THE general design of the apostle in these discourses is to manifest and prove that the old covenant made with the church at Sinai, with all the ordinances of worship and privileges thereunto belonging, was taken away, or ceased to be of any force in the church. Hereon did a total alteration of the whole present Church-state of the Hebrews depend; which it is easy to think how difficult it was with them to forego. For they both looked on it to be of God’s own appointment, as it was, and expected all their happiness by a strict adherence unto it. Wherefore, that they might with the more readiness embrace the truth, he not only declares that “de facto” that covenant was ceased, but evinceth by all sorts of reasons that it was necessary that so it should do, and that unspeakable advantages did accrue unto the church thereby.

In the pursuit of this design, he unfolds unto them the greatest mysteries of the wisdom and counsel of God that ever were revealed unto the church, before he spake unto us by the Son. For, — 1. On this occasion he takes off the veil from the face of Moses, declaring the nature and end of the old covenant; and the use, signification, and efficacy of all the institutions and ordinances of worship thereunto belonging. They were all prescribed unto the diligent observation of the church of the old testament; and their adherence unto them was the great trial of their obedience unto God, whilst that church-state continued, Malachi 4:4. Howbeit the best among them were much in the dark as unto their proper use and signification. For the veil was so on the face of Moses, that “the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which was to be abolished,” 2 Corinthians 3:13.

This he now doctrinally removes. And the sole reason why the Hebrews did not hereon “behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” nor yet do unto this day, is because there was and is a veil of blindness on their minds, as well as there was a veil of darkness on the face of Moses; and it is only converting grace that can remove it. “When they shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away,” verse 16. 2. He takes occasion from hence to declare the great mystery of the redemption of the church by Christ; of the office that he bare, and the work that he performed therein. This was that which he principally designed, as being indeed the sole foundation of Christian religion.

Wherefore, we have in this epistle, as a clear exposition of the first promise, with all those which were given in the explication or confirmation of it, so also of the law and its worship, which were afterwards introduced; that is, in general, of the whole old testament, or God’s instruction of the church under it. Hence that blessed light, which now shines forth in the promises and legal institutions of the old testament, is derived unto us through the exposition of them given unto us by the Holy Ghost in this epistle. We are therefore to remember, that in our inquiries into these things, we are conversant in the deepest mysteries of the wisdom and counsel of God, —those which animated the faith and obedience of both churches: which calls not only for our utmost diligence, but for continual reverence and godly fear.

Unto the general end mentioned, the apostle makes use of all sorts of arguments, taken from the constitution, nature, use, efficacy, officers, and ordinances, of the one covenant and the other; comparing them together.

And in all his arguings he openly designs the demonstration of these two things: 1. That the old covenant, with all its administrations, was to cease. 2. That it was not only unto the advantage of the church that they should so do, but absolutely necessary, that it might be brought unto that perfect state which it was designed unto.

In order unto the first of these, he hath done two things in the preceding chapters: 1. He hath declared that there were prefigurations and predictions of the cessation of the first covenant and all its administrations; as also, that God had so ordered all things in and under that covenant, as that they must necessarily expire and cease at a certain appointed time. 2. He hath evinced the necessity hereof, because that covenant could not consummate the state of the church, nor give assured rest and peace unto the consciences of them that approached unto God in and by its services.

And both these he confirms by the consideration of the typical nature of all its ordinances and institutions; for whereas there was in and by them a representation made of heavenly things, those heavenly things themselves could not be introduced without their removal.

It is the second thing mentioned, or the advantage of the church by the taking away of the first covenant, and all its sacred administrations, that he principally insists upon. For herein he designed (as was before observed) to declare the glorious mystery of the counsel of God concerning the redemption and salvation of the church by Jesus Christ. But whereas this in general is the substance of the gospel, and the subject of all his other epistles, he doth not here consider and declare it absolutely, but as it was prefigured and typed out by those institutions of worship, whereby God both instructed the church and exercised their faith and obedience, under the old testament.

Three things there were which were the glory of those administrations, and which the Hebrews so rested in as that they refused the gospel out of an adherence unto them: 1. The priestly office. 2. The tabernacle with all its furniture, wherein that office was exercised. 3. The duties and worship of the priests in that tabernacle by sacrifices; especially those wherein there was a solemn expiation of the sins of the whole congregation.

In reference unto these, the apostle proves three things: 1. That neither any nor all of them could consummate or make perfect the state of the church, nor yet really effect assured peace and confidence between God and the worshippers. 2. That they were all typical and figurative, ordained to represent things that were far more sublime, glorious, and excellent than themselves. 3. That indeed the Lord Christ, in his person and mediation, was all those things really and substantially which they did but obumbrate and prefigure; that he was and did what they could only direct unto an expectation of. 1. These things he declareth and evinceth fully with respect unto the priestly office, in the seventh chapter; in our exposition whereof we have endeavored to declare the sense and force of his arguings unto that purpose. 2. He doth the same as unto the tabernacle in general, in the eighth chapter, confirming his discourse with that great collateral argument taken from the nature and excellency of that covenant whereof the Lord Christ was the surety and mediator. Wherefore, 3. There remains only the consideration of the services and sacrifices which belonged unto the priestly office in that tabernacle. Herein the Hebrews placed their greatest confidence for reconciliation with God; and with respect unto them, boasted of the excellency of their church-state and worship. This the apostle knew to be the great point in difference between him and them, and that whereon the whole doctrine of the justification of sinners before God did depend. This, therefore, was exactly to be discussed, from the nature of the things themselves, and the testimonies of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture; on which principles alone he deals with these Hebrews. This is that which he now in particular engageth into, handling it at large in this and the next chapter, unto verse 19, where he returns unto his first exhortation, in a use of the truth which he had evinced.

Two things unto this purpose he designs in general: 1. To declare the nature, use, and efficacy, of the rites, services, and sacrifices of the law. 2. To manifest the nature, glory, and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, whereby those other had an end put unto them, and so were taken away.

And in comparing these things together, he wonderfully sets out the wisdom and grace of God in dealing with the church, so as to manifest that all his counsels, from the beginning, did aim at and center in the person and mediation of Christ. And these things are duly to be considered by all who desire to understand the mind of the Holy Ghost in this epistle.

This chapter hath two general parts: 1. A proposition and declaration of the fabric of the tabernacle, its furniture, and the services performed therein; from the beginning unto verse 10. 2. A declaration of the nature of the tabernacle and sacrifice of the Lord Christ, with the end and efficacy thereof; from verse 11 unto the end.

Of the first general, there are four parts: (1.) A proposition of the constitution of the tabernacle of old, with all its utensils and furniture, as it was prepared for the service of the priests, verses 1-5. (2.) The use of that tabernacle and the things in it, in and unto the sacred duties and services of the priests, verses 6, 7. (3.) The judgment of the apostle upon the whole both of the fabric and its use, verse 8. (4.) The reasons of that judgment, verses 9, 10.

In the first part there is, [1.] A general proposition of the whole, verse 1. [2.] A particular explanation of it, verses 2-5.

VERSE 1.

Ei+ce meth dikaiw>mata latrei>av to> te a[gion kosmiko>n .

Some things must be premised unto the reading of these words. JH prw>th , “the first,” doth in the original answer in gender unto all things which the apostle treats of, —namely, the priesthood, the tabernacle, and the covenant. But many Greek copies do expressly read skhnh> ,” the tabernacle.” So is the text expressed in Stephen’s edition, wherein he followed sixteen ancient manuscripts, adhering generally unto the concurrent agreement of the greatest number; and the word is retained in the most common edition. But there are ancient copies also where it is omitted: and they are attested unto by all ancient translations, as the Syriac and Vulgar Latin; the Arabic supplying “covenant,” in the room of it. Wherefore Beza left it out, and is followed by the generality of expositors, as he is by our translators. Cameron contends for retaining it.

But the reasons for its rejection are cogent and undeniable; as, — 1. In the last verse of the preceding chapter, whereunto this immediately succeeds, the apostle mentioning the old covenant, calleth it absolutely th>n prw>thn , “the first,” without the addition of diaqh>khn ; and immediately repeating hJ prw>thn , —that is, “that first,” —it is irrational to think that he refers it to another subject. 2. His design requires that the first covenant he intended; for he is not engaged in a comparison between the tabernacle and the new testament, but between the old covenant and the new. And the words of the text, with those that follow, contain a concession of what belonged unto the old covenant, particularly in the administration of divine worship; as is observed by Photius and O Ecumenius. 3. The expression in the close of the verse, “A worldly sanctuary,” is no more nor less but the tabernacle; for it is that which the apostle immediately describes in its parts and furniture, which are the parts of the tabernacle, and no other. And if the word skhnh> , “the tabernacle,” be here retained, the sense must be, “And verily the first tabernacle had ordinances of worship and a tabernacle.” 4. In the next verse, adding an account of what he had affirmed, he saith, “For there was a tabernacle prepared; the first:” which would render this sense to the context, ‘For the first tabernacle had a tabernacle; for there was a tabernacle prepared.’ Wherefore I shall adhere unto the supplement made by our translators, “the first covenant.”

Dikaiw>mata latrei>av . Some read these words by an ajsu>ndeton , and not in construction, from the ambiguity of the case and number of latrei>av , which may be either of the genitive singular or accusative plural,” ordinances, services.” This it is supposed the following phrase of speech doth intimate, To> te a[gion kosmiko>n , “And also a worldly sanctuary:” which requires that the preceding words should be construed by apposition. And a difference there is between dikai>wma and latrei>a ; but whereas it is evident that the apostle intends no latrei>a or “service” here but what was performed ejn dikaiw>masin , “by virtue of ordinances or institutions,” the word ought to be read in construction, “ordinances of worship.”

Ei+ce me . Syr., “but in the first there were in it;” as the Arab.,” in the first covenant there was contained.” Vulg. Lat., “habuit quidem et prius,” the comparative for the positive, unto the sense of the apostle: “and the first truly had also.” Beza,” habuit igitur prius foedus et;” transferring kai> unto the words following: “wherefore the first covenant had also;” as we after him. Others, “habuit igitur etiam prius.” Most, in rendering the particles men in it. I think the principal respect is to be had thereunto, as it is in the Vulgar Latin, “and verily that first also had.” Dikaiw>mata latrei>av . Syr., “commands of ministry,” or “precepts;” which gives us the plain sense and true meaning of the apostle, as we shall see afterwards. “Ordinances concerning the administration of divine worship.” Vulg. Lat., “justificationes culturae;” Rhem., “justifications of service,” most obscurely, and in words leading from the sense of the Holy Ghost. Others,” ritus cultus;” “constitutos ritus cultuum,” “appointed rites of worship” or “service.” All agree what it is the apostle intends, namely, the ordinances of Levitical worship; which are expressed in the Vulgar by “justificationes culturae,” both barbarously and beside the mind of the apostle. [Agion kosmiko>n . Syr., “a worldly holy house.” The tabernacle was frequently called” the house of God,” and “the house of the sanctuary.”

Vulg., “sanctum seculare;” Rhem., “a secular sanctuary:” which the Interlinear changeth into “mundanum.” “Seculare” denotes duration; but it is not the design of the apostle to speak of the duration of that which he is proving to be ceased. Beza, “sanctuarium mundanum.” Some respect the particles to> te , and render them “illudque.” f13 Ver. 1. —Then verily even that first [covenant ] had ordinances of worship, and also a worldly sanctuary.

Proceeding unto the comparison designed between the old covenant and the new, as unto the services and sacrifices wherewith the one and the other were established and confirmed, he introduceth the pro>tasiv of the first by way of concession, as unto what really belonged thereunto. And this is the constant method of the apostle in all the comparisons he makes.

He still allows full weight and measure unto that comparate which he prefers the other above. And as this, on the one hand, taketh away all cause of complaint, as though the worth and value of what he determineth against were concealed, so it tends unto the real exaltation of that which he gives the preference unto. It is an honor unto the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, that they are so much more glorious and excellent than those of the old covenant, which yet were excellent and glorious also.

There is in this verse, — 1. An introduction of the concession intended, Me . The contexture of these particles is somewhat unusual Hence some would have kai> to be redundant: some join it in construction with dikaiw>mata that follows. This was the judgment of Beza, whom our translators follow; for the word “also” (“had also ordinances”) renders kai> in the original: and thereon they omit it in the first place, not saying, “and then verily,” but “then verily,” —that is, meapostle seems to be built on a tacit supposition that the latter covenant hath ordinances of worship. Hence he grants the first had so also: ‘Even that had also ordinances of worship, as the new hath.’ But I see not at all that any such supposition is here made by the apostle; yea, he doth rather oppose those ordinances of divine worship unto the privileges of the new covenant, than allow the same things to be under both. And this is evident in the worldly sanctuary which he ascribes unto the first covenant, for he had expressly denied that there was any such under the new, Hebrews 8:2. Wherefore although kai> , “and,” seems to be redundant, yet it is emphatical, and increaseth the signification of the other particles, as it is often used in the Scripture. And the introduction of the concession, intimated by this contexture of the notes of it, “then verily even that,” shows both the reality of it and the weight that he lays upon it. Oi+n we render “then;” most do it by “igitur,” “therefore.” But the connection unto the foregoing discourse is rather real than verbal. It is not an inference made from what was before declared, but a continuation of the same design. ‘And yet moreover it is granted;’ or, ‘therefore it is granted;’ ‘verily so it was.’ And so me>n serves unto the protasis of the comparison, whereunto de> answereth, verse 11, “but Christ being come.” 2. The subject spoken of is hJ prw>th , “the first,” —that is, diaqh>kh ; ‘that first covenant whereof we treat,’ —the covenant made with the fathers at Sinai, which, as unto the administrations of it, the Hebrews as yet adhered unto. The nature of this covenant we have spoken unto at large on the foregoing chapter, and thither refer the reader. 3. Of this covenant it is affirmed in general, that it had two things: (1.) “Ordinances of worship;” (2.) “A worldly sanctuary;” and the relation of them unto it is, that it had them: — (1.) It had them, ei+ce . It refers unto the time past. The apostle saith not “it hath them,” but “it had them.” ‘That is,’ say some, ‘it had so whilst that tabernacle was standing, and whilst these things were in force; but now the covenant is abolished, and it hath none of them.’ But this answers not the apostle’s intention. For he acknowledgeth that covenant and all its ordinances “de facto” to have been yet in being, in the patience and forbearance of God; only he affirms that it was ejgguHebrews 8:13, — “ready to disappear.” Nor was he to take for granted what was the principal crino>menon between him and the Hebrews, but to prove it; which he doth accordingly. Hence he grants that there were “priests that offered gifts according to the law,” Hebrews 8:4; and some “served at the tabernacle,” Hebrews 13:10. But the apostle hath respect unto the time wherein that covenant was first made. Then it had these things annexed unto it, which were the privileges and glory of it; for the apostle hath, in the whole discourse, continual respect unto the first making of the covenant, and the first institution of its administrations. It had them; that is, they belonged unto it, as those wherein its administration did consist.

