THERE are two general parts of this chapter 1. A further explication of the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, or of Christ himself as vested with that office, — that is, both in his personal glory and in the usefulness of his office unto the church, — above those of the order of Aaron. 2. A further confirmation hereof; wherein is introduced the consideration, of the two covenants, the old and the new. For unto the former was the whole administration of the Levitical priests confined; of the latter, Christ, as our high priest, was the mediator and surety. And therefore the apostle fully proves the excellency of this new covenant above the old; which redounds unto the glory of its mediator.

The first part is contained in the first five verses; the latter extends from thence to the end of the chapter.

In the first part two things are designed: 1. A recapitulation of some things before delivered. 2. The addition of some further arguments in the confirmation of the same truth, so long before insisted on. Both of them he compriseth in three instances of the excellency of Christ in his priesthood, or in the discharge of his office: 1. In his exaltation and the place of his present residence, verse 1. 2. In the sanctuary whereof he is a minister, and the tabernacle wherein at present he doth administer, verse 2. 3. In the sacrifice he had to offer, or which he offered before his entrance into that sanctuary, verse 3; which he illustrates by two especial considerations, verses 4, 5.

VERSE 1.

Kefa>laion de< ejpi< toi~v legome>noiv , toiou~ton e]comen ajrceire>a , o[v ejka>qisen ejn dexia~| tou~ zro>nou th~v megalwsu>nhv ejn toi~v oujravoi~v.

Kefa>laion . Syr., aiv;yri , “caput.” Vulg., “capitulum,” “summa.” Beta, “caeterum eorum quae diximus haec summa est,” “moreover this is the sum of what we speak;” “summatim autem dicendo,” “to speak briefly.” jEpi< toi~v legome>noiv . Syr., ˆyheL]kuD] , “of all these things;” the head, chief, or principal of all these things. Vulg., “super ea quae dicuntur.”

Rhem., “the sum concerning these things which he said.”

Toiou~ton e]comen . Syr., “We have an high priest, him who sitteth;” omitting this word, or including it in an;yae , “is,” “ille.”

Th~v megalwsu>nhv . Vulg., “magnitudinis;” which the Rhemists render by “majesty;” and they retain “sedis” for zro>nou . Beza, “majestatis illius;” or, “throni virtutis magnificandi.” f1 Ver. 1.— Now of the things that are spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.

This first verse contains two things: 1. A preface unto that part of the ensuing discourse which immediately concerns the priesthood of Christ, unto the end of verse 5. 2. A declaration of the first pre-eminence of our high priest; which the apostle would have us in an especial manner to consider.

First , The preface is in these words, kefa>laion de< ejpi< toi~v legome>noiv : which may be considered either as unto its design in general, or as unto the sense of the words: — 1. The design of the apostle in this interlocution (which is not unusual with him), is to stir up the Hebrews unto a diligent consideration of what he insisted on, and to leave an impression of it on their minds. And this he doth for two reasons: — (1.) Lest the length and difficulty of his preceding discourse should have any way discomposed their minds, or wearied them in their attention, so as that they could not well retain the substance of what he pleaded. In such cases it was always usual with them who pleaded important causes before the wisest judges, to recapitulate what had been spoken at length before, and to show what hath been evinced by the arguments they had used in their plea. To this purpose speaks Quintilian, lib. 6: cap. i.: “Perorationis duplex ratio est posita, aut in rebus, aut in affectibus. Rerum repetitio et congregatio, quae Graece dicitur ajnakefalai>wsiv , a quibusdam Latinorum enumeratio, et memoriam judicis reficit, et totam simul causam ante oculos ponit; et etiam si per singula minus moverat, turba valet. In hac, quaae repetemus quam brevissime dicenda sunt, et (quod Graeco verbo patet) decurrendum per capita.” How this whole course is steered by the apostle in this place is easy for any one to observe. (2.) Because of the importance of the matter in hand. He is treating of the very head of all the differences between the law and the gospel, between those who adhered unto Mosaical institutions and those who embraced the faith. Hence he calleth them unto a renewed attention unto what he delivered. For herein he set life and death before them, and was zealous for them, and earnest with them, that they would choose life, and not die in their unbelief. 2. The sense of the words is to be considered. Kefa>laion is “capitulum,” “caput;” properly the “head” of any living creature. But the most frequent use of it is in a sense metaphorical, as it is here used by the apostle. And so it hath a double sense and use, whereunto it is principally applied (for it hath also other significations). For, (1.) It is taken for that which is chief and principal in any matter, business, or cause. Kefa>laion o[lou tou~ pra>gmatov , Isoc.; —”The head of the whole business.” kefa>laion dh< paidei>av , ke>gomen thn, Plato, de Legib., lib.; —”The principal thing in education or instruction.” And so is “caput” used among the Latins: “Caput est in omni procuratione negotii et muneris publici, ut avaritiae pellatur etiam minima suspicio;” —”This is the chief or principal thing in the management of all public affairs, that all suspicion of covetousness be far away.” (2.) It is taken for the sum and substance of what hath been spoken or declared, reduced into a short scheme: JWv de< ejn kefalai>w| eijpei~n , — “Ut summatim dicam,” Demosthenes. And so some render these words “summatim dicendo.” And Isocrates hath an expression directly answering that of the apostle in this place, Nicoc.: Kefa>laion de< tw~n eijrhme>nwn , —”The sum of what hath been spoken.” So vaOr , “caput,” the “head,” is used in the Hebrew: AyneB] vaOrAta, aC;ti yBi laer;c]yi , Exodus 30:12; —” When thou takest the head” (the “sum”) of the children of Israel.” So also Numbers 4:2. And in this sense is ajnakefalaiou~mai, used by our apostle, as some think, Ephesians 1:10: but it may have another sense in that place.

In whether of these two significations it is here used by our apostle, will best appear from the consideration of what it is applied unto, — ejpi< toi~v legome>noiv. For these words also are capable of a double interpretation. (1.) jEpi> may be put for ejn , “in” or “among;” and then the things themselves treated of may be intended., And if so, kefa>laion requires the first signification, “the chief and principal thing” or “matter:” ‘Among all the things treated of, this is the principal;’ — as indeed it is, and that which all other things in debate did depend upon. (2.) If ejpi> be in a manner redundant, and no more is intended but tw~n legome>nwn , “of the things spoken,” then kefa>laion is to be taken in the second signification, and denotes a recapitulation of them: ‘This is that which my arguments amount unto, the sum of what I have pleaded.’

Both these senses are consistent. For the apostle in this and the ensuing verses doth both briefly recapitulate what he had evinced by his preceding arguments, and also declare what is the principal thing that he had contended for and proved. I incline unto the latter signification of the word, respected in our translation; yet so as that the former also is true, and safely applicable unto the text.

And some directions we may take from the wisdom of the apostle in this management of his present subject, in our preaching or teaching of spiritual things; for, — Obs. I. When the nature and weight of the matter treated of, or the variety of arguments wherein it is concerned, do require that our discourse of it should be drawn forth unto a length more than ordinary, it is useful to refresh the minds and relieve the memories of our hearers, by a brief recapitulation of the things insisted on. — It is so, I say, sometimes; as this way is taken once, and but once, by our apostle. When it is necessary, is left unto the wisdom and choice of those who are called unto this work.

I mean, of such who, laboring diligently and conscientiously in the discharge of it, do really consider at all times what is for the benefit and edification of their hearers. But this is to be done only on great and important occasions. The usual way of the repetition of the heads of sermons before preached, is, in my judgment, useless and unprofitable.

Obs. II. When doctrines are important, and such as the eternal welfare of the souls of men are immediately concerned in, we are by all means to endeavor an impression of them on the minds of our hearers. — Be they never so precious and worthy of all acceptation, ofttimes they will not obtain an entrance into men’s minds, unless they have an edge ministerially put upon them. Wherefore they are by all suitable means, with gravity and zeal, to be called unto a diligent attendance unto them.

Weight is to be laid doctrinally, in their delivery, on things that are of weight really in themselves.

And this is the first part of this verse, or the preface of what ensues, Secondly, The second part of it, in the following words, contains the first general pre-eminence of our high priest, and that taken from his present and eternal state or condition. And there are three things considerable in the words: 1. Our relation unto this high priest. 2. The general denotation of him. 3. His eminency and dignity in particular above all others. 1. Our relation unto him is expressed in the word e]comen , “we have.” For the apostle, together with his assertion of the priesthood of Christ, and the declaration of the nature of it, doth frequently intersert the mention of our interest therein, or our relation unto him in the discharge of that office: “Such an high priest became us,” Hebrews 7:26; “We have not an high priest that cannot,” etc., Hebrews 4:15; “The high priest of our profession,” Hebrews 3:1; and here, “We have such an high priest.” And to the same purpose, “We have an altar,” Hebrews 13:10. And three things the apostle seems to design herein: — (1.) The dignity of the Christian church, as now separated from the church of the Jews. In all their confidence in their worship, that which they principally boasted of was their high priest and his office. He was anointed with the holy oil. He wore the garments that were made “for beauty and for glory.” He had on his forehead a plate of gold with that glorious inscription, “Holiness unto Jehovah.’’ And he alone entered into the holy place, having made expiation for the sins of the people. The Christians, who were now separated from them, they despised, as those who had no lot nor portion in all this glory; — no such visible high priest as they had. So the same persons were afterwards reproached by the Pagans, that they had neither temples, nor altars, nor images or visible deities. So hard was it to call off the carnal minds of men from things visible and sensible in divine worship, unto those that are spiritual and heavenly. And herein lies the reproach of degenerated Christians, especially those of the Roman church, that whereas the gospel, in asserting the pure, heavenly, spiritual worship of God, had prevailed against the world, and triumphed over all that is carnal, invented to please the senses and satisfy the superstitious minds of men; they have made themselves the scorn and spoil of their conquered enemies, by returning to the same kind of worship, in various degrees, which was before destroyed and triumphed over.. And as therein they seem to make a public acknowledgment, that the gospel, in the management of their predecessors, had much injured the world, in the introduction of a worship spiritual and divine, excluding all those visible glories which it had found out to entertain the minds of men; so it will appear in the issue that they have made themselves transgressors, by building up what was before destroyed.

But the primitive Christians did still oppose the spiritual worship of sanctified souls, in the observation of the institutions of Christ, unto all the pretences of glory and beauty pleaded to be in their outward forms. So the apostle here, to evince the dignity of the Christian church against the unbelief of the Jews, pleads their relation unto an invisible, spiritual high priest, exalted in glory and dignity far above all that they could enjoy by virtue of a carnal commandment. ‘Whatever you think of us, whatever you boast of yourselves, “we have an high priest;”’ and that such an one as he immediately declares. (2.) He would teach us, that whatever be the glory and dignity of this high priest, without an interest in him, without an especial relation unto him, unless “we have an high priest,” we are not concerned therein. Many do give their assent unto this truth, that Christ is a high priest; but how or wherein he is so to them they know not, nor yet do they make any use of him as such. Yea, unto many, the principal mysteries of the gospel are but mere notions and barren speculations; what it is to be practically influenced by them, and to live in the power of them, they know not. That there is a high priest, they believe, but what it is for them to have a high priest, they cannot understand. But this is that we are to look after, if we intend any benefit by it. And we may know whether we have a high priest or no, really and substantially, by the use which we make of him as such in all our approaches unto God. For he presides over the whole house of God, and all the sacred services thereof. None can come unto the Father but by him. Through him have we boldness, through him have we ability, through him have we access unto and acceptance with God. He presents both our persons and duties unto him. Without a daily improvement by faith of the office of Christ unto these ends, it cannot be said that we have a high priest. (3.) That the office of the priesthood of Christ is confined unto the church, unto believers. Theirs he is, and for them alone doth he administer before God in this office. 2. There is a general denotation of this priest, as to his qualifications, in the word toiou~ton . He doth not now say, that ‘we have an high priest,’ only; nor ‘another high priest, not according to the ordinances of the law,’ — which he had proved before, from the type of Melchisedec and the testimony of the psalmist; but moreover such an one as hath that dignity and those excellencies which he now ascribes unto him. The salvation of the church doth not depend merely on its having a high priest, — which yet in itself is absolutely necessary thereunto, — but on his dignity and excellency, his exaltation and glory.

Wherefore it is affirmed of him, that he is “such an high priest as is set on the right hand of the throne of the glorious Majesty in the heavens.” And two things we must consider in these words: (1.) The design of the apostle in them; and, (2.) Their particular interpretation: — (1.) The design of the apostle, as we observed before, was not to prove the reality of his priesthood, that he was truly a priest; nor yet absolutely the qualifications of his person; but his dignity and excellency. For ourLORD Jesus Christ, when he was on the earth, and whilst he offered up to God his great propitiatory sacrifice, was, as unto his outward state and condition, inferior unto the Levitical high priests, who were in great honor and veneration among the people. But the state and condition of any in the bearing and discharge of an office is not to be esteemed and reckoned from what he condescends unto, with respect unto any action or duty belonging unto that office, — for a king may condescend unto very mean services, when the condition of his subjects and good of the kingdom require it of him, — but it is to be reckoned from his durable estate, and perpetual abode therein. Now, although ourLORD Christ was for a season in a condition of deep humiliation, taking on him “the form of a servant,” and being esteemed even as “a worm, and no man,” — which was necessary unto the sacrifice he had to offer, — yet as unto his durable state, wherein he continues in the discharge of his office, he is incomparably exalted above all the high priests under the law. And this is that which the apostle designs here to declare. For what did the high priest do, after he had offered the anniversary sacrifice of expiation unto God? He entered, indeed, into the holy place with the blood of the sacrifice, presenting it there before the august pledges of the presence of God; but all the while he was there, he stood before the typical throne, or ark and mercy-seat, with holy awe and reverence; and immediately on the discharge of his present duty, he was to withdraw and go out of the holy place. A great privilege this was, and a great honor was herein put on the high priest; for all others, both priests and people, were everlastingly excluded out of that sanctuary.

But what is this unto the glory of our high priest? For after he had offered his great sacrifice unto God, he “entered not into the holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself.” And he entered, not to stand with humble reverence before the throne, but to sit on the throne of God, at his right hand. Nor did he do so to abide there for a season, but for evermore. (2.) As to the words themselves, we may observe, that the apostle three times in this epistle maketh use of them with some little variety, Hebrews 1:3, 12:2, and in this place. Hebrews 1:3, “He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” where there is no mention of the throne. Hebrews 12:2, “He is set down at the right hand of the throne of God;” where “Majesty” is not added. Here we have both, “The right hand of the throne of the Majesty.” In the first place, the glory of his kingly power is intended; in the last, his exaltation and glory, as they ensued on his sufferings; and in this place, the declaration of his glory in his priestly office. The same glory and advancement hath respect unto various acts and powers in theLORD Christ: — [1.] The manner of his enjoyment of this dignity and glory is expressed in the word ejka>qisen , “he sat down.” Hereof there was nothing typical in the legal high priest, who never sat down in the holy place. But as he was in many things typed by the Levitical priests, so in what they could not reach unto, he was represented in Melchisedec, who was both a king and a priest. And hence he is prophesied of as “a priest upon his throne,” Zechariah 6:13. And the immutable stability of his state and condition is also intended. [2.] The dignity itself consists in the place of his residence, where he sat down; and this was ejn dexia~| , “at the right hand.” See the exposition hereof, Hebrews 1:3. [3.] This right hand is said to be tou~ zro>nou th~v megalwsu>nhv . There is frequent mention in the Scripture of the throne of God. A throne is “insigne regium,” —an ensign of royal power. That intended by it is the manifestation of the glory and power of God, in his authority and sovereign rule over all. [4.] This throne is here said to be th~v megalwsu>nhv, of “Majesty,” or “glorious greatness and power;” that is, of God himself, for his essential glory and power are intended. “The right hand of the throne of Majesty,” is the same with “the right hand of God;” only God is represented in all his glory, —as on his throne. Christ is set down at the right hand of God, as considered in all his glorious power and rule. Higher expression there cannot be used to lead us into a holy adoration of the tremendous invisible glory which is intended. And this is the eternal stable condition of the\parLORD Christ, our high priest, —a state of inconceivable power and glory.

Herein he dischargeth the remaining duties of his mediation, according as the nature of his especial offices do require. In this state doth he take care to provide for the application of the benefits of his oblation or sacrifice unto believers; and that by intercession, whereof we have spoken. [5.] Thus is he said to be ejn oujranoi~v, — in the heavens;” as in the other place ejn ujyhloi~v, “in the highest,” —that is, heavens. And by “the heavens” here, not these visible, aspectable heavens are intended, —for with respect unto them he is said to be “exalted above all heavens,” and to have “passed through them,” —but it is that which the Scripture calls “the heaven of heavens,” 1 Kings 8:27, wherein is the especial residence and manifestation of the glorious presence of God. With respect hereunto our Savior hath taught us to call on “our Father which is in heaven.” And from the words we may observe, that, — Obs. III. The principal glory of the priestly office of Christ depends on the glorious exaltation of his person. —To this end is it here pleaded by the apostle, and thereby he evinceth his glorious excellency above all the high priests under the law. To evidence and make useful this observation, the things ensuing are to be observed: — 1. The divine nature of Christ is capable of no real exaltation by an addition of glory, but only by the way of manifestation. So God absolutely is often in the Scriptures said to be “exalted;” —that is, he is so when he himself, by any acts of grace or providence, makes the eternal glory of his power, his holiness, or any other property of his nature, manifest and conspicuous; or when others ascribe unto him the glory and praise that are his due. So only may theLORD Christ be exalted, or made glorious, with respect unto his divine nature, wherein he is essentially “over all, God blessed for ever.” And there is in this way an exaltation or manifestation of glory peculiar and proper unto the person of Christ, as distinct from the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit; for he did in a peculiar way and manner for a season forego and leave his glory, as to the manifestation of it. For “being” (essentially) “in the form of God, and counting it not robbery to be equal with God,” yet he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,” Philippians 2:6,7.

In his incarnation, and his whole converse on the earth, he cast a veil over his eternal glory, so as that it appeared not in its own native lustre. Those, indeed, who believed on him, “beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,” John 1:14; but they saw it “darkly,” and “as in a glass,” during the time of his humiliation. But after his resurrection his glory was unveiled, and made conspicuous, even when he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead,” Romans 1:4. 2. The person of Christ, as to his divine nature, was always on the throne, and is incapable of the exaltation here mentioned, of sitting down at the right hand of it. Although “he came down from heaven,” although “he descended into the lower parts of the earth,” although he was exposed unto all miseries, was “obedient unto death, the death of the cross,” wherein “God redeemed his church with his own blood,” yet did he all this in the human nature that he assumed. His divine person can no more really leave the throne of majesty than cease to be. So he saith of himself, “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Sea of man, which is in heaven,” John 3:13, His ascension into heaven in this place, which preceded the actual ascension of his human nature, is nothing but his admission into the knowledge of heavenly things, of all the secrets of the counsel of God (see John 1:18, Matthew 11:27); for it is of the knowledge of heavenly mysteries that he is there discoursing with Nicodemus. In his incarnation, he came down from heaven, assuming a nature upon the earth; —the highest condescension of God, And whereas the acting of his power on the earth is often called his coming down from heaven, Genesis 18:21, Isaiah 64:1, how much more may this infinite condescension of the second person in assuming our nature be so called! But yet he was still in heaven; —”the Son of man, which is in heaven.” In his divine nature he was still on the throne of majesty; for this being an inseparable property of divine authority, he could never really forego it. Then, — 3. It is the human nature of Christ, or Christ in his human nature, or with respect unto it, that is capable of this real exaltation, by a real addition of glory. It is not the manifestation of his glory with respect unto his human nature, but the real collation of glory on him after his ascension, that is intended. This the whole Scripture testifieth unto, namely, a real communication of glory unto Christ by the Father, after his ascension, which he had not before. See Luke 24:26; John 17:24; Acts 2:33, 5:31; Romans 14:9; Ephesians 1:20-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:3, 12:2; 1 Peter, 1:21; Revelation 5:12. And concerning this glory given him of God, we may observe, — (1.) That it is not absolutely infinite and essentially divine glory. This cannot be communicated unto any. A creature, as was the human nature of Christ, cannot be made God, by an essential communication of divine properties unto it. Neither are they so communicable, nor is that a capable subject of their inhesion. Wherefore they speak dangerously who assert a real communication of the properties of the one nature of Christ unto the other, so as that the human nature of Christ shall be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient: neither doth the union of the two natures in the person of Christ require any more the transfusion of the divine properties into the human, than those of the human into the divine. If, therefore, by that union, the human nature should be thought to be rendered subjectively omnipotent and omnipresent, the divine, on the other hand, must become limited and finite. But whatever belongs unto Christ with respect unto either nature, belongs unto the person of Christ; and therein he is all that he is in either nature; and in both hath done and doth what in either of them he hath done and doth, they yet continuing distinct in their essential properties. (2.) Yet this exaltation and glory of Christ in his human nature is not only absolutely above, but also of another kind, than the utmost of what any other created being either hath or is capable of. It is more than any other creature is capable of, because it is founded in the union of his person; — a privilege which no other creature can ever pretend unto, or be made partaker of unto eternity, Hebrews 2:16. This renders his glory in his exaltation of another kind than that of the most glorious creatures in their best condition. Again, it consists greatly in that power and authority over the whole creation, and every individual in it, and all their concerns, which is committed unto him. See our explanation hereof at large on Hebrews 1:3. 4. This exaltation of the person of Christ gives glory unto his office, as the apostle here declares. It is the person of Christ which is vested with the office of the priesthood, or God could not have “redeemed the church with his own blood;” although he exercises all the duties of it, both here below and above, in the human nature only. And it is the person of Christ which is thus exalted and made glorious, although the especial subject of this exaltation and glory be the human nature only. And this gives glory unto his office; for, — (1.) This is a manifest pledge and evidence of the absolute perfection of his oblation, and that “‘by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified.” When the high priest of old appeared for a while in the holy place, he returned again unto his former station, that he might be in a condition to offer another sacrifice at the return of the year; and hence doth our apostle prove that none of the worshippers were perfected by those sacrifices. But our high priest, having offered himself once for all, now sitting down for ever at the right hand of God, in glory and majesty inconceivable, it is evident that he hath fully expiated the sins of all that come unto God by him. And this declares the glory of his office. (2.) By his glorious power he makes all things subservient unto the ends of his mediation; for he is given to be “head over all things to the church.” All things are in his power and at his disposal, as he is exalted at the right hand of God; and he will assuredly make them all work together for the good of them that do believe. And, — (3.) He is able to render the persons and duties of believers accepted in the sight of God. To present them unto God is the great remaining duty of his office. That they be so, is their only real concern in this world, and that alone which their minds are principally exercised about. And what greater security can they have hereof than the interest and glory which this their high priest hath in heaven? 1 John 2:1,2.

VERSE 2.

The second pre-eminence of ourLORD Christ as our high priest, which the apostle calls over in this summary of his discourse, is contained in this second verse.

Ver. 2. — Tw~n ajgi>wn leitourgoriov kai< oujk a]nqrwpov .

