Secondly, From a supposition of the contrary unto what he had affirmed, the apostle proves not only the truth, but the necessity of his assertion.

1. For then,' di avtov, he must, he ought, he would have been a debtor,' as the Syriac speaks; it would have been due from him, and indispensably required of him. It would have been so necessitate medii, which is the greatest in divine institutions and duties. There could have been no such thing, unless that which he now infers from it be allowed, which was utterly impossible.

2. That which he ought so to have done, is abur, 'to suffer in the offering of himself. All the sufferings of Christ, in the whole course of his humiliation and obedience, are sometimes expressed by this word, as ch. v. S. But the suffering here intended is that of his death, and the shedding of his blood therein alone; that which accompanied, and was inseparable from his actual sacrifice, or the immactation of himself; to have died, to have shed his blood, to have underwent the penalty and curse of the law.

3. Пoλaxis, often,' frequently,' as the high priest offered sacrifice of old, once every year.

6

4. Απο καταβολής κόσμο, Since, or rather from,' the foundation of the world.' This expression is sometimes used absolutely for the original of the world in its creation; for the absolute beginning of time and all things measured by it, Eph. i. 4. Matt. xxv. 34. John xvii. 24. I Peter i. 20. Sometimes from what immediately succeeded on that beginning, Matt. xiii. 35. Luke xi. 50. Heb. iv. 3. Rev. xiii. 8. And it is in the latter sense that it is here used. From the foundation of the world,' that is, from the first entrance of sin into the world, and the giving of the first promise, which was immediately after the creation of it, or its foundation and constitution in its original frame. This is the first thing on record in the Scripture, So God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, since the world began,' Luke i. 71. that is, the first revelation of God unto the church concerning the Messiah, with all that succeeded. So Christ is said to be a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,' Rev. xiii. 8. because of the efficacy of his sacrifice, extending itself unto the first entrance of sin, and the promise thereon, immediately on the foundation of the world. Wherefore, the foundation of the world,' absolutely, is in its creation. Before the foundation of the world,' is an expression of eternity, and the counsels of God therein, Eph. i. 4. 1 Pet. i. 20. From the foundation of the world,' is mostly the first entrance of sin, and God's dispensation of grace in Christ thereon.

Thirdly, The third thing considerable in the words, is the nature and force of the argument contained in them; and it is

taken from the most cogent topics. For it is founded on these evident suppositions.

First, That the suffering and offering of Christ are inseparable. For although, abstracted from the present subject-matter, suffering is one thing, and offering another, yet the Lord Christ offered himself unto God, in and by his suffering of death. And the reason hereof is, because he himself was both the priest and the sacrifice. The high priest of old offered often, yet never once suffered therein, for he was not the sacrifice itself. It was the lanib that was slain, that suffered. Christ being both, he could not offer without suffering; no more than the high priest could offer without the suffering of the beast that was slain. And herein doth the force of the argument principally consist. For he proves that Christ did not, nor could offer himself often, not absolutely, as though the reiteration of any kind of oblation were impossible, but from the nature of his especial offering or sacrifice, which was with and by suffering, that is, his death and blood-shedding. And this wholly explodes the Socinian imagination of the nature of the offering of Christ. For if his offering might be separated from his suffering, and were nothing but the presentation of himself in the presence of God in heaven, it might have been reiterated without any inconvenience, nor would there have been any force in the arguing of the apostle. For if his oblation be only that presentation of himself, if God had ordered that it should have been done only at certain seasons, as once every year, nothing inconvenient would have ensued. 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,

Obs. I. 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 expiation of sin, which was insufficient for it; for so it would have been, if the repetition of it had been necessary. Nor was it consistent with his unspeakable love unto his Son, 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 regarded him not in comparison of the church? whereas indeed his love to him is greater than that unto all others, and is 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.

Obs. II. It was impossible from the dignity of his person.Such a repetition of suffering was not consistent with the glory of his person, especially as it was necessary to be demonstrated unto the salvation of the church. That he once emptied himself, and made himself of no reputation, that he might be obedient unto the death, the death of the cross, proved a stumbling-block unto the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. The faith of the church was secured 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.