Obs. I. Every covenant of God had its proper privileges and advantages. — Even the first covenant had so, and those such as were excellent in themselves, though not comparable with them of the new. For to make any covenant with men, is an eminent fruit of goodness, grace, and condescension in God; whereon he will annex such privileges thereunto as may evince it so to be. (2.) This first covenant had two things in general: — [1.] Dikaiw>mata latrei>av. Both translations and interpreters have cast some difficulty on the meaning of these words, in themselves plain and evident. Dikaiw>mata are µyQiju . And the word is generally rendered by dikai>wma in the Greek versions, and next unto that by nomiko>n; that which is “legal” and “right.” The Vulgar Latin renders it by “justificationes;” from the inclusion of “jus,” “justum” in the signification of it. In the New Testament it is used, Luke 1:6; Romans 1:32, 2:26, 5:16, 8:4; Hebrews 9:1,10; Revelation 15:4, 19:8. And in no one place doth it signify “institution;” but it may be better rendered “righteousness” When alone we so translate it, Romans 5:16. In the context and construction wherein it is here placed, it can have no signification but that of “ordinances,” “rites,” “institutions, “statutes;” — the constant sense of µyQiju , determined both by its derivation and invariable use. Wherefore all inquiries on these words, in what sense the rites of the law may be called “justifications,” or whether “because the observation of them did justify before men,” or were signs of our justification before God, are all useless and needless. What there is of just and right in the signification of the word, respects the right of God in the constitution and imposition of these ordinances. They were appointments of God, which he had right to prescribe; whence their observation on the part of the church was just and equal.

These ordinances or statutes were so latrei>av , “of service;” that is, as we render it, “divine service.” Latrei>a is originally of as large a signification as doulei>a , and denotes any service whatever. But it is here, and constantly in the New Testament, as is also the verb latreu>w, restrained unto “divine service,” John 16:2; Romans 9:4, 12:1; “cultus,” “of worship:” and so were it better rendered than by “divine service.” In one place it signifies by itself as much as dikaiw>mata latrei>av doth here, Romans 9:4, “Unto whom belongeth the giving of the law, kai< hJ latrei>a , —”and the worship;” that is, dikaiw>mata latrei>Av, “the ordinances of worship,” — the ordinances of the ceremonial law. For although God was served in and according to the commands of the moral law, or the unchangeable prescriptions, “the ten words;” and also in the duties required in the due observance of the judicial law; yet this latrei>a , or hd;bo[\ , was the immediate worship of the tabernacle, and the services of the priests that belonged thereunto. Hence the Jews call all idolatry and superstition hr;z; hd;bo[\ , —”strange worship.”

And this was that part of divine worship about which God had so many controversies with the people of Israel under the old testament; for they were always apt to run into noxious extremes about it. For the most part they were prone to neglect it, and to run into all manner of superstition and idolatry. For the law of this worship was a hedge that God had set about them, to keep them from those abominations; and if at any time they brake over it, or neglected it, and let it fall, they failed not to rush into the most abominable idolatry. On the other hand, ofttimes they placed all their trust and confidence, for their acceptance with God and blessing from him, on the external observance of the ordinances and institutions of it.

And hereby they countenanced themselves not only in a neglect of moral duties and spiritual obedience, but in a course of flagitious sins and wickednesses. To repress these exorbitancies with respect unto both these extremes, the ministry of the prophets was in an especial manner directed.

And we may observe some things here in our passage, as included in the apostle’s assertion, though not any part of his present design: — Obs. II. There was never any covenant between God and man but it had some ordinances or arbitrary institutions of external divine worship annexed unto it. —The original covenant of works had the ordinances of the tree of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil; the laws whereof belonged not unto that of natural light and reason. The covenant of Sinai, whereof the apostle speaks, had a multiplication of them. Nor is the new covenant destitute of them or their necessary observance. All public worship, and the sacraments of the church are of this nature. For whereas it is ingrafted in natural light that some external worship is to be given unto God, he would have it of his own prescription, and not, as unto the modes of it, left unto the inventions of men. And because God hath always, in every covenant, prescribed the external worship and all the duties of it which he will accept, it cannot but be dangerous for us to make any additions thereunto. Had he prescribed none at any time, seeing some are necessary in the light of nature, it would follow by just consequence that they were left unto the finding out and appointment of men; but he having done this himself, “let not us add unto his words, lest he reprove us, and we be found liars.” And in his institution of these ordinances of external worship there is both a demonstration of his sovereignty and an especial trial of our obedience, in things whereof we have no reason but his mere will and pleasure.

Obs. III. It is a hard and rare thing to have the minds of men kept upright with God in the observation of the institutions of divine worship. —Adam lost himself and us all by his failure therein. The old church seldom attained unto it, but continually wandered into one of the extremes mentioned before. And at this day there are very few in the world who judge a diligent observation of divine institutions to be a thing of any great importance. By some they are neglected, by some corrupted with additions of their own, and by some they are exalted above their proper place and use, and turned into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. And the reason of this difficulty is, because faith hath not that assistance and encouragement from innate principles of reason, and that sensible experience of this kind of obedience, as it hath in that which is moral, internal, and spiritual. [2.] That these ordinances of divine worship might be duly observed and rightly performed under the first covenant, there was a place appointed of God for their solemnization. It had to> te a[gion kosmiko>n , —”also a worldly sanctuary.” He renders vD;q]mi by a[gion properly a” holy place,” a “sanctuary” And why he calls it kosmiko>n , or “worldly,” we must inquire. And some things must be premised unto the exposition of these words: — 1st. The apostle, treating of the services, sacrifices, and place of worship, under the old testament, doth not instance in nor insist upon the temple, with its fabric and the order of its services, but in the tabernacle set up by Moses in the wilderness And this he doth for the ensuing reasons: — (1st.) Because his principal design is to confirm the pre-eminence of the new covenant above the old. To this end he compares them together in their first introduction and establishment, with what did belong unto them therein. And as this in the new covenant was the priesthood, mediation, and sacrifice of Christ; so in the old it was the tabernacle with the services and sacrifices that belonged unto it. These the first covenant was accompanied with and established by; and therefore were they peculiarly to be compared with the tabernacle of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered therein. This is the principal reason why in this disputation he hath all along respect unto the tabernacle, and not unto the temple. (2dly.) Although the temple, with its glorious fabric and excellent order, added much unto the outward beauty and splendor of the sacred worship, yet was it no more but a large exemplification of what was virtually contained in the tabernacle and the institutions of it, from whence it derived all its glory; and therefore these Hebrews principally rested in and boasted of the revelation made unto Moses, and his institutions. And the excellency of the worship of the new covenant being manifested above that of the tabernacle, there is no plea left for the additional outward glory of the temple. 2dly. Designing to treat of this holy tent or tabernacle, he confines himself unto the first general distribution of it, Exodus 26:33, “And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony: and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy and the most holy;” the holy utensils of which two parts he afterwards distinctly describes. The whole was called vD;q]mi ; which he renders by to< a[gion, “the holy place,” or “sanctuary.” The tabernacle of witness erected in the wilderness in two parts, the holy and the most holy, with the utensils of them, is that whose description he undertakes.

It is observed by the apostle, that the first covenant had this sanctuary; 1st. Because so soon as God had made that covenant with the people, he prescribed unto them the erection and making of this sanctuary, containing all the solemn means of the administration of the covenant itself. 2dly. Because it was the principal mercy, privilege, and advantage, that the people were made partakers of by virtue of that covenant. And it belongs unto the exposition of the text, as to the design of the apostle in it, that we consider what that privilege was, or wherein it did consist. And, — (1st.) This tabernacle, with what belonged thereunto, was a visible pledge of the presence of God among the people, owning, blessing, and protecting of them; and it was a pledge of God’s own institution. In imitation whereof, the superstitious heathens invented ways of obliging their idol gods to be present among them for the same ends. Hence was that prayer at the removal of the tabernacle and the ark therein, Numbers 10:35,36, “Rise up,LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.”

And when it rested he said, “Return, OLORD, unto the many thousands of Israel.” And thence the ark was called “the ark of God’s strength” (see Psalm 68:1,2, 132:8; 2 Chronicles 6:41), because it was a pledge of God’s putting forth his strength and power in the behalf of the people.

And according unto this institution, it was a most effectual means to strengthen their faith and confidence in God; for what could they desire more, in reference thereunto, than to enjoy such a gracious earnest of his powerful presence among them? But when they ceased to trust in God, and put their confidence in the things themselves, — which were no otherwise useful but as they were pledges of his presence, — they proved their ruin. Hereof we have a fatal instance in their bringing the ark into the field, in their battle against the Philistines, 1 Samuel 4:3-11. And it will fare no better with others who shall rest satisfied with outward institutions of divine worship, neglecting the end of them all, which is faith and trust in God, Jeremiah 7:4. But men of corrupt minds had rather place their trust in any thing but God: for they find that they can do so and yet continue in their sins; as those did in the prophet, verses 8-10. But none can trust in God unless he relinquish all sin whatever; all other pretended trust in him is but the entitling of him unto our own wickedness. (2dly.) It was the pledge and means of God’s residence or dwelling among them, which expresseth the peculiar manner of his presence, mentioned in general before. The tabernacle was God’s house; nor did he promise at any time to dwell among them but with respect thereunto, Exodus 15:17, 25:8, 29:44-46; Numbers 5:3. And the consideration hereof was a powerful motive unto holiness, fear, and reverence; unto which ends it is everywhere pressed in the Scripture. (3dly.) It was a fixed seat of all divine worship, wherein the truth and purity of it were to be preserved. Had the observation of the ordinances of divine service been left unto the memories of private persons, it would quickly have issued in all manner of foolish practices, or have been utterly neglected; but God appointed this sanctuary for the preservation of the purity of his worship, as well as for the solemnity thereof. See Deuteronomy 12:8-11. Here was the book of the law laid up; according unto the prescript whereof the priests were obliged in all generations to take care of the public worship of God. (4thly.) It was principally the privilege and glory of the church of Israel, in that it was a continual representation of the incarnation of the Son of God; a type of his coming in the flesh to dwell among us, and, by the one sacrifice of himself, to make reconciliation with God and atonement for sins. It was such an expression of the idea of the mind of God concerning the person and mediation of Christ, as in his wisdom and grace he thought meet to intrust the church withal. Hence was that severe injunction, that all things concerning it should be made “according unto the pattern showed in the mount;” for what could the wisdom of men do in the prefiguration of that mystery, which they had no comprehension of?

But yet this sanctuary the apostle calls kosmiko>n , “worldly.” Expositors both ancient and modern do even weary themselves in their inquiries why the apostle calls this sanctuary “worldly.” But I think they do so without cause, the reason of the appellation being evident in his design and the context. And there is a difficulty added unto it by the Latin translation, which renders the word “seculare,” which denotes “continuance” or duration. This expresseth the Hebrew µl;wO[ ; but that the apostle renders by aijw>n , and not by ko>smov , and therefore here hath no respect unto it.

The sense that many fix upon is, that he intends the outward court of the temple, whereinto the Gentiles or men of the world were admitted, whence it was called “worldly,” and not sacred. But this exposition, though countenanced by many of the ancients, is contrary unto the whole design of the apostle. For, 1st. He speaks of the tabernacle, wherein was no such outward court; nor indeed was there any such belonging to the temple, whatever some pretend. 2dly. The whole sanctuary whereof he speaks he immediately distributes into two parts, as they were divided by the veil, namely, the holy and the most holy place; which were the two parts of the tabernacle itself. 3dly. He treats of the sanctuary only with respect unto the divine service to be performed in it by the priests, which they did not in any outward court whereinto the Gentiles might be admitted.

Wherefore the apostle terms this sanctuary “worldly,” because it was every way in and of this world. For, 1st. The place of it was on the earth, in this world; in opposition whereunto the sanctuary of the new covenant is in heaven, Hebrews 8:2. 2dly. Although the materials of it were as durable as any thing in that kind that could be procured, as gold and shittim-wood, because they were to be of a long continuance, yet were they “worldly;” that is, “caduca,” fading and perishing things, as are all things of the world; God intimating thereby that they were not to have an everlasting continuance. Gold, and wood, and silk, and hair, however curiously wrought and carefully preserved, are but for a time. 3dly. All the services of it, all its sacrifices, in themselves, separated from their typical, representative use, were all worldly; and their efficacy extended only unto worldly things, as the apostle proves in this chapter. 4thly. On these accounts the apostle calls it worldly; yet not absolutely so, but in opposition unto that which is heavenly. All things in the ministration of the new covenant are heavenly. So is the priest, his sacrifice, tabernacle, and altar, as we shall see in the process of the apostle’s discourse. And we may observe from the whole, — Obs. IV. That divine institution alone is that which renders any thing acceptable unto God. — Although the things that belonged unto the sanctuary, and the sanctuary itself, were in themselves but worldly, yet being divine ordinances, they had a glory in them, and were in their season accepted with God.

Obs. V. God can animate outward, carnal things with a hidden, invisible spring of glory and efficacy. — So he did this sanctuary with its relation unto Christ; which was an object of faith, which no eye of flesh could behold.

Obs. VI. All divine service or worship must be resolved into divine ordination or institution. — A worship not ordained of God is not accepted of God. “It had ordinances of worship.”

Obs. VII. A worldly sanctuary is enough for them whose service is worldly; and these things the men of the world are satisfied with.

VERSE 2.

Two things were ascribed unto the first covenant in the verse foregoing: 1. Ordinances of worship; 2. A worldly sanctuary. In this verse the apostle enters upon a description of them both, inverting the order of their proposal, beginning with the latter, or the sanctuary itself.

Ver. 2. — Skhnh< gasqh hJ prw>th , ejn h= h[ te lucni>a , kai< hJ traqesiv tw~n a]rtwn , h[tiv le>getai aJgi>a .