Leitourhgo>v , “minister.” Tw~n aJgi>wn . Vulg. Lat.,”sanctorum.” Rhem., “of the holies.” Syr., av;d]Wq ttybeD] , “of the holy house,” or “domus sanctuarii;” “of the house of the sanctuary.” “Sanctuarii,” “of the sanctuary,” as we shall see. [Hn e]phxen oJ Ku>riov. Vulg. Lat., “quod fixit Deus,”” which God hath fixed” or “pitched.” Rhem., “which our\parLORD pight;” following the original as to the word Ku>riov . Syr. Ah;l;a’ “God” av;n; yB’ al;w] “and not a son of man.” Some copies of the Vulgar Latin, “Dominus.”

Ver. 2. —A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which theLORD pitched, and not man.

There are two parts of these words, expressing, — 1. What is affirmed of our high priest; namely, that he was “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle.” 2. An amplification of what is so affirmed, by the description and distinction of this tabernacle; “which theLORD fixed, and not man.”

In the first also there are two things: — 1. The assertion of his office; he is “a minister.” 2. The assignation and limitation of his discharge of that office; it is “the sanctuary and true tabernacle.” 1. It is affirmed that he is leitourgo>v , “a minister.” Having declared the glory and dignity which he is exalted unto, as “sitting down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,” what can be further expected from him? There he lives, eternally happy in the enjoyment of his own blessedness and glory. Is it not reasonable it should be so, after all the hardships and miseries which he, being the Son of God, underwent in this world? Who can expect that he should any longer condescend unto office and duty? Neither generally have men any other thoughts concerning him. But where, then, would lie the advantage of the church in his exaltation, which the apostle designs in an especial manner to demonstrate? Wherefore unto the mention of it he immediately subjoins the continuation of his office. He is still leitourgo>v, — a “public minister” for the church.

Leitourge>w is “to minister,” either with God or before God, as a priest for others; or for God, in the name of God towards others, as do magistrates and ministers of the gospel. And therefore all these sorts are called leitourgoi> , or said to be leitourgh~sai. TheLORD Christ is expressly spoken of here as a priest; it is a name of his priestly office, wherein he acts towards God. Nor is he anywhere called or said to be dia>konov in any of his actings from God towards us; although he be said therein to be dia>konov , Romans 15:8: that is, he was so in the days of his flesh, but that name now no way belongeth unto him. He is not therefore styled “a minister,” because he executeth the purposes of God towards us, as Schlichtingius fancieth; but he acts towards God and before God on our behalf, according to the duty of a priest. He went into heaven to “appear in the presence of God for us,” and to discharge his office before God on our behalf. And it is granted also, that by virtue thereof he doth also communicate all good things from God unto us; for the whole administration of things sacred between God and the church is committed unto him. And we must observe, that, — Obs. I. TheLORD Christ, in the height of his glory, condescends to discharge the office of a public minister in the behalf of the church. — We are not to bound our faith on Christ as unto what he did for us on the earth. The life and efficacy of the whole of his mediation depend on what he did antecedently thereunto, and what he doth consequently unto it; for in these things doth the glory of his love and grace most eminently appear.

Antecedently unto what he did on earth, and to make way for it, there was his infinite condescension in assuming our nature. He was “in the form of God,” and in the eternal enjoyment of all the blessedness which the divine nature is essentially accompanied withal. Yet being thus “rich,” this was his “grace,” that “for our sakes he became poor.” This ineffable grace and love of Christ is the principal object of our faith and admiration, as it is declared by the apostle, Phillipians 2:6-9. And as he “emptied himself,” and laid aside his glory for a season, to undertake the work of mediation; so now he hath resumed his glory, as to the manifestation of his divine power, and hath the highest addition of glory in his human nature, by his exaltation at the right hand of God, yet he continueth his care of and love towards the church, so as to discharge the office of a public minister in their behalf. As all the shame, reproach, misery, with death, that he was to undergo on the earth, deterred him not from undertaking this work; so all the glory which he is environed withal in heaven diverts him not from continuing the discharge of it. 2. There is a limitation of this ministration of our high priest, with respect unto its proper object, and that in a double expression. For he is a minister, (1.) Tw~n aJgi>wn. (2.) Th~v skhnh~v th~v ajlhqin~hv . (1.) He is so tw~n aJgi>wn . The word may be either of the masculine or of the neuter gender, and so respect either persons or things. If it be taken in the former way, it is of the saints. And this is the ordinary sense of a[gioi in the books of the New Testament, —”saints,” or “holy persons.” But they cannot be here precisely intended; and the apostle useth this word frequently in another sense in this epistle. Tw~n aJgi>wn, from a[gia, of the neuter gender, may have a double signification: [1.] Of holy things in general; [2.] Of holy places: — [1.] Of things. So the Vulg. Lat. renders the word, “sanctorum;” which the Rhemists translate “holies;” that is, of holy persons or holy things. And ours place “holy things” in the margin. And the sense is true, if the signification of the word be extended unto all holy things; for the ministration of them all is committed unto Jesus Christ. But the word hath yet a more peculiar signification. [2.] The inmost part of the tabernacle our apostle calls a[gia aJgi>wn , Hebrews 9:3; that is, µyvid;Qeh’ vr,qo , —the “holy of holies,” “the most holy place.” And absolutely he calls it a[gia , “the holies,” Hebrews 9:8,12,25,25, 13:11. And in answer thereunto, he calleth our spiritual presence before God, whereunto we have an access by the blood of Christ, by the same name, Hebrews 10:19. And hence the word is rendered by most interpreters, “the sanctuary;” as by the Syriac, “the house of the sanctuary;” — particularly that part of the tabernacle whereinto the high priest entered alone, and that but once a year. Take this sanctuary properly and literally, and Christ was not the minister of it. He never entered into it, nor could, nor had any right so to do; because it belonged and was appropriated unto others, as our apostle declares, verse 4.

Wherefore we must take our direction herein from the words following.

For mentioning the whole tabernacle, as he doth here one part of it, namely, the sanctuary, he gives it a note of distinction from the old tabernacle of Moses, —”the true tabernacle.” So must “the sanctuary” be distinguished from that of old. It is that which answers thereunto. And this is nothing but heaven itself. Heaven, not as considered absolutely, but as the place of God’s glorious presence, the temple of the living God, where the worship of the church is presented, and all its affairs transacted.

This is called God’s sanctuary, <19A219> Psalm 102:19: “He looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did theLORD behold the earth.”

And so the apostle himself plainly interprets this place, Hebrews 9:24: “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself.”

And this is called “the sanctuary,” because there doth really dwell and abide all that was typically represented in the sanctuary below. And therein doth theLORD Christ discharge his priestly office for the good of the church. It was a joyful time with the church of old, when the high priest entered into the holy place; for he carried with him the blood wherewith atonement was made for all their sins. Yet he was quickly again to leave that place, and his ministration therein. But our high priest abides in the sanctuary, in the holy place, for ever, always representing the efficacy of the blood whereby atonement was made for all our sins. As no interposition between heaven and us should discourage us, while Christ is there ministering for us; so his being there will draw our hearts and minds thither continually, if so be we are really interested in his holy ministrations. These things are to some in darkness and obscurity; if not wholly out of their sight, yet out of their practice. In their faith, worship, and obedience, they find no concernment in the heavenly ministrations of this high priest. Things within the veil are hid from them. Yet would such persons be esteemed Christians. But the relief, the direction, the consolation, which true believers do or may, in the due exercise of faith, receive by the consideration hereof, are gracious and pleasant, yea, full of glory. (2.) The second part of the limitation of the ministration of our high priest is in these words, kai< th~v skhnh~v th~v ajlhqinh~v , —”and of that true tabernacle;” which is further described by its efficient cause, expressed both positively and negatively, “which theLORD pitched, and not man.”

Expositors generally agree that by “true” in this place, that which is substantial, solid, and abiding, is intended; for it is opposed unto that which is umbratile, transitory, and figurative. The old tabernacle could in no sense be said to be false, or deceiving; for it was an ordinance of God, set up and used by his appointment, and gave true directions unto its proper end. But it was figurative and typical, denoting somewhat that was to be the true and substantial tabernacle of God. So is the expression interpreted, John 6:32, “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven;” —that is, spiritually substantial and abiding, nourishing the soul unto eternal life.

But what is the “tabernacle” here intended, deserves our diligent inquiry.

And I find a fourfold sense to be given of these words, “the true tabernacle:” — [1.] Some (as Grotius) take it for “this whole universe, the fabric of heaven and earth.” This some, even among the heathen, have called “the tabernacle and temple of God.” This he hath made as it were to dwell in, as a certain fixed place for the manifestation of his glory. And whereas the ministry of Christ, at least as unto the effects of it, is not confined unto any certain place, above or below, to no material tabernacle or temple, the whole universe is called his tabernacle, as being that which is true, substantial, and abiding. And thus it may answer what is affirmed of “all power being given unto him in heaven and in earth,” and his being “given to be the head over all things unto the church.” I see nothing absurd in this opinion, nor contradictory unto the analogy of faith. But the design of the apostle in using these words and expressions, will not allow this to be his especial meaning; for somewhat he doth intend that the old tabernacle did typify and represent, which it did not the fabric of the universe, but that especial pattern which was showed unto Moses in the mount. [2.] Some, with more probability, do judge that by “‘the true tabernacle,’ the universal spiritual, catholic church,” is intended; for this is compared expressly unto a tabernacle, Isaiah 33:20, 54:2. And herein doth God dwell, and walk amongst men. Hereof Christ may be said to be the minister; for as he is the head of it, so he dwelleth in it. And it is undoubtedly in the behalf of this tabernacle that he continueth to administer in the holy place; and all the benefits of his ministration do redound hereunto. But yet all this doth not suffice to have theLORD Christ called the minister of this tabernacle. This, indeed, is that which he ministereth for; but it is not that which he ministereth by. The tabernacle and the things contained in it were the means of worship, and that which was materially employed in divine service; which the catholic church answereth not unto. Neither was the tabernacle of old, which is here alluded unto, a type of the church, but of Christ himself. [3.] Most expositors take “the tabernacle,” as they do “the sanctuary,” for heaven itself. And they would have the word “true,” by a zeugma, to belong unto the sanctuary as well as unto the tabernacle; which we have also before allowed. But yet this proveth not that the sanctuary and the tabernacle must be the same, though both be equally true in the same sense. This way go the Greek expositors, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and OEcumenius, on the place. And because this tabernacle is said to be “fixed of God,” Chrysostom reproacheth them who say that the heavens do move and are spherical, though he never had a prophetical dream of the Copernican hypothesis, But yet, as Beza well observes, they forsook their own interpretation on Hebrews 9:11,12, where the tabernacle is spoken of in the same sense that here it is. But besides the reasons that shall be given immediately for another interpretation, two things will not comply with this: For, 1st. There is no reason why the apostle should express the same thing, first under the name of the sanctuary, and then of a tabernacle. 2dly. There is no especial reason why it should be added peculiarly concerning the heavens, “which God hath fixed, and not man;” for this was never questioned. [4.] I say, therefore, that by this “true tabernacle,” the human nature of the\parLORD Christ himself is intended. Hereof he is the minister; herein doth he minister before God above. For, — 1st. Hereof the old tabernacle was a type. Thence is the expression taken, and thereunto is opposition made in the epithet, “true.” This, therefore, is our best direction and rule in the interpretation of this expression. For look what that type did signify, what was to be the substantial antitype of it, — that is the “true tabernacle,” whereof the\parLORD Christ is the minister; for all agree that it is called “true” in opposition and answer unto that which was umbratile and figurative.

Now that tabernacle was not erected to be a type of heaven, nor is any such thing intimated in the Scripture. A token, pledge, and means it was, of God’s presence with his people here on earth, of his nearness unto them; whence also he is said to “dwell among them.” But this he doth really and substantially only through Christ. He therefore alone is this “true tabernacle.” For, — 2dly. In answer hereunto, when he was incarnate, and came into the world, it is said that ejskh>nwse , “he fixed his tabernacle among us,” John 1:14; that is the signification of the word which we have translated to “dwell,” because the tabernacle of old was the way and means of God’s dwelling among the people, in the pledges of his gracious presence. All that old curious structure, for a habitation for God, did only represent his taking our nature upon him, fixing his tent thereby among men. What was the pattern of this tabernacle, showed unto Moses on the mount, we must inquire, on verse 5. 3dly. He himself called his own body his temple, with respect unto the temple of Jerusalem, which was of the same nature and use with the tabernacle, John 2:19-22. And this he did, because his body was that true, substantial temple and tabernacle whereof he was the minister. 4thly. That is the true tabernacle, which God truly and really inhabiteth, and on the account whereof he is our God. This was the nature, use, and end of the tabernacle of old. God dwelt therein, in the signs and pledges of his presence; and was on the account thereof the God of that people, according to the terms of the covenant between them, Exodus 25:8; Revelation 21:3. That, therefore, wherein God dwells really and substantially, and on the account whereof he is our God in the covenant of grace, that, and no other, is the true tabernacle.

But this is in Christ alone; for “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9. Thus the human nature of Christ is that true, substantial tabernacle, wherein God dwelleth personally. 5thly. He is the only way and means of our approach unto God in holy worship, as the tabernacle was of old; which we have elsewhere declared.

That alone which seems to be of any force against this interpretation, is, ‘That the human nature of Christ is that whereby he is the minister of this tabernacle; it cannot therefore be the tabernacle itself wherein he doth administer: and therefore the place of his abode must be intended by the tabernacle whereof he is the minister.’ Ans. By the same rule it would follow, that because Christ is the high priest, he is not the sacrifice; for the priest and the sacrifice among men cannot be the same. Howbeit Christ offered himself only. And the reason of these things is, that he was in his own person, and what he did therein, to answer all those types of priest, sacrifice, altar, tabernacle, and what belonged thereunto. He was the body and substance of them all, Colossians 2:17. No one of them was able to represent the fullness of grace that was to be in Christ; therefore were there many of them ordained, and those of various sorts. And therefore his being eminently intended in one of them, no way hinders his being so in another. He was all in himself, —priest, tabernacle, altar, and sacrifice.

Again; The efficient cause of this true tabernacle is declared, both positively and negatively; “which theLORD pitched, and not man,” —h[n e]phxen oJ Ku>riov . It is in the article h[n confined unto the tabernacle, and extends not unto the sanctuary mentioned before; “of the true tabernacle, which theLORD pitched.” And hereby this tabernacle is distinguished from both the sanctuaries, the typical here below, and the real above, even heaven itself; for it was not of the same building with either of them, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 9:11. ]Ephxen , “pitched,” “fixed.” It is a word proper unto the erection and establishment of a tabernacle. The fixing of stakes and pillars, with the fastening of cords thereunto, was the principal means of setting up a tabernacle, Isaiah 54:2. The preparation of the human nature or body of Christ is that which is intended. “A body hast thou prepared me,” Hebrews 10:5. And this body was to be taken down, and folded up for a season, and afterwards to be erected again, without the breaking or loss of any part of it. This of all buildings was peculiar unto a tabernacle, and so was it with the body of Christ in his death and resurrection.

JO Ku>riov . The author of this work was “theLORD.” This is the word or name whereby the writers of the New Testament do express the name Jehovah. And whereas, in the revelation of that name, God declared that self-subsisting firmitude and unchangeableness of his nature, whereby he would infallibly give subsistence unto his word, and accomplishment unto his promises, the apostle hath respect unto it in this great work, wherein all the promises of God became “yea and amen.” How this tabernacle was prepared and fixed immediately by the Holy Ghost, acting the infinite power of God alone therein, I have at large elsewhere declared.

It is added negatively, “and not man.” Some suppose a pleonasm in the words, and that this expression is redundant; for to say it was pitched by God, sufficiently includes that it was not done by man. But the expression is emphatical, and the apostle hath an especial design in it; for, — 1. The old tabernacle itself may in some sense be said to be pitched by God. It was done by his command, order, and direction, as were all other ordinances of his appointment. But it cannot be said that God pitched it, and not man; which excludes the whole service and ministry of man: for the ministry of men was used in the preparation, framing, and erection of it. But the pitching of this “true tabernacle” was the work of God alone, without any ministry or service of men: “A body hast thou prepared me.” 2. The apostle hath an especial respect unto the incarnation of Christ, without the concurrence of man in natural generation. This is expressed in answer unto that inquiry of the blessed Virgin, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Luke 1:34,35.

This was “the true tabernacle, which theLORD pitched,” and whereof Christ is the “minister.” And we may observe, — Obs. II. That all spiritually sacred and holy things are laid up in Christ. — All the utensils of holy worship of old, all means of sacred light and purification, were all placed and laid up in the tabernacle. And these were all “patterns of the heavenly things themselves,” which are all laid up in Christ, “the true tabernacle.” They are all enclosed in him, and it will be in vain to seek for them elsewhere. For, Obs. III. He hath the ministration of all these holy things committed unto him. —He is the minister both of the sanctuary and tabernacle, and of all things contained in them. Herein he stands in no need of help or assistance; nor can any take his work out of his hand.

Obs. IV. The human nature of Christ is the only true tabernacle, wherein God would dwell personally and substantially. —The dwelling of God with men was ever looked on as an infinite condescension. So Solomon expressed it, in his prayer at the dedication of the temple, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee,” 1 Kings 8:27.

But there are various degrees of this condescension, various kinds of this inhabitation of God among men. Under the old testament, he dwelt in the tabernacle and temple, by many symbols and pledges of his glorious presence. Such in especial were the ark and mercy-seat; whence that which was done before the ark is said to be done “before theLORD,” Exodus 30:8. This was, as Solomon expresseth it, a great condescension in the infinite, incomprehensible God; and there was a great glory accompanying this his presence. Under the new testament, God dwelleth in his saints by his Spirit, whereby they become a holy temple unto him. And of this inhabitation of God I have treated elsewhere. But his dwelling in the human nature of Christ is quite of another nature than either of these; and his love with his condescension, inconceivably more conspicuous than in them.

Hence is that expression of our apostle: “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9. It is not any sign or token, it is not any effect of the divine power, goodness, and grace, that dwells in him, but “the fullness of the Godhead;” that is, the divine nature itself. And this dwelleth in him “bodily;” that is, by the assumption of the body or the human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God. How glorious should this be in our eyes! How did they admire the condescension of God of old, in his dwelling in the tabernacle and temple by the glorious signs of his presence! and yet was it all but a dark representation and shadow of this glorious love and grace, whereby he dwells in our nature in Christ.

Obs. V. The church hath lost nothing by the removal of the old tabernacle and temple, all being supplied by this sanctuary, true tabernacle, and minister thereof. —The glory and worship of the temple was that which the Jews would by no means part withal. They chose rather to reject Christ and the gospel than to part with the temple, and its outward, pompous worship. And it is almost incredible how the vain mind of man is addicted unto an outward beauty and splendor in religious worship.

Take it away, and with the most you destroy all religion itself; —as if there were no beauty but in painting; no evidence of health or vigor of body, but in warts and wens. The Christians of old suffered in nothing more, from the prejudice of the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, than in this, that they had a religion without temples, altars, images, or any solemnity of worship. And in later ages men ceased not, until they had brought into Christianity itself a worship vying for external order, ceremony, pomp, and painting, with whatever was in the tabernacle or temple of old; coming short of it principally in this, that that was of God’s institution for a time, this of the invention of weak, superstitious, and foolish men. Thus is it in the church of Rome. And a hard thing it is to raise the minds of men unto a satisfaction in things merely spiritual and heavenly. They suppose they cannot make a worse change, nor more to their disadvantage, than to part with what is a present object and entertainment unto their senses, fancies, carnal affections, and superstitions, for that which they can have no benefit by, nor satisfaction in, but only in the exercise of faith and love, inclining us to that within the veil. Hence is there at this day so great a contest in the world about tabernacles and temples, modes of worship and ceremonies, which men have found out in the room of them which they cannot deny but God would have removed; for so they judge that he will be satisfied with their carnal ordinances in the church, when the time is come that he would bear his own no longer. But “unto them that believe Christ is precious” And this “true tabernacle,” with his ministration, is more unto them than all the old pompous ceremonies and services of divine institution, much more the superstitious observances of human invention.

Obs. VI. We are to look for the gracious presence of God in Christ only. — Of old all the tokens and symbols of God’s presence were confined unto and included in the tabernacle. There were they to be found, and nowhere else. Many altars the people of old did erect elsewhere, many high places they found out and prepared: but they were all sin and misery unto them; God granted his presence unto none of them all, Hosea 8:11, 12:11. And many ways there are whereby men may and do seek after the presence of God, after his favor, and acceptance with him, not in and by this “true tabernacle:’’ but they labor in vain, and spend their strength for that which doth not profit; neither the love, nor grace, nor goodness, nor mercy of God, is elsewhere to be found, nor can we by any other way be made partakers of them.

Obs. VII. It is by Christ alone that we can make our approach unto God in his worship. —All sacrifices of old were to be brought unto the door of the tabernacle. What was offered elsewhere was an abomination to the\parLORD. With the instruments, with the fire, with the incense that belonged unto the tabernacle, were they to be offered, and not otherwise. And it is now by Christ alone that we have an “access in one Spirit unto the Father,” Ephesians 2:18. He is the only way of going to him, John 14:6. And it is in and by his blood that he hath “consecrated a new and living way” unto the holy place, Hebrews 10:19,20.

Obs. VIII. It was an institution of God, that the people in all their distresses should look unto and make their supplications towards the tabernacle, or holy temple, 1 Kings 8:29,30. —And it is unto theLORD Christ alone, who is both the true tabernacle and the minister thereof, that we are to look in all our spiritual distresses.

Obs. IX. If any one else can offer the body of Christ, he also is the minister of the true tabernacle. —For theLORD Christ did no more. He did but offer himself; and they that can offer him, do put themselves in his place.

VERSE 3.

The summary description of our high priest designed is carried on in this verse. And the apostle manifests, that as he wanted nothing which any other high priest had, that was necessary unto the discharge of his office, so he had it all in a more eminent manner than any other had.

Ver. 3. — Pa~v garein dw~ra> te kai< zusi>av kaqi>statai? o[qen ajnagkai~on e]cein ti kai< tou~to o[ prosene>gkh| .

Kaqi>statai eijv to< prosfe>rein . Syr., byiq’n]D’ µaeq;D] “qui stat ut offerat,” “who standeth” (that is, at the altar) “that he may offer;” rendering kaqi>statai neutrally, the whole sense is imperfect, “For every high priest who standeth” (at the altar) “that he may offer gifts and sacrifices; therefore,” etc.

Dw~ra . Syr., aneB;y]Yq, “oblationem.” Vulg., “munera.” Some rather use “dona,” and some “donaria,” “sacred gifts.”

Kai< zusi>av . Syr.. ajeb;d] . that is µyjib;z] , “sacrifices.” Vulg., “hostias;” and the Rhemists, “hosts;” —It may be to countenance their name of the host in the mass. jAnagkai~on . Syr., ty;j\ aq;d]z; , “justum erat,” “aequum erat;” “it was just and equal.” Vulg., “necesse est,” in the present tense; “it is necessary.”

Beza, “necesse fuit,” “it was necessary;” properly: and so the Syriac renders the verb substantive understood in the original, or included in the infinitive mood following, in the preterimperfect tense. ]Ecein , “habere,” “hunt habere.” Syr., Hle aweh]y,D] an;h;l] “huic ut esset ei;” “to this man that there should be to him,” or “with him.” [O prosenegkh~ . Vulg., “aliquid quod offerat;” “something that he may offer.” Syr., byeq’n]D’ µdeme , “something that he should offer.” The Arabic adds, “for himself,” corruptly.

