the sinner, giving him assured peace with God thereon. ‘It may be they could not do it at any one time, but in the constant continuance in the use and observation of them they might do it; if they were multiplied, if they were costly, if they were observed in an extraordinary manner,
Oi%éaore 34. they might effect this end? No, saith the apostle, veuyree, “they could not do it,’—odd:more dbvavran The defect
Kal nutpay.
TlepitAeiy.
‘was in their own nature and power,—“ they cannot do it.” They 4
- the verse foregoing; 6é, “but.” It is not exceptive, but
VER. 11-14.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS, 485
could not do it by any means, nor at any time. The word is a vehement negation, respecting all the powers. of those sacrifices, and all the times wherein they were used. And therefore, as unto those things which might seem to give them their efficacy, as their multiplication, their constancy, their cost, extraordinary care about them, God doth reject them in a peculiar manner, when trusted unto for the taking away of sin, Isa. i. 11; Mic. vi. 6, 7.
Obs. I. If all those divine institutions, in the diligent observation of them, could not take away sin, how much less can any thing do so that we can betake ourselves unto for that end!—There are in-
. numerable things invented in the Papacy to take away sin and its
guilt, especially of those sins which they are pleased to call venial. And all men, on the conviction of sin, are apt to entertain thoughts that by some endeavours of their own they may so take them away. To comply with this presumption are all the papal inventions of confession, absolution, indulgences, masses, penances, purgatory, and the like, accommodated. Others trust solely unto their own re- pentance and following duties, as do the Socinians, and all men in— their unrenewed estate. But certainly if the apostle proveth this assertion beyond contradiction, that none of them could ever take away any sin, that their legal institutions of divine worship and their observations could not do it; how much less can the inventions of men effect that great end! This account he gives us of the ineffi- cacy of the sacrifices of the priests, notwithstanding their diligent attendance on their offerings, verse 11.
Ver. 12-14.—In these verses the apostle opposeth that one sacri- fice of Christ unto the legal offerings that the priests attended unto ; and that in three things: 1. In the nature of it, and its perfection, ver. 12. ‘2. The consequence on the part of Christ, by whom it was offered, ver. 12,13. 3. In the effect of it towards the church, ver. 14
Ver. 12.—“ But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.”
First, There is a note of opposition, answering the x«/, “and,” in alternative. as
Secondly, The person spoken of, adréc, “he;” that is, ‘he of whom we speak,’ he whose body was offered once for all, Jesus Christ, the high priest of the new testament. « But this man,” say we. _ Thirdly, What is ascribed unto him in these words, M/ay imp cmupriiy mpocsveyxas Yuolay,—< After he had offered jay sap one sacrifice for sins.” He offered as the priests did; dmaepridy spoo- he offered for sin as they did also: so far there was ™7*** 9¢7@” an agreement. But, 1. He offered only one sacrifice, not many.
Aurés,
A86 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. X.
And what is included therein ?—that this sacrifice was of himself, and not the blood of bulls and goats. 2. It was but once offered; and it is principally called “ one sacrifice” because it was but once offered. And the time when he offered this sacrifice is also pro- posed, not absolutely, but with respect unto what ensued: it was before he “sat down on the right hand of God;’ that is, before his entrance into glory, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin. And the way of mentioning these things doth manifest that the principal intention of the apostle is to speak unto the different consequences of this offering of the priests of old and of Christ. And this observation, of his offering “ one sacrifice” only for sin, is mentioned in opposition unto the frequent repetition of their sacri- fices; but he mentioneth it only transiently, to make a way for the great ensuing differences in the consequents of them. Howbeit in these words, thus transiently mentioned, he judgeth and condemneth the two grand oppositions that at this day are made against that one sacrifice of Christ, and efficacy of it. The first is that of the Papists, who in the mass pretend to multiply the sacrifices of him every day, whereas he offered but “once;” so as that the repetition, of it is destructive unto it. The other is that of the Socinians, who would have the offering and sacrifice of Christ to be only his ap- pearance before God to receive power to keep us from the punish- ment of sin, upon his doing of the will of God in the world. But the words are express as unto the order of these things; namely, that he offered his sacrifice for sins before his exaltation in glory, or his sitting down on the right hand of God. And herein doth the apostle give glory unto that offering of Christ for sins, in that it perfectly accomplished what all legal sacrifices could not effect. This, therefore, is the only repose of troubled souls.