Vulg. Lat., “tabernaculum enim factum est primum;” “the first tabernacle was made;” ambiguously, as we shall see. Syr., rb’[‘t]aD, ay;m;d]q’ an;K]v]m’B] “in tabernaculo primo quod factum erat;” “in the first tabernacle that was made.” Lucni>a . Vulg. Lat., “candelabra,” “candlesticks.” Syr., at;r]n;m] Hbe aw;h; ,”in it was the candlestick.” Pro>qesiv tw~n a]rtwn .

Vulg., “propositio panum,” “the proposition of loaves.” Others, “propositi panes.” Syr. ap’a µjel]w’ , “and the bread of faces.” [Htiv le>getai aJgi>a. Vulg. “quae dicitur sancta;” dicitur sanctum;” “quod sancta vocant:” for some read aJgi>a , some a[gia . Syr., aved;Wq tyh\ ay;q]t]m,W “and it was called the holy house.”

Ver. 2 . —For there was a tabernacle made [prepared ]; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread; which is called the sanctuary.

Our translation thus rendering the words, avoids the ambiguity mentioned in the Vulgar Latin. “First of all there was a tabernacle made.” But whereas our rendering is also obscure, “the first” being mentioned, where only one thing went before, —which yet includes a distribution supposed, —I would supply it with two parts, — ’There was a tabernacle made, consisting of two parts;’ “tabernaculum bipartite exstructum;” for the following words are a distinct description of these two parts. 1. The subject spoken of is the “tabernacle.” 2. That which in general is affirmed of it is, that it was “made.” 3. There is a distribution of it into two parts in this and the following verse. 4. These parts are described and distinguished by, (1.) Their names; (2.) Their situation with respect unto one another; (3.) Their contents or sacred utensils.

The one is so described in this verse: (1.) By its situation, it was “the first,” that which was first entered into; (2.) By its utensils, which were three; [1.] The candlestick; [2.] The table; [3.] The shew-bread; (3.) By its name, it was called “The sanctuary:” — 1. The subject treated of is skhnh> , that is vD;q]mi , —”the tabernacle;” the common name for the whole fabric, as “the temple” was afterwards of the house built by Solomon. An eminent type this was of the incarnation of Christ, whereby the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, Colossians 2:9; substantially in the human nature, as it dwelt typically and by representation in this tabernacle. Hence is it so expressed, “He was made flesh,” John 1:14, —”and pitched his tabernacle amongst” or “with us.” The consideration hereof the apostle on set purpose fixed on, as the great concomitant, privilege, or glory of the first covenant, whereof he treats, and whose consideration was excellently suited unto his design.

Immediately on the giving of the law, and making that covenant in Horeb which was accepted of by the people and solemnly ratified, Exodus 24:3-8, the whole of their remaining station in that place, for some months, was taken up in Moses’ receiving revelations, and the people’s making provision about and for this tabernacle, with what belonged thereunto.

Forty days was Moses in the mount with God, whilst he instructed him in all things that belonged unto it; so great and glorious was the design of divine wisdom in this tabernacle and its appurtenances. For it was the house wherein his glory was to dwell; and not only so, but a type and representation of the depth of his counsel in the incarnation of his Son, whereby the divine nature would personally dwell in the human for ever. 2. It is affirmed of this tabernacle that it was “made;” —”tabernaculum exstructum,” “constructum,” “praeparatum, “ornatum,” “adornatum;” “built,” “prepared,” “adorned.” There is more included in the word than the mere building of the fabric. For the apostle, in this one word, reflects on and compriseth, (1.) The provision of materials made by the people; (2.) The workings of those materials by Bezaleel; (3.) The erection of the whole by the direction of Moses; (4.) The adorning of it unto its use: that is the substance of the book of Exodus from Exodus 25 to the end.

First, preparation was made for it; then the materials were wrought, and that with such curious workmanship, accompanied with such rich devoted ornaments, that it was adorned in its making. It was prepared in its materials, it was wrought into its form, it was beautified in its ornaments; unto all which respect is had in this word. That which principally gave unto it its order, beauty, glory, and use, was, that it was entirely, and in all the parts and appurtenances of it, made according to the pattern which God showed Moses in the mount. And therefore, when it was finished and erected, all the parts belonging unto it, and all that was in it, were distinctly recounted, and it is added concerning them all, separately and in conjunction, they were all made “as theLORD commanded Moses,” Exodus 40:19-32. For it is the authority and wisdom of God alone that give beauty, use, and order, unto all that belongs unto his worship. 3. The first part of this tabernacle being so prepared, it had its furniture, that was to abide and be used in it: — (1.) There was in it hJ lucni>a , —”the candlestick.” The Vulgar Latin reads “candelabra,” in the plural number. Hence many disputes arise among the expositors who adhere unto that translation. Some of them contend that the apostle hath respect unto the temple of Solomon, wherein were ten candlesticks, five on the one side, and five on the other, 1 Kings 7:49; which is directly contrary to his scope and the words of the text. Some suppose that the one candlestick which was in the tabernacle was intended, but is spoken of in the plural number because of the six branches that came out of it, three on each side, and that which went directly upwards made seven, having lamps in them all, Exodus 25:31,32. But whereas it is constantly called “the candlestick,” and spoken of as one utensil only, the apostle could not call it “the candlesticks,” for that was but one. Wherefore the most sober of them depart from their common translation, and adhere unto the original; and make use of the expression to prove that it was the tabernacle of Moses, and not the temple of Solomon, wherein were ten candlesticks, that the apostle refers unto. The making of this candlestick is particularly described, Exodus 25:31, to the end of the chapter. Its frame, measures, and use, are not of our present consideration; they may be found in expositors on that place. It was placed on the south side of the tabernacle, near the veils that covered the most holy place; and over against it on the north side was the table with the shew-bread; and in the midst, at the very entrance of the most holy place, was the altar of incense. See Exodus 27:20-27. And this candlestick was made all of beaten gold, of one piece, with its lamps and appurtenances, without either joints or screws; which is not without its mystery. To fit it for its service, pure oil olive was to be provided by the way of offering from the people, Exodus 27:20. And it was the office of the high priest to “order it;” that is, to dress its lamps, every evening and every morning, supplying them with fresh oil, and removing whatsoever might be offensive, Exodus 27:21. And this is called “a statute for ever” unto the generations of the priests, on the behalf of the children of Israel; which manifests the great concernment of the church in this holy utensil. (2.) On the other side of the sanctuary, over against the candlestick, were “the table and the shew-bread;” which the apostle reckons as the second part of the furniture of this first part of the tabernacle, distinguishing them from each other: “the table, and the shew-bread.” The making of this table, with its measures and use, its form and fashion, is recorded, Exodus 25:23-28, 37:10, etc. ˆj’l]vu , “table.” The manner of its covering, when it was to be carried whilst the tabernacle was movable, is described, Numbers 4:7,8. And it was a utensil fashioned for beauty and glory. (3.) Upon this table, which the apostle adds, was “the shew-bread.” It is here rendered by the apostle pro>qesiv tw~n a]rtwn , —the “proposition of the bread or “loaves; by an hypallage for a]rtoi th~v proqe>sewv , —the “bread of proposition,” as it is rendered, Matthew 12:4; the bread that was proposed or set forth. In the Hebrew it is µj,l, , “bread,” in the singular number; which the apostle renders by a[rtoi , in the plural, as also doth the evangelist. For that bread consisted of many loaves; as a]rtov properly signifies “a loaf.” So the LXX. render it by a]rtouv , Exodus 25:30.

The number of these loaves, or cakes, as we call them, was twelve; and they were set on the table in two rows, six in a row, being laid one upon the other. The Jews say that every loaf was ten hand-breadths long, and five hand-breadths broad, and seven fingers thick. But this cannot well be reconciled unto the proportion of the table. For the table itself was but two cubits long, and one cubit broad; and whereas it had a border of an hand-breadth round about, nothing could lie on the table but what was placed within that border. And seeing a cubit was but five hand-breadths, it cannot be conceived how two rows of loaves, that were ten handbreadths long, and five hand-breadths broad, could be placed within that border. Wherefore they suppose that there were props of gold coming up from the ground, that bore the ends of the cakes. But if so, it could not be said that they were placed on the table, which is expressly affirmed.

Wherefore it is certain that they were of such shape, proportion, and measures, as might fitly be placed on the table within the border; and more we know not of them.

These cakes were renewed every Sabbath, in the morning; the renovation of them being part of the peculiar worship of the day. The manner of it, as also of the making of them, is described, Leviticus 24:5-9. And because the new bread was to be brought in and immediately placed in the room of that which was taken away, it is called absolutely dymiT;h’ µj,l, , —”the continual bread,” Numbers 4:7. For God says it was to be before him dymiT; , “jugiter,” Exodus 25:30, —”always,” or “continually.” Why it is called µynip;h’ µj,l, , “the bread of faces,” there is great inquiry. One of the Targums renders it “inward bread;” for the word is used sometimes for that which looks inward: the LXX., a]rtouv ejnwpi>ouv , “present bread, or “bread presented.” Many think they were so called because they were set forth before the faces of the priests, and stood in their view when they first entered the tabernacle. But the reason of it is plain in the text: yn’p;l] µynip; µj,l, , —”the shew-bread before my face,” saith God. They were presented before the Lord as a memorial, twelve of them, in answer to the twelve tribes of Israel. The Jews think they were called “bread of faces,” because being made in an oblong square, they appeared with many faces; that is, as many as they had sides. But they cannot evince this to have been the fashion of them, and it is absurd to imagine that they had such a name given unto them from their outward form.

This is all that the apostle observes to have been in the first part of the tabernacle. There was in it, moreover, the altar of incense. But this was not placed in the midst of it at any equal distances from the sides, but just at the west end, where the veil opened to give an entrance into the most holy place; wherefore by our apostle it is reckoned unto that part of the sanctuary, as we shall see on the next verse. 4. Concerning this part of the tabernacle, the apostle affirms that it was called aJgi>a , “holy.” This name of it was given and stated, Exodus 26:33, “The veil shall divide µyvid;Q;h\ vd,qo ˆybeW, —”between the holy” (that is, that part of the sanctuary,) “and the most holy,” which our apostle describes in the next place. And we may observe, that, — Obs. I. Every part of God’s house, and the place wherein he will dwell, is filled and adorned with pledges of his presence, and means of communicating his grace. Such were all the parts of the furniture of this part of the tabernacle. And so doth God dwell in his church, which in some sense is his tabernacle with men.

But the principal inquiry about these things, is concerning their mystical signification and use. For by the apostle they are only proposed in general, under this notion, that they were all typical representations of things spiritual and evangelical. Without this he had no concernment in them.

This, therefore, we shall inquire into.

We may in this matter be supplied by expositors with variety of conjectures. But none of them, so far as I have observed, have at all endeavored to fix any certain rule for the trial and measure of such conjectures, nor to guide us in the interpretation of this mystery.

Some say, the candlestick, with its branches, represented the seven planets, the sun in the midst, as the scapus of the candlestick was in the midst of the six branches, three on the one side, and three on the other.

And the loaves of bread, say they, did represent the fruits of the earth as influenced by the heavenly bodies. This is the interpretation of Philo, a Jew and Platonical philosopher; and it doth not unbecome his principles.

But that any Christian writer should approve of it I somewhat wonder, nor doth it deserve a confutation.

Some say that the altar of incense signified those that are of a contemplative life; the table of shew-bread, those that follow the active life; and the candlestick, those that follow both of them. The pretended reasons of this application of these things may be seen in the commentaries of Ribera and Tena on this place.

Some, with more sobriety and probability, affirm the candlestick to represent the ministry of the church, appointed for the illumination of it; and the table with the shew-bread, the ordinances as administered by them: which things are declared succinctly by Gomarus on this place; and unto them they may have safely a secondary application.

But, as was said, a rule is to be fixed to guide us in the interpretation of the mystical signification of these things, and the application of them; without which we shall wander in uncertain and unapprovable conjectures. And it is plainly given us in the context. For therein are two things manifest: 1. That the tabernacle and all contained in it were typical of Christ. This is directly affirmed, Hebrews 8:2, as hath been evinced in the exposition of that place. And it is the design of the apostle further to declare and confirm it in what remains of this chapter. 2. That the Lord Christ, in this representation of him by the tabernacle, its utensils and services, is not considered absolutely, but as the church is in mystical union with him; for he is proposed, set forth, and described, in the discharge of his mediatory office. And these things give us an evident rule in the investigation of the original significancy of the tabernacle, with all the parts, furniture, and services of it, and the design of God therein.

They were all representative of Christ in the discharge of his office, and by them did God instruct the church as unto their faith in him and expectation of him.

This is excellently observed by Cyril. in Johan. lib. 4:cap. xxviii.: “Christus licet unus sit, multifariam tamen a nobis intelligitur. Ipse est tabernaculum propter carnis tegumentum; ipse est mensa, quia noster cibus est et vita; ipse est arca habens legem Dei reconditam, quia est verbum patris; ipse est candelabrum, quia est lux spiritualis; ipse est altare incensi, quia est odor suavitatis in sanctificationem; ipse est altare holocausti, quia est hostia pro totius mundi vita in cruce oblata.’ And other instances he gives unto the same purpose. And although I cannot comply with all his particular applications, yet the ground he builds upon and the rule he proceeds by are firm and stable. And by this rule we shall inquire into the signification of the things mentioned by the apostle in the first part of the tabernacle: — The candlestick, with its seven branches, and its perpetual light with pure oil, giving light unto all holy administrations, did represent the fullness of spiritual light that is in Christ Jesus, and which by him is communicated unto the whole church. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men,” John 1:5. God gave unto him the Spirit not by measure, John 3:35.

And the Holy Spirit rested on him in all variety of his gifts and operations, especially those of spiritual light, wisdom, and understanding, Isaiah 11:2,3; and in allusion unto this candlestick with its seven lamps, is called “the seven Spirits that are before the throne of God,” Revelation 1:4; as he in and by whom the Lord Christ gives out the fullness and perfection of spiritual light and gifts, unto the illumination of the church, even as the light of the tabernacle depended on the seven lamps of the candlestick.

Wherefore, by the communication of the fullness of the Spirit in all his gifts and graces unto Christ, he became the fountain of all spiritual light unto the church. For he subjectively enlightens their minds by his Spirit, Ephesians 1:17-19; and objectively and doctrinally conveys the means of light unto them by his word.