Ver. 3. —For every high priest is ordained [appointed ] to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity [it was necessary ] that this man [should ] have somewhat also to offer.

The connection of these words unto what was before asserted, which giveth us the design of the apostle in them, is expressed in the causal conjunction, ga>r , “for.” He both giveth a confirmation of what he had before affirmed, —namely, — that Christ was the “minister of the true tabernacle,” that is, of his body, —and rendereth a reason why it should so be; and this he further confirms in the verses ensuing.

The reason he insists on is taken from the general nature of the office of “every high priest” That theLORD Christ is our high priest, he had sufficiently demonstrated and confirmed before; this, therefore, he now assumes as granted. And hereon what belongs unto him as such he further manifests, by showing what the nature of that office required, and what did necessarily belong unto every one that was partaker thereof.

There are therefore two things in the words: 1. A general assertion of the nature, duty, and office of every high priest. 2. A particular inference from thence, of what did necessarily belong unto theLORD Christ in the susception and discharge of this office.

In the first, 1. The universality of the expression is to be observed: Pa~v ajrciereu>v, —” Every high priest.” By the context, this universal is cast under a limitation with respect unto the law: “Every high priest” that is “made” or “appointed by the law;” for of those alone the apostle treateth.

There was, indeed, never any high priest accepted of God but those ordained by the law, yet was it necessary unto the apostle to make mention of the law also. And although they were many of them, yet were they all of the same order and office; and so were all alike authorized and obliged unto the same duties. Wherefore the apostle thus expresseth it by “every high priest,” to evidence that there lay no exception against his argument, seeing that, in the whole multitude of high priests, in their succession from first to last, there was no one but he was appointed unto this end, and had this duty incumbent on him. Yea, it is not one especial duty of their office, that might be omitted, which he insisteth on, but the general end for which they were ordained; as he expresseth it in the next word. 2. Kaqi>statai, “is ordained;” that is, appointed of God by the law. Of the sense of this word I have spoken before, as also of the thing intended.

See chapter <580501> 5:1, 2.

Obs. I. God’s ordination or appointment gives rules, measures, and ends, unto all sacred offices and employments. —Whoever undertakes any thing in religion or divine worship without it, besides it, beyond it, is a transgressor, and therein worshippeth God in vain. He whom God doth not ordain in his service, is an intruder; and that which he doth not appoint is a usurpation. Nor will he accept of any duties, but what he himself hath made so. 3. The principal end why the high priests were ordained of God is expressed; it was “to offer gifts and sacrifices.”

This appears in their original institution, Exodus 28,29. (1.) They were to offer. God appointed Aaron and his successors, on purpose to offer gifts and sacrifices for the whole people. (2.) None but they were to offer; that is, none but the priests were to offer, — none but they might approach unto God, to offer any thing sacredly unto him. The people might bring their offerings unto God; but they could not offer them on the altar. And some offerings, as those at the feast of expiation, were appropriated unto the high priests only. So is the case stated by Azariah, the high priest, 2 Chronicles 26:18: “Not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto theLORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated;” from Exodus 30:7, Numbers 18:7. And God hereby taught the people that nothing should ever be accepted from them, but in and by the hand of the great high priest who was to come. And this is that which we are yet taught thereby. And whoever he be, if as great and prosperous as king Uzziah, who shall think to approach unto God immediately, without the interposition of this high priest, he is smitten with the plague of spiritual leprosy. 4. What they were to offer is also declared: “gifts and sacrifices;” —dw~ra , “munera,” “donaria,” “dona.” Sometimes all µyniB;r]q; , the “corbanim” in general, are intended by this word; for all sacred offerings, of what sort soever, are so called at their first institution, Leviticus 1:2: “If any one among you bring his corban unto theLORD.” And thereon the especial kinds of offerings and sacrifices are enumerated, which in general were all “corbanim.” So every thing that is brought unto the altar is called dw~ron , Matthew 5:23,24: Prosfe>rh|v to< dw~ron , —”When thou bringest thy gift;” that is, Ún]B;r]q; byriq]T’Aµai , —to “offer gifts,” sacred gifts of all sorts, especially sacrifices properly so called. Or, by dw~ra the twOhn]mi , “minchoth,” may be intended; as by zusi>av the “zebachim” are. For these two contain the whole complex of sacred offering, For “zebachim,” or zusi>ai, are bloody sacrifices, sacrifices by immolation or killing, of what sort soever the matter of it was, or unto what especial end soever it was designed; and the “minchoth” were offerings of dead things, as of corn, oil, meats, and drinks. To offer all these was the office of the priesthood ordained. And we are taught thereby, that, Obs. II. There is no approach unto God without continual respect unto sacrifice and atonement. The principal end of sacrifices was to make atonement for sin. —And so necessary was this to be done, that the office of the priesthood was appointed for it. Men do but dream of the pardon of sin, or acceptance with God, without atonement. This the apostle layeth down as that which was necessary for “every high priest,” by God’s institution. There never was any high priest, but his office and duty it was to “offer gifts and sacrifices;” for unto that end was he ordained of God.

Secondly, Hence he infers that it was necessary that “this man should have somewhat to offer.” For being a minister of the heavenly sanctuary, and the true tabernacle, a high priest he was. But this he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer unto God. A priest that hath nothing to offer, that was not ordained unto that end, is indeed no priest at all.

And in this assumption of the apostle we may observe, 1. The note of inference, “wherefore.” 2. The designation of the person spoken of, “this man.” 3. The manner of the ascription made unto him, “he must have.” 4. The matter of it, “somewhat to offer:” — 1. The note of inference is o[qen , “wherefore.” It is frequently used by the apostle in this epistle, when he proves his present assertions, from the old institutions of the law and their signification, Hebrews 2:17, <580301> 3:1, 7:25, 9:18. And the whole force of this inference, especially that in this place, depends on this supposition, that all the old typical institutions did represent what was really to be accomplished in Christ; whence it was “necessary” that he should be what they did signify and represent. Hence it is often observed in the Gospel, that he did or suffered such things, or in such a manner, because things were so ordered under the law. 2. The designation of the person is expressed: tou~ton, “this man;” ‘he of whom we speak, this high priest of the new testament; — whom he had before described, and specified by his name, “Jesus;” and by his dignity, “the Son of God:” that “this man,” this Jesus, the high priest of the new testament. 3. The subject being stated, that which he affirms thereof is, that he, this priest, must have “somewhat to offer.” And this was “of necessity” that so it should be. For whatever otherwise this glorious person were, or might be, yet a high priest he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer; for to offer gifts and sacrifices is the sole end of that office. This “necessity,” then, was absolute. For without this no office of priesthood could be discharged, and consequently no atonement be made, nor could we be brought unto God. And it is said that it was thus necessary e]cein , “that he should have.” And it is not possession only that is intended, but possession with respect unto use. He was so to have somewhat to offer, as to offer it accordingly. For it would not avail the church to have a high priest that should have somewhat to offer, if it were not actually offered.

Wherefore respect is had both unto the meetness of Christ unto his office and his faithfulness therein. He had what to offer, and he did offer it. 4. The matter of his offering is expressed: ti< oJ prosene>gkh , “somewhat to offer;” that is, in sacrifice unto God. The apostle expresseth it indefinitely, ti< oJ: but what it is which he was to have, he doth riot as yet declare. He was not engaged further by his present argument. But he elsewhere declares expressly what this was that he had to offer, what was the matter of his sacrifice, and what it was necessary that it should be.

And this was “himself,” —his whole human nature, soul and body.

It may be it will be said, that it doth not necessarily follow, that if he have somewhat to offer, it must be himself; for he might offer somewhat else out of the flocks and herds, as they did of old. Nor, indeed, doth the apostle intend directly to prove it in this place, namely, that it must be himself which he must offer. But it doth necessarily follow from the arguments before insisted on, Hebrews 7; for whatever else God had appointed or approved of to be offered in sacrifice, he had ordained the Levitical priesthood to offer, and appropriated the offering of it unto them; so as no such sacrifice could ever be offered by any who was not of the seed of Aaron. Whereas, therefore, our high priest was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, it is evident that he could not offer any of the things which were appropriated unto their ministry and service. And hence our apostle in the next verse affirms directly, that “if he were on the earth,” — that is, to officiate in his office with the things of the earth, after the manner of other priests, —he could not be so much as a priest at all; seeing all such services were appropriated unto and performed by the priests of another order. Again; if he might have done so, and accordingly had done so, our apostle manifests that his priesthood must have been ineffectual as unto the proper ends of it. For “the law could make nothing perfect;” not only because of the infirmity and imperfection of its priests, but also because of the insufficiency of its sacrifices unto the great ends of expiating sin, by whomsoever they were offered. For “it is impossible,” as he declares, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” or “purge the conscience” of the sinner, Hebrews 10:1-4, etc.

Wherefore, as it was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, so it was necessary that this somewhat should be himself, and nothing else.

Something must yet be added as unto the rendering of the words themselves, which influenceth their proper sense. jAnagkai~on , “necessary,’’ “of necessity,” must have the verb substantive added, to determine its signification. Erasmus adds “est,” “it is necessary;” and we render it, “it is of necessity.” Beza supplies “fuit,” as doth the Syriac interpreter aw;h\ , “fuit,” “erat;” “it was necessary.” And so he renders oJ prosene>gkh| by “quod offerret,” “which he should offer;” in both respecting the time past. Others render it by “quod offerat,” “which he may offer;” with respect unto the time present or to come. And Beza gives this account of his translation, namely, that the apostle having respect unto the sacrifice of Christ, which was past, affirms that “it was necessary that he should have somewhat that he might offer;” and not that “it is necessary that he should have somewhat to offer.” And although I will not deny but that the Lord, by reason of the perpetual efficacy of his oblation, and the representation of it in his intercession, may be said to offer himself, yet his sacrifice and oblation of himself were properly on the earth, as I have fully proved elsewhere.

This text being urged by Grotius with respect unto the offering and sacrifice of Christ, Crellius replies, “Concludit scriptor divinus ex eo quod Christus sit sacerdos, necesse esse ut habeat quod offerat; non, ut loquitur Grotius, necesse fuisse ut haberet quod offerret, quasi de re praeterita loquatur,” Respons. ad cap. 10. But, as Beza very well observes, the apostle had before mentioned the one offering of Christ as already perfected and completed, Hebrews 7:27. He cannot, therefore, speak of it now but as that which was past; and here he only shows how necessary it was that he should have himself to offer, and so to offer himself, as he had done. And from these words we may observe, — Obs. III. That there was no salvation to be had for us, no, not by Jesus Christ himself, without his sacrifice and oblation. —”It was of necessity that he should have somewhat to offer,” as well as those priests had of old according to the law. Some would have it that the Lord Christ is our Savior because he declared unto us the way of salvation, and gave us an example of the way whereby we may attain it, in his own personal obedience. But whence, then, was it “of necessity that he must have somewhat to offer” unto God as our priest; that is, for us? For this belongeth neither unto his doctrine nor example. And it was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, in answer unto those sacrifices of old which were offered for the expiation of sin. Nor could our salvation be otherwise effected, by any other acts or duties of our high priest; for the church could not be saved without taking away the guilt of sin. And the whole design of the priests and sacrifices of old, was to teach and instruct the church how alone this might be performed. And this was only by making atonement for it by sacrifice; wherein the beast sacrificed did suffer in the room of the sinner, and did by God’s institution bear his iniquity. And this our apostle hath respect unto, and the realizing of all those typical representations in Christ; without which his whole discourse is useless and vain. Wherefore there was no other way for our salvation, but by a real propitiation or atonement made for our sins. And whosoever looketh for it otherwise but in the faith and virtue thereof, will be deceived.

Obs. IV. As God designed unto the Lord Christ the work which he had to do, so he provided for him, and furnished him with whatever was necessary thereunto. —Somewhat he must have to offer. And this could not be any thing which was the matter of the sacrifices of the priests of old. For all those sacrifices were appropriated unto the discharge of the priesthood; and besides, they were none of them able to effect that which he was designed to do. Wherefore a body did God prepare for him, as is declared at large, Hebrews 10:1-8, etc.

Obs. V. The Lord Christ being to save the church in the way of office, he was not to be spared in any thing necessary thereunto. —And in conformity unto him, — Obs. VI. Whatever state or condition we are called unto, what is necessary unto that state is indispensably required of us. —So are holiness and obedience required unto a state of reconciliation and peace with God.

VERSE 4.

Eij mewn tw~n prosfero>ntwn kata< tomon ta< dw~ra .

Vulg. Lat., “si esset super terrain;” all others, “in terra,” to the same purpose. Syr., a[;r]aB’ , “in the earth.” Oujd j a]n h+n iJereu>v , aweh; arem;WK al; ãa’ , “even also he should not be a priest.” ]Ontwn tw~n iJere>wn . The Vulgar omits iJere>wn, and renders the words, “cure essent qui offerrent.”

Rhem., “whereas there were who did offer.” The Syriac agrees with the original. Beza, “manentibus illis sacerdotibus;” “quum sint alii sacerdotes.”

In the preceding discourses the apostle hath fully proved, that the introduction of this new priesthood under the gospel had put an end unto the old; and that it was necessary so it should do, because, as he had abundantly discovered in many instances, it was utterly insufficient to bring us unto God, or to make the church-state perfect. And withal he had declared the nature of this new priesthood. In particular he hath showed, that although this high priest offered his great expiatory sacrifice once for all, yet the consummation of this sacrifice, and the derivation of the benefits of it unto the church, depended on the following discharge of his office, with his personal state and condition therein; for so was it with the high priest under the law, as unto his great anniversary sacrifice at the feast of expiation, whose efficacy depended on his entrance afterwards into the holy place. Wherefore he declares this state of our high priest to be spiritual and heavenly, as consisting in the ministry of his own body in the sanctuary of heaven.

Having fully manifested these things, unfolding the mystery of them, he proceeds in this verse to show how necessary it was that so it should be,— namely, that he should neither offer the things appointed in the law, nor yet abide in the state and condition of a priest here on earth, as those other priests did. In brief, he proves that he was not in any thing to take on him the administration of holy things in the church according as they were then established by law. For whereas it might be objected, ‘If the Lord Christ was a high priest, as he pleaded, why then did he not administer the holy things of the church, according to the duty of a priest?’ To which he replies, that so he was not to do; yea, a supposition that he might do so was inconsistent with his office, and destructive both of the law and the gospel. For it would utterly overthrow the law, for one that was not of the line of Aaron to officiate in the holy place; and God had by the law made provision of others, that there was neither room nor place for his ministry. And the gospel also would have been of no use thereby, seeing the sacrifice which it is built upon would have been of the same nature with those under the law. This the apostle confirms in this verse.

Ver. 4 . —For indeed if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.

The words are a hypothetical proposition, with the reason or confirmation of it. The proposition is in the former part of the verse, “For indeed if he were on earth, he should not be a priest.” Hereof the remainder of the words is the reason or confirmation, “Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.”

And we may consider first the causal connection, “for,” which relates unto what he had discoursed immediately before, as introducing a reason why things ought to be as he had declared. He had in sundry instances manifested his present state and condition, with the way and manner of the discharge of his office. A priest he was; and therefore he must have somewhat to offer; which must be somewhat of his own, seeing the law would not accommodate him with a sacrifice, nor yet the whole creation; the law having prepossessed unto its own use all that was clean and fit to be offered unto God. A sanctuary he must also have wherein to officiate; and this was to be heaven itself, because he was himself exalted into heaven, and set down at the right hand of God. And of all this there was yet another special reason: “For if he were on the earth,” etc. “If indeed he were on earth.” The emphasis of the particle me>n , is not to be omitted, —’If really it were so;’ for therein is force granted unto the concession that the apostle here makes: ‘Truly it must be so.’ “If he were on earth,” includes two things: — 1. His continuance and abode on the earth: — If he were not exalted into heaven in the discharge of his office; if he were not at the right hand of God; if he were not entered into the heavenly sanctuary, but could have discharged his whole office here on the earth, without any of these things.

If he were thus on the earth, or thus to have been on the earth. 2. The state and condition of his priesthood: — If he were on the earth, or had a priesthood of the same order and constitution with that of the law; if he were to have offered the same sacrifices, or of the same kind with them, which were to be perfected on the earth; if he were not to have offered himself, wherein his sacrifice could not be absolutely consummated without the presentation of himself in the most holy place not made with hands.

These two things the apostle was treating of: 1. His present state and condition, as to the sanctuary wherein he administered; which was heavenly. 2. His sacrifice and tabernacle; which was himself. In opposition unto both these is this supposition made, “If he were on the earth.”

This, therefore, is the full sense of this supposition, which is well to be observed, to clear the meaning of the whole verse, —which the Socinians endeavor with all their skill and force to wrest unto their heresy, —’If we did aver him to have such a priesthood as in the discharge thereof he were always to continue on the earth, and to administer in the sanctuary of the tabernacle or temple, with the blood of legal sacrifices.’ On this supposition the apostle grants that “he could not be a priest.” He had not been, or could not be so much as a priest, or a priest at all in any sense.

That a priest he was to be, and that of necessity he must be so, had proved before. And on the occasion thereof he declares the nature of his sacrifice, tabernacle, and sanctuary; and now proves that they were so necessary for him, that without them he could not have been a priest.

It will be said, that he was a priest “on the earth;” and that therein he offered his great expiatory sacrifice, in and by his own blood. And it is true. But, 1. This was not “on the earth” in the sense of the law, which alone appointed the sacrifices on the earth; it was not in the way nor after the manner of the sacrifices of the law, which are expressed by that phrase, “on the earth.” 2. Although his oblation or sacrifice of himself was complete on the earth, yet the whole service belonging thereunto, to make it effectual in the behalf of them for whom it was offered, could not be accomplished on the earth.

Had he not entered into heaven, to make a representation of his sacrifice in the holy place, he could not have been the high priest of the church from that offering of himself; because the church could have enjoyed no benefit thereby. Nor would he ever have offered that sacrifice, if he had been to abide on the earth, and not afterwards to have entered the heavenly sanctuary to make it effectual. The high priest, on the great day of expiation, perfected his sacrifice for his own sin and the sins of the people without the tabernacle; but yet he neither could, nor would, nor ought to have attempted the offering of it, had it not been with a design to carry the blood into the holy place, to sprinkle it before the ark and mercy-seat, — the throne of grace. So was Christ to enter into the holy place not made with hands, or he could not have been a priest.

The reason of this assertion and concession is added in the latter part of the verse, “Seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.” ]Ontwn tw~n iJere>wn , “sacerdotibus existentibus,” “cum sint sacerdotes;” “whereas there are priests.” The apostle doth not grant that at that time when he wrote this epistle there were legal priests” de jure,” offering sacrifices according to the law. “De facto,” indeed, there were yet such priests ministering in the temple, which was yet standing; but in this whole epistle, as to right and acceptance with God, he proves that their office was ceased, and their administrations useless. Wherefore o]ntwn respects the legal institution of the priests, and their right to officiate then, when ther Lord Christ offered his sacrifice. Then there were priests who had a right to officiate in their office, and to “offer gifts according to the law.”

Two things are to be inquired into, to give us the sense of these words, and the force of the reason in them: 1. Why might not the Lord Christ be a priest, and offer his sacrifice, continuing on the earth to consummate it, notwithstanding the continuance of these priests according unto the law? 2. Why did he not in the first place take away and abolish this order of priests, and so make way for the introduction of his own priesthood? 1. I answer unto the first, That if he had been a priest on the earth, to have discharged the whole work of his priesthood here below, whilst they were priests also, then he must either have been of the same order with them, or of another; and have offered sacri-rices of the same kind as they did, or sacrifices of another kind. But neither of these could be. For he could not be of the same order with them. This the apostle proves because he was of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded from the priesthood, in that it was appropriated unto the tribe of Levi, and family of Aaron. And therefore also he could not offer the same sacrifices with them; for none might do so by the law but themselves. And of another order together with them he could not be.; for there is nothing foretold of priests of several orders in the church at the same time. Yea, as we have proved before, the introduction of a priesthood of another order was not only inconsistent with that priesthood, but destructive of the law itself, and all its institutions. Wherefore, whilst they continued priests according to the law, Christ could not be a priest among them, neither of their order nor of another; that is, if the whole administration of his office had been upon the earth together with theirs, he could not be a priest among them. 2. Unto the second inquiry, I say the Lord Christ could not by any means take away that other priesthood, until he himself had accomplished all that ever was signified thereby, according unto God’s institution. The whole end and design of God in its institution had been frustrated, if the office had ceased “de jure” before the whole of what was prefigured by its being, duties, and offices, was fulfilled. And therefore, although there was an intercision of its administrations for seventy years, during the Babylonish captivity, yet was the office itself continued in its right and dignity, because what it designed to prefigure was not yet attained. And this was not done till the Lord Christ ascended into the heavenly sanctuary, to administer in the presence of God for the church; for until then, the high priest’s entering into the holy place in the tabernacle once a year had not an accomplishment in what was prefigured thereby. Wherefore there was not an end put unto their office and ministration by the oblation of Christ on the cross, but they still continued to offer sacrifices according to the law; for there yet remained, unto the fulfilling of what was designed in their whole office, his entering into the holy place above. Wherefore they were still to continue priests, until he had completed the whole service prefigured by them, in the oblation of himself, and entering thereon into the heavenly sanctuary.

This, therefore, is the sense of the apostle’s reasoning in this place: The priests of the order of Aaron continued “de jure” their administrations of holy things, or were so to do, until all was accomplished that was signified thereby. This was not done until the ascension of Christ into heaven; for the first tabernacle was to stand until the way was made open into the holiest of all, as we shall see afterwards. Now, the Lord Christ was not a priest after their order, nor could he offer the sacrifices appointed by the law. Hence it is evident, that he could not have been a priest had he been to continue on the earth, and to administer on the earth: for so their priesthood, with which his was inconsistent, could never have had an end; for this could not be without his entrance as a priest into the heavenly sanctuary.

It appears, therefore, how vain the pretense of the Socinians is, from this place to prove that the Lord Christ did not offer his expiatory sacrifice here on the earth. For the apostle speaks nothing of his oblation, which he had before declared to have been “once for all,” before he entered into heaven to make intercession for us; but he speaks only of the order of his priesthood, and the state and condition wherein the present administration of it was to be continued.

Obs. I. God’s institutions, tightly stated, do never interfere. —So we see those of the ancient priesthood and that of Christ did not. They had both of them their proper bounds and seasons; nor could the latter completely commence and take place until the former was expired. The entrance of Christ into the holy place, which stated him in that condition wherein he was to continue the exercise of his priesthood unto the consummation of all things, put an absolute period unto the former priesthood, by accomplishing all that was signified thereby, with a due and seasonable end unto all legal worship, as to fight and efficacy. When he had done all that was figured by them, he took the whole work into his own hand.

