Hebrews 9:26

᾿Επεὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν πολλάκις παθεῖν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου· νῦν δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἀμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφαςέρωται .

᾿Επεί is properly causal; “quia,” “quandoquidem, quoniam.” But it is generally rendered in this place by all expositors, “alioquin,” by concession, ‘If it were so that he would offer, offer himself;' “for otherwise.” ῎Εδει. Syr., הֲוָא חַיּבָ, “he would have been a debtor;” it would have been due from him. “Oportebat,' “oportuisset;” “he ought.” Πολλάκις. Vulg., “frequenter pati.” Others, “saepe,” “saepius passum fuisse;” “to have suffered often,” “more often,” “frequently;” that is, once every year. Syriac, דְּזַבְנָתָא סַגְיָאתָא, “many times,” and not once only.

᾿Ατὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου . Vulg., “aborigine mundi;” others, “a condito mundo,” “from the foundation of the world;” that is, after the entrance of sin. ᾿Επὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων . Syr., בְּחַיְהֵתּ דְּעָלְמָא, “in the end of the world.” Vulg., “in consummatione seculorum;” “sub consummationem seculorum;” “towards the consummation of all things.” “In the fullness of time.” Εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας , “ad peccatum abolendum,” “ad abolitionem peccati.” Vulg., “ad destructionem peccati;” Rhem., “the destruction of sin.” Πεφανέρωται, “apparuit,” “patefactus est.” “He was made manifest.” Διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὑτοῦ . The Vulgar renders the words, “per hostiam suam apparuit;” which the Rhemists translate, “he hath appeared by his own host;” most absurdly, both as unto words and sense. Syr., “at one time he offered his soul by the sacrifice” or “immolation of himself.” What πεφανέρωται doth relate unto, we must inquire in the exposition of the words. [11]

[11] EXPOSITION. From the fact that Christ has offered his own blood, it is inferred that he needed not to repeat this sacrifice; in verses 27, 28, it is inferred from the same thing that he could not repeat it. A man can offer the blood of another repeatedly; his own blood he can offer in other words, die only once. Ebrard The pretense of repeating the Redeemer's one and only offering in the sacrifice of the mass, is in most direct opposition to the doctrine of this epistle....... The apostle speaks of men's dying only “once” as analogous to Christ's having been but “once offered.” There is only one death for men on earth; and there is only one offering by Christ, and that implies his death. Turner. ED.

Hebrews 9:26. For then [if otherwise] must he [he ought] often [to] have suffered since [from] the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world [in the consummation of times] hath he appeared, [been made manifest,] to put away [to abolish, or for the destruction of.] sin by the sacrifice of himself.

There are sundry difficulties in these words, both as to the signification and construction of them, as also as unto their sense and importance, with the nature of the argument contained in them and the things treated of. I shall not repeat the various conjectures of expositors, most of which are alien from the mind of the apostle and easy to be refuted, if that belonged any way unto the edification of the reader; but I shall only give that account of the whole and the several parts of it which, according unto the best of my understanding, doth represent the mind of the Holy Ghost with perspicuity and clearness.

There are two parts of the words:

1. A reason confirming the foregoing assertion, that Christ was not often to offer himself, as the high priest did offer sacrifice every year when he entered into the holy place: “For then must he,” etc.

2. A confirmation of that reason, from the nature and end of the sacrifice of Christ, as stated in matter of fact according unto the appointment of God: “But now once in the end,” etc.

In the FIRST, we may consider,

1. The note of connection and of the introduction of the reason insisted on.

2. The signification or sense of the words.

3. The ground and nature of the argument contained in them.

First, The note of connection is ἐπεί, which we render, “for then:” ‘If it were so, namely; that Christ should often offer himself;'‘Had it been otherwise, that Christ had so offered himself:'so we observed that most translate the word by “alioquin.'Either way the intention of the apostle is expressed, which is to confirm what he had before affirmed, by the introduction of a new reason of it.

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. “For then,”

1. “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 “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 Hebrews 5:8. 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 mactation of himself; ‘to have died, to have shed his blood, to have underwent the penalty and curse of the law.'

3. “Often,” “frequently,” as the high priest offered sacrifice of old once every year.