Again; there was one candlestick which contained the holy oil, (a type of the Spirit) in itself. Thence was it communicated unto the branches on each side of it, that they also should give light unto the tabernacle; yet had they originally no oil in themselves, but only what was continually communicated unto them from the body of the candlestick. And so the communications from Christ of spiritual gifts unto the ministers of the gospel, whereby they are instrumental in the illumination of the church, was signified thereby. For “unto every one of us is given grace according unto the measure of the gift of Christ,” even as he pleaseth, Ephesians 4:7.

But hereon we must also remember, that this candlestick was all one beaten work of pure gold, both the scapus, the body, and all the branches of it. There were neither joints, nor screws, nor pins in or about it, Exodus 25:36. Wherefore, unless ministers are made partakers of the divine nature of Christ, by that faith which is more precious than gold, and are intimately united unto him, so as mystically to become one with him, no pretended conjunction unto him by joints and screws of outward order will enable them to derive that pure oil from him with whose burning light they may illuminate the church. But this I submit unto the judgment of others.

This is of faith herein: That which God instructed the church in by this holy utensil and its use, was, that the promised Messiah, whom all these things typed and represented, was to be, by the fullness of the Spirit in himself, and the communication of all spiritual graces and gifts unto others, the only cause of all true saving light unto the church. “He is the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world;” namely, that is savingly enlightened. Upon the entrance of sin, all things fell into darkness; spiritual darkness covered mankind, not unlike that which was on the face of the deep before God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” Corinthians 4:6. And this darkness had two parts; first, that which was external, with respect unt6 the will of God concerning sinners, and their acceptance with him; secondly, on the minds of men, in their incapacity to receive such divine revelations unto that end as were or should be made.

This was the double veil, the veil veiled and the covering covered over the face of all nations, which was to be destroyed, Isaiah 25:7. And they are both removed by Christ alone; the former by his doctrine, the latter by his Spirit. Moreover, there was no light at all in the sanctuary, for the performance of any holy administrations, but what was given unto it by the lamps of this candlestick; and therefore was it to be carefully dressed every morning and evening, by a perpetual statute. And if the communication of spiritual gifts and graces do cease, the very church itself, notwithstanding its outward order, will be a place of darkness.

Obs. II. The communication of sacred light from Christ, in the gifts of the Spirit, is absolutely necessary unto the due and acceptable performance of all holy offices and duties of worship in the church. And, — Obs. III. No man, by his utmost endeavors in the use of outward means, can obtain the least beam of saving light, unless it be communicated unto him by Christ, who is the only fountain and cause of it.

The table and the shew-bread, mentioned in the next place, respected him also, under another consideration. The use of the table, which was all overlaid with gold, was only to bear the bread which was laid upon it.

What resemblance there might be therein unto the divine person of Christ, which sustained the human nature in its duties, that bread of life which was provided for the church, it may be is not easy to declare. Howbeit, the head of Christ is said to be “as the most fine gold,” Cant. 5:11. Wherefore the matter of it being most precious, and the form of it beautiful and glorious, it might as far represent it as any thing could do which is of this creation, as all these things were, verse 11. But that the Lord Christ is the only bread of life unto the church, the only spiritual food of our souls, he himself doth fully testify, John 6:32-35. He, therefore, he alone, was represented by this “continual bread” of the sanctuary.

VERSES 3-5.

Meta< de< to< deu>teron katape>tasma skhnh< hJ legome>nh a[gia aJgi>wn? crusou~n e]cousa zumiath>rion , kai< thkhv perikekalumme>nhn pa>ntoqen crusi>w| , ejn h=| sta>mnov crush~ e]cousa to< ma>nna , kai< hJ rJa>zdov jAarwsasa , kai< aiJ pla>kev th~v diaqh>khv? JYpera>nw de< aujth~v cerouzixhv katuskia>zonta to< iJlasth>rion? peri< w=n oujk e]sti nu~n le>gein kata< me>rov .

Meta< de< to deu>teron katape>tasma skhnh> , “but after the second veil,” or “covering.” Our Latin translation reads, “post medium velum;” that is, “after the veil that was in the midst:” but there were not three veils, whereof this should be in the midst, but two only. The Syriac somewhat changeth the words, “the inner tabernacle, which was within the face of the second gate.” The same thing is intended; but “the inner” is added; and “after the second veil” is expressed by an Hebraism. What katape>tasma is, which is rendered “velum,” and “velamentum,” a “veil,” a “covering,” and by the Syriac, a “gate of entrance,” we shall see afterwards.

JH legome>nh , “quod dicitur,” “quod vocatur.” Syr., “it was called.”

Crsou~n e]cousa zumiath>rion , “aureum habens thuribulum;” “having the golden censer.” Syr., “and there were in it the house of incense of gold;” whereby either the altar or the censer may be understood. jEn h=| sta>mnov .

Syr., “and there was in it;” referring plainly to the ark.

Peri< w=n oujk e]sti nu~n le>gein kata< me>rov, “non est tempus,” “non est propositum;” “it is not a time or place,” “it is not my purpose to speak;” “non est modo dicendum.” Kata< me>rov ,” singulatim;” Vulg. Lat., “per singula;” Arias, “per partes;” Syr., “by one and one,” “apart,” “particularly,” according to the parts laid down distinctly. The Syriac adds the following words unto these, “It is not time to speak of these things by one and one, which were thus disposed.” But the original refers that expression unto what follows. f14 Ver. 3-5. —And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid [covered ] round about [on every side ] with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the churubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which [things ] we cannot [shall not ] now speak particularly.

The apostle in these verses proceedeth unto the description of the second part of the tabernacle, with the things contained in it, or the holy furniture thereof. His design is not to give us an exact description of these things, as he declares in the close of the fifth verse, but only to declare their use and signification. Wherefore he doth not propose an accurate account of their station and relation one to another, but makes such mention of them in general as was sufficient unto his end, namely, to manifest their use and signification. Wherefore they deal injuriously both with him and the text, who rigidly examine every word and passage, as though he had designed an exact account of the frame, positure, fashion, and measure, of this part of the tabernacle, and every thing contained in it; whereas the use and signification of the whole is all that he intends. A due consideration hereof renders the anxious inquiry that hath been made about the assignation of holy utensils unto this part of the sanctuary, and the placing of them with respect unto one another, —which was no part of his design, —altogether needless. For with respect unto the end he aimed at, the words he useth are exactly the truth.

He describes this part of the tabernacle,1. From its situation; it was “after the second veil.” 2. From its name, given unto it by God himself; it was called “The holiest of all,” or” The holy of holies.” 3. From its utensils or vessels; which were, (1.) The golden censer; (2.) The ark, —what was in it or with it: [1.] The golden pot that had manna; [2.] Aaron’s rod; [3.] The tables of the covenant. 4. The cherubim; which he describes, (1.) From their quality, “cherubim of glory;” (2.) Their use, they “shadowed the mercy-seat.” 5 . The mercy-seat itself, but this is mentioned as it were only occasionally with respect unto the use of the cherubim.

And this sufficiently manifests, that in the rehearsal of these things the apostle designeth not accuracy of order; for the mercy-seat was, for glory and signification, far above the cherubim wherewith it was overshadowed.

With respect unto these things among others, in another place, he affirms that the ministration of divine worship under the law was glorious; but withal he adds that it had no glory in comparison of that which doth excel, —namely, the spiritual ministration of divine worship under the gospel, 2 Corinthians 3:9,10. And this is that which we should always mind in the consideration of these things; for if we yet look after and value such an outward glory as they did exhibit, we are carnal, and cannot behold the beauty of spiritual things.

The verbal difficulties which occur in this context have occasioned critical expositors to labor greatly about them. That is the field wherein they choose to exercise their skill and diligence. But as unto the things themselves, and the difficulties that are in the real interpretation of them, little light is contributed by most of their endeavors. Wherefore some of these words have been so belabored with all sorts of conjectures, that there is no room left for any addition in the same kind; and it were but lost labor to repeat what must be confuted if it were mentioned. I shall therefore take no further notice of any difficulty in the words, but as the explication of it is necessary unto the interpretation of the context; and so far nothing shall be omitted. 1. The first thing mentioned by the apostle is the situation of this part of the tabernacle; it was “after the second veil.” It was so unto them that entered into the tabernacle; they had to pass through the whole length of the first part before they came unto this; nor was there any other way of entrance into it. And by calling this partition of the two parts of the sanctuary the “second veil,” the apostle intimates that there was a former.

Howbeit that former was not a separating veil of any part of the tabernacle, as this was. It was only the hanging of the door of the tent.

This the apostle here reckons as a veil, because as by this veil the priests were hindered from entering into, or looking into the most holy place, so by that other the people were forbidden to enter or look into the first part of the sanctuary, whereinto the priests entered daily. The making of the first veil is declared, Exodus 26:36,37, and it is called jt’p,l] Ës;m; “the hanging,” or “covering for the door.’) The making of this second veil is declared, Exodus 26:31-33, and it is called “the veil” or “covering.” The apostle renders it by katape>tasma ; as also it is Matthew 27:51, where it is spoken.of as in the temple. And so it is rendered by the LXX., Exodus 26:31; as the former is called ka>lumma , a covering. From peta>zw , which is “to extend,” “to stretch out” so as to cover with what is so extended, is katape>tasma , “a veil” to be a covering unto any thing, dividing one thing from another; as peripe>tasma is that which covereth any thing round about: such was this veil.

The end, use, and signification of it, the apostle expressly declares verse 8, where they must be spoken unto. 2. He describes this part of the tabernacle by its name; it is called “The most holy,” “The holy of holies,” — vd,qo µyvid;Q\h’ So it is called by God himself, Exodus 26:33,34, “The holy of holies;” that is, most holy, — the superlative degree expressed by the repetition of the substantive, as is usual in the Hebrew. Some give instances of this kind of phraseology in Greek writers, remote enough from Hebraisms; as Sophocles, Elect. 849:

Deilai>a deilai>wn kurei~v , —”misera miserarum es;” that is, “miserrima.” But however the phrase of a[gia aJgi>wn may be Greek, the apostle intends to express the Hebraism itself. And “holy” in the Hebrew is of the singular number; “holies,” of the plural: but in the Greek both are of the plural number. And what is thus called was most eminently typical of Christ, who is called by this name, Daniel 9:24, “To anoint the Most Holy.” The place in the tabernacle which was most sacred and most secret, which had the most eminent pledges or symbols of the divine presence, and the clearest representations of God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself is so called.

Obs. I. The more of Christ, by the way of representation or exhibition, any institutions of divine worship do contain or express, the more sacred and holy are they in their use and exercise. But, — Obs. II. It is Christ alone who in himself is really the Most Holy, the spring and fountain of all holiness unto the church. 3. The first utensil reckoned unto this second part of the tabernacle is cruso~n zumiath>rion; and the relation of it thereunto is, that it had it, — e]cousa. He doth not say, it was in it, but “it had it.” If any one would see the various conjectures of learned men about this assertion of the apostle, as also about that following, concerning what was contained in the ark, he may consult the collections of Mr Pool on the place, where he will find them represented in one view. My design being only to declare what I conceive consonant unto the truth, I shall not spend time in repeating or refuting the conjectures of other men.

Qumiath>rion , we translate a “censer;” but it may as well be rendered the “altar of incense;” as it is by the Syriac the “house of spices,” —the place for the spices whereof the incense was compounded. The altar of incense was all overlaid with beaten gold; hence it is here said to be crusou~n , of “gold.” And whereas it was one of the most glorious vessels of the tabernacle, and most significant, if the apostle intended it not in this word, he takes no notice of it at all; which is very unlikely.

And of this altar he says not that it was in the second tabernacle, but that it had it. And in that expression he respects not its situation, but its use.

And the most holy place may well be said to have had the altar of incense, because the high priest could never enter into that place, nor perform any service in it, but he was to bring incense with him taken in a censer from this altar. Whereas, therefore, there was a twofold use of the altar of incense; the one of the ordinary priests, to burn incense in the sanctuary every day; and the other of the high priest, to take incense from it when he entered into the most holy place, to fill it with a cloud of its smoke; the apostle intending a comparison peculiarly between the Lord Christ and the high priest only in this place, and not the other priests in the daily discharge of their office, he takes no notice of the use of the altar of incense in the sanctuary, but only of that which respected the most holy place, and the entrance of the high priest thereinto: for so he expressly applies it, verse 12. And therefore he affirms this place to have had this golden altar, its principal use and end being designed unto the service thereof. This I judge to be the true meaning of the apostle and sense of his words, and shall not therefore trouble myself nor the reader with the repetition or confutation of other conjectures. And that this was the principal use of this altar is plainly declared in the order for the making and disposal of it, Exodus 30:6, “Thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.” Although it was placed without the veil, and that for this end, that the high priest might not enter one step into the most holy place until the smoke of the incense went before him, yet had it peculiar respect unto the ark and mercy-seat, and is therefore reckoned in the same place and service with them by the apostle.

And this is yet made further evident, in that when the high priest entered into the most holy place, and had no service to perform but with respect unto the things pertaining thereunto, he was to make atonement on this altar with the blood of the sin-offering, as he did on the ark and mercyseat, Exodus 30:10. This is an undeniable demonstration that, as unto the use of it, it belonged principally unto the most holy place, and is here so declared by the apostle. Wherefore, the assignation hereof unto ‘that place by the author is so far from an objection against the authority of the epistle, — unto which end it hath by some been made use of, — as that it is an argument of his divine wisdom and skill in the nature and use of these institutions.

The manner of the service of this altar intended by the apostle was briefly thus: The high priest, on the solemn day of expiation, —that is, once ayear, —took a golden censer from this altar; after which, going out of the sanctuary, he put fire into it, taken from the altar of burnt-offerings without the tabernacle, in the court where the perpetual fire was preserved. Then returning into the holy place, he filled his hands with incense taken from this altar, the place of the residence of the spices. And this altar being placed just at the entrance of the most holy place, over against the ark and mercy-seat, upon his entrance he put the incense on the fire in the censer, and entered the holy place with a cloud of the smoke thereof. See Leviticus 16:12,13. The composition and making of this incense is declared, Exodus 30:34,35, etc. And being compounded, it was beaten small, that it might immediately take fire, and so placed on this altar before the ark, verse 36. And the placing of this incense “before the testimony,” as is there affirmed, is the same with what our apostle affirms, that the most holy place had it.