Obs. II. The discharge of all the parts and duties of the priestly office of Christ, in their proper order, was needful unto the salvation of the church. —His oblation was to be on the earth, but the continuation of the discharge of his office was to be in heaven. Without this the former would not profit us; if he had done no more he could not have been a priest. For, 1. As this dependeth on the infinite wisdom of God, ordering and disposing all things that concern the discharge of this office unto their proper times and seasons; so, 2. Believers do find in their own experience, how all things are suited unto their conditions and wants. Unless the foundation of a propitiation for their sins be first laid, they can have no hope of acceptance with God. This, therefore, was first done, in “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” But when this is done, unless they have a continual application of the efficacy of it unto their souls, neither their peace with God nor their access unto God can be maintained. And this is done by the ministration of his office in the heavenly sanctuary, which ensues thereon.

VERSE 5.

Oi[tinev uJpodei>gmati kai< skia~| latreu>ousi tw~n ejpourani>wn , kaqwtistai Mwu`sh~v , me>llwn ejpitelei~n th? [Ora gash|v pa>nta kata< topon tonta soi ejn tw~| o]rei .

Oi[tinev , “qui,” “ut qui;” “as those who.” Latreu>ousi, “deserviunt,” “inserviunt.” Syr, ˆyvim]v’m]D’ , “who ministered,” (as in a sacred office); properly. Jypodei>gmati, “exemplari.” Rhem., “that serve the exemplar and shadow;” every way imperfectly. Syr., ateWd]li , “unto the similitude.”

Tw~n ejpourani>wn. Eras., “ecelestium.” Others, “rerum coelestium;” “of heavenly things.” Syr., ˆyleh;D] aY;mv’b’D] . “of the things which are in heaven.” Kaqwtiotai, “sicut responsum est Mosi.” Rhem., “as it was answered Moses.” Krhmatismo>v is not an “answer,” but an “oracle,” given out upon inquiry, and so “any divine instruction.’’ “Quemadmodum divinitus dictum est.” “Admonished of God,” say we.

Syr., tr’m]at’aD, , “it was spoken,” simply; which expresseth not the original.

Ver. 5 . —Who serve [in sacred worship ] unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, even as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. 1. We must first consider the reading of these words, by reason of the testimony which the apostle quotes out of the law, and his rendering thereof. The words in the original, Exodus 25:40, are, haer]W rh;B; ha,r]m; hT;a’!rv,a\ µt;ynib]t’B] hve[\w’ ; —”And look” (or “take heed”) “and make after their pattern which was showed thee in the mount.” The apostle adds pa>nta, “all things;” which is not in the original, nor in the version of the LXX. But, (1.) He might take it from verse 9 of the chapter, where the word is expressed, ynia\ rv,a\ lkoK] Út]wOa ha,r]m’ ; —”according unto all that I shall show thee.” (2.) Things indefinitely expressed are to be expounded universally: 1 Kings 8:39, “And to give to every man according to his ways;” that is, 2 Chronicles 6:30, “and render to every man according to all his ways.” Deuteronomy 19:15, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the month of three witnesses, shall the matter be established;” that is, 2 Corinthians 13:1, “shall every word be established.” <19B001> Psalm 110:1, “Until I make thine enemies thy footstool;” that is, 1 Corinthians 15:25, “all enemies.” Wherefore the apostle, by the addition of pa>nta, “all things,” says no more but what is expressed in one place, and necessarily understood in the other. µt;ynib]t’B] , “according to their pattern,” or “the pattern of them,” the apostle renders by kata< to< tu>pon only, “according to the pattern;” which comes all to one.

Tu>pov . The word is from hn;B; , to “bind;” and it is used for a prepared pattern or similitude that any thing is to be framed unto. So whereas the apostle renders it by tu>pov , he intends prwto>tupov, or ajrce>tupov, not e]ktupov , —such a type or pattern as other things are to be framed by, and not that which is the effigy or representation of somewhat else. 2. The connection of these words with the preceding discourse, which gives us the general design of the apostle, is nextly to be considered. He had before intimated two things: (1.) That the high priests according to the law did not minister the heavenly things; (2.) That the Lord Christ alone did so: whence he concludes his dignity and pre-eminence above them; — which is the argument he hath in hand.

Both these he confirms in these words. For he confines their ministry unto the types of heavenly things, exclusively unto the heavenly things themselves. And by showing, as in the verse preceding, that if Christ had been to continue on the earth he could not have been a priest, he manifests that he alone was to administer those heavenly things. 3. The argument in general whereby the apostle proves that “they served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” —that is, only so, and no more, —is taken from the words of God to Moses. And the force of the argument is evident. For God in those words declares that there was something above and beyond that material tabernacle which was prescribed unto him; for he showed him either an original or an exemplar in the top of the mount, which what he was to do below did but shadow and represent. And therefore they who ministered in what he was to make could serve only therein to be “the example and shadow of heavenly things.” This, therefore, is the apostle’s argument from this testimony: ‘If God showed unto Moses on the top of the mount that which was heavenly, and he was to make an example or shadow of it; then they that ministered therein “served only unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.”’ In the words may be observed, 1. The persons spoken of; “who.” 2. What is ascribed unto them; they “serve.” 3. The limitation of that service: wherein there is, (1.) The present immediate object of it; an “example and shadow:” (2.) The ultimate things intended; “heavenly things.” 4. The proof of the whole assertion, from the words of God to Moses: wherein there is, (1.) The manner of the instruction given him; “he was warned of God:” (2.) The instruction or warning itself;. “See that thou make,” etc. 1. There are the persons spoken of; oi[tinev , —”who.” It refers unto the priests mentioned verse 4, “Seeing there are priests that offer gifts; who.”

But although that expression comprises the whole order of Levitical priests, yet it refers in particular unto the high priests, verse 3, Pa~v gav , —”Every high priest ......; which high priests.” 2. What is ascribed unto them; latre>ousi , —”do serve.” The general signification of the English word “to serve” is not intended, as any thing doth serve for an end, or one person serves another. For it is a sacred word, and signifies only to minister in sacred worship and service, as the Syriac translation renders it. And in particular, it respects here all the dikaiw>mata latrei>av , “the ordinances of divine service,” which were appointed under the first tabernacle, Hebrews 9:1. “They do serve,” — ‘They do, according unto the law, officiate in sacred things; that is, they did so “de jure,” in their first institution, and continue “de facto” so to do still.’ And the word latreu>w is applied both unto the inward spiritual, and outward instituted holy worship of God. See Matthew 4:10; Acts 7:7; Romans 1:9. It respects, therefore, all that the high priests did, or had to do, in the worship of God, in the tabernacle or temple. 3. The limitation of their sacred service, is, that it was uJpodei>gmati kai< skia~| , —”to an example and shadow.” Dei~gma is a “specimen” of any thing; that whereby any thing is manifested by a part or instance. It is used in the New Testament only in Jude 7: Pro>keintai dei~gma , —”Are set forth for an example,” (speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah,) or a “particular instance” of what would be God’s dealing with provoking sinners at the last day. (1.) Deigmati>zw , which is framed of dei~gma , is but once used in the New Testament, Colossians 2:15, where we render it to “make a show;” that is, a representation of what was done. Jypo>deigma, the word here used, is an “example” showing or declaring any thing in a way of instance: John 13:15, Jypo>deigma e]dwka uJmi~n, — “I have given you an example,” saith our Savior, when he had washed his disciples’ feet; that is, ‘showed you, in what I have done, what ye ought to do also.’ So James 5:10, “Take, my brethren, the prophets for an example.” But whereas principally and commonly examples are patterns of other things, that which they are to be conformed unto, as in the places cited, John 13:15, James 5:10, this cannot be the sense of it in this place; for the heavenly things were not framed and fashioned after the example of these, but on the contrary.

Wherefore examples are of two sorts, “effigiantia” and “effigiata;” that is, prwto>tupa and e]ktupa , —such as other things are framed by, or such as are framed by other things. In this latter sense it is here used; and I would choose to render it by a “resemblance.” It is less than dei~gma , “simile,” “quiddam,” — an obscure representation. Hence it is added, — Kai< skia~| , “and the shadow.” Some suppose a “shadow” is taken artificially, and opposed unto an express image or complete delineation of any thing, by a similitude taken from the first lines and shadows of any thing that is afterwards to be drawn to the life; and so they say it is used Hebrews 10:1, “The law had only a shadow of good things to come, and not the express image of the things themselves.”

But properly it is taken naturally, and opposed unto a body, or substance: Colossians 2:17, “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is Christ.” It is indifferent in whether sense we here take the word, for what is affirmed is true in both. If we take it in the first way, it intends that obscure delineation of heavenly mysteries which was in the legal institutions. They did represent and teach them, and so were taught and represented in the divine service of those priests; but it was so obscurely, that none could see their beauty and excellency therein. If it be used in the latter way, then it declares that the substance of what God intended in all his worship was not contained nor comprised in the services of those priests. There were some lines and shadows, to represent the body, but the body itself was not there. There was something above them and beyond them, which they reached not unto. (2.) The things themselves whence they are restrained by this limitation are expressed; “of heavenly things.” The things intended in these words are no other than what God showed unto Moses in the mount; and therefore we shall defer our inquiry into them until we come unto those words. This, therefore, is the meaning of the words: ‘The whole ministry of the priests of old was in and about earthly things, which had in them only a resemblance and shadow of things above.’ And we may observe by the way, — Obs. I. God alone limits the signification and use of all his own institutions. —We ought not to derogate from them, nor to take any thing out of them which God hath put into them; nor can we put any thing into them that God hath not furnished them withal. And we are apt to err in both extremes. The Jews to this day believe that the ministration of their priests contained the heavenly things themselves. They do so, contrary to the nature and end of them, which the Scripture so often speaks unto. This is one occasion of their obstinacy in unbelief. They will imagine that there was nothing above or beyond their legal institutions, no other heavenly mysteries of grace and truth but what is comprised in them. They put more in them than ever God furnished them withal, and perish in their vain confidence.

It hath so fallen out also under the new testament. God hath instituted his holy sacraments, and hath put this virtue into them, that they should represent and exhibit unto the faith of believers the grace which he intendeth and designeth by them. But men have not been contented herewith; and therefore they will put more into them than God hath furnished them withal. They will have them to contain the grace in them which they exhibit in the way of a promise, and to communicate it unto all sorts of persons that are partakers of them. Thus, some would have baptism to be regeneration itself, and that there is no other evangelical regeneration but that alone, with the profession which is made thereon.

Every one who is baptized is thereby regenerated. The sign and figure of grace, they would have to be the grace itself. Nothing can be invented more pernicious unto the souls of men; for all sorts of persons may be brought to a ruinous security about their spiritual condition by it, and diverted from endeavors after that real internal work, in the change of their hearts and natures, without which none shall see God. This is to put that into it which God never placed there. Some suppose it to be such a distinguishing, or rather separating ordinance, that the administration of it in such a way or at such a season, is the fundamental rule of all church fellowship and communion; whereas God never designed it unto any such end.

In the supper of the Lord, the church of Rome in particular is not contented that we have a representation and instituted memorial of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the signs of his body as broken and his blood as shed for us, with an exhibition of grace in the word of promise, or the gospel; but they will have the natural body and blood of Christ, his flesh and bones, to be contained therein, and to be eaten or devoured by all that partake of the outward signs! This is to put that into the ordinance which God never put into it, and so to overthrow it. And there are two grounds or ends of what they do. The first is, to turn the wisdom of faith into a carnal imagination. It requires the light and wisdom of faith to apprehend the spiritual exhibition of Christ in the sacrament unto us. It is a great spiritual mystery, not at all to be apprehended but by the supernatural light of faith. This, the vain, darkened minds of men like not, they cannot away with it; it is foolishness unto them. Wherefore, under the name of a “mystery,” they have invented the most horrible and monstrous figments that ever befell the minds of men. This is easily received and admitted by a mere act of carnal imagination; and the more blind and dark men are, the more are they pleased with it. Secondly, They do it to exclude the exercise of faith in the participation of it. As they deal with the wisdom of faith as unto its nature, so they do with the exercise of faith as unto its use. God hath given this measure unto this ordinance, that it shall exhibit and communicate nothing unto us, that we shall receive no benefit by it, but in the actual exercise of faith. This the carnal minds and hearts of men like not. It requires a peculiar exercise of this grace, and that in a peculiar manner, unto a participation of any benefit by it. But this, under the notion of bringing more into the ordinance than ever. God put into it, they exclude, and ease all men of. Let them but bring their mouths and their teeth, and they fail not of eating the body and drinking the very blood of Christ. So, under a pretense of putting that in the ordinance which God never put into it, they have cast out of the hearts of men the necessity of those duties which alone render it useful and beneficial.

Some, on the other side, do derogate from them, and will not allow them that station or use which God hath appointed unto them in the church. (1.) Some do so from their dignity. They do so, by joining their own appointments unto them, as of equal worth and dignity with them. (2.) Some do so from their necessity, practically setting light by or disregarding the participation of them. (3.) Some do so from their use, openly denying their continuance in the church of God.

The reasons why men are so prone to deviate from the will of God in his institutions, and to despise the measures he hath given them, are, (1.) Want of faith in its principal power and act, which is submission and resignation of soul unto the sovereignty of God. Faith alone renders that an all-sufficient reason of obedience. (2.) Want of spiritual wisdom and understanding to discern the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in them.

Obs. II. It is an honor to be employed in any sacred service that belongs unto the worship of God, though it be of an inferior nature unto other parts of it. —It is so, I say, if we are called of God thereunto. This was the greatest honor that any were made partakers of under the old testament, that they “served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things” only. And if now God call any of us into his service, wherein yet, by the meanness of our gifts, or want of opportunities, we cannot serve him in so eminent a manner as some others do, yet if we abide in our station and duty, there is great honor in the meanest divine service.

Obs. III. So great was the glory of heavenly ministration in the mediation of Jesus Christ, as that God would not at once bring it forth in the church, until he had prepared the minds of men, by types, shadows, examples, and representations of it. —This was the end of all legal institutions of divine worship and service. And herein the wisdom of God provided in these to cases that were necessary. f3 (1.) He filled them with glory and beauty, that they might affect the minds of men with an admiration and expectation of that greater glory which they represented and pointed unto. And this they did among all them who truly believed; so that they continually looked and longed after the coming of Him, the glory of whose ministry was represented in them. In these two things did their faith principally act itself: [1.] In a diligent inquiry into the mediation and ministry of Christ, with the glory which it was to be accompanied withal, 1 Peter 1:10,11. [2.] In earnest desire after the enjoyment of what they saw afar off, and which was obscurely represented unto them, Song of Solomon 2:17, 4:6.

From both these arose that fervent love unto, zeal for, and delight in those ordinances of worship, which did so lead them unto these things that were so glorious; which in the Scripture are everywhere expressed, and which were so well-pleasing unto God. (2.) On the other hand, because these institutions were to be so glorious, that they might be shadows of heavenly things, and the people unto whom they were given were carnal, and given to rest themselves in present outward appearances, God was pleased to intermix with them many services that were hard to be borne, and many laws with penalties severe and dreadful. This provision was laid in by divine wisdom, that they might not rest in what he designed only to prepare their minds for the introduction of that which was far more glorious. And well is it for us if we have a due apprehension of the glory of the heavenly ministration of Christ, now it is introduced. It is too evident that with many, yea, with most that are called Christians, it is far otherwise; for they are still seeking after the outward glory of a carnal worship, as though they had no view of the spiritual glory of the heavenly ministration of the gospel in the hand of Jesus Christ, our high priest. Nor will it be otherwise with any of us, unless we are enabled by faith to look within the veil, and see the beauty of the appearance of Christ at the right hand of God. The apostle tells us, that “the ministration of the law was glorious; yet had it no glory in comparison of that which doth excel.” But if we are not able to discern this more excellent glory, and satisfy ourselves therein, it is a great sign that we ourselves are carnal, and therefore are delighted with those things that are so. But we must proceed with our exposition. 4. The proof of the foregoing assertion is added by the apostle, in the words which God spake unto Moses with respect unto his building the tabernacle, which was the seat of all the divine service they were to administer. And there are two things to be considered in this testimony: (1.) The manner of its introduction. (2.) The words of the testimony itself: — (1.) The words of the introduction are, kaqwtistai Mwu`sh~v ,—”admonished of God.” Crhmatismo>v we render “the answer of God,” Romans 11:4: “But what saith unto him oJ crmatismo>v ,” — “the divine oracle;” a “responsum,” a word or answer from God, giving caution or direction. And it is used principally for such an oracle of God as hath a warning or caution in it, for the avoiding somewhat on the one hand, as well as doing what is given in charge on the other. So Joseph was crhmatisqei>v , “divinely warned” to avoid the danger that was designed unto the child Jesus, Matthew 2:22; as the wise men were to avoid going unto Herod, verse 12. So Hebrews 11:7, “Noah being crhmatisqei>v,” — “ divinely warned, was moved with fear.” Yet sometimes it is used for any immediate private revelation, Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22. Wherefore two things are intended in this expression: [1.] That Moses had an immediate word, command, or oracle, from God, to the purpose intended. And, [2.] That he was to use great caution and heed about what was enjoined him, that there might be no miscarriage or mistake: “Admonished of God.”

And the manner of the expression in the original carrieth admonition in it: hce[\y’ haer]W, —”And look to it and do,” Exodus 25:40; take diligent care about it. The same is the sense of o[ra , when thus used, “take heed,” “look well to it.” When John, upon surprisal, would have fallen down before the angel to worship him, he replied, [Ora mh> , —”See thou do it not,” avoid it with care, Revelation 22:9. The matter was of the greatest importance, and the utmost diligence was to be used about it; whence the divine oracle was given out in a way of charge and admonition, as we have well rendered the word. And we may observe, — Obs. IV. That our utmost care and diligence in the consideration of the mind of God are required in all that we do about his worship. —There is nothing wherein men for the most part are more careless. Some suppose it belongs unto their own wisdom to order things in the worship of God as it seems most meet unto them; —an apprehension that I shall leave this world in admiration of, that ever it should befall the minds of so many good and honest men as it hath done. But the power of prejudice is inexpressible. Some think they are no further concerned in these things than only to follow the traditions of their fathers. This unto the community of Christians is the only rule of divine worship. To suppose that it is their duty to inquire into the way and manner of the worship of God, the grounds and reasons of what they practice therein, is most remote from them. ‘It was Moses that had the command to take care about the making of the tabernacle, and not the people. There was nothing left unto them but to do and observe what he had appointed.’ And it is true; when God first reveals the way of his worship immediately from himself, as he did first by Moses, and last of all by his Son Jesus Christ, the people have nothing to do therewith, but only to observe and do what is appointed, as our Savior expressly declares, Matthew 28:20: but when his worship is so revealed and declared, there is not the meanest person, who professeth obedience unto him, who is exempted from this command of taking most diligent care about the due discharge of his duty herein. And this care and diligence are necessary, — [1.] From the aptness and proneness of the minds of men unto pernicious extremes in this matter; for, — 1st. The generality of men have been stupidly negligent herein, as if it were a matter wherein they were not at all concerned. What is provided for them, what is proposed unto them, what comes in the ordinary way whereunto they have been accustomed, whatever it be, that they follow.

And as they take it up on light grounds, so they observe it with light spirits. And this hath been the true cause of that inundation of profaneness which is come on the Christian world. For when once men come unto such an unconcernment in the worship of God, as to engage in it they know not well why, and to perform it they know not how, all manner of impiety will ensue in their lives; as is manifest in experience beyond the evidence of a thousand arguments. 2dly. Many in all ages have been prone to indulge unto their own imaginations and inventions, in the disposal of divine worship. And this bitter root hath sprung up into all the superstition and idolatry that the earth is filled withal at this day. From these two poisoned springs hath proceeded that woful apostasy from Christ and evangelical worship which the world groans under. Wherefore our utmost care and diligence are required herein. [2.] The concernment of the glory of God calls for the same care in like manner. It were no hard thing to demonstrate, that the principal way and means whereby God expects that we should give glory unto him in this world, is by a due observation of the divine worship that he hath appointed; for herein do we in an especial manner ascribe unto him the glory of his sovereignty, of his wisdom, of his grace and holiness. When in his worship we bow down our souls under his authority alone; when we see such an impress of divine wisdom on all his institutions, as to judge all other ways folly in comparison of them; when we have experience of the grace represented and exhibited in them; then do we glorify God aright.

And without these things, whatever we pretend, we honor him not in the solemnities of our worship. But we return. (2.) In the charge given to Moses two things are observable: [1.] The time when it was given him. [2.] The charge itself. [1.] The time when it was given: Me>llwn ejpitelei~n thn, — “When he was about to make the tabernacle.” Me>llwn expresseth that which is immediately future. He was “in procinctu,” in readiness for that work; just as it were taking it in hand, and going about it. This made the divine warning seasonable. It was given him upon the entrance of his work, that it might make an effectual impression on his mind. And it is our duty, upon an entrance into any work we are called unto, to charge our consciences with a divine admonition. What immediate revelation was to Moses, that the written word is to us. To charge our consciences with rule from it, and its authority, will preserve us in whatever may fall out in the way of our duty; and nothing else will do it. jEpitelei~n is “perficere,” “to accomplish,” “to perfect,” “to finish.” But it includes here the beginning as well as the end of the work which he was to perfect. The same with,poih~sai , Acts 7:44, where this whole passage is somewhat otherwise expressed, to the same purpose: Kaqwxatw oJ lalw~n tw~| Mwu`sh~|? poih~sai aujthkei “As he appointed who spake unto Moses,” (which was God himself, as our apostle here declares, in the second person, the great Angel of the covenant), “that he should make it according to the pattern which he saw.” Wherefore ejpitelei~n compriseth the whole service of Moses, in making, framing, and finishing the tabernacle. [2.] The warning and charge itself is, that “he should make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount.” What, this “pattern” was, how it was “showed unto Moses,” and how he was to “make all things according unto it,” are all of them things not easy to be explained.

In general, it is certain that God intended to declare hereby that, the work which Moses had to do, —the tabernacle he was to erect, and the worship thereof, —was not, either in the whole, or in any part of it, or any thing that belonged unto it, a matter of his own invention or contrivance, nor what he set upon by chance; but an exact representation of what God had instructed him in and showed unto him. This was the foundation of all the worship of God under the old testament, and the security of the worshippers. Hence, at the finishing of this work, it is eight times repeated in one chapter, that all things were done “as theLORD commanded Moses.” And herein was that truth fully consecrated unto the perpetual use of the church in all ages, that the will and command of God are the sole reason, rule, and measure, of all religious worship.

For the pattern itself, expositors generally agree, that on the top of the mount God caused to appear unto Moses, the form, fashion, dimensions, and utensils, of that tabernacle which he was to erect. Whether this representation were made to Moses by the way of internal vision, as the temple was represented unto Ezekiel, or whether there were an ethereal fabric proposed unto his bodily senses, is hard to determine. And this tygib]T’ , “exemplar,” or “pattern,” our apostle here calls “heavenly things.”

For to prove that the priests served only unto “the resemblance and shadow of heavenly things,” he produceth this testimony, that Moses was to “make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount.”

