Verse 2

For otherwise they would have ceased to be offered; because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

The words contain a confirmation by a new argument of what was affirmed in the verse foregoing. And it is taken from the frequent repetitions of those sacrifices. The thing to be proved is the insufficiency of the Law to perfect the worshippers by its sacrifices. This he proves in the foregoing verse, from the formal cause of that insufficiency; which is, that in them all it had but a shadow of 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 à 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 impotency and insufficiency which he had before asserted. There is, as was observed, a variety in the original copies, some having the negative particle, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], others omitting it. If that note of negations be allowed, the words are to be read by way of interrogation; 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 continuance, nor would God have appointed it. And the notes of the inference, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], are applicable to 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 to 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 to 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 to that state of justification, sanctification and acceptance with God, which was designed to it, with all the privileges and spiritual worship belonging to 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 to 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 committed 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 to 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 to our consciences. The Apostle treats not of the latter, or the means of the application of the effects and benefits of the expiation of sin to our consciences, which may be many and frequently repeated. 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 to us of the virtue and efficacy of the Sacrifice of Christ in his death to our souls. For a renewed participation of the thing signified, is the only use of the frequent repetition of the sign. So renewed acts of faith and repentance 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 to us, not to be repeated by us. But the Apostle treats only of that we mentioned in the first place; the efficacy 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 to him. Therefore God himself being the only object of sacrifices for 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 privileges wherewith it is accompanied, which was the faith of the Jews concerning them, and the repetition of them does invincibly prove that they could not of themselves effect, what they were applied to or used for; especially considering that this repetition of them was enjoined to be perpetual, while the Law continued in force. If they could at any time have perfected the worshippers, they would have ceased to be offered; for to what end should that continuance serve? To abide in a show or pretence of doing that which is done already, does no way answer the wisdom of divine institutions.

And we may see herein both the obstinacy and miserable state thereon of the present Jews. The Law does plainly declare, that without atonement by blood there is no remission of sins to be obtained. This they expect by the sacrifices of the Law, and their frequent repetition, not by any thing which was more perfect, and which they did represent. But all these they have been utterly deprived of for many generations, and therefore must all of them on their own principles die in their sins and under the curse. The woeful superstitious follies whereby they endeavor to supply the want of those sacrifices, are nothing but so many evidences of their obstinate blindness.

And it is hence also evident, that the superstition of the Church of Rome, in their Mass, wherein they pretend to offer and every day to repeat a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, does evidently demonstrate, that they disbelieve the efficacy of the one Sacrifice of Christ, as once offered, for the expiation of sin. For if it be so, neither can it be repeated, nor any other used for that end, if we believe the Apostle.

The remaining words of this verse confirm the argument insisted on; namely, that these sacrifices would have ceased to be offered, if they could have made the Church perfect; for, says he, the worshippers being once purged they should have had no more conscience of sin. And we must enquire (1.) who are intended by the worshippers. (2.) what it is to be purged. (3.) what is the effect of this purging, in having no more conscience of sins. (4.) How the Apostle proves his intention hereby.

The worshippers, [in non-Latin alphabet], are the same with, [in non-Latin alphabet], the comers in the verse foregoing: and in neither place the priests who offered the sacrifices, but the people for whom they were offered, are intended. They it was who made use of these sacrifices for the expiation of sin.

Concerning these persons it is supposed that if the sacrifices of the Law could make them perfect, then would they have been purged; therefore [in non-Latin alphabet] is the effect of [in non-Latin alphabet]; to be purged of being made perfect. For the Apostle supposes the negation of the latter, from the negation of the former. If the Law did not make them perfect, then were they not purged.

This sacred [in non-Latin alphabet] respects either the guilt of sin, or the filth of it: the one is removed by justification, the other by sanctification. The one is the effect of the sacerdotal actings of Christ towards God in making atonement for sin, the other of the application of the virtue and efficacy of that sacrifice to our souls and consciences, whereby they are purged, cleansed, renewed and changed. It is the purging of the first sort that is here intended; such a purging of sin as takes away the condemning power of sin from the conscience on the account of the guilt of it. If they had been purged (as they would have been, had the Law made the comers to its sacrifices perfect) that is, if there had been a complete expiation of sin made for them.