That in general by incense, prayer is signified, the Scripture expressly testifieth: “Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense,” Psalm 141. 2. And there is a fourfold resemblance between them: (1.) In that it was beaten and pounded before it was used. So doth acceptable prayer proceed from “a broken and contrite heart,” Isaiah 51. 17. (2.) It was of no use until fire was put under it, and that taken from the altar. Nor is that prayer of any virtue or efficacy which is not kindled by the fire from above, the Holy Spirit of God; which we have from our altar, Christ Jesus. (3.) It naturally ascended upwards towards heaven, as all offerings in the Hebrew are called twOl[o , “ascensions,” risings up. And this is the design of prayer, to ascend unto the throne of God: “I will direct unto thee, and will look up;” that is, pray, Psalm 5:3. (4.) It yielded a sweet savor: which was one end of it in temple services, wherein there was so much burning of flesh and blood. So doth prayer yield a sweet savor unto God; a savor of rest, wherein he is well pleased.

In this general sense, even the prayers of the saints might be typified and represented in that daily burning of incense which was used in the sanctuary. But it must be granted that this incense is distinguished from the prayers of the saints, as that which is in the hand of Christ alone, to give virtue and efficacy unto them, Revelation 8:4. Wherefore this golden altar of incense, as placed in the sanctuary, and whereon incense was burned continually every morning and evening, was a type of Christ, by his mediation and intercession giving efficacy unto the continual prayers of all believers.

But that which the apostle in this place hath alone respect unto, was the burning of the incense in the golden censer on the day of expiation, when the high priest entered into the most holy place. And this represented only the personal mediatory prayer of Christ himself. Concerning it we may observe: (1.) That the time of it was after the sacrifice of the sin-offering; for the high priest was to take along with him the blood of that sacrifice, to carry with him into the holy place, Leviticus 16: (2.) That the incense was kindled with fire taken from the altar, when the blood of the sacrifices was newly offered.

And two things in the mediatory prayer of Christ are hereby intimated unto us: (1.) That the efficacy of them ariseth from and dependeth on the sacrifice of himself. Hence his intercession is best apprehended as the representation of himself and the efficacy of his sacrifice in heaven, before the throne of God. (2.) That this prayer is quickened and enlivened by the same fire wherewith the sacri-rice of himself was kindled, —that is, by the eternal Spirit; whereof we shall treat on verse 14. Yet we must not so oblige ourselves unto the times, seasons, and order of these things, as to exclude the prayers which he offered unto God before the oblation of himself. Yea, that solemn prayer of his, recorded John xvii., wherein he sanctified himself to be an oblation, was principally prefigured by the cloud of incense which filled the most holy place, covering the ark and mercy-seat.

For by reason of the imperfection of these types, and their accommodation unto the present service of the church so far as it was carnal, they could not represent the order of things as they were to be accomplished in the person of Christ, who was both priest and sacrifice, altar, tabernacle, and incense. For the law had only a shadow of these things, and not the perfect image of them. Some obscure lines of them were drawn therein, but their beautiful order was not represented in them.

Although, therefore, the offering of incense from the golden altar in the most holy place was after the offering of sacrifice on the altar of burntofferings, yet was the mediatory prayer of Christ for the church of the elect, wherein he also prepared and sanctified himself to be a sacrifice, thereby typified. So also the beating or bruising of the incense before its firing did represent the agony of his soul, with the strong cries and supplications that he offered unto God therein. And we may observe, — Obs. III. The mediatory intercession of Jesus Christ is a sweet savor unto God, and efficacious for the salvation of the church. —The smoke of this perfume was that which covered the ark and mercy-seat. Hereby the law itself, which was contained in the ark, became compliant unto our salvation; for herein Christ was declared to be the end of the law for righteousness unto them that do believe.

Obs. IV. The efficacy of Christ’s intercession dependeth on his oblation. —It was fire from the altar of burnt-offerings wherewith the incense was kindled.

Obs. V. The glory of these types did no way answer the glory of the antitype, or that which was represented by them. —It is acknowledged that the service of the high priest at and from this golden altar, and his entrance with a cloud of incense into the most holy place, had great glory in it, and was suited to ingenerate a great veneration in the minds of the people; howbeit they were all but carnal things, and had no glory in comparison of the spiritual glory of Christ in the discharge of his office.

We are apt in our minds to admire these things, and almost to wish that God had ordained such a service in the gospel, so outwardly glorious. For there is that in it which is suited unto those images of things which men create and are delighted withal in their minds. And besides, they love in divine service to be taken up with such a bodily exercise as carries glory with it, —an appearance of solemn veneration. Wherefore many things are found out by men unto these ends. But the reason of all is, because we are carnal. We see not the glory of spiritual things, nor do know how to be exercised in our minds about them with pure acts of faith and love.

Obs. VI. We are always to reckon that the efficacy and prevalency of all our prayers depends on the incense which is in the hand of our merciful high priest. —It is offered with the prayers of the saints, Revelation 8:4. In themselves our prayers are weak and imperfect; it is hard to conceive how they should find acceptance with God. But the invaluable incense of the intercession of Christ gives them acceptance and prevalency.

The second thing in this part of the tabernacle mentioned by the apostle is the ark. This he describes, (1.) From its appellation; “the ark of the covenant:” (2.) From one particular in its fabric; it was “overlaid round about with gold:” (3.) From the things that accompanied it, and had no other use but to be laid up by it; “the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded:” (4.) From what was placed in it, which to preserve was its principal use; “the tables of the covenant.”

This vessel in the Hebrew is called ˆwOra; ; as the ark in the flood was called hb;Te . But the Greeks render both by cizwto>v as the Latins by arca. This, with the mercy-seat wherewith it was covered, was the most glorious and mysterious utensil of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple; the most eminent pledge of the divine presence, the most mysterious representation of the holy properties of his nature in Christ. This, as the heart of all divine service, was first formed; all other things had a relation unto it, Exodus 25:10,11. To treat of the fabric, that is, the materials, dimensions, and fashion of this ark, is not unto our present purpose. For these things the apostle himself here declines, as being no season to treat of them particularly. This he intends in these words, “Which we shall not now speak of.” And their mystical signification he gives afterwards. (1.) The name of it is “the ark of the covenant.” Sometimes it is called “the ark of the testimony,” Exodus 26:33, 39:35, 40:3, 5; most commonly “the ark of the covenant,’’ Numbers 10:33, 14:44, Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.; sometimes “the ark of God,” 1 Samuel 3:3, 6:2, etc. “The ark of the testimony” it was called, because God called the tables of the covenant by the name of his “testimony,” or that which testified his will unto the people, and, by the people’s acceptance of the terms of it, was to be a perpetual witness between God and them, Exodus 25:16, 31:18, etc. On the same account is it called “the ark of the covenant,” namely, because of what was contained in it, or the tables of the covenant; which, as I have showed elsewhere, were usually called “the covenant’’ itself. And so they are called “the tables of testimony,” Exodus 31:18; that is, the covenant which was the testimony of God.

And lastly it was called “the ark of God,” because it was the most eminent pledge of the especial presence of God among the people. (2.) As to the fabric of it, the apostle observes in particular, that it was on every side “overlaid” or “covered with gold,” —pa>ntoqen , “every way, within and without,” —with plates of beaten gold. This, as I said before, was the most sacred and glorious instrument of the sanctuary; yea, the whole sanctuary, as unto its use in the church of Israel, was built for no other end but to be as it were a house and habitation for this ark, Exodus 26:33, 40:21. Hence sanctification proceeded unto all the other parts of it; for, as Solomon observed, the places were holy whereunto the ark of God came, 2 Chronicles 8:11. And of such sacred veneration was it among the people, so severe was the exclusion of all flesh from the sight of it, —the high priest only excepted, who entered that holy place once a year, and that not without blood, —as that the nations about took it to be the God that the Israelites worshipped, 1 Samuel 4:8. And it were not difficult to evidence that many of the pretended mysterious ceremonies of worship that prevailed among the nations of the world afterwards, were invented in compliance with what they had heard concerning the ark and worship of God thereby.

This was the most signal token, pledge, or symbol, of the presence of God among the people. And thence metonymically it hath sometimes the name of God ascribed unto it, as some think; and of “the glory of God,” Psalm 78:61. And all neglects about it or contempt of it were most severely punished. From the tabernacle it was carried into the temple built by Solomon, where it continued until the Babylonian captivity; and what became of it afterwards is altogether uncertain.

God gave this ark that it might be a representation of Christ, as we shall show; and he took it away to increase the desire and expectation of the church after him and for him. And as it was the glory of God to hide and cover the mysterious counsels of his will under the old testament, — whence this ark was so hidden from the eyes of all men, —so under the new testament it is his glory to reveal and make them open in Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:18. (3.) In this ark, as it was placed in the tabernacle, the apostle affirmeth that there were three things: — [1.] “The golden pot that had manna,” When the manna first fell, every one was commanded to gather an omer, for his own eating, Exodus 16:16. Hereon God appointed that a pot should be provided which should hold an omer, to be filled with manna, to be laid up before the Lord for their generations, verse 33. There was it miraculously preserved from putrefaction, whereas of itself it would not keep two days unto an end.

And it is added, “As theLORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the testimony, to be kept,” verse 34. But there is a prolepsis in the words; Aaron is said to do what he did afterwards. For the testimony was not yet given, nor Aaron yet consecrated unto his office. It is not said in this place, where the making of it is appointed, that it was of gold, nor is there any mention of what matter it was made. That it was of gold the apostle here declares, who wrote by inspiration. And the thing is evident itself; for it was to be placed in that part of the sanctuary wherein all the vessels were either of pure gold, or at least overlaid with it, and a pot of another nature would have been unsuitable thereunto. And it was to be made of that which was most durable, as being to be kept for a memorial throughout all generations.

The reason of the sacred preservation of this manna in the most holy place was, because it was a type of Christ; as himself declares, John 6:48-51. [2.] The next thing mentioned is “Aaron’s rod that budded.” This rod originally was that wherewith Moses fed the sheep of his father-in-law, Jethro, in the wilderness, which he had in his hand when God called unto him out of the bush. And thereon God ordained it to be the token of the putting forth of his power in the working of miracles, having by a trial confirmed the faith of Moses concerning it, Exodus 4:17. Hereby it became sacred; and when Aaron was called unto the office of the priesthood, it was delivered into his keeping. For on the budding of it, on the trial about the priesthood, it was laid up before the testimony; that is, the ark, Numbers 17:10. That same rod did Moses take from before the testimony when he was to smite the rock with it, and work a miracle; whereof this was consecrated to be the outward sign, Numbers 20:8-11.

Hereof the apostle affirms only that it “budded;” but in the story it is, that it “brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds; “being originally cut from an almond tree, Numbers 17:8. But the apostle mentions what was sufficient unto his purpose.

This rod of Moses belonged unto the holy furniture of the tabernacle; because the spiritual Rock that followed them was to be smitten with the rod of the law, that it might give out the waters of life unto the church. [3.] The last thing mentioned is “the tables of the covenant;” the two tables of stone, cut out by Moses, and written on with the finger of God, containing the ten commandments; which were the substance of God’s covenant with the people. This testimony, this covenant, these tables of stone, with the moral law engraven in them, were, by the express command of God, put into the ark, Exodus 25:16,21, 40:20; Deuteronomy 10:5. And “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone” with the law written in them, as is expressly affirmed, Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10. Wherefore, whereas it is said of Aaron’s rod and the pot of manna, that they were placed before the testimony, Numbers 17:10, Exodus 16:34, —that is, the ark; and that the book of the law was also put into the side of it, —that is, laid beside it, Deuteronomy 31:26; and not only are the tables of stone appointed expressly to be put into the ark, but also it is likewise affirmed that “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone;” this place of the apostle hath been exceedingly tortured and perplexed by critics, and all sorts of expositors, with multiplied conjectures, objections, and solutions.

I know not that the repetition of them in this place would be of any use.

Those who have a mind to exercise themselves about them, do know where to find them. I shall therefore give only that interpre-ration of the words which, for the substance of it at least, all sober expositors do betake themselves unto. The true, real poslture of these things was after this manner: In the closed ark there was nothing at all but the two tables of stone. Before it, or at the ends of it, adjoining unto it, were the pot of manna and the miracle-working rod. Neither of these was of any actual use in the service of God, but only were kept as sacred memorials. Unto this end being placed by it, they were joined unto and reckoned with the ark.

This appurtenance of them unto the ark the apostle expresseth by the preposition ejn , from the Hebrew B] . Now this preposition is so frequently used in the Scripture to signify adhesion, conjunction, approximation, appurtenance of one thing unto another, that it is mere cavilling to assign it any other signification in this place, or to restrain it unto inclusion only, the things themselves requiring that sense. See Job 19:20; Deuteronomy 6:7; 1 Samuel 1:24; Hosea 4:3; Joshua 10:10; Matthew 21:12; Luke 1:17. And a multitude of instances are gathered by others Ver. 5. —”And over it the cherubim of glory, shadowing the mercyseat; of which things we cannot now speak particularly.”

The apostle proceedeth in his description of the immediate appurtenances of the ark. He hath declared what was disposed with reference unto it, as the golden censer; what was before it, as the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod; what was within it, namely, the tables of the covenant; now he showeth what was over it: so giving an account of its whole furniture, and all that any way belonged unto it.

Two things he adds, namely, 1. The cherubim; 2. The mercy-seat.

And first he describes the cherubim, (1.) By their positure; they were “over the ark:” (2.) By their title; “cherubim of glory:” (3.) Their use; they “shadowed the mercy-seat.” 1. The making, form, fashion, and use of these cherubim, are declared, Exodus 25:The signification of the name, and their original shape or form, any further than that they were “alata animata,” “winged creatures,” are not certainly known. Most, as unto the derivation of the name, follow Kimchi; who affirms the letter caph to be servile, and a note of similitude, and the word to signify “a youth or a child.” Such these images are thought to represent; only they had wings instead of arms, as we now usually paint angels; for their bodies, sides, and feet are mentioned in other places, Isaiah 6:2. See Ezekiel 1:5-7, where they are expressly said to have “the shape of a man.” Wherefore, both as they were first framed for the tabernacle, and afterwards for the temple, when their dimensions were exceedingly enlarged, they were of human shape; only with wings, to denote the angelical nature.

There were two of them, one at each end of the ark or mercy-seat. Their faces were turned inwards, one towards another, so as that their wings touched one another. This posture gave unto the whole work of the ark, mercy-seat, and cherubim, the form of a seat, which represented the throne of God. From thence he spake; whence the whole was called wybiD] , “the oracle.”