And this pattern, with all that belonged unto it, is called “heavenly things,” because it was made to appear in the air on the top of the mount, with respect unto that which was to be made beneath: or it may be called “heavenly,” because it was the immediate effect of the power of God, who worketh from heaven. But supposing such an ethereal tabernacle represented unto Moses, yet it cannot be said that it was the substance of the heavenly things themselves, but only a shadow or representation of them. The heavenly things themselves, in the mind of God, were of another nature, and this pattern on the mount was but an external representation of them. So that here must be three things intended: 1st. The heavenly things themselves; 2dly. The representation of them on the mount; 3dly. The tabernacle made by Moses in imitation thereof: wherefore this tabernacle and its worship, wherein the Levitical priests administered their office, was so far from being the shadow of the substance of the heavenly things themselves, as that they were but a shadow of that shadow of them which was represented in the mount.

I know not that there is any thing in this exposition of the words that is contrary unto the analogy of faith, or inconsistent with the design of the apostle; but withal I must acknowledge, that these things seem to me exceeding difficult, and such as I know not how fully to embrace, and that for the reasons following: — 1st. If such a representation were made unto Moses in the mount, and that be the “pattern” intended, then the tabernacle with all its ministry was a shadow thereof. But this is contrary unto our apostle in another place, who tells us that indeed all legal institutions were only a “shadow,” but withal that the “substance” or “body was of Christ,” Colossians 2:17.

And it is the body that the shadow doth immediately depend upon and represent. But according unto this exposition, this figure or appearance made in the mount must be the body or substance which those legal institutions did represent. But this figure was not Christ. And it is hard to say that this figure was the body which the tabernacle below was the shadow of, and that body was the shadow of Christ. But that Christ himself, his mediation and his church, —that is, his mystical body, —were not immediately represented by the tabernacle and the service of it, but somewhat else that was a figure of them, is contrary unto the whole dispute of the apostle in this place, and the analogy of faith. 2dly. I do not see how the priests could minister in the earthly tabernacle as an example and shadow of such an ethereal tabernacle. For if there were any such thing, it immediately vanished after its appearance; it ceased to be any thing, and therefore could not be any longer a “heavenly thing.”

Wherefore, with respect thereunto, they could not continue to “serve unto the example of heavenly things,” which were not. 3dly. No tolerable account can be given of the reason or use of such a representation. For God doth not dwell in any such tabernacle in heaven, that it should be thought to represent his holy habitation; and as unto that which was to be made on the earth, he had given such punctual instructions unto Moses, confirming the remembrance and knowledge of them in his mind by the Holy Spirit, by whom he was acted and guided, as that he needed no help from his imagination, in the view of the representation of such a fabric. 4thly. Whatever Moses did, it was “for a testimony unto the things which were to be spoken afterwards,” Hebrews 3:5. But these were the things of Christ and the gospel; which therefore he was to have an immediate respect unto.

The sense of the words must be determined from the apostle himself. And it is evident, — 1st . That “the heavenly things,” unto whose resemblance the legal priests did minister, and “the pattern showed unto Moses in the mount,” were the same. Hereon depends the whole force of his proof from this testimony. 2dly. These “heavenly things,” he expressly tells us, were those which were consecrated, dedicated unto God, and purified, by the sacrifice of the blood of Christ, Hebrews 9:23. 3dly. That Christ by his sacrifice did dedicate both himself, the whole church, and its worship, unto God. From these things it follows, — 4thly. That God did spiritually and mystically represent unto Moses the incarnation and mediation of Christ, with the church of the elect which was to be gathered thereby, and its spiritual worship. And moreover, he let him know how the tabernacle and all that belonged thereunto, did represent him and them. For the tabernacle that Moses made was a sign and figure of the body of Christ. This we have proved in the exposition of the second verse of this chapter; and it is positively affirmed by the apostle, Colossians 2:17. For therein would God dwell really and substantially: Colossians 2:9, “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” And the tabernacle was but to represent this inhabitation of God in Christ. Therefore did he dwell therein typically by sundry pledges of his presence, that he might represent the real substantial inhabitation of the Godhead in the body or human nature of Christ. This, therefore, was the ajrce>tupov, whereunto the tabernacle was to be framed; and this was that which was showed unto Moses on the top of the mount.

These were the “heavenly things,” which they served unto the resemblance and shadow of. It is therefore most probable, and most agreeable unto the mystery of the wisdom of God in these things, that, before the building of the tabernacle below, God did show unto Moses what was to be signified and represented thereby, and what he would introduce when that was to be taken away. He first showed “the true tabernacle,” then appointed a figure of it, which was to abide and serve the worship of the church, until that true one was to be introduced, when this was to be taken down and removed out of the way: which is the substance of what the apostle designeth to prove.

It will be said, ‘That what was showed unto Moses in the mount was only tynob]T’ and tu>pov , as here; that is, a “likeness,” “similitude,’’ and “type” of other things. This, therefore, could not be Christ himself and his mediation, which are the substance of heavenly things, and not a resemblance of them.’

I answer, 1st. All representations of Christ himself, antecedent unto his actual exhibition in the flesh (as his appearances in human shape of old), were but resemblances and types of what should be afterwards. 2dly. His manifestation unto Moses is so called, not that it was a type of any other things above, but because it was the prototype of all that was to be done below. (1st.) This was the foundation of the faith of the church of Israel in all generations. Their faith in God was not confined unto the outward things they enjoyed, but [rested] on Christ in them, and represented by them.

They believed that they were only resemblances of him and his mediation; which when they lost the faith of, they lost all acceptance with God in their worship. The relation of their ordinances unto him, their expression of him as their prototype and substance, was the line of life, wisdom, beauty, glory, and usefulness, that ran through them all. This being now taken away, they are all as a dead thing. When Christ was in them they were the delight of God, and the joy of the souls of his saints. Now he hath unclothed himself of them, and left them to be rolled up as a vesture, as a monument of the garments he thought meet to wear in the immature age of the church, they are of no more use at all. Who now could see any beauty, any glory, in the old temple administrations, should they be revived? Where Christ is, there is glory, if we have the light of faith to discern it; and we may say of every thing wherein he is not, be it never so pompous unto the eyes of flesh, “Ichabod,” —”Where is the glory of it?” or “It hath no glory.”

Jude tells us of a contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses, verse 9. It is generally thought that the devil would have hindered the burial of it, that in process of time it might have been an occasion of idolatry among that people. But that which was signified hereby, was the contest he made to keep the body of Moses, the whole system of Mosaical worship and ceremonies, from being buried, when the life and soul of it was departed. And this hath proved the ruin of the Jews unto this day. (2dly.) Consider the progress of these heavenly things; that is, of Jesus Christ, and all the effects of his mediation in grace and glory. [1st .] The idea, the original pattern or exemplar of them, was in the mind, the counsel, the wisdom, and will of God, Ephesians 1:5,8,9. [2dly .] Hereof God made various accidental representations, preparatory for the full expression of the glorious eternal idea of his mind. So he did in the appearance of Christ in the form of human nature to Abraham, Jacob, and others; so he did in the pattern that he showed unto Moses in the mount, which infused a spirit of life into all that was made unto a resemblance of it; so he did in the tabernacle and temple, as will be more fully declared afterwards. [3dly .] He gave a substantial representation of the eternal idea of his wisdom and grace in the incarnation of the Son, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt substantially, and in the discharge of his work of mediation. [4thly .] An exposition of the whole is given us in the Gospel, which is God’s means of instructing us in the eternal counsels of his wisdom, love, and grace, as revealed in Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:18.

The actings of faith with respect unto these heavenly things do begin where the divine progress of them doth end, and end where it begins. Faith in the first place respects and receives the revelation of the Gospel, which is the means of its receiving and resting in Christ himself; and through Christ our faith is in God, 1 Peter 1:2l, as the eternal spring and fountain of all grace and glory.

VERSE 6.

Nuni< de< diaforwte>Rav te>teuce leitourgi>av , o[sw| kai< krei>ttono>v ejsti diazh>khv mesi>thv , h[tiv ejpi< krei>ttosin ejpaggeli>aiv nenomoqe>thtai . f4 There is no material difference in any translators, ancient or modern, in the rendering of these words; their signification in particular will be given in the exposition.

Ver. 6. —But now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

In this verse beginneth the second part of the chapter, concerning the difference between the two covenants, the old and the new, with the preeminence of the latter above the former, and of the ministry of Christ above the high priests on that account. The whole church-state of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and the privileges annexed unto it, depended wholly on the covenant that God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of this new priesthood whereof the apostle is discoursing, did necessarily abolish that covenant, and put an end unto all sacred ministrations that belonged unto it. And this could not well be offered unto them without the supply of another covenant, which should excel the former in privileges and advantages. For it was granted among them that it was the design of God to carry on the church unto a perfect state, as hath been declared on Hebrews 7; wherefore he would not lead it backward, nor deprive it of any thing it had enjoyed, without provision of what was better in its room. This, therefore, the apostle here undertakes to declare. And he doth it after his wonted manner, from such principles and testimonies as were admitted among themselves.

Two things unto this purpose he proves by express testimonies out of the prophet Jeremiah: 1. That besides the covenant made with their fathers in Sinai, God had promised to make another covenant with the church, in his appointed time and season. 2. That this other promised covenant should be of another nature than the former, and much more excellent, as unto spiritual advantages, unto them who were taken into it.

From both these, fully proved, the apostle infers the necessity of the abrogation of that first covenant, wherein they trusted, and unto which they adhered, when the appointed time was come. And hereon he takes occasion to declare the nature of the two covenants in sundry instances, and wherein the differences between them did consist. This is the substance of the remainder of this chapter.

This verse is a transition from one subject unto another; namely, from the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, unto the excellency of the new covenant above the old. And herein also the apostle artificially compriseth and confirmeth his last argument, of the preeminency of Christ, his priesthood and ministry, above those of the law.

And this he doth from the nature and excellency of that covenant whereof he was the mediator in the discharge of his office.

There are two parts of the words: First, An assertion of the excellency of the ministry of Christ. And this he expresseth by way of comparison; “He hath obtained a more excellent ministry:” and after he declareth the degree of that comparison; “By how much also.” Secondly, He annexeth the proof of this assertion; in that he is “the mediator of a better covenant, established on better” or “more excellent promises.”

In the first of these there occur these five things: — 1. The note of its introduction; “But now:” 2. What is ascribed in the assertion unto the Lord Christ; and that is a “ministry:” 3. How he came by that ministry; “He hath obtained it:” 4. The quality of this ministry; it is “better” or “more excellent” than the other: 5. The measure and degree of this excellency; “By how much also:” all which must be spoken unto, for the opening of the words: — 1. The introduction of the assertion is by the particles nuni< de> , —”but now.” Nu~n , “now,” is a note of time, of the present time. But there are instances where these adverbial particles, thus conjoined, do not seem to denote any time or season, but are merely adversative, Romans 7:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11, 7:14. But even in those places there seems a respect unto time also; and therefore I know not why it should be here excluded.

As, therefore, there is an opposition intended unto the old covenant, and the Levitical priesthood; so the season is intimated of the introduction of the new covenant, and the better ministry wherewith it was accompanied; — ‘“now,” at this time, which is the season that God hath appointed for the introduction of the new covenant and ministry.’ To the same purpose the apostle expresseth himself, treating of the same subject, Romans 3:26: “To declare ejn tw~| nu~n kairw~| ,” “at this instant season,” now the gospel is preached, “his righteousness.” For, — Obs. I. God, in his infinite wisdom, gives proper times and seasons unto all his dispensations unto and towards the church. —So the accomplishment of these things was in “the fullness of times,” Ephesians 1:10; that is, when all things rendered it seasonable and suitable unto the condition of the church, and for the manifestation of his own glory. He hasteneth all his works of grace in their own appointed time, Isaiah 60:22. And our duty it is to leave the ordering of all the concerns of the church, in the accomplishment of promises, unto God in his own time, Acts 1:7. 2. That which is ascribed unto the Lord Christ is leitougri>a , —a “ministry.” The priests of old had a ministry; they ministered at the altar, as in the foregoing verse. And the Lord Christ was “a minister” also; so the apostle had said before, he was lei>tourgov tw~n ajgi>wn , verse 2, —”a minister of the holy things.” Wherefore he had a “liturgy,” a “ministry,”a service, committed unto him. And two things are included herein: — (1.) That it was an office of ministry that theLORD Christ undertook. He is not called a minister with respect unto one particular act of ministration; — so are we said to “minister unto the necessity of the saints,” which yet denotes no office in them that do so. But he had a standing office committed unto him, as the word imports. In that sense also he is called dia>konov , a “minister” in office, Romans 15:8. (2.) Subordination unto God is included herein. With respect unto the church his office is supreme, accompanied with sovereign power and authority; he is “ Lord over his own house.” But he holds his office in subordination unto God, being “faithful unto him that appointed him.” So the angels are said to minister unto God, Daniel 7:10; that is, to do all things according unto his will, and at his command. So had the Lord Christ a ministry. And we may observe, — Obs. II. That the whole office of Christ was designed unto the accomplishment of the will and dispensation of the grace of God. For these ends was his ministry committed unto him. We can never sufficiently admire the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, in undertaking this office for us. The greatness and glory of the duties which he performed in the discharge thereof, with the benefits we receive thereby, are unspeakable, being the immediate cause of all grace and glory.

Yet we are not absolutely to rest in them, but to ascend by faith unto the eternal spring of them. This is the grace, the love, the mercy of God, all acted in a way of sovereign power. These are everywhere in the Scripture represented as the original spring of all grace, and the ultimate object of our faith, with respect unto the benefits which we receive by the mediation of Christ. His office was committed unto him of God, even the Father; and his will did he do in the discharge of it. Yet also, — Obs. III. The condescension of the Son of God to undertake the office of the ministry on our behalf is unspeakable, and for ever to be admired. — Especially will it appear so to be, when we consider who it was who undertook it, what it cost him, what he did and underwent in the pursuance and discharge of it, as it is all expressed, Philippians 2:6-8.

Not only what he continueth to do in heaven at the right hand of God belongeth unto this ministry, but all that he suffered also upon the earth.

His ministry, in the undertaking of it, was not a dignity, a promotion, a revenue, Matthew 20:28. It is true, it is issued in glory, but not until he had undergone all the evils that human nature is capable of undergoing.

And we ought to undergo any thing cheerfully for him who underwent this ministry for us.

Obs. IV. The Lord Christ, by undertaking this office of the ministry, hath consecrated and made honorable that office unto all that are rightly called unto it, and do rightly discharge it. —It is true, his ministry and ours are not of the same kind and nature; but they agree in this, that they are both of them a ministry unto God in the holy things of his worship. And considering that Christ himself was God’s minister, we have far greater reason to tremble in ourselves on an apprehension of our own insufficiency for such an office, than to be discouraged with all the hardships and contests we meet withal in the world upon the account of it. 3. The general way whereby our Lord Christ came unto this ministry is expressed: Te>teuce , —”He obtained it.” Tugca>nw is either “sorte contingo,” “to have a lot or portion;” or to have any thing befall a man, as it were by accident; or “assequor,” “obtineo,” to “attain” or “obtain” any thing which before we had not. But the apostle designeth not to express in this word the especial call of Christ, or the particular way whereby he came unto his ministry, but only in general that he had it, and was possessed of it, in the appointed season, which before he had not. The way whereby he entered on the whole office and work of his mediation he expresseth by keklhrono>mnke , Hebrews 1:4, — he had it by “inheritance;” that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made unto him as the Son. See the exposition on that place.

There were two things that concurred unto his obtaining this ministry: (l.)

The eternal purpose and counsel of God designing him thereunto; an act of the divine will accompanied with infinite wisdom, love, and power. (2.)

The actual call of God, whereunto many things did concur, especially his unction with the Spirit above measure for the holy discharge of his whole office. Thus did he obtain this ministry, and not by any legal constitution, succession, or carnal rite, as did the priests of old. And we may see that, — Obs. V. The exaltation of the human nature of Christ into the office of this glorious ministry depended solely on the sovereign wisdom, grace, and love of God. —When the human nature of Christ was united unto the divine, it became, in the person of the Son of God, meet and capable to make satisfaction for the sins of the church, and to procure righteousness and life eternal for all that do believe. But it did not merit that union, nor could do so. For as it was utterly impossible that any created nature, by any act of its own, should merit the hypostatical union, so it was granted unto the human nature of Christ antecedently unto any act of its own in way of obedience unto God; for it was united unto the person of the Son by virtue of that union. Wherefore, antecedently unto it, it could merit nothing. Hence its whole exaltation, and the ministry that was discharged therein, depended solely on the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God.

And in this election and designation of the human nature of Christ unto grace and glory, we may see the pattern and example of our own. For if it was not upon the consideration or foresight of the obedience of the human nature of Christ that it was predestinated and chosen unto the grace of the hypostatical union, with the ministry and glory which depended thereon, but of the mere sovereign grace of God; how much less could a foresight of any thing in us be the cause why God should choose us in him before the foundation of the world unto grace and glory! 4. The quality of this ministry, thus obtained, as unto a comparative excellency, is also expressed: Diaforwte>rav, — “More excellent.” The word is used only in this epistle in this sense, Hebrews 1:4, and in this place. The original word denotes only a difference from other things; but in the comparative degree, as here used, it signifies a difference with a preference, or a comparative excellency. The ministry of the Levitical priests, was good and useful in its time and season; this of our Lord Jesus Christ so differed from it as to be better than it, and more excellent; pollw~| a]meinon . And, — 5. There is added hereunto the degree of this pre-eminence, so far as it is intended in this place and the present argument, in the word o[ow~| , — “by how much.” ‘So much more excellent, by how much.’ The excellency of his ministry above that of the Levitical priests, bears proportion with the excellency of the covenant whereof he was the mediator above the old covenant wherein they administered; whereof afterwards.

So have we explained the apostle’s assertion, concerning the excellency of the ministry of Christ. And herewith he closeth his discourse which he had so long engaged in, about the pre-eminence of Christ in his office above the high priests of old. And indeed, this being the very hinge whereon his whole controversy with the Jews did depend, he could not give it too much evidence, nor too full a confirmation. And as unto what concerns ourselves at present, we are taught thereby, that, — Obs. VI. It is our duty and our safety to acquiesce universally and absolutely in the ministry of Jesus Christ. —That which he was so designed unto, in the infinite wisdom and grace of God; that which he was so furnished for the discharge of by the communication of the Spirit unto him in all fullness; that which all other priesthoods were removed to make way for, must needs be sufficient and effectual for all the ends unto which it is designed. It may be said, ‘This is that which all men do; all that are called Christians do fully acquiesce in the ministry of Jesus Christ.’ But if it be so, why do we hear the bleating of another sort of cattle? What mean those other priests, and reiterated sacrifices, which make up the worship of the church of Rome? If they rest in the ministry of Christ, why do they appoint one of their own to do the same things that he hath done, — namely, to offer sacrifice unto God ?

Secondly, The proof of this assertion lies in the latter part of these words; “By how much he is the mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises” The words are so disposed, that some think the apostle intends now to prove the excellency of the covenant from the excellency of his ministry therein. But the other sense is more suited unto the scope of the place, and the nature of the argument which the apostle presseth the Hebrews withal. For on supposition that there was indeed another, and that a “better covenant,” to be introduced and established, than that which the Levitical priests served in, —which they could not deny, —it plainly follows, that he on whose ministry the dispensation of that covenant did depend must of necessity be “more excellent” in that ministry than they who appertained unto that covenant which was to be abolished. However, it may be granted that these things do mutually testify unto and illustrate one another. Such as the priest is, such is the covenant; such as the covenant is in dignity, such is the priest also.

In the words there are three things observable: — 1. What is in general ascribed unto Christ, declaring the nature of his ministry; he was a “mediator:” 2. The determination of his mediatory office unto the new covenant; “of a better covenant:” 3. The proof or demonstration of the nature of this covenant as unto its excellency, it was “established on better promises:” — 1. His office is that of a mediator, —mesi>thv , one that interposed between God and man, for the doing of all those things whereby a covenant might be established between them, and made effectual Schlichtingius on the place gives this description of a mediator: “Mediatorem foederis esse nihil aliud est, quam Dei esse interpretem, et internuntium in foedere cum hominibus pangendo; per quem scilicet et Deus voluntatem suam hominibus declarer, et illi vicissim divinae voluntatis notitia instructi ad Deum accedant, cumque eo reconciliati, pacem in posterum colant,” And Grotius speaks much unto the same purpose.

But this description of a mediator is wholly applicable unto Moses, and suited unto his office in giving of the law. See Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27,28. What is said by them doth indeed immediately belong unto the mediatory office of Christ, but it is not confined thereunto; yea, it is exclusive of the principal parts of his mediation. And whereas there is nothing in it but what belongs unto the prophetical office of Christ, —which the apostle here doth not principally intend, —it is most improperly applied as a description of such a mediator as he doth intend. And therefore, when he comes afterwards to declare in particular what belonged unto such a mediator of the covenant as he designed, he expressly placeth it in his “death for the redemption of transgressions,” Hebrews 9:15; affirming that”for that cause he was a mediator.” But hereof there is nothing at all in the description they give us of this office.

But this the apostle doth in his, elsewhere, 1 Timothy 2:5,6, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all.”

The principal part of his mediation consisted in the “giving himself a ransom,” or a price of redemption for the whole church. Wherefore this description of a mediator of the new testament is feigned only, to exclude his satisfaction, or his offering himself unto God in his death and bloodshedding, with the atonement made thereby.

The Lord Christ, then, in his ministry, is called mesi>thv , the “mediator” of the covenant, in the same sense as he is called e]gguov , the “surety;” whereof see the exposition on Hebrews 7:22. He is, in the new covenant, the mediator, the surety, the priest, the sacrifice, all in his own person. The ignorance and want of a due consideration hereof, are the great evidence of the degeneracy of Christian religion.