4. “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, Ephesians 1:4; Matthew 25:34; Joh 17:24; 1 Peter 1:20;

sometimes for what immediately succeeded on that beginning, Matthew 13:35; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8. 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, which have been since the world began, Luke 1:70; 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,” Revelation 13:8; 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 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20. “From the foundation of the world,” is mostly from 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:

1. 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 lamb 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,

(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 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 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 regarded 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 dishonorable 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 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 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.

(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,

Obs. 1. As the sufferings of Christ were necessary unto the expiation 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 expiated and themselves saved some other way. And those by whom this supposition is rejected, as it is by the Socinians, can give no color of force unto the argument of the apostle, although they invent many allusions, whereby they endeavor 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 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 eternally 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, 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 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,

Obs. 2. 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,

(1.) That their faith had all the difficulties to conflict withal that our faith is to be 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 11th 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 sins 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.

(2.) 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 vigor 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.

SECONDLY, 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 often 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:

1. As unto the time in general: “But now.” Νῦν,” now, generally is a limitation of time unto the present season; opposed to τότε, “ then.” But sometimes it is only a note of opposition, when joined with δέ, “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.'

2. He did this “once,” ἅπαξ; which is opposed unto πολλάκις , “often.” The apostle useth this word on this occasion, verse 28, Hebrews 10:2; 1 Peter 3:18. So he doth ἐφάπαξ, “once for all,” Hebrews 10:10.

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 matter of fact, ‘he hath not often, but once only, offered himself.'

3. He confirms his opposition unto the rejected supposition by an especial denotation of the time when he once offered himself. He did it “in the end of the world,” ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων : in opposition unto ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. ‘Not then, but now; not often, but once; not from the foundation of the world, but in the end of it.' There is no question as unto the thing itself, or the time intended in this exposition. It was the time when our Lord Jesus Christ appeared in the flesh, and offered himself unto God. But why he should express that time by “the end of the world,” in the words that our Savior designeth the end of the world absolutely by, Matthew 28:20, is not so plain; for there was after this a long continuance and duration of the world to succeed, so far as any knows, not less than what was past before it.

Various are the conjectures of learned men about this expression; I shall not detain the reader with their repetition. My thoughts are determined by what I have discoursed on Hebrews 1:1-2; the exposition of which place the reader may consult on this occasion, I hope unto his satisfaction. In brief, to give a short account of what more largely I have explained and fully confirmed in the place referred unto, αἰών and αἰῶνες do answer unto the Hebrew עוֹלָם and עָֹולמִים. And “the world,” not absolutely with respect unto its essence or substance, but its duration and the succession of ages therein, is signifed by them. And the succession of the times of the world is considered with reference unto God's distinction and limitation of things in his dealing with the church, called οἰκονομία τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, Ephesians 1:10. And God's distinction of time with respect unto the dispensation of himself in his grace to the church, may be referred unto three general heads: first, the time before the law; secondly, that which was spent under the law; thirdly, that of the exhibition of Christ in the flesh, with all that doth succeed it unto the end of the world. This last season, absolutely considered, is called πλήρωμα τῶν καιρῶν , “the fullness of time,” when all that God had designed in the dispensation of his grace was come unto that head and consistency wherein no alteration should be made unto the end of the world. This is that season which, with respect unto those that went before, is called συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων , “the end of the world,” or the last age of the world, the consummation of the dispensation of time, no change being afterwards to be introduced, like those which were made before in the dispensation of God. This season, with respect unto the coming of Christ unto the Judaical church, is called אַחֲרִית חַיָּמִים, the “latter days,” or the “end of the days;” namely, of that church-state, of the dispensation of God in that season. With respect unto the whole dispensation of God in the עוֹלָמִים, all the allotted ages of the church, it was the last or end of them all; it was that wherein the whole divine disposition of things had its consummation. Wherefore both the entrance and the end of this season are called by the same name, the beginning of it here, and the end of it Matthew 28:20; for the whole is but one entire season. And the preposition ἐπὶ, in this construction with a dative case, signifies the entrance of any thing; as ἐπὶ θανάτῳ is “at the approach of death” Wherefore, whatever hath been, or may be in the duration of the world afterwards, the appearance of Christ to offer himself was ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰάνων, “in the end of the world;” that is, at the entrance of the last season of God's dispensation of grace unto the church.