As unto their place and posture, they were over the ark. For these cherubim had feet whereon they stood, 2 Chronicles 3:13. And these feet were joined in one continued beaten work unto the ends of the mercyseat which was upon the ark; wherefore they were wholly over it, or above it, as the apostle here speaks.

As unto the appellation whereby he describes them, it is “cherubim of glory;” that is, say expositors generally, cerouzi, — ”glorious cherubim.” If so, this term is not given them from the matter whereof they were made. Those, indeed, in the tabernacle were of beaten gold, being but of a small measure or proportion, Exodus 25:18. Those in the temple of Solomon were made of the wood of the olive tree, only overlaid with gold; for they were very large, extending their wings unto the whole breadth of the oracle, which was twenty cubits, 1 Kings 6:23-28; 2 Chronicles 3:10-13. But such was the matter of other utensils also, as the candlestick, which yet is not called the candlestick of glory. Nor are they so called from their shape and fashion; for this, as I have showed, most probably was human shape with wings, wherein there was nothing peculiarly glorious. But they are so called from their posture and use; for, stretching out their wings on high, and looking inwards with an appearance of veneration, and so compassing the mercy-seat with their wings, all but the fore part of it, they made a representation of a glorious seat or throne, wherein the majestatical presence of God did sit and reside. And from between these cherubim, above the mercy-seat, it was that God spake unto Moses, and gave out his oracles, Exodus 25:22; as a man on a throne speaks above the place where he sits and rests. Hence may they be called the “glorious cherubim.”

But I must add, that by “glory” here, the majestatical presence of God himself is intended. The cherubim represented the glorious presence of God himself, as he dwelt among the people. So the apostle, reckoning up the privileges of the Hebrews, Romans 9:4, affirms that unto them appertained “the adoption and the glory.” And therein not the ark is intended, although it may be that is sometimes called “the glory;” or signified under that name, as 1 Samuel 4:21,22, Psalm 26:8; but it is God himself in his peculiar residence among the people, —that is, in the representation of his presence which is in Christ, who is Immanuel, and therefore called “the glory of Israel,” Luke 2:32. The cherubim being designed to make a representation hereof, as we shall immediately declare, are called the “cherubim of glory.”

As unto their use, it is expressed by kataskia>zonta . The Hebrew word in that language is of the masculine gender, but the apostle here useth it in the neuter, as appears by this participle; and so do the LXX. where they make mention of them. This, as some suppose, is done because for the most part they had the form of brute creatures; for so they say they had four faces, of a man, of a lion, of an ox, and of an eagle. But although there was this form in the appearance of them made unto Ezekiel, Ezekiel 1:10; yet was it not so of those images in the tabernacle, nor of them afterwards in the temple. But the only reason of this construction is, that Hebrew word not being translated as unto its signification, but literally transferred into the Greek language, is looked on as indeclinable, as all words foreign unto a language are, and belonging unto the neuter gender. “Shadowing,” “covering,” “protecting,” µykik]so , Exodus 25:20, “They shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering over the mercy-seat with their wings;” or, “their wings covering over the mercy-seat.” But this office of the cherubim we cannot understand, until we have declared what was that mercy-seat which they so covered over, and which the apostle makes mention of in the last place. 2. The making and frame of it is declared, Exodus 25:17. In the Hebrew it is called capporeth, or cipporeth, from caphar. The verb in Kal signifies “to cover,” “to pitch over,” and thereby to cover, Genesis 6:14. Thence is capporeth, “a covering.’’ But this cipporeth is rendered by our apostle iJlasth>rion , a “propitiatory,” a “mercy-seat;” as it is also by the LXX. sometimes, and sometimes by ejpi>qhma, an “imposed covering.” But whereas, in allusion hereunto, the Lord Christ is said to be iJlasth>rion, Romans 3:25; and iJlasmo>v , 1 John 2:2; that sense must be taken in, and so it is constantly rendered by our translation “the mercy-seat.” And in that sense it is derived from cipper in Pihel, which signifies “to remove or take away,” and consequently “to be propitious and merciful in taking away of sin;” as also “to appease,” “atone,” “reconcile,” and “purge,” whereby sin is taken away. See Genesis 32:20, “to appease;” Proverbs 16:14, “to pacify;” Psalm 65:3, “to purge away,” applied to sin; Psalm 78:38, “to forgive iniquities;” Deuteronomy 21:8, “to be merciful;” Psalm 79:9, “to expiate.’’ Thence is “the day of expiation,” the great day of fast unto the Jews. This is the fast which was said to be over, in the storm that Paul and his companions were in; for it was on the tenth day of the seventh month, about which season navigation is dangerous, Hence cipporeth is rendered iJlasth>rion , “a mercy-seat.” Yet if we will have respect also unto the first sense of the verb, and its use in Exodus, we may render it “a covering mercy-seat.” The matter of this mercy-seat was of “pure beaten gold;” the measures of it exactly commensurate and answering unto that of the ark; “two cubits and an half the length of it, and a cubit and an half the breadth of it,” Exodus 25:10-16. As unto the use of it, it was put hl;[]m;l]mi ˆrOa;h;Al[‘ , verse 21, — ”above upon the ark.” What was the thickness of it, there is no mention.

The Jews say it was an hand-breadth; which is not likely. However, it was of considerable substance; for the cherubim were beaten out of it, at its ends, verses 18, 19. For the situation and posture of it, some suppose that it was held in the hands of the cherubim, at a good distance from the ark.

And the reason they give for this conjecture is, that so it did best represent a throne. The mercy-seat was as the seat of it, and the ark as the footstool; for so they say it is called when the church is invited to “worship at his footstool,” Psalm 99:5. But this reason indeed everts the supposition which it was produced to confirm. For the ark and mercy-seat being exactly oommensurate, and the one placed directly over the other, it could have no appearance of a footstool, which must be placed before the seat itself. Nor is there any mention of the hands of the cherubim, as there is directly of their feet, in those made by Solomon. Nor is it probable they had any, but only wings instead of them; although those in Ezekiel’s vision, as they served the providence of God, had “the hands of a man under their wings,” Ezekiel 1:8. Nor could it be called a covering unto the ark, if it were at that distance from it, as this conceit will make it to be.

It was therefore laid immediately on the ark, so as the cherubim were represented to be above the throne; as the seraphim were in Isaiah’s vision, Isaiah 6:2. It had, as we observed, the just dimension of the ark.

But the ark had “a crown of gold round about” it; that is, on its sides and its ends, Exodus 25:11, 37:2. But this crown or fringe of gold was so placed on the outsides of it, that it diminished nothing of its proportion of two cubits and a half in length and a cubit and a half in breadth. Wherefore the mercy-seat being exactly of the same measure, it fell in upon it, on the inside of the border or crown of gold.

It remains only that we inquire whether it was itself the covering of the ark, or whether the ark had a covering of its own, which it was placed upon. It is certain that the ark was open when the testimony, or tables of stone with the law written in them, was put into it. And there is no mention of the opening or shutting of it, how it should be closed and fastened when the tables were put into it. These things, I suppose, would not have been omitted, had it had a covering of its own. Besides, it is certain that this propitiatory, and the cherubim belonging thereunto, were never to be separated from the ark; and when the ark was removed and carried by the staves, they were carried upon it. This is evident from hence, because, whereas all the other golden utensils had rings and staves wherewith they were borne, these had none, but must be carried in the hands of men, if they were not inseparable from the ark. And when the men of Beth-shemesh looked into the ark, it doth not appear that they first took off the mercy-seat with the cherubim, and then brake up the covering of the ark; but only lifted up the mercy-seat by the cherubim, which opened the ark, and discovered what was therein, 1 Samuel 6:19.

I do judge, therefore, that this mercy-seat was the only covering of the ark above, falling in close within the crown of gold, exactly answering it in its dimensions. Out of this mercy-seat, of the same substance with it, and contiguous unto it, the cherubim being formed, their wings which were above, some distance from it, being turned towards it, did overshadow it, giving a representation of a glorious throne.

This is a brief description of the utensils of the most holy place. The ark, which was as the heart and center of the whole, was placed at the west end of it, with its ends towards the sides of the place, the face as unto the entrance, and the back part unto the west end. Before it was placed the pot of manna, and the rod that budded, as afterwards; at one end of it was placed the book of the law. In the ark was the testimony, or the two tables of stone with the law written in them by the finger of God, and nothing else. When they were put into it, it was covered with the mercy-seat, and that shadowed with the wings of the cherubim. At the entrance into it was the golden altar of incense, with the golden censer; which although, as our apostle shows, it did in its use principally respect the service of this part of the tabernacle, yet could not be placed within the veil, because the high priest was not to enter himself until he had raised a cloud of incense, through which he entered.

The apostle having given this account of the sanctuary in both parts of it, and what was contained in them, adds, “Of which we now cannot speak particularly;” or rather, “Concerning which things it is not now a season to speak particularly,” or of the several parts of it, one by one. And the reason hereof was, because he had an especial design to manage, from the consideration of the whole fabric, —the service of the high priest in it; which the particular consideration of each part by itself would have too much diverted him from. Howbeit he plainly intimates that all, and every one of them in particular, were of singular consideration, as typical of the Lord Christ and his ministry. For unto this end doth he reckon them up in order. Only it seemed good unto the Holy Ghost not to give unto the church a particular application of them in this place, but he hath left it unto our humble diligence to seek after it out of the Scripture, according unto the analogy of faith, and such rules of the interpretation of those mysteries as himself giveth, in the ensuing declaration of their nature, use, and end in general. This, therefore, I shall briefly endeavor; yet so as, according unto the example of the apostle, not to divert from the especial design of the place.

As was said before so must I say again, expositors either pass by these things without any notice, or indulge unto various conjectures, without any certain rule of what they assert. Those of the Roman church are generally so taken up with their fourfold sense of the Scripture, literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical, —wherein for the most part they know not how to distinguish one from another, —that they wrest this and the like passages unto what sense they please. I shall keep myself unto a certain rule, and where that will not guide me, I shall not venture on any conjectures.

When Ezekiel had his vision of God in the administration of his providence, he says of it, “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the\parLORD,” Ezekiel 1:28.

And we may say of this holy place with its furniture, ‘This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of theLORD in the administration of grace.’

Why God would in this manner, by these means, represent himself and the glory of his grace absolutely, we can give no reason but his own holy will and infinite wisdom. But this we find he did, and that with great solemnity. For first he made a glorious representation of it immediately by his own power in the mount. He showed a pattern of it in the mount; which was not only an exemplar of what he would have framed here below, but expressive of the idea in his own mind of good things to come.

And thereon he gave command that it should in all things be made exactly according unto that pattern, enabling certain persons with wisdom, skill, and understanding so to do. And some things we may observe concerning the whole in general. 1. The nature of the things themselves, or the materials of the whole, being earthly, and the state of the church unto whose service it was allotted being imperfect, and designed so to be, two things did necessarily follow thereon: — (1.) That sundry concernments of it, as the outward shape, form, and dimensions both of the tabernacle and all its utensils, were accommodated unto the present state of the church. Hence were they made outwardly glorious and venerable; for the people being comparatively carnal, were affected with such things. Hence were they all portable also, at their first institution, to comply with the state of the people in the wilderness; whence alterations were made in all of them, excepting the ark and mercyseat, on the building of the temple. In these things, therefore, we are not to seek for any mystical signification, for they were only in compliance with present use. They served, as the apostle immediately declares, unto the use of “carnal ordinances,” which were to continue unto the time of reformation only. (2.) That the resemblance of heavenly things in them was but dark and obscure, as the apostle expressly affirms, Hebrews 10:1. This both the nature of the things themselves, being earthly and carnal, with that state wherein the church was to be kept unto the fulness of time, did require. 2. This yet is certain and indubitable, —which gives us our stable rule of the interpretation of their significancy, —that God chose this way and these means to represent his glorious presence in and with theLORD Christ, unto all the ends of his mediation. For with respect unto them it is said that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9; namely, as it dwelt typically in the tabernacle by the outward pledges of his especial presence. Whence he concludes that they were all “a shadow,” whereof “the body was Christ,” verse 17. But we need seek for no further testimony hereunto than the express design of the apostle in this place. For his whole discourse, in this and the ensuing chapter, is to manifest the representation of Christ in them all. And those who would have only an application to be made of something unto Christ by way of accommodation or allusion, as the Socinians contend, do reject the wisdom of God in their institution, and expressly contradict the whole scope of the apostle. We have, therefore, nothing else to do but to find out the resemblance which, as an effect of divine wisdom, and by virtue of divine institution, was in them unto God’s being in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. And to this end the things ensuing may be observed: — (1.) The spring, the life and soul of all this service, was the decalogue, “the ten words,” written in tables of stone, called “the tables of the covenant.” This is the eternal, unalterable rule of our relation unto God as rational creatures, capable of moral obedience and eternal rewards.

Hereunto all this service related, as prefiguring the way whereby the church might be freed from the guilt of its transgression, and obtain the accomplishment of it in them and for them. For, — [1.] It was given and prescribed unto the people, and by them accepted, as the terms of God’s covenant, before any of these things were revealed or appointed, Deuteronomy 5:2-27. Wherefore all these following institutions did only manifest how that covenant should be complied withal and fulfilled. [2.] It was written in tables of stone, and those renewed after they were broken, before any of these things were prepared or erected, Exodus 34:1. God, by the occasional breaking of the first tables, on the sin of the people, declared that there was no keeping, no fulfilling of that covenant, before the provision made in these ordinances was granted unto the people. [3.] The ark was made and appointed for no other end but to preserve and keep these tables of the covenant, or testimony of God, Exodus 25:16.

And it was hereon the great token and pledge of the presence of God among the people, wherein his glory dwelt among them. So the wife of Phinehas the priest made the dying confession of her faith: she said,” The glory is departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken,” 1 Samuel 4:22. Wherefore, — [4.] All other things, the whole tabernacle, with all the furniture, utensils, and services of it, were made and appointed to minister unto the ark; and when the ark was removed from them they were of no use nor signification. Wherefore, when it was absent from the tabernacle, “all the house of Israel lamented after theLORD,” 1 Samuel 7:2; for the remaining tabernacle was no longer unto them a pledge of his presence.