Whereas this is the first general notion of the office of Christ, that which compriseth the whole ministry committed unto him, and containeth in itself the especial offices of king, priest, and prophet, whereby he dischargeth his mediation, some things must be mentioned that are declarative of its nature and use. And we may unto this purpose observe, — (1.) That unto the office of a mediator it is required that there be different persons concerned in the covenant, and that by their own wills; as it must be in every compact, of what sort soever. So saith our apostle, “A mediator is not of one, but God is one,” Galatians 3:20; that is, if there were none but God concerned in this matter, as it is in an absolute promise or sovereign precept, there would be no need of, no place for a mediator, such a mediator as Christ is. Wherefore our consent in and unto the covenant is required in the very notion of a mediator. (2.) That the persons entering into covenant be in such a state and condition as that it is no way convenient or morally possible that they should treat immediately with each other as to the ends of the covenant; for if they are so, a mediator to go between is altogether needless. So was it in the original covenant with Adam, which had no mediator. But in the giving of the law, which was to be a covenant between God and the people, they found themselves utterly insufficient for an immediate treaty with God, and therefore desired that they might have an internuncius to go between God and them, to bring his proposals, and carry back their consent, Deuteronomy 5:23-27. And this is the voice of all men really convinced of the holiness of God, and of their own condition. Such is the state between God and sinners. The law and the curse of it did so interpose between them, that they could not enter into any immediate treaty with God, Psalm 5:3-5. This made a mediator necessary, that the new covenant might be established; whereof we shall speak afterwards. (3.) That he who is this mediator be accepted, trusted, and rested in on both sides, or the parties mutually entering into covenant. An absolute trust must be reposed in him, so that each party may be everlastingly obliged in what he undertaketh on their behalf; and such as admit not of his terms, can have no benefit by, no interest in the covenant. So was it with the Lord Christ in this matter. On the part of God, he reposed the whole trust of all the concernments of the covenant in him, and absolutely rested therein. “Behold,” saith he of him, “my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,” or is “well pleased,” —ejn w+| eujdo>khsa , Isaiah 42:l; Matthew 3:17. When he undertook this office, and said, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” the soul of God rested in him, Exodus 23:21; John 5:20-22. And to him he gives an account at last of his discharge of this thing, John 17:4. And on our part, unless we resign ourselves absolutely unto a universal trust in him and reliance on him, and unless we accept of all the terms of the covenant as by him proposed, and engage to stand unto all that he hath undertaken on our behalf, we can have neither share nor interest in this matter. (4.) A mediator must be a middle person between both parties entering into covenant; and if they be of different natures, a perfect, complete mediator ought to partake of each of their natures in the same person. The necessity hereof, and the glorious wisdom of God herein, I have elsewhere at large demonstrated, and shall not therefore here again insist upon it. (5.) A mediator must be one who voluntarily and of his own accord undertaketh the work of mediation. This is required of every one who will effectually mediate between any persons at variance, to bring them unto an agreement on equal terms. So it was required that the will and consent of Christ should concur in his susception of this office; and that they did so, himself expressly testifieth, Hebrews 10:5-10. It is true, he was designed and appointed by the Father unto this office; whence he is called his “servant,” and constantly witnesseth of himself, that he came to do the will and commandment of him that sent him: but he had that to do in the discharge of this office, which could not, according unto any rule of divine righteousness, be imposed on him without his own voluntary consent.

And this was the ground of the eternal compact that was between the Father and the Son, with respect unto his mediation; which I have elsewhere explained. And the testification of his own will, grace, and love, in the susception of this office, is a principal motive unto that faith and trust which the church placeth in him, as the mediator between God and them. Upon this his voluntary undertaking doth the soul of God rest in him, and he reposeth the whole trust in him of accomplishing his will and pleasure, or the design of his love and grace in this covenant, Isaiah 53:10-12. And the faith of the church, whereon salvation doth depend, must have love unto his person inseparably accompanying it. Love unto Christ is no less necessary unto salvation, than faith in him. And as faith is resolved into the sovereign wisdom and grace of God in sending him, and his own ability to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him; so love ariseth from the consideration of his own love and grace in his voluntary undertaking of this office, and the discharge of it. (6.) In this voluntary undertaking to be a mediator, two things were required: — [1.] That he should remove and take out of the way whatever kept the covenanters at a distance, or was a cause of enmity between them. For it is supposed that such an enmity there was, or there had been no need of a mediator. Therefore in the covenant made with Adam, there having been no variance between God and man, nor any distance but what necessarily ensued from the distinct natures of the Creator and a creature, there was no mediator. But the design of this covenant was to make reconciliation and peace. Hereon, therefore, depended the necessity of satisfaction, redemption, and the making of atonement,by sacrifice. For man having sinned and apostatized from the rule of God, making himself thereby obnoxious unto his wrath, according unto the eternal rule of righteousness, and in particular unto the curse of the law, there could be no new peace and agreement made with God unless due satisfaction were made for these things. For although God was willing, in infinite love, grace, and mercy, to enter into a new covenant with fallen man, yet would he not do it unto the prejudice of his righteousness, the dishonor of his rule, and the contempt of his law. Wherefore none could undertake to be a mediator of this covenant, but he that was able to satisfy the justice of God, glorify his government, and fulfill the law. And this could be done by none but him, concerning whom it might be said that “God purchased his church with his own blood. [2.] That he should procure and purchase, in a way suited unto the glory of God, the actual communication of all the good things prepared and proposed in this covenant; that is, grace and glory, with all that belong unto them, for them and on their behalf whose surety he was. And this is the foundation of the merit of Christ, and of the grant of all good things unto us for his sake. (7.) It is required of this mediator, as such, that he give assurance to and undertake for the parties mutually concerned, as to the accomplishment of the terms of the covenant, undertaking on each hand for them: — [1.] On the part of God towards men, that they shall have peace and acceptance with him, in the sure accomplishment of all the promises of the covenant. This he doth only declaratively, in the doctrine of the gospel, and in the institution of the ordinances of evangelical worship. For he was not a surety for God, nor did God need any, having confirmed his promise with an oath, swearing by himself, because he had no greater to swear by. [2.] On our part, he undertakes unto God for our acceptance of the terms of the covenant, and our accomplishment of them, by his enabling us thereunto.

These things, among others, were necessary unto a full and complete mediator of the new covenant, such as Christ was. And, — Obs. VII. The provision of this mediator between God and man was an effect of infinite wisdom and grace; yea, it was the greatest and most glorious external effect of them that ever they did produce, or ever will do in this world. The creation of all things at first out of nothing was a glorious effect of infinite wisdom and power; but when the glory of that design was eclipsed by the entrance of sin, this provision of a mediator, — one whereby all things were restored and retrieved into a condition of bringing more glory unto God, and securing for ever the blessed estate of them whose mediator he is, —is accompanied with more evidences of the divine excellencies than that was. See Ephesians 1:10. 2. Two things are added in the description of this mediator: (1.) That he was a mediator of a covenant; (2.) That this covenant was better than another which respect is had unto, whereof he was not the mediator: — (1.) He was the mediator of a “covenant.” And two things are supposed herein: — [1.] That there was a covenant made or prepared between God and man; that is, it was so far made, as that God who made it had prepared the terms of it in a sovereign act of wisdom and grace. The preparation of the covenant, consisting in the will and purpose of God graciously to bestow on all men the good things which are contained in it, all things belonging unto grace and glory, as also to make way for the obedience which he required herein, is supposed unto the constitution of this covenant. [2.] That there was need of a mediator, that this covenant might be effectual unto its proper ends, of the glory of God and the obedience of mankind, with their reward. This was not necessary from the nature of a covenant in general; for a covenant may be made and entered into between different parties without any mediator, merely on the equity of the terms of it. Nor was it so from the nature of a covenant between God and man, as man was at first created of God; for the first covenant between them was immediate, without the interposition of a mediator. But it became necessary from the state and condition of them with whom this covenant was made, and the especial nature of this covenant. This the apostle declares, Romans 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

The law was the moral instrument or rule of the covenant that was made immediately between God and man: but it could not continue to be so after the entrance of sin; that is, so as that God might be glorified thereby, in the obedience and reward of men. Wherefore he “sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh;” that is, provided a mediator for a new covenant. The persons with whom this covenant was to be made being all of them sinners, and apostatized from God, it became not the holiness or righteousness of God to treat immediately with them any more. Nor would it have answered his holy ends so to have done. For if when they were in a condition of uprightness and integrity, they kept not the terms of that covenant which was made immediately with them, without a mediator, although they were holy, just, good, and equal; how much less could any such thing be expected from them in their depraved condition of apostasy from God and enmity against himlIt therefore became not the wisdom of God to enter anew into covenant with mankind, without security that the terms of the covenant should be accepted, and the grace of it made effectual. This we could not give; yea, we gave all evidences possible unto the contrary, in that “God saw that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually,” Genesis 6:5.

Wherefore it was necessary there should be a mediator, to be the surety of this covenant. Again, the covenant itself was so prepared, in the counsel, wisdom, and grace of God, as that the principal, yea, indeed, all the benefits of it, were to depend on what was to be done by a mediator, and could not otherwise be effected. Such were satisfaction for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness; which are the foundation of this covenant. (2.) To proceed with the text; this covenant, whereof the Lord Christ is the mediator, is said to be a “better covenant.” Wherefore it is supposed that there was another covenant, whereof the Lord Christ was not the mediator. And in the following verses there are two covenants, a first and a latter, an old and a new, compared together. We must therefore consider what was that other covenant, than which this is said to be better; for upon the determination thereof depends the right understanding of the whole ensuing discourse of the apostle. And because this is a subject wrapped up in much obscurity, and attended with many difficulties, it will be necessary that we use the best of our diligence, both in the investigation of the truth and in the declaration of it, so as that it may be distinctly apprehended. And I shall first explain the text, and then speak to the difficulties which arise from it: — [1.] There was an original covenant made with Adam, and all mankind in him. The rule of obedience and reward that was between God and him was not expressly called a covenant, but it contained the express nature of a covenant; for it was the agreement of God and man concerning obedience and disobedience, rewards and punishments. Where there is a law concerning these things, and an agreement upon it by all parties concerned, there is a formal covenant. Wherefore it may be considered two ways: — 1st. As it was a law only; so it proceeded from, and was a consequent of the nature of God and man, with their mutual relation unto one another.

God being considered as the creator, governor, and benefactor of man; and man as an intellectual creature, capable of moral obedience; this law was necessary, and is eternally indispensable. 2dly. As it was a covenant; and this depended on the will and pleasure of God. I will not dispute whether God might have given a law unto men that should have had nothing in it of a covenant, properly so called; as is the law of creation unto all other creatures, which hath no rewards nor punishments annexed unto it. Yet this God calls a covenant also, inasmuch as it is an effect of his purpose, his unalterable will and pleasure, Jeremiah 33:20,21. But that this law of our obedience should be a formal, complete covenant, there were moreover some things required on the part of God, and some also on the part of man. Two things were required on the part of God to complete this covenant, or he did so complete it by two things: — (1st.) By annexing unto it promises and threatenings of reward and punishment; the first of grace, the other of justice. (2dly.) The expression of these promises and threatenings in external signs; the first in the tree of life, the latter in that of the knowledge of good and evil. By these did God establish the original law of creation as a covenant, gave it the nature of a covenant. On the part of man, it was required that he accept of this law as the rule of the covenant which God made with him. And this he did two ways: — [1st.] By the innate principles of light and obedience concreated with his nature. By these he absolutely and universally assented unto the law, as proposed with promises and threatenings, as holy, just, good, —what was meet for God to require, what was equal and good unto himself. [2dly .] By his acceptance of the commands concerning the tree of life, and that of the knowledge of good and evil, as the signs and pledges of this covenant. So was it established as a covenant between God and man, without the interposition of any mediator.

This is the covenant of works, absolutely the old, or first covenant that God made with men. But this is not the covenant here intended; for, — 1st. The covenant called afterwards “the first,” was diaqh>kh , a “testament.” So it is here called. It was such a covenant as was a testament also. Now there can be no testament, but there must be death for the confirmation of it, Hebrews 9:16. But in the making of the covenant with Adam, there was not the death of any thing, whence it might be called a testament. But there was the death of beasts in sacrifice in the confirmation of the covenant at Sinai, as we shall see afterwards. And it must be observed, that although I use the name of a “covenant,” as we have rendered the word diaqh>kh , because the true signification of that word will more properly occur unto us in another place, yet I do not understand thereby a covenant properly and strictly so called, but such a one as hath the nature of a testament also, wherein the good things of him that makes it are bequeathed unto them for whom they are designed.

Neither the word used constantly by the apostle in this argument, nor the design of his discourse, will admit of any other covenant to be understood in this place. Whereas, therefore, the first covenant made with Adam was in no sense a testament also, it cannot be here intended. 2dly. That first covenant made with Adam, had, as unto any benefit to be expected from it, with respect unto acceptation with God, life, and salvation, ceased long before, even at the entrance of sin. It was not abolished or abrogated by any act of God, as a law, but only was made weak and insufficient unto its first end, as a covenant. God had provided a way for the salvation of sinners, declared in the first promise. When this is actually embraced, that first covenant ceaseth towards them, as unto its curse, in all its concerns as a covenant, and obligation unto sinless obedience as the condition of life; because both of them are answered by the mediator of the new covenant. But as unto all those who receive not the grace tendered in the promise, it doth remain in fill force and efficacy, not as a covenant, but as a law; and that because neither the obedience it requires nor the curse which it threatens is answered. Hence, if any man believeth not, “the wrath of God abideth on him.” For its commands and curse depending on the necessary relation between God and man, with the righteousness of God as the supreme governor of mankind, they must be answered and fulfilled. Wherefore it was never abrogated formally. But as all unbelievers are still obliged by it, and unto it must stand or fall, so it is perfectly fulfilled in all believers, —not in their own persons, but in the person of their surety. “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8:3,4.

But as a covenant, obliging unto personal, perfect, sinless obedience, as the condition of life, to be performed by themselves, so it ceased to be, long before the introduction of the new covenant which the apostle speaks of, that was promised “in the latter days.” But the other covenant here spoken of was not removed or taken away, until this new covenant was actually established. 3dly. The church of Israel was never absolutely under the power of that covenant as a covenant of life; for from the days of Abraham, the promise was given unto them and their seed. And the apostle proves that no law could afterwards be given, or covenant made, that should disannul that promise, Galatians 3:17. But had they been brought under the old covenant of works, it would have disannulled the promise; for that covenant and the promise are diametrically opposite. And moreover, if they were under that covenant, they were all under the curse, and so perished eternally: which is openly false; for it is testified of them that they pleased God by faith, and so were saved. But it is evident that the covenant intended was a covenant wherein the church of Israel walked with God, until such time as this better covenant was solemnly introduced. This is plainly declared in the ensuing context, especially in the close of the chapter, where, speaking of this former covenant, he says, it was “become old,” and so “ready to disappear.” Wherefore it is not the covenant of works made with Adam that is intended, when this other is said to be a “better covenant.” [2.] There were other federal transactions between God and the church before the giving of the law on mount Sinai. Two of them there were into which all the rest were resolved: — 1st. The first promise, given unto our first parents immediately after the fall. This had in it the nature of a covenant, grounded on a promise of grace, and requiring obedience in all that received the promise. 2dly. The promise given and sworn unto Abraham, which is expressly called the covenant of God, and had the whole nature of a covenant in it, with a solemn outward seal appointed for its confirmation and establishment. Hereof we have treated at large on the sixth chapter.

Neither of these, nor any transaction between God and man that may be reduced unto them, as explanations, renovations, or confirmations of them, is the “first covenant” here intended. For they are not only consistent with the “new covenant,” so as that there was no necessity to remove them out of the way for its introduction, but did indeed contain in them the essence and nature of it, and so were confirmed therein. Hence the Lord Christ himself is said to be “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,” Romans 15:8. As he was the mediator of the new covenant, he was so far from taking off from, or abolishing those promises, that it belonged unto his office to confirm them.

Wherefore, — [3.] . The other covenant or testament here supposed, whereunto that whereof the Lord Christ was the mediator is preferred, is none other but that which God made with the people of Israel on mount Sinai. So it is expressly affirmed, verse 9: “The covenant which I made with your fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” This was that covenant which had all the institutions of worship annexed unto it, Hebrews 9:1-3; whereof we must treat afterwards more at large. With respect hereunto it is that the Lord Christ is said to be the “mediator of a better covenant;” that is, of another distinct from it, and more excellent.

It remains unto the exposition of the words, that we inquire what was this covenant, whereof our Lord Christ was the mediator, and what is here affirmed of it.

This can be no other in general but that which we call “the covenant of grace.” And it is so called in opposition unto that of “works,” which was made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, do divide the ways of our relation unto God, being diametrically opposite, and every way inconsistent, Romans 11:6. Of this covenant the Lord Christ was the mediator from the foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise, Revelation 13:8; for it was given on his interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation. But here ariseth the first difficulty of the context, and that in two things; for, — [1.] If this covenant of grace was made from the beginning, and if theLORD Christ was the mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the gospel-state in opposition unto the law, by virtue of this covenant, seeing that under the law also the Lord Christ was the mediator of that covenant, which was from the beginning ? [2.] If it be the covenant of grace which is intended, and that be opposed unto the covenant of works made with Adam, then the other covenant must be that covenant of works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved.

The answer hereunto is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant: nenomoqe>thtai , whose meaning we must inquire into.

I say, therefore, that the apostle doth not here consider the new covenant absolutely, and as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world, in the way of a promise; for as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the apostle proves expressly, that the renovation of it made unto Abraham was no way abrogated by the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. There was no interruption of its administration made by the introduction of the law. But he treats of such an establishment of the new covenant as wherewith the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which was therefore to be removed out of the way. Wherefore he considers it here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper unto it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges wherewith they are accompanied. It is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the church’s faith, obedience, and worship, in all things.

This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai : “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai.

This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. 3. In the last place, the apostle tells us whereon this establishment was made; and that is ejpi krei>ttosin ejpaggeli>aiv, — ”on better promises.”

For the better understanding hereof we must consider somewhat of the original and use of divine promises in our relation unto God. And we may observe, — (1.) That every covenant between God and man must be founded on and resolved into “promises.” Hence essentially a promise and a covenant are all one; and God calls an absolute promise, founded on an absolute decree, his covenant, Genesis 9:11. And his purpose for the continuation of the course of nature unto the end of the world, he calls his covenant with day and night, Jeremiah 33:20. The being and essence of a divine covenant lies in the promise. Hence are they called “the covenants of promise,” Ephesians 2:12; —such as are founded on and consist in promises. And it is necessary that so it should be. For, — [1.] The nature of God who maketh these covenants requireth that so it should be. It becometh his greatness and goodness, in all his voluntary transactions with his creatures, to propose that unto them wherein their advantage, their happiness and blessedness, doth consist. We inquire not how God may deal with his creatures as such; what he may absolutely require of them, on the account of his own being, his absolute essential excellencies, with their universal dependence on him. Who can express or limit the sovereignty of God over his creatures? All the disputes about it are fond. We have no measures of what is infinite. May he not do with his own what he pleaseth? Are we not in his hands, as clay in the hands of the potter? And whether he make or mar a vessel, who shall say unto him, What doest thou? He giveth no account of his matters. But upon supposition that he will condescend to enter into covenant with his creatures, and to come to agreement with them according unto the terms of it, it becometh his greatness and goodness to give them promises as the foundation of it, wherein he proposeth unto them the things wherein their blessedness and reward do consist. For, 1st. Herein he proposeth himself unto them as the eternal spring and fountain of all power and goodness. Had he treated with us merely by a law, he had therein only revealed his sovereign authority and holiness; the one in giving of the law, the other in the nature of it. But in promises he revealeth himself as the eternal spring of goodness and power; for the matter of all promises is somewhat that is good; and the communication of it depends on sovereign power. That God should so declare himself in his covenant, was absolutely necessary to direct and encourage the obedience of the covenanters; and he did so accordingly, Genesis 15:1, 17:1, 2. 2dly. Hereby he reserves the glory of the whole unto himself. For although the terms of agreement which he proposeth between himself and us be in their own nature “holy, just, and good,” —which sets forth his praise and glory, —yet if there were not something on his part which hath no antecedent respect unto any goodness, obedience, or desert in us, we should have wherein to glory in ourselves; which is inconsistent with the glory of God. But the matter of those promises wherein the covenant is founded is free, undeserved, and without respect unto any thing in us whereby it may in any sense be procured. And so in the first covenant, which was given in a form of law, attended with a penal sanction, yet the foundation of it was in a promise of a free and undeserved reward, even of the eternal enjoyment of God: which no goodness or obedience in the creature could possibly merit the attainment of. So that if a man should by virtue of any covenant be justified by works, though he might have whereof to glory before men, yet could he not glory before God, as the apostle declares, Romans 4:2; and that because the reward proposed in the promise doth infinitely exceed the obedience performed. [2.] It was also necessary on our part that every divine covenant should be founded and established on promises; for there is no state wherein we may be taken into covenant with God, but it is supposed we are not yet arrived at that perfection and blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and which we cannot but desire. And therefore when we come to heaven, and the full enjoyment of God, there shall be no use of any covenant any more, seeing we shall be in eternal rest, in the enjoyment of all the blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and shall immutably adhere unto God without any further expectation. But whilst we are in the way, we have still somewhat, yea principal parts of our blessedness, to desire, expect, and believe. So in the state of innocency, though it had all the perfection which a state of obedience according unto a law was capable of, yet did not the blessedness of eternal rest, for which we were made, consist therein. Now, whilst it is thus with us, we cannot but be desiring and looking out after that full and complete happiness, which our nature cannot come to rest without. This, therefore, renders it necessary that there should be a promise of it given as the foundation of the covenant; without which we should want our principal encouragement unto obedience. And much more must it be so in the state of sin and apostasy from God; for we are now not only most remote from our utmost happiness, but involved in a condition of misery, without a deliverance from which we cannot be any ways induced to give ourselves up unto covenant obedience. Wherefore, unless we are prevented in the covenant with promises of deliverance from our present state, and the enjoyment of future blessedness, no covenant could be of use or advantage unto us. [3.] It is necessary from the nature of a covenant. For every covenant that is proposed unto men, and accepted by them, requires somewhat to be performed on their part, otherwise it is no covenant; but where any thing is required of them that accept of the covenant, or to whom it is proposed, it doth suppose that somewhat be promised on the behalf of them by whom the covenant is proposed, as the foundation of its acceptance, and the reason of the duties required in it.

All this appears most evidently in the covenant of grace, which is here said to be “established on promises;” and that on two accounts. For, — [1.] At the same time that much is required of us in the way of duty and obedience, we are told in the Scripture, and find it by experience, that of ourselves we can do nothing. Wherefore, unless the precept of the covenant be founded in a promise of giving grace and spiritual strength unto us, whereby we may be enabled to perform those duties, the covenant can be of no benefit or advantage unto us. And the want of this one consideration, that every covenant is founded in promises, and that the promises give life unto the precepts of it, hath perverted the minds of many to suppose an ability in ourselves of yielding obedience unto those precepts, without grace antecedently received to enable us thereunto; which overthrows the nature of the new covenant. [2.] As was observed, we are all actually guilty of sin before this covenant was made with us. Wherefore unless there be a promise given of the pardon of sin, it is to no purpose to propose any new covenant terms unto us. For “the wages of sin is death;” and we having sinned must die, whatever we do afterwards, unless our sins be pardoned. This, therefore, must be proposed unto us as the foundation of the covenant, or it will be of none effect. And herein lies the great difference between the promises of the covenant of works and those of the covenant of grace. The first were only concerning things future; eternal life and blessedness upon the accomplishment of perfect obedience. Promises of present mercy and pardon it stood in need of none, it was not capable of. Nor had it any promises of giving more grace, or supplies of it; but man was wholly left unto what he had at first received. Hence the covenant was broken. But in the covenant of grace all things are founded in promises of present mercy, and continual supplies of grace, as well as of future blessedness. Hence it comes to be “ordered in all things, and sure.”

And this is the first thing that was to be declared, namely, that every divine covenant is established on promises. (2.) These promises are said to be “better promises.” The other covenant had its promises peculiar unto it, with respect whereunto this is said to be “established on better promises.” It was, indeed, principally represented under a system of precepts, and those almost innumerable; but it had its promises also, into the nature whereof we shall immediately inquire. With respect, therefore, unto them is the new covenant, whereof the Lord Christ is the mediator, said to be “established on better promises.” That it should be founded in promises, was necessary from its general nature as a covenant, and more necessary from its especial nature as a covenant of grace. That these promises are said to be “better promises,” respects those of the old covenant. But this is so said as to include all other degrees of comparison. They are not only better than they, but they are positively good in themselves, and absolutely the best that God ever gave, or will give unto the church. And what they are we must consider in our progress.