‘Thus it was,'saith the apostle, ‘in matter of fact; then did Christ offer himself, and then only.'

With respect unto this season so stated, three things are affirmed of Christ in the following words:

1. What he did; “he appeared.”

2. Unto what end; “to take away sin.”

3. By what means; “by the sacrifice of himself.”

But there is some difficulty in the distinction of these words, and so variety in their interpretation, which must be removed. For these words, διὰ τῆς θυσίας , “by the sacrifice of himself,” may be referred either unto εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας , “the putting away of sin,” that goes before; or unto πεφανέρωται, “was manifest,” that follows after. In the first way the sense is, ‘He was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;'

in the latter, ‘He appeared by the sacrifice of himself to put away sin;' which confines his appearance unto his sacrifice; which sense is expressed by the Vulgar translation, “per hostiam suam apparuit.” “He appeared by his own host,” say the Rhemists. But the former reading of the words is evidently unto the mind of the apostle; for his appearance was what he did in general with respect unto the end mentioned, and the way whereby he did it.

1. There is what he did, ‘“he appeared,” “he was manifested.” Some say that this appearance of Christ is the same with his appearance in the presence of God for us, mentioned in the foregoing verse. But it is, as another word that is used, so another thing that is intended. That appearance was after his sacrifice, this is in order unto it; that is in heaven, this was on earth; that is still continued, this is that which was already accomplished, at the time limited by the apostle. Wherefore this “appearance,” this φανέρωσις or “manifestation” of Christ in the end of the world, is the same with his being “manifested in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16; or his coming into the world, or taking on him the seed of Abraham, to this end, that he might suffer and offer himself unto God. For what is affirmed is opposed unto what is spoken immediately before, namely, of his suffering often since the foundation of the world. This he did not do, but appeared, was manifested, (that is, in the flesh,) in the end of the world, to suffer and to expiate sin. Nor is the word ever used to express the appearance of Christ before God in heaven. His φανέρωσις is his coming into the world by his incarnation, unto the discharge of his office; his appearance before God in heaven is his ἐμφανισμός; and his illustrious appearance at the last day is his ἐπιφάνεια , though that word be used also to express his glorious manifestation by the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10. See 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 3:8; Titus 2:13. This, therefore, is the meaning of the word: ‘Christ did not come into the world, he was not manifested in the flesh, often since the foundation of the world, that he might often suffer and offer; but he did so, he so appeared, was so manifested, in the end of the world.'

2. The end of this appearance of Christ was to “put away sin.” And we must inquire both what is meant by “sin,” and what by the “putting of it away.” Wherefore by “sin,” the apostle intends the whole of its nature and effects, in its root and fruits, in its guilt, power, and punishment; sin absolutely and universally; sin as it was an apostasy from God, as it was the cause of all distance between God and us, as it was the work of the devil; sin in all that it was and all that it could effect, or all the consequents of it; sin in its whole empire and dominion, as it entered by the fall of Adam, invaded our nature in its power, oppressed our persons with its guilt, filled the whole world with its fruits, gave existence and right unto death and hell, with power to Satan to rule in and over mankind; sin, that rendered us obnoxious unto the curse of God and eternal punishment. In the whole extent of sin, “he appeared to put it away;” that is, with respect unto the church, that is sanctified by his blood, and dedicated unto God..

᾿Αθέτησις, which we render “ putting away,” is “abrogatio,” “dissolutio,” “destructio;” an “abrogation,” “disannulling,” “destroying,” “disarming.” It is the name of taking away the force, power, and obligation of a law. The power of sin, as unto all its effects and consequents, whether sinful or penal, is called its law, the “law of sin,” Romans 8:2. And of this law, as of others, there are two parts or powers:

(1.) Its obligation unto punishment, after the nature of all penal laws; hence it is called “the law of death,” that whereon sinners are bound over unto eternal death. This force it borrows from its relation unto the law of God and the curse thereof.

(2.) Its impelling, ruling power, subjectively in the minds of men, leading them captive into all enmity and disobedience unto God, Romans 7:23.