Obs. III. It was altogether needless, and would have been useless. For, as the apostle demonstrates, by one offering of himself, and that once offered, he took 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, as altogether needless as unto the end of his offering. And hence observe,

Obs. IV. As the sufferings of Christ were necessary unto the expiation of sin, so he suffered neither. more nor oftener than was necessary.

Secondly, The argument is also built on another supposition; namely, that there was a necessity of 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 expiated 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 invent 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 of fering of Christ, which needed no repetition; he supposeth, 1. That sin entered into the world from the foundation of it, or immediately 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 expiated, pardoned, and were eternal

ly saved. 3. That none of the sacrifices which they offered themselves, none of the religious services 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, that then he must often have suffered and offered from the foundation of the world; or they must 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 were 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,

Obs. V. The assured salvation of the church of old, from the foundation of the world, by virtue of the one offering of Christ, is a strong confirmation of the faith of the church, at present to look for and expect everlasting salvation thereby.To this end we may consider,

First, That their faith had all the difficulties to conflict withal, that our faith is exercised with; and yet it carried them through them all, and was victorious. This argument, for the strengthening of our faith, the apostle insists upon in the whole ele-. venth chapter throughout. In particular, 1. They had all the trials, afflictions, and temptations, that we have. Some of them unto such a degree, as the community of believers met not withal. Yet was not their faith by any of them prevailed against. And why should we despond under the same trials? 2. They had all of them the guilt of sin, in the same or the like kind with us. Even Elijah was a man subject unto the like passions with others. Yet did not their sin hinder them from being brought unto the enjoyment of God; nor shall ours, if we walk in the steps of their faith. 3. They had all the same enemies to conflict withal that we have. Sin, the world and Satan, made no less opposition unto them, than they do unto us; yet were they victorious against them all. And following their example, we may look for the same success.

Secondly, They wanted many advantages of faith and holiness which we enjoy. For, 1. They had not a clear revelation of the nature of God's way of salvation. This is that which

gives life and vigour unto gospel faith. Yet did they follow God through the dark representation of his mind and grace, unto the eternal enjoyment of him. We cannot miss our way, unless we wilfully neglect so great salvation. 2. They had not such plentiful communications of the Holy Spirit, as are granted under the gospel. But being faithful in that little which they received, they missed not of the reward. 3. They had not that light, those directions, for the actings of faith unto consolation and assurance, with many more advantages unto all the ends of faith and obedience, which believers now enjoy. Yet in this state and condition, by virtue of the one offering of Christ, they were all pardoned and eternally saved. The consideration hereof tends greatly to the confirmation of the faith of them who truly believe.

The latter part of this verse contains the confirmation of the argument proposed in the former. And it consists in a declaration of the true state, nature, efficacy and circumstances of the one offering of Christ now accomplished according unto the will of God.

There are three things in the words. 1. An opposition unto, or a rejection of, the supposition of Christ's offering himself of ten since the foundation of the world. 2. An assertion of the use, end and efficacy of that offering; manifesting the uselessness of its repetition. 3. The means of accomplishing that end, or whereby he came to offer himself.

The opposition unto the rejected supposition is in these words; but now once in the end of the world.' And every word hath its distinct force in the opposition.

עשע

1. As unto the time in general: vode, but now.' No, 'now,' generally is a limitation of time unto the present season, opposed to TT, then.' But sometimes it is only a note of opposi tion when joined with, but, as in this place. It may be taken in either sense, or include both. In the latter, but now,' is no more, but it is not so, it is otherwise,' and so declared to be; he did not offer himself often since the world began. A limitation of time may also be included in it. Now, at this time and season,' it is declared that things are otherwise ordered and disposed. This makes the opposition more emphatical. Now it is,' and 'now only,' that Christ hath suffered, and not before.

us,

2. He did this once,' axa, which is opposed unto often. The apostle useth this word on this occasion, ver. 28. ch. x. 2.; so 1 Pet. iii. 18. So he doth ñ, once for all,' ch. x. 10. He hereby confines our thoughts about the offering of Christ unto that time and action wherein he offered himself unto God in his death. He speaks of it as a thing once performed and then past, which cannot be referred unto the continual presentation of himself in heaven. Thus it is, saith he, in