And the supposition denied has its qualification and limitation in the word [in non-Latin alphabet] once. By this word he expresses the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, which being one, at once effected what it was designed to. And it does not design only the doing of a thing at one time, but the so doing of it as that it should never more be done.

That these worshippers were not thus purged by any of the sacrifices which were offered for them, the Apostle proves from hence; because they had not the necessary effect and consequence of such a purification. For if they had been so purged, they would have had no more conscience of sins; but that they had so he proves in the next verse from the legal recognition that was made of them every year. And if they had had no more conscience of sin, there would have been no need of offering sacrifices for their expiation any more.

(1.) The introduction of the assertion is by the particles [in non-Latin alphabet], because that, which directs to the argument that is in the words, they would have ceased to be offered, because their end would have been accomplished, and so themselves taken away.

(2.) On the supposition made, there would have been an alteration made in the state of the worshippers. When they came to the sacrifices, they came with conscience of sin. This is unavoidable to a sinner before expiation and atonement be made for it: afterwards, if they were purged, it should be so no more with them; they should no more have conscience of sin.

They should no more have conscience of sin; or rather, they should not any more, or farther, have any conscience of sins; or they should have no conscience of sins any more. The meaning of the word is singularly well expressed in the Syriac translation. They should have no conscience agitating, tossing, disquieting, perplexing for sins; no conscience judging and condemning their persons for the guilt of sin, so depriving them of solid peace with God. It is conscience with respect to the guilt of sin, as it binds over the sinner to punishment in the judgment of God. Now this is not to be measured by the apprehension of the sinner, but by the true causes and grounds of it: now these lie herein alone, that sin was not perfectly expiated; for where this is not, there must be a conscience of sin, that is, disquieting, judging, condemning for sin.

The Apostle speaks on the one side and the other of them, who were really interested in the sacrifices whereunto they might trust for the expiation of sin. The way hereof as to them of old, and the legal sacrifices, was the due attendance to them, and performance of them according to God's institution. Hence are the persons so interested called the comers to them, and the worshippers. The way and means of our interest in the sacrifice of Christ is by faith only. In this state it often falls out, that true believers have a conscience, judging and condemning them for sin, no less than they had under the Law: but this trouble and power of conscience does not arise from hence, that sin is not perfectly expiated by the sacrifice of Christ, but only from an apprehension that they have not a due interest in that sacrifice, and the benefits of it. Under the Old Testament they questioned not their due interest in their sacrifices, which depended on the performance of the rites and ordinances of service belonging to them: but their consciences charged them with the guilt of sin, through an apprehension that their sacrifices could not perfectly expiate it. And this they found themselves led to by God's institution of their repetition, which had not been done, if they could ever make the worshippers perfect.

It is quite otherwise as to conscience for sin remaining in believers under the New Testament; for they have not the least sense or fear concerning any insufficiency or imperfection in the sacrifice whereby it is expiated. God has ordered all things concerning it, so as to satisfy the consciences of all men in the perfect expiation of sin by it; only they who are really purged by it, may be in the dark sometimes, as to their personal interest in it.

But it may be objected, that if the sacrifices neither by their native efficacy, nor by the frequency of repetition could take away sin, so as that they who came to God by them, could have peace of conscience, or be freed from the trouble of a continual condemnatory sentence in themselves; then was there no true real peace with God under the Old Testament, for other way of attaining it there was none. But this is contrary to innumerable testimonies of Scripture, and the promises of God made then to the Church. In answer hereunto, I say, the Apostle did not, nor does in these words declare what they did and could, or could not attain to under the Old Testament; only what they could not attain by the means of their sacrifices: so he declares it in the next verse; for in them remembrance is made of sins. But in the use of them, and by their frequent repetition, they were taught to look continually to the great expiatory sacrifice; whose virtue was laid up for them in the promise, whereby they had peace with God.

Obser. 1. The discharge of conscience from its condemning right and power, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, is the foundation of all other privileges we receive by the Gospel. Where this is not, there is no real participation of any other of them.

2. All peace with God is resolved into a purging atonement made for sin: Being once purged.

3. It is by a principle of Gospel-light alone, that conscience is directed to condemn all sin, and yet to acquit all sinners that are purged: Its own natural light can give it no guidance herein.