And sundry things may be observed from these words: — Obs. VIII. There is infinite grace in every divine covenant, inasmuch as it is established on promises. —Infinite condescension it is in God, that he will enter into covenant with dust and ashes, with poor worms of the earth. And herein lies the spring of all grace, from whence all the streams of it do flow. And the first expression of it is in laying the foundation of it in some undeserved promises. And this was that which became the goodness and greatness of his nature, the means whereby we are brought to adhere unto him in faith, hope, trust, and obedience, until we come unto the enioyment of him; for that is the use of promises, to keep us in adherence unto God, as the first original and spring of all goodness, and the ultimate satisfactory reward of our souls, 2 Corinthians 7:1.

Obs. IX. The promises of the covenant of grace are better than those of any other covenant, as for many other reasons, so especially because the grace of them prevents any condition or qualification on our part. —I do not say the covenant of grace is absolutely without conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of obedience which God requireth of us in and by virtue of that covenant; but this I say, the principal promises thereof are not in the first place remunerative of our obedience in the covenant, but efficaciously assumptive of us into covenant, and establishing or confirming in the covenant. The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai). They were, indeed, also of grace, in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience; but yet they all supposed it, and the subject of them was formally reward only. In the covenant of grace it is not so; for sundry of the promises thereof are the means of our being taken into covenant, of our entering into covenant with God. The first covenant absolutely was established on promises, in that when men were actually taken into it, they were encouraged unto obedience by the promises of a future reward. But those promises, namely, of the pardon of sin and writing of the law in our hearts, which the apostle expressly insisteth upon as the peculiar promises of this covenant, do take place and are effectual antecedently unto our covenant obedience. For although faith be required in order of nature antecedently unto our actual receiving of the pardon of sin, yet is that faith itself wrought in us by the grace of the promise, and so its precedency unto pardon respects only the order that God had appointed in the communication of the benefits of the covenant, and intends not that the pardon of sin is the reward of our faith.

This entrance hath the apostle made into his discourse of the two covenants, which he continues unto the end of the chapter. But the whole is not without its difficulties. Many things in particular will occur unto us in our progress, which may be considered in their proper places. In the meantime there are some things in general which may be here discoursed, by whose determination much light will be communicated unto what doth ensue.

First, therefore, the apostle doth evidently in this place dispute concerning two covenants, or two testaments, comparing the one with the other, and declaring the disannulling of the one by the introduction and establishment of the other. What are these two covenants in general we have declared, — namely, that made with the church of Israel at mount Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs unto it.

Here then ariseth a difference of no small importance, namely, whether these are indeed two distinct covenants, as to the essence and substance of them, or only different ways of the dispensation and administration of the same covenant. And the reason of the difficulty lieth herein: We must grant one of these three things: 1. That either the covenant of grace was in force under the old testament; or, 2. That the church was saved without it, or any benefit by Jesus Christ, who is the mediator of it alone; or, 3. That they all perished everlastingly. And neither of the two latter can be admitted.

Some, indeed, in these latter days, have revived the old Pelagian imagination, that before the law men were saved by the conduct of natural light and reason; and under the law by the directive doctrines, precepts, and sacrifices thereof, —without any respect unto the Lord Christ or his mediation in another covenant. But I shall not here contend with them, as having elsewhere sufficiently refuted these imaginations. Wherefore I shall take it here for granted, that no man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ therein.

Suppose, then, that this new covenant of grace was extant and effectual under the old testament, so as the church was saved by virtue thereof, and the mediation of Christ therein, how could it be that there should at the same time be another covenant between God and them, of a different nature from this, accompanied with other promises, and other effects?

On this consideration it is said, that the two covenants mentioned, the new and the old, were not indeed two distinct covenants, as unto their essence and substance, but only different administrations of the same covenant, called two covenants from some different outward solemnities and duties of worship attending of them. To clear this it must be observed, — 1. That by the old covenant, the original covenant of works, made with Adam and all mankind in him, is not intended; for this is undoubtedly a covenant different in the essence and substance of it from the new. 2. By the new covenant, not the new covenant absolutely and originally, as given in the first promise, is intended; but in its complete gospel administration, when it was actually established by the death of Christ, as administered in and by the ordinances of the new testament. This, with the covenant of Sinai, were, as most say, but different administrations of the same covenant.

But on the other hand, there is such express mention made, not only in this, but in sundry other places of the Scripture also, of two distinct covenants, or testaments, and such different natures, properties, and effects, ascribed unto them, as seem to constitute two distinct covenants.

This, therefore, we must inquire into; and shall first declare what is agreed unto by those who are sober in this matter, though they differ in their judgments about this question, whether two distinct covenants, or only a twofold administration of the same covenant, be intended. And indeed there is so much agreed on, as that what remains seems rather to be a difference about the expression of the same truth, than any real contradiction about the things themselves. For, — 1. It is agreed that the way of reconciliation with God, of justification and salvation, was always one and the same; and that from the giving of the first promise none was ever justified or saved but by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator thereof. The foolish imagination before mentioned, that men were saved before the giving of the law by following the guidance of the light of nature, and after the giving of the law by obedience unto the directions thereof, is rejected by all that are sober, as destructive of the Old Testament and the New. 2. That the writings of the Old Testament, namely, the Law, Psalms, and Prophets, do contain and declare the doctrine of justification and salvation by Christ. This the church of old believed, and walked with God in the faith thereof. This is undeniably proved, in that the doctrine mentioned is frequently confirmed in the New Testament by testimonies taken out of the Old. 3. That by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation unto the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved. 4. That the use of all the institutions whereby the old covenant was administered, was to represent and direct unto Jesus Christ, and his mediation.

These things being granted, the only way of life and salvation by Jesus Christ, under the old testament and the new, is secured; which is the substance of the truth wherein we are now concerned. On these grounds we may proceed with our inquiry.

The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new. And whereas the essence and the substance of the covenant consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it. But this was so different from that which is established in the gospel after the coming of Christ, that it hath the appearance and name of another covenant. And the difference between these two administrations may be reduced unto the ensuing heads: — 1. It consisted in the way and manner of the declaration of the mystery of the love and will of God in Christ; of the work of reconciliation and redemption, with our justification by faith. For herein the gospel, wherein “life and immortality are brought to light,” doth in plainness, clearness, and evidence, much excel the administration and declaration of the same truths under the law. And the greatness of the privilege of the church herein is not easily expressed. For hereby” with open face we behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord,” and Lord changed into the same image,” Corinthians 3:18. The man whose eyes the Lord Christ opened, Mark 8:23-25, represents these two states. When he first touched him, his eyes were opened, and he saw, but he saw nothing clearly; whence, when he looked, he said, “I see men as trees, walking,” verse 24: but upon his second touch, he Lord every man clearly,” verse 25. They had their sight under the old testament, and the object was proposed unto them, but at a great distance, with such an interposition of mists, clouds, and shadows, as that they saw men like trees, walking,” —nothing clearly and perfectly: but now under the gospel, the object, which is Christ, being brought near unto us, and all clouds and shadows being departed, we do or may see all things clearly. When a traveler in his way on downs or hills is encompassed with a thick mist and fog, though he be in his way yet he is uncertain, and nothing is presented unto him in its proper shape and distance; things near seem to be afar off, and things afar off to be near, and every thing hath, though not a false, yet an uncertain appearance. Let the sun break forth and scatter the mists and fogs that are about him, and immediately every thing appears quite in another shape unto him, so as indeed he is ready to think he is not where he was. His way is plain, he is certain of it, and all the region about lies evident under his eye; yet is there no alteration made but in the removal of the mists and clouds that interrupted his sight. So was it with them under the law. The types and shadows that they were enclosed in, and which were the only medium they had to view spiritual things in, represented them not unto them clearly and in their proper shape. But they being now removed, by the rising of the Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings, in the dispensation of the gospel, the whole mystery of God in Christ is clearly manifested unto them that do believe. And the greatness of this privilege of the gospel above the law is inexpressible; whereof, as I suppose, we must speak somewhat afterwards. 2. In the plentiful communication of grace unto the community of the church; for now it is that we receive “grace for grace,” or a plentiful effusion of it, by Jesus Christ. There was grace given in an eminent manner unto many holy persons under the old testament, and all true believers had true, real, saving grace communicated unto them; but the measures of grace in the true church under the new testament do exceed those of the community of the church under the old. And therefore, as God winked at some things under the old testament, as polygamy, and the like, which are expressly and severely interdicted under the new, nor are consistent with the present administrations of it; so are sundry duties, as those of selfdenial, readiness to bear the cross, to forsake houses, lands, and habitations, more expressly enjoined unto us than unto them. And the obedience which God requireth in any covenant, or administration of it, is proportionable unto the strength which the administration of that covenant doth exhibit. And if those who profess the gospel do content themselves without any interest in this privilege of it, if they endeavor not for a share in that plentiful effusion of grace which doth accompany its present administration, the gospel itself will be of no other use unto them, but to increase and aggravate their condemnation. 3. In the manner of our access unto God. Herein much of all that is called religion doth consist; for hereon doth all our outward worship of God depend. And in this the advantages of the gospel-administration of the covenant above that of the law is in all things very eminent. Our access now to God is immediate, by Jesus Christ, with liberty and boldness, as we shall afterwards declare. Those under the law were immediately conversant, in their whole worship, about outward, typical things, — the tabernacle, the altar, the ark, the mercy-seat, and the like obscure representations of the presence of God. Besides, the manner of the making of the covenant with them at mount Sinai filled them with fear, and brought them into bondage, so as they had comparatively a servile frame of spirit in all their holy worship. 4. In the way of worship required under each administration. For under that which was legal, it seemed good unto God to appoint a great number of outward rites, ceremonies, and observances; and these, as they were dark in their signification, as also in their use and ends, so were they, by reason of their nature, number, and the severe penalties under which they were enjoined, grievous and burdensome to be observed. But the way of worship under the gospel is spiritual, rational, and plainly subservient unto the ends of the covenant itself; so as that the use, ends, benefits, and advantages of it are evident unto all. 5. In the extent of the dispensation of the grace of God; for this is greatly enlarged under the gospel. For under the old testament it was upon the matter confined unto the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; but under the new testament it extends itself unto all nations under heaven.

Sundry other things are usually added by our divines unto the same purpose. See Calvin. Institut. lib. 2:cap. xi.; Martyr. Loc. Com. loc. 16, sect. 2; Bucan. loc. 22, etc.

The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove, that not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that two covenants substantially distinct, are intended in this discourse of the apostle. 1. Because in the Scripture they are often so called, and compared with one another, and sometimes opposed unto one another; the first and the last, the new and the old. 2. Because the covenant of grace in Christ is eternal, immutable, always the same, obnoxious unto no alteration, no change or abrogation; neither can these things be spoken of it with respect unto any administration of it. as they are spoken of the old covenant.

To state our thoughts aright in this matter, and to give what light we can unto the truth, the things ensuing may be observed: — 1. When we speak of the “old covenant,” we intend not the covenant of works made with Adam, and his whole posterity in him; concerning which there is no difference or difficulty, whether it be a distinct covenant from the new or no. 2. When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in being and efficacy, before the introduction of that which is promised in this place. For it was always the same, as to the substance of it, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, do grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation unto the church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect unto any other things, nor was it so under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it unto Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but it was with respect unto other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely under the old testament it consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture, Acts 2:39; Hebrews 6:14-16.

The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. And so it was, not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The nomoqesi>a , or full legal establishment of it, whence it became formally a covenant unto the whole church, was future only, and a promise under the old testament; for it wanted two things thereunto: — (1.) It wanted its solemn confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged unto it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a cove nant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Hebrews 9:15-23. For neither, as he shows in that place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. Wherefore the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant. (2.) This was wanting, that it was not the spring, rule, and measure of all the worship of the church. This doth belong unto every covenant, properly so called, that God makes with the church, that it be the entire rule of all the worship that God requires of it; which is that which they are to restipulate in their entrance into covenant with God. But so the covenant of grace was not under the old testament; for God did require of the church many duties of worship that did not belong thereunto. But now, under the new testament, this covenant, with its own seals and appointments, is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Wherefore the new covenant promised in the Scripture, and here opposed unto the old, is not the promise of grace, mercy, life, and salvation by Christ, absolutely considered, but as it had the formal nature of a covenant given unto it, in its establishment by the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits, and the declaring of it to be the only rule of worship and obedience unto the church. So that although by “the covenant of grace,” we ofttimes understand no more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ; yet by “the new covenant,” we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with that blessed way of worship which by it is settled in the church. 3. Whilst the church enjoyed all the spiritual benefits of the promise, wherein the substance of the covenant of grace was contained, before it was confirmed and made the sole rule of worship unto the church, it was not inconsistent with the holiness and wisdom of God to bring it under any other covenant, or prescribe unto it what forms of worship he pleased. It was not so, I say, upon these three suppositions: — (1.) That this covenant did not disannul or make ineffectual the promise that was given before, but that that doth still continue the only means of life and salvation. And that this was so, our apostle proves at large, Galatians 3:17-19. (2.) That this other covenant, with all the worship contained in it or required by it, did not divert from, but direct and lead unto, the future establishment of the promise in the solemnity of a covenant, by the ways mentioned. And that the covenant made in Sinai, with all its ordinances, did so, the apostle proves likewise in the place before mentioned, as also in this whole epistle. (3.) That it be of present use and advantage unto the church in its present condition. This the apostle acknowledgeth to be a great objection against the use and efficacy of the promise under the old testament, as unto life and salvation; namely, ‘To what end then serveth the giving of the law?’ whereunto he answers, by showing the necessity and use of the law unto the church in its then present condition, Galatians 3:17-19. 4. These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant. The one is mentioned and described, Exodus 24:3-8, Deuteronomy 5:2-5, — namely, the covenant that God made with the people of Israel in Sinai; and which is commonly called “the covenant,” where the people under the old testament are said to keep or break God’s covenant; which for the most part is spoken with respect unto that worship which was peculiar thereunto. The other is promised, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 32:40; which is the new or gospel covenant, as before explained, mentioned Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24. And these two covenants, or testaments, are compared one with the other, and opposed one unto another, Corinthians 3:6-9; Galatians 4:24-26; Hebrews 7:22, 9:15-20.

These two we call “the old and the new testament.” Only it must be observed, that in this argument, by the “old testament,” we do not understand the books of the Old Testament, or the writings of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, or the oracles of God committed then unto the church, (I confess they are once so called, 2 Corinthians 3:14, “The veil remaineth untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament,” —that is, the books of it; unless we shall say, that the apostle intendeth only the reading of the things which concern the old testament in the Scripture;) for this old covenant, or testament, whatever it be, is abrogated and taken away, as the apostle expressly proves, but the word of God in the books of the Old Testament abideth for ever. And those writings are called the Old Testament, or the books of the Old Testament, not as though they contained in them nothing but what belongeth unto the old covenant, for they contain the doctrine of the New Testament also; but they are so termed because they were committed unto the church whilst the old covenant was in force, as the rule and law of its worship and obedience. 5. Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended. We must, I say, do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation and salvation was the same under both. But it will be said, —and with great pretense of reason, for it is that which is the sole foundation they all build upon who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, —’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation be the same under both, then indeed are they for the substance of them but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue thereof, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, whilst they were under the covenant.

As therefore I have showed in what sense the covenant of grace is called “the new covenant,” in this distinction and opposition, so I shall propose sundry things which relate unto the nature of the first covenant, which manifest it to have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace: — 1. This covenant, called “the old covenant,” was never intended to be of itself the absolute rule and law of life and salvation unto the church, but was made with a particular design, and with respect unto particular ends.

This the apostle proves undeniably in this epistle, especially in the chapter foregoing, and those two that follow. Hence it follows that it could abrogate or disannul nothing which God at any time before had given as a general rule unto the church. For that which is particular cannot abrogate any thing that was general, and before it; as that which is general doth abrogate all antecedent particulars, as the new covenant doth abrogate the old. And this we must consider in both the instances belonging hereunto.

For, — (1.) God had before given the covenant of works, or perfect obedience, unto all mankind, in the law of creation. But this covenant at Sinai did not abrogate or disannul that covenant, nor any way fulfill it. And the reason is, because it was never intended to come in the place or room thereof, as a covenant, containing an entire rule of all the faith and obedience of the whole church. God did not intend in it to abrogate the covenant of works, and to substitute this in the place thereof; yea, in sundry things it reenforced, established, and confirmed that covenant. For, — [1.] It revived, declared, and expressed all the commands of that covenant in the decalogue; for that is nothing but a divine summary of the law written in the heart of man at his creation. And herein the dreadful manner of its delivery or promulgation, with its writing in tables of stone, is also to be considered; for in them the nature of that first covenant, with its inexorableness as unto perfect obedience, was represented. And because none could answer its demands, or comply with it therein, it was called “the ministration of death,” causing fear and bondage, 2 Corinthians 3:7. [2.] It revived the sanction of the first covenant, in the curse or sentence of death which it denounced against all transgressors. Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first covenant: “In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die the death.” And this sentence was revived and represented anew in the curse wherewith this covenant was ratified, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10. For the design of God in it was to bind a sense of that curse on the consciences of men, until He came by whom it was taken away, as the apostle declares, Galatians 3:19. [3.] It revived the promise of that covenant, —that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the apostle tells us that Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, “That the man which doeth those things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5; as he doth, Leviticus 18:5.

Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed unto it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, “Do this, and live.”

Hence it is, that when our apostle disputeth against justification by the law, or by the works of the law, he doth not intend the works peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai, such as were the rites and ceremonies of the worship then instituted; but he intends also the works of the first covenant, which alone had the promise of life annexed unto them.

And hence it follows also, that it was not a new covenant of works established in the place of the old, for the absolute rule of faith and obedience unto the whole church; for then would it have abrogated and taken away that covenant, and all the force of it, which it did not. (2.) The other instance is in the promise. This also went before it; neither was it abrogated or disannulled by the introduction of this covenant. This promise was given unto our first parents immediately after the entrance of sin, and was established as containing the only way and means of the salvation of sinners. Now, this promise could not be abrogated by the introduction of this covenant, and a new way of justification and salvation be thereby established. For the promise being given out in general for the whole church, as containing the way appointed by God for righteousness, life, and salvation, it could not be disannulled or changed, without a change and alteration in the counsels of Him “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Much less could this be effected by a particular covenant, such as that was, when it was given as a general and eternal rule. 2. But whereas there was an especial promise given unto Abraham, in the faith whereof he became “the father of the faithful,” he being their progenitor, it should seem that this covenant did wholly disannul or supersede that promise, and take off the church of his posterity from building on that foundation, and so fix them wholly on this new covenant now made with them. So saith Moses, “TheLORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day,” Deuteronomy 5:3.

God made not this covenant on mount Sinai with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but with the people then present, and their posterity, as he declares, Deuteronomy 29:14,15. This, therefore, should seem to take them off wholly from that promise made to Abraham, and so to disannul it. But that this it did not, nor could do, the apostle strictly proves, Galatians 3:17-22; yea, it did divers ways establish that promise, both as first given and as afterwards confirmed with the oath of God unto Abraham, two ways especially: — (1.) It declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and peace with God any other way but by the promise. For representing the commands of the covenant of works, requiring perfect, sinless obedience, under the penalty of the curse, it convinced men that this was no way for sinners to seek for life and salvation by. And herewith it so urged the consciences of men, that they could have no rest nor peace in themselves but what the promise would afford them, whereunto they saw a necessity of betaking themselves. (2.) By representing the ways and means of the accomplishment of the promise, and of that whereon all the efficacy of it unto the justification and salvation of sinners doth depend. This was the death, blood-shedding, oblation, or sacrifice of Christ, the promised seed. This all its offerings and ordinances of worship directed unto; as his incarnation, with the inhabitation of God in his human nature, was typed by the tabernacle and temple. Wherefore it was so far from disannulling the promise, or diverting the minds of the people of God from it, that by all means it established it and led unto it. But, — 3. It will be said, as was before observed, ‘That if it did neither abrogate the first covenant of works, and come in the room thereof, nor disannul the promise made unto Abraham, then unto what end did it serve, or what benefit did the church receive thereby?’ I answer, — (1.) There hath been, with respect unto God’s dealing with the church, oijkonomi>a tw~n kairw~n , —a “certain dispensation” and disposition of times and seasons, reserved unto the sovereign will and pleasure of God.

Hence from the beginning he revealed himself polutro>pwv and polumerw~v , as seemed good unto him, Hebrews 1:1. And this dispensation of times had a plh>rwma , a “fullness” assigned unto it, wherein all things, namely, that belong unto the revelation and communication of God unto the church, should come to their height, and have as it were the last hand given unto them. This was in the sending of Christ, as the apostle declares, Ephesians 1:10, “That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might bring all unto a head in Christ.”

Until this season came, God dealt variously with the church, ejn poiki>lh| sofi>a|, “in manifold” or “various wisdom,” according as he saw it needful and useful for it, in that season which it was to pass through, before the fullness of times came. Of this nature was his entrance into the covenant with the church at Sinai; the reasons whereof we shall immediately inquire into. In the meantime, if we had no other answer to this inquiry but only this, that in the order of the disposal or dispensation of the seasons of the church, before the fullness of times came, God in his manifold wisdom saw it necessary for the then present state of the church in that season, we may well acquiesce therein. But, — (2.) The apostle acquaints us in general with the ends of this dispensation of God, Galatians 3:19-24: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Much light might be given unto the mind of the Holy Ghost in these words, and that in things not commonly discerned by expositors, if we should divert unto the opening of them. I will at present only mark from them what is unto our present purpose.

There is a double inquiry made by the apostle with respect unto the law, or the covenant of Sinai: [1.] Unto what end in general it served. [2.] Whether it was not contrary to the promise of God.

Unto both these the apostle answereth from the nature, office, and work of that covenant. For there were, as hath been declared, two things in it: [1.] A revival and representation of the covenant of works, with its sanction and curse. [2.] A direction of the church unto the accomplishment of the promise.

From these two doth the apostle frame his answer unto the double inquiry laid down.

And unto the first inquiry, “unto what end it served,” he answers, “It was added because of transgressions.” The promise being given, there seems to have been no need of it, why then was it added to it at that season? “It was added because of transgressions.” The fullness of time was not yet come, wherein the promise was to be fulfilled, accomplished and established as the only covenant wherein the church was to walk with God; or, “the seed” was not yet come, as the apostle here speaks, to whom the promise was made. In the meantime some order must be taken about sin and transgression, that all the order of things appointed of God might not be overflowed by them And this was done two ways by the law: — [1.] By reviving the commands of the covenant of works, with the sanction of death, it put an awe on the minds of men, and set bounds unto their lusts, that they should not dare to run forth into that excess which they were naturally inclined unto. It was therefore “added because of transgressions;” that, in the declaration of God’s severity against them, some bounds might be fixed unto them; for “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” [2.] To shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek for righteousness, life, and salvation by the promise, under the power of the covenant of works, and curse attending it. “It concluded” or “shut up all under sin,” saith the apostle, Galatians 3:22. This was the end of the law, for this end was it added, as it gave a revival unto the covenant of works.