And therefore, when Solomon afterwards had finished all the glorious work of the temple, with all that belonged unto it, “he assembled all the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant into its place” in the temple, 1 Kings 8:1-4. Before this was done, all that glorious and costly structure was of no sacred use. This order of things doth sufficiently evidence that the spring of all these services lay in the tables of the covenant. (2.) This law, as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works; for it contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image, and nothing else. It was the whole of what God designed in our creation unto his own glory and our everlasting blessedness. What was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3. (3.) Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Romans 8:3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matthew 5:17,18; Romans 3:31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant. (4.) This law was given unto the people with great dread and terror.

Hereby were they taught, and did learn, that they were no way able of themselves to answer or stand before the holiness of God therein. Hereon they desired that, on the account thereof, they might not appear immediately in the presence of God, but that they might have a mediator to transact all things between God and them, Deuteronomy 5:22-27. (5.) God himself by all ways declared, that if he should deal with the people according unto the tenor and rigor of this law, they could not stand before him. Wherefore on all occasions he calls them to place their confidence, not in their own obedience thereunto, but in his mercy and grace. And that this was their faith, themselves professed on all occasions.

See <19D003> Psalm 130:3,4, 143:2. (6.) All this God instructed them in, by those mystical vessels of the most holy place. For after the tables were put into the ark, as under his eye and in his presence, he ordained that it should be covered with the mercy-seat.

For hereby he did declare both that the law was to be kept and fulfilled, and yet that mercy should be extended unto them. (7.) This great mystery he instructed them in three ways: [1.] In that the covering of the ark was a propitiatory, a mercy-seat; and that its use was to cover the law in the presence of God. This was a great instruction; for if God should mark iniquities according unto the law, who should stand? [2.] In that the blood of the atonement for sin was brought into the holy place and sprinkled on the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:14. And this was done seven times, to denote the perfection of the reconciliation that was made. And herein were they also taught, that the covering of the law by the mercy-seat, so as that mercy and pardon might be granted notwithstanding the sentence and curse of the law, was from the atonement made for sin by the expiatory sacrifice. [3.] By the cloud of incense that covered both ark and mercy-seat, testifying that God received from thence a savor of rest, Leviticus 16:13. (8.) The cherubim, or angels under that denomination, were the ministers of God in executing the curse and punishment on man when, after his sin, he was driven out of the garden of God, Genesis 3:24. Hence ensued a fear and dread of angels on all mankind, which they abused unto manifold superstitions. But now, to testify that all things in heaven and earth should be reconciled and brought under one head, Ephesians 1:10, there was a representation of their ministry in this great mystery of the law and the mercy-seat. Wherefore they are ready unto the ministry of the church of mankind, all things being now reconciled, Hebrews 1:14, purely with respect unto the mercy-seat which their faces were turned towards, and which they shadowed with their wings. (9.) Yet was this mystery so great, —namely, that which was represented by these types, —that the angels themselves were to bow down to look into it, 1 Peter 1:12. So are they here represented in a posture of admiration and adoration. And in their overshadowing of the mercy-seat with their wings, they declared how this mystery in the fullness of it was hid from the eyes of all men. See Ephesians 3:8-12. (10.) The ground was originally blessed of God, to bring forth food for man, for the preservation of his life in that state and condition wherein he was to live unto God according unto the covenant of works, Genesis 1:29; but upon the entrance of sin it was cursed, neither are the fruits of it any more a token or pledge of the favor of God, nor are they sufficient to maintain a life unto God, Genesis 3:17,18. Wherefore God declared that there must be bread given the church from heaven, which might maintain a spiritual life in them. This God did by giving them manna in the wilderness. And that all instructions in grace and mercy might be reduced into a head in this holy place, because of that whereof it was a type, a pot filled with it was placed for a memorial in this holy place, before the ark and mercy-seat. See Psalm 78:24,25; John 6:31. Hereby were they taught to look for the bread of life from heaven, which should maintain them in their spiritual, and nourish them unto eternal life. (11.) When the whole church was ready to perish for want of water, a rock was smitten with the rod of Moses, which brought water out of it unto their refreshment. God taught them thereby that the Rock of Ages was to be smitten with the rod of the law, that the waters of life might be brought forth thereby, 1 Corinthians 10:4. Wherefore this rod also was laid up for an instructive memorial before the ark.

In all these things did God instruct the church by the tabernacle, especially by this most holy place, the utensils, furniture, and services of it. And the end of them all was, to give them such a representation of the mystery of his grace in Christ Jesus as was meet for the state of the church before his actual exhibition in the flesh. Hence he is declared in the gospel to be the body and substance of them all. And I shall endeavor, with all humble reverence, to make that application of them unto him which Scripture light guides us unto. 1. In his obedience unto God according unto the law he is the true ark, wherein the law was kept inviolate; that is, was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished, Matthew 5:17; Romans 8:3, 10:4. Hence by God’s gracious dealing with sinners, pardoning and justifying them freely, the law is not disannulled, but established, Romans 3:31. That this was to be done, that without it no covenant between God and man could be firm and stable, was the principal design of God to declare in all this service; without the consideration whereof it was wholly insignificant. This was the original mystery of all these institutions, that in and by the obedience of the promised seed, the everlasting, unalterable law should be fulfilled. In him, as the Jews speak, was the “law restored unto its pristine crown,” signified by that crown of gold which was round about the ark wherein the law was kept. Then had the law its crown and glory, when it was fulfilled in Christ. This the church of Israel ought to have learned and believed, and did so whilst they continued to pray for mercy “for the Lord’s sake,” as Daniel 9:17. But afterwards, when they rejected the knowledge hereof, and adhered unto the law absolutely as written in tables of stone, they utterly perished, Romans 9:31-33, 10:2, 3. And they do all yet, what lieth in them, return unto the material ark and tables of stone, who reject the accomplishment of the law in and by Jesus Christ. 2. He was the mercy-seat; that is, he was represented by it. So the apostle speaks expressly, “God set him forth to be iJlasth>rion,” Romans 3:25, — “a propitiation;” that is, to answer the mercy-seat and what was signified thereby. And this was to cover the law under the eye of God. He interposeth between God and his throne and the law, that he may not enter into judgment with us in pursuit of the curse of it. The law required obedience, and threatened the curse in case of disobedience. With respect unto the obedience which it required, Christ was the ark in whom it was fulfilled; and with respect unto the curse of the law, he was the mercy-seat or propitiation whereby atonement was made, that the curse should not be inflicted, Galatians 3:13. 3. It was his blood in figure that was carded into the holy place to make atonement, as the apostle declares at large in this chapter. The efficacy of his blood, when he offered himself an expiatory sacrifice for sin unto God, prevailed for an atonement in the holy place not made with hands. See Hebrews 10:11-14. 4. It is his intercession that is the cloud of incense which covers the ark and mercy-seat. This gives a continual sweet savor unto God from his oblation, and renders acceptable all the worship of the church in their approaches unto him, Revelation 8:3. These things did God instruct the church in by types and figures, to prepare their faith for the receiving of him at his actual oblation. And on the representation so made of him, all that truly believed lived in the expectation of him and longing after him, with the departure of these shadows of good things to come, Cant. 2:17, 4:6, 8:14; Luke 10:24; 1 Peter 1:10,11. And the refusal of this instruction was that which ruined this church of the Hebrews. 5. It was He who took off the original curse of the law, whose first execution was committed unto the cherubim, when man was driven out of the garden, and kept from all approaches unto the tree of life. Hereby he made reconciliation between them and the elect church of God, Ephesians 1:10. Hence have they now a ministry with respect unto the mercy-seat, for the good of “the heirs of salvation,’’ Hebrews 1:14. 6. He was the bread of life, typed by the manna kept in the golden pot before the mercy-seat; for he alone is the nourishment of the spiritual life of men. The mystery hereof himself at large declares, John 6:31-35.

This were they taught to expect in the memorial of that heavenly food which was preserved in the sanctuary. 7. He was that spiritual rock which was smitten with the rod of Moses, the curse and stroke of the law. Hereon the waters of life flowed from him, for the quickening and refreshment of the church, 1 Corinthians 10:3,4.

Thus was the Lord Christ all and in all from the beginning. And as the general design of the whole structure of the tabernacle, with all that belonged thereunto, was to declare that God was reconciled to sinners, with a blessed provision for the glory of his holiness and the honor of the law, which is in and by Jesus Christ alone; so every thing in it directed unto his person, or his grace, or some act of his mediation. And two things do now attend all these institutions: 1. As they are interpreted by gospel light, they are a glorious representation of the wisdom of God, and a signal confirmation of faith in Him who was prefigured by them. 2. Take them in themselves, separated from this end, and they give no representation of any one holy property of the nature of God, —nothing of his wisdom, goodness, greatness, love, or grace; but are low and carnal, base and beggarly. And that we may have a due apprehension of them, some things in general concerning them may be considered. 1. The whole scheme, frame, fashion, use, and service of the tabernacle, with all that belonged thereunto, was a mere arbitrary effect of the sovereign will and pleasure of God. Why he would by this way and by these means declare himself appeased unto the church, and that he would graciously dwell amongst them; why he would by them type out and prefigure the incarnation and mediation of Christ, —no other reason can be given but his own will, which in all things is to be adored by us. Other ways and means unto the same ends were not wanting unto divine wisdom, but this in the good pleasure of his will he determined on. In the supreme authority of God was the church absolutely to acquiesce whilst it was obliged unto the observation of these ordinances, and other reason of them they could not give. And whereas their use is now utterly ceased, yet do they abide on the holy record, as some think the fabric of heaven and earth shall do after the final judgment, to be monuments of his wisdom and sovereignty. But the principal ends of the preservation of this memorial in the sacred record are two: (1.) That it may be a perpetual testimony unto the prescience, faithfulness, and power of God. His infinite prescience is testified unto, in the prospect which therein he declares himself to have had of the whole future frame of things under the gospel, which he represented therein; his faithfulness and power, in the accomplishment of all those things which were prefigured by them. (2.) That it might testify the abundant grace and goodness of God unto the church of the new testament, which enjoyeth the substance of all those spiritual things, whereof of old he granted only the types and shadows. Wherefore, — 2. It must be acknowledged, that the instruction given by these things into the mysteries of the will of God, and consequently all those teachings which were influenced and guided by them, were dark, obscure, and difficult to be rightly apprehended and duly improved. Hence the way of teaching under the old testament was one reason for the abolishing of that covenant, that a more effectual way of instruction and illumination might be introduced. This is declared at large in the exposition of the preceding chapter. There was need for them all to go up and down, every one unto his brother, and every one unto his neighbor, saying, “Know theLORD;” for the true knowledge of him, and of the mysteries of his will, was by these means very difficult to be obtained. And now that the Jews have lost all that prospect unto the promised seed which their forefathers had in these things, it is sad to consider what work they make with them. They have turned the whole of all legal institutions into such an endless, scrupulous, superstitious observance of carnal rites, in all imaginable circumstances, as never became the divine wisdom to appoint, as is marvellous that any of the race of mankind should enbondage themselves unto. Yea, now that all things are plainly fulfilled in Christ, some among ourselves would have the most of them to have represented heaven and the planets, the fruits of the earth, and I know not what besides. But this was the way which the infinite wisdom of God fixed on for the instruction of the church in the state then allotted unto it. 3. This instruction was sufficient unto the end of God, in the edification and salvation of them that did believe. For these things being diligently and humbly inquired into, they gave that image and resemblance of the work of God’s grace in Christ which the church was capable of in that state, before its actual accomplishment. Those who were wise and holy among them, knew full well that all these things in general were but types of better things; and that there was something more designed of God in the pattern showed unto Moses than what they did contain. For Moses made and did all things “for a testimony unto what should be spoken afterwards,” Hebrews 3:5.

In brief, they all of them believed that through the Messiah, the promised seed, they should really receive all that grace, goodness, pardon, mercy, love, favor, and privilege, which were testified unto in the tabernacle and all the services of it. And because they were not able to make distinct, particular applications of all these things unto his mediatory actings, their faith was principally fixed on the person of Christ, as I have elsewhere demonstrated. And with respect unto him, his sufferings, and his glory, they diligently inquired into these things, 1 Peter 1:11. And this was sufficient unto that faith and obedience which God then required of the church. For, — 4. Their diligent inquiry into these things, and the meaning of them, was the principal exercise of their faith and subjection of soul unto God; for even in these things also did “the Spirit testify beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that did follow.” And as the exercise of faith herein was acceptable unto God, so the discoveries of grace which they received therein were refreshing unto their souls; for hereby they often saw the King in his beauty, and beheld the pleasant land, which was far off, Isaiah 33:17. 5. That worship which was outwardly performed in and by these things was full of beauty and glory, 2 Corinthians 3. It was also suited to beget a due reverence of the majesty and holiness of God. It was God’s way of worship, it was God’s order; and so had characters of divine wisdom upon it. Wherefore, although the people were originally obliged unto the observance of it by the mere sovereign will and pleasure of God, yet the things themselves were so beautiful and glorious, as nothing but the substance of the things themselves in Christ could excel. This made the devil as it were steal away so many rites of the tabernacle worship, and turn them unto his own use in the idolatry of the nations. 6. It is a sad instance of the degeneracy of the corrupted nature of man, that whereas all these things were appointed for no other end but to signify beforehand the coming of Christ, his sufferings, and the glory that ensued; the principal reason why the church of the Jews rejected him at his coming was, that they preferred these institutions and their carnal use above and before him who was the substance and life of them all. And no otherwise will it fall out with them all who prefer any thing in religion before him, or suppose that any thing is accepted with God without him.

Some things we may also observe in general, for our own instruction, from what we have discoursed on this occasion: — Obs. VII. Although the sovereign will and pleasure of God be the only reason and original cause of all instituted worship, yet there is, and ever was, in all his institutions, such an evidence of divine wisdom and goodness as gives them beauty, desirableness, and usefulness unto their proper end. — There is that in them which, unto an enlightened mind, will distinguish them for ever from the most plausible inventions of men, advanced in the imitation of them. Only a diligent inquiry into them is expected from us, <19B102> Psalm 111:2,3. When men have slight considerations of any of God’s institutions, when they come unto them without a sense that there is divine wisdom in them, that which becomes him from whom they are, it is no wonder if their glory be hid from them. But when we diligently and humbly inquire into any of the ways of God, to find out the characters of his divine excellencies that are upon them, we shall obtain a satisfying view of his glory, Hosea 6:3.

Obs. VIII. All the counsels of God concerning his worship in this world, and his eternal glory in the salvation of the church, do center in the person and mediation of Christ. —The life, glory, and usefulness of all things whereof we have discoursed, arose from hence, that there was in them all a representation of the person and mediation of Christ. Hereunto were they designed by divine wisdom. In him alone is God well pleased; in him alone will he be glorified.