Christ appeared to abrogate this law of sin, to deprive it of its whole power,

(1.) That it should not condemn us any more, nor bind us over to punishment. This he did by making atonement for it, by the expiation of it, undergoing in his own suffering the penalty due unto it; which of necessity he was to suffer as often as he offered himself. Herein consisted the ἀθέτησις or “abrogation” of its law principally.

(2.) By the destruction of its subjective power, purging our consciences from dead works, in the way that hath been declared. This was the principal end of the appearance of Christ in the world, 1 John 3:8.

3. The way whereby he did this, was “by the sacrifice of himself,” διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ for ἑαυτοῦ : that sacrifice wherein he both suffered and offered himself unto God. For that both are included, the opposition made unto his often suffering doth evince.

This, therefore, is the design and meaning of these words: to evidence that Christ did not offer himself unto God often, more than once, as the high priest offered every year, before his entrance into the holy place, the apostle declares the end and effect of his offering or sacrifice, which rendered the repetition of it needless. It was one, once offered, in the end of the world; nor need be offered any more, because of the total abolition and destruction of sin at once made thereby. What else concerns the things themselves spoken of will be comprised under the ensuing observations.

Obs. 3. It is the prerogative of God, and the effect of his wisdom, to determine the times and seasons of the dispensation of himself and his grace unto the church. Hereon it depended alone that Christ “appeared in the end of the world,” not sooner nor later, as to the parts of that season. Many things do evidence a condecency unto divine wisdom in the determination of that season; as,

1. He testified his displeasure against sin, in suffering the generality of mankind to lie so long under the fatal effects of their apostasy, without relief or remedy, Acts 14:16; Acts 17:30; Romans 1:21-24; Romans 1:26.

2. He did it to exercise the faith of the church, called by virtue of the promise, in the expectation of its accomplishment. And by the various ways whereby God cherished their faith and hope was he glorified in all ages, Luke 1:70; Matthew 13:17; Luke 10:24; 1 Peter 1:10-11; Haggai 2:7.

3. To prepare the church for the reception of him, partly by the glorious representation made of him in the tabernacle and temple with their worship, partly by the burden of legal institutions laid on them until his coming, Galatians 3:24.

4. To give the world a full and sufficient trial of what might be attained towards happiness and blessedness by the excellency of all things here below. Men had time to try what was in wisdom, learning, moral virtue, power, rule, dominion, riches, arts, and whatever else is valuable unto rational natures. They were all exalted unto their height, in their possession and exercise, before the appearance of Christ; and all manifested their own insufficiency to give the least real relief unto mankind from under the fruits of their apostasy from God. See 1 Corinthians 1:5. To give time unto Satan to fix and establish his kingdom in the world, that the destruction of him and it might be the more conspicuous and glorious. These, and sundry other things of a like nature, do evince that there was a condecency unto divine wisdom in the determination of the season of the appearance of Christ in the flesh; howbeit it is ultimately to be resolved into his sovereign will and pleasure.

Obs. 4. God had a design of infinite wisdom and grace in his sending of Christ, and his appearance in the world thereon, which could not be frustrated. “He appeared to put away sin.” The footsteps of divine wisdom and grace herein I have inquired into in a peculiar treatise, and shall not here insist on the same argument. [12]

[12] See vol. 5 of miscellaneous works, on Justification.

Obs. 5. Sin had erected a dominion, a tyranny over all men, as by a law. Unless this law be abrogated and abolished, we can have neither deliverance nor liberty. Men generally think that they serve themselves of sin, in the accomplishment of their lusts and gratification of the flesh; but they are indeed servants of it and slaves unto it. It hath gotten a power to command their obedience unto it, and a power to bind them over to eternal death for the disobedience unto God therein. As unto what belongs unto this law and power, see my discourse of Indwelling Sin. [13]

[13] See vol. 6 ibid.

Obs. 6. No power of man, of any mere creature, was able to evacuate, disannul, or abolish this law of sin; for,

Obs. 7. The destruction and dissolution of this law and power of sin, was the great end of the coming of Christ for the discharge of his priestly office in the sacrifice of himself; No other way could it be effected. And,

Obs. 8. It is the glory of Christ, it is the safety of the church, that by his one offering, by the sacrifice of himself once for all, he hath abolished sin as unto the law and condemning power of it.