Unto the second inquiry, which ariseth out of this supposition, namely, that the law did convince of sin, and condemn for sin, which is, “whether it be not then contrary to the grace of God,” the apostle in like manner returns a double answer, taken from the second use of the law, before insisted on, with respect unto the promise. And, — [1.] He says, ‘That although the law doth thus rebuke sin, convince of sin, and condemn for sin, so setting bounds unto transgressions and transgressors, yet did God never intend it as a means to give life and righteousness, nor was it able so to do.’ The end of the promise was to give righteousness, justification, and salvation, all by Christ, to whom and concerning whom it was made. But this was not the end for which the law was revived in the covenant of Sinai. For although in itself it requires a perfect righteousness, and gives a promise of life thereon, (“He that doeth these things, he shall live in them,”) yet it could give neither righteousness nor life unto any in the state of sin. See Romans 8:3, 10:4. Wherefore the promise and the law, having diverse ends, they are not contrary to one another. [2.] Saith he, ‘The law hath a great respect unto the promise; and was given of God for this very end, that it might lead and direct men unto Christ;’ —which is sufficient to answer the question proposed at the beginning of this discourse, about the end of this covenant, and the advantage which the church received thereby.

What hath been spoken may suffice to declare the nature of this covenant in general; and two things do here evidently follow, wherein the substance of the whole truth contended for by the apostle doth consist: — (1.) That whilst the covenant of grace was contained and proposed only in the promise, before it was solemnly confirmed in the blood and sacrifice of Christ, and so legalized or established as the only rule of the worship of the church, the introduction of this other covenant on Sinai did not constitute a new way or means of righteousness, life, and salvation; but believers sought for them alone by the covenant of grace as declared in the promise. This follows evidently upon what we have discoursed; and it secures absolutely that great fundamental truth, which the apostle in this and all his other epistles so earnestly contendeth for, namely, that there neither is, nor ever was, either righteousness, justification, life, or salvation, to be attained by any law, or the works of it, (for this covenant at mount Sinai comprehended every law that God ever gave unto the church,) but by Christ alone, and faith in him. (2.) That whereas this covenant being introduced in the pleasure of God, there was prescribed with it a form of outward worship suited unto that dispensation of times and present state of the church; upon the introduction of the new covenant in the fullness of times, to be the rule of all intercourse between God and the church, both that covenant and all its worship must be disannulled. This is that which the apostle proves with all sorts of arguments, manifesting the great advantage of the church thereby.

These things, I say, do evidently follow on the preceding discourses, and are the main truths contended for by the apostle. 4. There remaineth one thing more only to be considered, before we enter on the comparison between the two covenants here directed unto by the apostle. And this is, how this first covenant came to be an especial covenant unto that people: wherein we shall manifest the reason of its introduction at that season. And unto this end sundry things are to be considered concerning that people and the church of God in them, with whom this covenant was made; which will further evidence both the nature, use, and necessity of it: — (1.) This people were the posterity of Abraham, unto whom the promise was made that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.

Wherefore from among them was the promised Seed to be raised up in the fullness of time, or its proper season, — from among them was the Son of God to take on him the seed of Abraham. To this end sundry things were necessary: — [1.] That they should have a certain abiding place or country, which they might freely inhabit, distinct from other nations, and under a rule or scepter of their own. So it is said of them, that “the people should dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the nations,” Numbers 23:9; and “the scepter was not to depart from them until Shiloh came,” Genesis 49:10.

For God had regard unto his own glory in his faithfulness as unto his word and oath given unto Abraham, not only that they should be accomplished, but that their accomplishment should be evident and conspicuous. But if this posterity of Abraham, from among whom the promised Seed was to rise, had been, as it is at this day with them, scattered abroad on the face of the earth, mixed with all nations, and under their power, although God might have accomplished his promise really in raising up Christ from among some of his posterity, yet could it not be proved or evidenced that he had so done, by reason of the confusion and mixture of the people with others. Wherefore God provided a land and country for them which they might inhabit by themselves, and as their own, even the land of Canaan.

And this was so suited unto all the ends of God towards that people, —as might be declared in sundry instances, —that God is said to have “espied this land out for them,” Ezekiel 20:6. He chose it out, as most meet for his purpose towards that people of all lands under heaven. [2.] That there should be always kept among them an open confession and visible representation of the end for which they were so separated from all the nations of the world. They were not to dwell in the land of Canaan merely for secular ends, and to make as it were a dumb show; but as they were there maintained and preserved to evidence the faithfulness of God in bringing forth the promised Seed in the fullness of time, so there was to be a testimony kept up among them unto that end of God whereunto they were preserved. This was the end of all their ordinances of worship, of the tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifices and ordinances; which were all appointed by Moses, on the command of God, “for a testimony of those things which should be spoken afterwards,” Hebrews 3:5.

These things were necessary in the first place, with respect unto the ends of God towards that people. (2.) It becomes not the wisdom, holiness, and sovereignty of God, to call any people into an especial relation unto himself, to do them good in an eminent and peculiar manner, and then to suffer them to live at their pleasure, without any regard unto what he hath done for them. Wherefore, having granted unto this people those great privileges of the land of Canaan, and the ordinances of worship relating unto the great end mentioned, he moreover prescribed unto them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy that land, with all the privileges annexed unto the possession thereof. And these are both expressed and frequently inculcated, in the repetition and promises of the law. But yet in the prescription of these terms, God reserved the sovereignty of dealing with them unto himself. For had he left them to stand or fall absolutely by the terms prescribed unto them, they might and would have utterly forfeited both the land and all the privileges they enjoyed therein. And had it so fallen out, then the great end of God in preserving them a separate people until the Seed should come, and a representation thereof among them, had been frustrated. Wherefore, although he punished them for their transgressions, according to the threatenings of the law, yet would he not bring the µr,je , or “curse of the law,” upon them, and utterly cast them off, until his great end was accomplished, Malachi 4:4-6. (3.) God would not take this people off from the promise, because his church was among them, and they could neither please God nor be accepted with him but by faith therein. But yet they were to be dealt withal according as it was meet. For they were generally a people of a hard heart, and stiff-necked, lifted up with an opinion of their own righteousness and worth above others. This Moses endeavoreth, by all manner of reasons and instances unto the contrary, to take them off from, in the book of Deuteronomy. Yet was it not effected among the generality of them, nor is to this day; for in the midst of all their wickedness and misery, they still trust to and boast of their own righteousness, and will have it that God hath an especial obligation unto them on that account. For this cause God saw it necessary, and it pleased him to put a grievous and heavy yoke upon them, to subdue the pride of their spirits, and to cause them to breathe after deliverance. This the apostle Peter calls “a yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear,” Acts 15:10; that is, with peace, ease, and rest: which therefore the Lord Christ invited them to seek for in himself alone, Matthew 11:29,30. And this yoke that God put on them consisted in these three things: — [1.] In a multitude of precepts, hard to be understood, and difficult to be observed. The present Jews reckon up six hundred and thirteen of them; about the sense of most of which they dispute endlessly among themselves. But the truth is, since the days of the Pharisees they have increased their own yoke, and made obedience unto their law in any tolerable manner altogether impracticable. It were easy to manifest, for instance, that no man under heaven ever did, or ever can, keep the Sabbath according to the rules they give about it in their Talmuds. And they generally scarce observe one of them themselves. But in the law, as given by God himself, it is certain that there are a multitude of arbitrary precepts, and those in themselves not accompanied with any spiritual advantages, as our apostle shows, Hebrews 9:9,10; only they were obliged to perform them by a mere sovereign act of power and authority. [2.] In the severity wherewith the observance of all those precepts was enjoined them. And this was the threatening of death; for “he that despised Moses’ law died without mercy,” and “every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward.” Hence was their complaint of old, “Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish. Whosoever cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of theLORD shall die: shall we be consumed with dying?” Numbers 17:12,13.

And the curse solemnly denounced against every one that confirmed not all things written in the law was continually before them. [3.] In a spirit of bondage unto fear. This was administered in the giving and dispensation of the law, even as a spirit of liberty and power is administered in and by the gospel. And as this respected their present obedience, and manner of its performance, so in particular it regarded death not yet conquered by Christ. Hence our apostle affirms, that “through fear of death they were all their lifetime subject unto bondage.”

This state God brought them into, partly to subdue the pride of their hearts, trusting in their own righteousness, and partly to cause them to look out earnestly after the promised deliverer. (4.) Into this estate and condition God brought them by a solemn covenant, confirmed by mutual consent between him and them. The tenor, force, and solemn ratification of this covenant, are expressed, Exodus 24:3-8. Unto the terms and conditions of this covenant was the whole church obliged indispensably, on pain of extermination, until all was accomplished, Malachi 4:4-6. Unto this covenant belonged the decalogue, with all precepts of moral obedience thence educed. So also did the laws of political rule established among them, and the whole system of religious worship given unto them. All these laws were brought within the verge of this covenant, and were the matter of it. And it had especial promises and threatenings annexed unto it as such; whereof none did exceed the bounds of the land of Canaan. For even many of the laws of it were such as obliged nowhere else. Such was the law of the sabbatical year, and all their sacrifices. There was sin and obedience in them or about them in the land of Canaan, none elsewhere. Hence, — (5.) This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” Corinthians: 3:9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.”

And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works. And, — (6.) Hereon occasionally fell out the ruin of that people; “their table became a snare unto them, and that which should have been for their welfare became a trap,” according to the prediction of our Savior, Psalm 69:22.

It was this covenant that raised and ruined them. It raised them to glory and honor when given of God; it ruined them when abused by themselves to ends contrary to express declarations of his mind and will. For although the generality of them were wicked and rebellious, always breaking the terms of the covenant which God made with them, so far as it was possible they should, whilst God determined to reign over them unto the appointed season, and repining under the burden of it; yet they would have this covenant to be the only rule and means of righteousness, life, and salvation, as the apostle declares, Romans 9:31-33, 10:3. For, as we have often said, there were two things in it, both which they abused unto other ends than what God designed them: — [1.] There was the renovation of the rule of the covenant of works for righteousness and life. And this they would have to be given unto them for those ends, and so sought for righteousness by the works of the law. [2.] There was ordained in it a typical representation of the way and means whereby the promise was to be made effectual, namely, in the mediation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ; which was the end of all their ordinances of worship. And the outward law thereof, with the observance of its institution, they looked on as their only relief when they came short of exact and perfect righteousness.

Against both these pernicious errors the apostle disputes expressly in his epistles unto the Romans and the Galatians, to save them, if it were possible, from that ruin they were casting themselves into. Hereon “the elect obtained,” but “the rest were hardened.” For hereby they made an absolute renunciation of the promise, wherein alone God had inwrapped the way of life and salvation.

This is the nature and substance of that covenant which God made with that people; a particular, temporary covenant it was, and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.

That which remains for the declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost in this whole matter, is to declare the differences that are between those two covenants, whence the one is said to be “better” than the other, and to be “built upon better promises.”

Those of the church of Rome do commonly place this difference in three things: 1. In the promises of them: which in the old covenant were temporal only; in the new, spiritual and heavenly. 2. In the precepts of them: which under the old, required only external obedience, designing the righteousness of the outward man; under the new, they are internal, respecting principally the inner man of the heart. 3. In their sacraments: for those under the old testament were only outwardly figurative; but those of the new are operative of grace.

But these things do not express much, if any thing at all, of what the Scripture placeth this difference in. And besides, as by some of them explained, they are not true, especially the two latter of them. For I cannot but somewhat admire how it came into the heart or mind of any man to think or say, that God ever gave a law or laws, precept or precepts, that should “respect the outward man only, and the regulation of external duties.” A thought of it is contrary unto all the essential properties of the nature of God, and meet only to ingenerate apprehensions of him unsuited unto all his glorious excellencies. The life and foundation of all the laws under the old testament was, “Thou shalt love theLORD thy God with all thy soul;” without which no outward obedience was ever accepted with him. And for the third of the supposed differences, neither were the sacraments of the law so barely “figurative,” but that they did exhibit Christ unto believers: for “they all drank of the spiritual rock; which rock was Christ.” Nor are those of the gospel so operative of grace, but that without faith they are useless unto them that do receive them.

The things wherein this difference doth consist, as expressed in the Scripture, are partly circumstantial, and partly substantial, and may be reduced unto the heads ensuing: — 1. These two covenants differ in the circumstance of time as to their promulgation, declaration, and establishment. This difference the apostle expresseth from the prophet Jeremiah, in the ninth verse of this chapter, where it must be more fully spoken unto. In brief, the first covenant was made at the time that God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, and took its date from the third month after their coming up from thence, Exodus 19:24. From the time of what is reported in the latter place, wherein the people give their actual consent unto the terms of it, it began its formal obligation as a covenant. And we must afterwards inquire when it was abrogated and ceased to oblige the church. The new covenant was declared and made known “in the latter days,” Hebrews 1:1,2; “in the dispensation of the fullness of times,” Ephesians 1:10. And it took date, as a covenant formally obliging the whole church, from the death, resurrection, ascension of Christ, and sending of the Holy Ghost. I bring them all into the epocha of this covenant, because though principally it was established by the first, yet was it not absolutely obligatory as a covenant until after the last of them. 2. They differ in the circumstance of place as to their promulgation; which the Scripture also taketh notice of. The first was declared on mount Sinai; the manner whereof, and the station of the people in receiving the law, I have in my Exercitations unto the first part of this Exposition at large declared, and thither the reader is referred, Exodus 19:18. The other was declared on mount Zion, and the law of it went forth from Jerusalem, Isaiah 2:3. This difference, with many remarkable instances from it, our apostle insists on, Galatians 4:24-26: “These are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” That is, Agar, the bondwoman whom Abraham took before the heir of promise was born, was a type of the old covenant given on Sinai, before the introduction of the new, or the covenant of promise; for so he adds: “For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth unto Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” This mount Sinai, where the old covenant was given, and which was represented by Agar, is in Arabia, —cast quite out of the verge and confines of the church. And it “answereth,” or “is placed in the same series, rank, and order with Jerusalem,” namely, in the opposition of the two covenants. For as the new covenant, the covenant of promise, giving freedom and liberty, was given at Jerusalem, in the death and resurrection of Christ, with the preaching of the gospel which ensued thereon; so the old covenant, that brought the people into bondage, was given at mount Sinai in Arabia. 3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation and establishment.

There were two things remarkable that accompanied the solemn declaration of the first covenant: — (1.) The dread and terror of the outward appearance on mount Sinai, which filled all the people, yea, Moses himself, with fear and trembling, Hebrews 12:18-21; Exodus 19:16, 20:18, 19. Together herewith was a spirit of fear and bondage administered unto all the people, so as that they chose to keep at a distance, and not draw nigh unto God, Deuteronomy 5:23-27. (2.) That it was given by the ministry and “disposition of angels,” Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19. Hence the people were in a sense “put in subjection unto angels,” and they had an authoritative ministry in that covenant. The church that then was, was put into some kind of subjection unto angels, as the apostle plainly intimates, Hebrews 2:5. Hence the worshipping or adoration of angels began among that people, Colossians 2:18; which some, with an addition unto their folly and superstition, would introduce into the Christian church, wherein they have no such authoritative ministry as they had under the old covenant.

Things are quite otherwise in the promulgation of the new covenant. The Son of God in his own person did declare it. This he “spake from heaven, ”as the apostle observes; in opposition unto the giving of the law “on the earth,” Hebrews 12:25. Yet did he speak on the earth also; the mystery whereof himself declares, John 3:13. And he did all things that belonged unto the establishment of this covenant in a spirit of meekness and condescension, with the highest evidence of love, grace, and compassion, encouraging and inviting the weary, the burdened, the heavy and laden to come unto him. And by his Spirit he makes his disciples to carry on the same work until the covenant was fully declared, Hebrews 2:3. See John 1:17,18.

And the whole ministry of angels, in the giving of this covenant, was merely in a way of service and obedience unto Christ; and they owned themselves the “fellow-servants” only of them that have “the testimony of Jesus,” Revelation 19:10. So that this “world to come,” as it was called of old, was no way put in subjection unto them. 4. They differ in their mediators. The mediator of the first covenant was Moses. “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” Galatians 3:19. And this was no other but Moses, who was a servant in the house of God, Hebrews 3:5. And he was a mediator, as designed of God, so chosen of the people, in that dread and consternation which befell them upon the terrible promulgation of the law For they saw that they could no way bear the immediate presence of God, nor treat with him in their own persons. Wherefore they desired that there might be an internuncius, a mediator between God and them, and that Moses might be the person, Deuteronomy 5:24-27. But the mediator of the new covenant is the Son of God himself. For “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all,” Timothy 2:5. He who is the Son, and the Lord over his own house, graciously undertook in his own person to be the mediator of this covenant; and herein it is unspeakably preferred before the old covenant. 5. They differ in their subject-matter, both as unto precepts and promises, the advantage being still on the part of the new covenant. For, — (1.) The old covenant, in the preceptive part of it, renewed the commands of the covenant of works, and that on their original terms. Sin it forbade, — that is, all and every sin, in matter and manner, — on the pain of death; and gave the promise of life unto perfect, sinless obedience only: whence the decalogue itself, which is a transcript of the law of works, is called “the covenant,” Exodus 34:28. And besides this, as we observed before, it had other precepts innumerable, accommodated unto the present condition of the people, and imposed on them with rigor. But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment of the covenant of works, both as unto its commands and sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator. Hereon the commands of it, as unto the obedience of the covenanters, are not grievous; the yoke of Christ being easy, and his burden light. (2.) The old testament, absolutely considered, had, [1.] No promise of grace, to communicate spiritual strength, or to assist us in obedience; nor, [2.] Any of eternal life, no otherwise but as it was contained in the promise of the covenant of works, “The man that doeth these things shall live in them;” and, [3.] Had promises of temporal things in the land of Canaan inseparable from it. In the new covenant all things are otherwise, as will be declared in the exposition of the ensuing verses. 6. They differ, and that principally, in the manner of their dedication and sanction. This is that which gives any thing the formal nature of a covenant or testament. There may be a promise, there may be an agreement in general, which hath not the formal nature of a covenant, or testament, — and such was the covenant of grace before the death of Christ, — but it is the solemnity and manner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or agreement, that give it the formal nature of a covenant or testament. And this is by a sacrifice, wherein there is both bloodshed-ding and death ensuing thereon. Now this, in the confirmation of the old covenant, was only the sacrifice of beasts, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people, Exodus 24:5-8. But the new testament was solemnly confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself, Zechariah 9:11; Hebrews 10:29, 13:20. And the Lord Christ dying as the mediator and surety of the covenant, he purchased all good things for the church; and as a testator bequeathed them unto it.

Hence he says of the sacramental cup, that it is “the new testament in his blood,” or the pledge of his bequeathing unto the church all the promises and mercies of the covenant; which is the new testament, or the disposition of his goods unto his children. But because the Hebrews 9:18-23, we must thither refer the full consideration of it. 7. They differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in the behalf of the people. In the old covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge that office; in the new, the Son of God himself is the only priest of the church. This difference, with the advantage of the gospel-state thereon, we have handled at large in the exposition of the chapter foregoing. 8. They differ in the sacrifices whereon the peace and reconciliation with God which is tendered in them doth depend. And this also must be spoken unto in the ensuing chapter, if God permit. 9. They differ in the way and manner of their solemn writing or enrolment.

All covenants were of old solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the parties concerned. So the old covenant, as to the principal, fundamental part of it, was “engraven in tables of stone,” which were kept in the ark, Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10; 2 Corinthians 3:7. And God did so order it in his providence, that the first draught of them should be broken, to intimate that the covenant contained in them was not everlasting nor unalterable. But the new covenant is written in the “fleshy tables of the hearts” of them that do believe 2 Corinthians 3:3; Jeremiah 31:33. 10. They differ in their ends. The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it, and to set bounds unto it. So saith the apostle, “It was added because of transgressions.” And this it did several ways: — (1.) By conviction: for “by the law is the knowledge of sin;” it convinced sinners, and caused every mouth to be stopped before God. (2.) By condemning the sinner, in an application of the sanction of the law unto his conscience. (3.) By the judgments and punishments wherewith on all occasions it was accompanied. In all it manifested and represented the justice and severity of God.

The end of the new covenant is, to declare the love, grace, and mercy of God; and therewith to give repentance, remission of sin, and life eternal. 11. They differed in their effects. For the first covenant being the “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” it brought the minds and spirits of them that were under it into servitude and bondage ; whereas spiritual liberty is the immediate effect of the new testament. And there is no one thing wherein the Spirit of God doth more frequently give us an account of the difference between these two covenants, than in this of the liberty of the one and the bondage of the other. See Romans 8:15; Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 4:1-7,24,26,30,31; Hebrews 2:14,15.

This, therefore, we must a little explain. Wherefore the bondage which was the effect of the old covenant arose from several causes concurring unto the effecting of it: — (1.) The renovation of the terms and sanction of the covenant of works contributed much thereunto. For the people saw not how the commands of that covenant could be observed, nor how its curse could be avoided.

They saw it not, I say, by any thing in the covenant of Sinai; which therefore “gendered unto bondage.” All the prospect they had of deliverance was from the promise. (2.) It arose from the manner of the delivery of the law, and God’s entering thereon into covenant with them. This was ordered on purpose to fill them with dread and fear. And it could not but do so, whenever they called it to remembrance. (3.) From the severity of the penalties annexed unto the transgression of the law. And God had taken upon himself, that where punishment was not exacted according to the law, he himself would “cut them off.” This kept them always anxious and solicitous, not knowing when they were safe or secure. (4.) From the nature of the whole ministry of the law, which was the “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” 2 Corinthians 3:7,9; which declared the desert of every sin to be death, and denounced death unto every sinner, administering by itself no relief unto the minds and consciences of men. So was it the “letter that killed” them that were under its power. (5.) From the darkness of their own minds, in the means, ways, and causes of deliverance from all these things. It is true, they had a promise before of life and salvation, which was not abolished by this covenant, even the promise made unto Abraham; but this belonged not unto this covenant, and the way of its accomplishment, by the incarnation and mediation of the Son of God, was much hidden from them, —yea, from the prophets themselves who yet foretold them. This left them under much bondage.

For the principal cause and means of the liberty of believers under the gospel, ariseth from the clear light they have into the mystery of the love and grace of God in Christ. This knowledge and faith of his incarnation, humiliation, sufferings, and sacrifice, whereby he made atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness, is that which gives them liberty and boldness in their obedience, 2 Corinthians 3:17,18. Whilst they of old were in the dark as unto these things, they must needs have been kept under much bondage. (6.) It was increased by the yoke of a multitude of laws, rites, and ceremonies, imposed on them; which made the whole of their worship a burden unto them, and insupportable, Acts 15:10.

In and by all these ways and means there was a spirit of bondage and fear administered unto them. And this God did, thus he dealt with them, to the end that they might not rest in that state, but continually look out after deliverance.

On the other hand, the new covenant gives liberty and boldness, the liberty and boldness of children, unto all believers. It is the Spirit of the Son in it that makes us free, or gives us universally all that liberty which is any way needful for us or useful unto us. For “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” namely, to serve God, “not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit.” And it is declared that this was the great end of bringing in the new covenant, in the accomplishment of the promise made unto Abraham, namely, “that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve God without fear ...... all the days of our life,”