VERSES 6, 7.

Having given an account of the structure or fabric of the tabernacle in the two parts of it, and the furniture of those several parts distinctly, to complete his argument the apostle adds in these verses the consideration of the uses they were designed unto in the service of God. For in the application of these things unto his purpose and the argument he designeth from them, both of these in conjunction, namely, the structure of the tabernacle with its furniture, and the services performed therein, were to be made use of.

Ver. 6,7. — Tou>twn de< ou[tw kateskeuasme>nwn , eijv methn skhnhasin oiJ iJerei~v taav ejpitelou~ntev? eijv de< thran a[pax tou~ ejniautou~ mo>nov oJ ajrciereurei uJpetwn . f15 Tou>twn de< ou[tw kateskeuasme>nwn. Vulg. Lat., “his vero ita compositis;” “so composed,” “so framed and put together.” Syr., yy’h\ ˆneq]t’m] aN;k’h;D] , “quae ira disposita erant,” “which things were so disposed;” altering the absolute construction of the words, and carrying on the sense of the former [verse] thus far. Others, “his vero ita ordinatis,” “ita praeparatis;” “thus ordered,” “thus prepared,” “thus ordained.” “Ornatis,” “adorned.” Beza, “constructis.” Kataskeuavessels, or any materials prepared for use.

Eijv ththn skhnhtabernacle;” that is, of those parts mentioned by the apostle.

Diapanto>v . Vulg. Lat., “semper,” “always.” Syr., ˆk’z]AlkuB] , “in omni ternpore;” others generally, “quovis tempore;” “at every season,” at any time, as occasion required.

Taav ejpitelou~ntev . Vulg. Lat., “sacrificiorum officia consummantes,” “perfecting to this part” or “offices of the sacrifices;” but the sacrifices belonged not at all unto the duties of the tabernacle. Syr., ˆWhT]v]m,v]T, ww’h\ ˆymil]v’m’w’ , “and they were perfecting their ministry.” “Ritus obeuntes,” “cultus obeuntes;” Beza, “ritus cultus obeuntes;” — ”performing the rites of sacred worship.”

Eijv de< thran . Vulg. Lat., “in secundo autem.” Syr., ˆyDe an;K]v]m’l] Hnem, wg’l]D’ , “and into the tabernacle that was within it,” or “within the other.” “In secundum autem,” “sed in alterum;” “but into the second,” or “the other.” [Apax . Syr., Wh ad;j\ ; which Boderus renders substantively, “unum est,” “that inward tabernacle was one.” But the reference is unto what follows, and is better rendered adverbially, “semel,” “once.”

Ouj cwriblood.” [O prosfe>rei . Vulg. Lat., Eras., “quem offert;” Syr., “which he was offering,” “which he offereth.” JYpetwn . Vulg. Lat., pro sua et populi ignorantia;” very corruptly.

Syr., aM;[‘D] HteWlk]s’ ãl;j\w’ hvep]n’ ãl;j\ “for his own soul, and the errors of the people;” rightly.

Ver. 6, 7 . —Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God. ] But into the second [went ] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for ] the errors of the people.

I follow the common translation, but shall take notice of what it seems defective in. And there is in the words, — First , A supposition of what was before declared, as the foundation of what he was now further to assert: “Now when these things were thus ordained.” And there is therein, 1. The manner of the inference; 2. The subject spoken of; 3. What is spoken of it: — 1. The manner of the inference is the particle de> , which we ponder “now when;” “vero,” “but.” “Now when” is included in the tense of the participle, 2. The subject spoken of, tou>twn , “these things;” that is, the things spoken of in the precedent verses, —namely, the two parts of the tabernacle, and the sacred furniture of them. 3. That which is affirmed of them is, that they were “ordained.” And the manner thereof is also added, that they were “thus ordained,” — kateskeuasme>nwn . Beza once rendered it by “ordinatis;” whom I suppose ours follow, rendering it by “ordained.” But “ordinatis” is rather “ordered’ than “ordained.” “To be ordained,” signifies the appointment and designation of them; and so they were ordained of God: but that which is here expressed is their building, framing, finishing, and disposition into their actual order. So the word is used for the making of the tabernacle, verse 2: “A tabernacle was made.” ‘These things being prepared, made, and finished.’ The preparation, structure, and finishing of the tabernacle, and all its utensils, with their disposition into their sacred order, are respected in this word. They were “disposed” ou[tw , “thus;” that is, in the manner declared, —that the tabernacle should consist of two parts, that the one should contain such and such holy utensils, and the other those of another sort.

Secondly , When these things were thus prepared and ordered, they stood not for a magnificent show, but were designed unto constant use in the service of God. This the apostle declares, in the same order wherein he had described the parts of the tabernacle in their distribution into the first and the second, the outward and inward tabernacle.

As to the first tabernacle, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread, he declares the use of it, 1. With respect unto the persons for whose ministry it was ordained; 2. Of that ministry itself; 3. Of the time and season of its performance. 1. The persons who administered therein were the priests. They, and they alone, entered into the sanctuary. All others were forbidden to approach unto it, on pain of excision. These priests, who had this privilege, were all the posterity of Aaron, unless they fell under exception by some legal incapacitating blemish. For a long time, —that is, from the preparing of the tabernacle unto the building of the temple, —they administered in this sanctuary promiscuously, under the care of God and directions of the high priest. For the inspection of the whole was committed in an especial manner unto the high priest, Numbers 4:16; Zechariah 3:7; yea, the actual performance of the daily service of this part of the sanctuary was in the first place charged on him, Exodus 27:21. But the other priests being designed to help and assist him on all occasions, this service in process of time was wholly devolved on them. And if the high priest did at any time minister in this part of the sanctuary, he did it not as the high priest, but as a priest only, for all his peculiar service belonged unto the most holy place.

In process of time, when the priests of the posterity of Aaron were multiplied, and the services of the sanctuary were to be increased by the building of the temple, wherein instead of one candlestick there were ten, David, by God’s direction, cast all the priests into twenty-four courses or orders, that should serve in their turns, two courses in a month; which rule continued unto the destruction of the second temple, 1 Chronicles 24; Luke 1:5. And he did it for sundry ends: (1.) That none of the priests of the posterity of Aaron might be utterly excluded from this privilege of approaching unto God in the sanctuary; and if they had been, it is likely they would have disposed of themselves into other ways and callings, and so have both neglected and defiled the priesthood. (2.) That there might be no neglect at any time in the solemn ministry, seeing that which lies on all promiscuously is too often neglected by all. For although the high priest was to “keep the charge, to judge the house, and to keep the courts,” Zechariah 3:7, and so take care for the due attendance unto the daily ministration; yet was the provision more certain, when, being ordained by law, or by divine institution, all persons concerned herein knew the times and seasons wherein they might and wherein they ought to attend on the altar. These were the officers that belonged unto the sanctuary, the persons who alone might enter into it on a sacred account. And when the structure of the whole was to be taken down, that it might be removed from one place to another, as it was frequently in the wilderness, the whole was to be done by the priests, and all the holy utensils covered, before the Levites were admitted to draw nigh to carry them, so as they might not touch them at all, Numbers 4:15.

Yet must it be observed, that although this was the peculiar service of the priests, yet was it not their only service. Their whole sacred employment was not confined unto this their entrance into the sanctuary. There was a work committed unto them, whereon their whole service in the sanctuary did depend. This was the offering of sacrifices; which was accomplished in the court without, on the brazen altar before the door of the tabernacle: which belonged not unto the purpose of the apostle in this place.

This was the great privilege of the priests under the old testament, that they alone might and did enter into the sanctuary, and make an approach unto God. And this privilege they had as they were types of Christ, and no otherwise. But withal it was a great part and a great means of that state of servitude and fear wherein the people or the body of the church was kept. They might not so much as come nigh the pledges of God’s presence; it was forbidden them under the penalty of death and being cut off; whereof they sadly complained, Numbers 17:12,13.

This state of things is now changed under the gospel. It is one of the principal privileges of believers, that, being made kings and priests unto God by Jesus Christ, this distinction as unto especial gracious access unto God is taken away, Revelation 1:5,6; Ephesians 2:18; Romans 5:2.

Neither doth this hinder but that yet there are and ought to be officers and ministers in the house of God, to dispense the holy things of it, and to minister in the name of Christ, For in their so doing they do not hinder, but promote, the approach of the church into the presence of God; which is the principal end of their office. And as this is their peculiar honor, for which they must be accountable, Hebrews 13:17; so the church of believers itself ought always to consider how they may duly improve and walk worthy of this privilege, purchased for them by the blood of Christ. 2. The general foundation of the service of these priests in the sanctuary was, that they went or entered into it, —eijsi>asin . This also itself was a divine ordinance. For this entrance both asserted their privilege, all others being excluded on pain of death, and gave hounds unto it. Hereinto they were to enter; but they were to go ‘no farther: they were not to go into or look into the most holy place, nor to abide in the sanctuary when the high priest entered into it; which the apostle here hath an especial regard unto.

They entered into the first tabernacle, but they went no farther. Hereinto they entered through the first veil, or the covering of the door of the tabernacle, Exodus 26:36,37. Through that veil, by turning it aside, so as that it closed immediately on their entrance, the priests entered into the sanctuary. And this they were to do with an especial reverence of the presence of God; which is the principal design of that command, “Ye shall reverence my sanctuary,” Leviticus 19:30: which is now supplied by the holy reverence of the presence of God in Christ which is in all believers. But moreover, the equity of the command extends itself unto that especial reverence of God which we ought to have in all holy services.

And although this be not confined unto any postures or gestures of the body, yet those that naturally express a reverential frame of spirit are necessary unto this duty. 3. The time of this their entrance into the sanctuary to discharge their service is expressed. They entered it diapanto>v : that is, cro>nou , “quovis tempore;” “always,” say we; “jugiter,” that is, “every day.” There was no divine prohibition as unto any days or times wherein they might not enter into the sanctuary, as there was with respect unto the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, which was allowed only once a year. And the services that were required of them made it necessary that they should enter into it every day. But the word doth not absolutely signify “every day,” seeing there was a special service for which they entered only once a-week; but “always,” is “at all times,” as occasion did require. There was also an especial service, when the high priest entered into the sanctuary, which was neither daily nor weekly, but occasional; which is mentioned, Leviticus 4:6,7. For when the anointed priest was to offer a sacrifice for his own sins, he was to carry some of the blood of it into the sanctuary, and sprinkle it towards the veil that was before the most holy place. This he was to do seven times; which is a mystical number, denoting that perfect atonement and expiation of sin which was to be made by the blood of Christ. But this being an occasional service, the apostle seems to have had no respect unto it. 4. The service itself performed by them is expressed: Taav ejpitelou~ntev , —”Accomplishing the services.” The expression is sacred, respecting mystical rites and ceremo-hies, such as were the things here intended: ‘Officiating in the ministry of the sacred ceremonies.’ For ejpitelou~ntev is not “perfecting” or “accomplishing” only, but “sacredly ministering:” ‘In discharge of the priestly office, accomplishing the sacred services committed unto them.’ And these services were of two sorts: (1.) Daily. (2.) Weekly. (1.) Their daily services were two: [1.] The dressing of the lamps of the candlestick, supplying them with the holy oil, and taking care of all things necessary unto the cleansing of them, that their light might be preserved. This was done morning and evening, a continual service in all generations, — the service of the candlestick, — latrei>a . [2.] The service of the golden altar, the altar of incense in the midst of the sanctuary, at the entrance of the most holy place, before or over against the ark of the testimony. Hereon the priests burned incense every day, with fire taken from the altar of burnt-offerings, that was in the court before the door of the tabernacle. This service was performed evening and morning, immediately after the offering of the daily sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offerings. And whilst this service was performed the people gave themselves to prayer without, with respect unto the sacrifice offered, Luke 1:10. For this offering of incense on the sacrifice, and that fired with a coal from the altar whereon the sacrifice was burned, was a type, as we have declared, of the intercession of Christ. For although they understood it not clearly in the notion, yet were true believers guided to express it in their practice. The time of the priest’s offering incense they made the time of their own solemn prayers, as believing that the efficacy and acceptance of their prayers depended on what was typified by that incense, <19E!02> Psalm 141:2. These were the daily services. It is uncertain whether they were all performed at the same time or no; namely, those of the candlestick and the altar of incense. If they were, it should seem that they were done by no more but one priest at one time; that is, every morning and evening. For of Zacharias it is said, that” it was his lot to burn incense in the temple;” and no other was with him there when he saw the vision, Luke 1:8,9,21,22. Wherefore, whereas it is said in the institution of these things, “Aaron and his sons shall do this service,” it is intended that some one of them should do it at any one time. (2.) The weekly service of the sanctuary was the change of the bread on the table of shew-bread. This was performed every Sabbath-day in the morning, and not else.

Now all this daily service was typical. And that which it did represent was the continual application of the benefits of the sacrifice and whole mediation of Christ unto the church here in this world. That the tabernacle itself with the inhabitation of God therein was a type of the incarnation of the Son of God, we have showed before; and have also declared that all the utensils of it were but representations of his grace in the discharge of his office. He is the light and life of the church, the lamp and the bread thereof.

The incense of his intercession renders all their obedience acceptable unto God. And therefore there was a continual application made unto these things without intermission every day. And we may thence observe, that, — Obs. A continual application unto God by Christ, and a continual application of the benefits of the mediation of Christ by faith, are the springs of the light, life, and comfort of the church.

Ver. 7. —”But into the second [went ] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for ] the errors of the people.”

The use and service of the second part of the tabernacle, or the most holy place, which the apostle designeth principally to apply unto his present argument, are declared in this present verse. And he describes them, 1. By the person who alone might perform the service which belonged unto this part of the sanctuary; and this was the high priest. 2. By that which in general was required unto the other part of it; he went into it. This is not here expressed, but the sense of it is traduced from the foregoing verse. The other priests entered into the sanctuary, and the high priest into this; that is, he entered or went into it. 3. From the time and season of this his entrance, which was once a-year only; in opposition unto the entrance of the priests into the other part, which was at all times, every day. 4. By the manner of his entrance, or what he carried with him to administer or perform the holy service of the place, expressed negatively; not without blood, —that is, with blood. 5. From the use of the blood which he so carried in with him; it was that which he offered for himself and the errors of the people.

That which the apostle here respects and describes was the great anniversary sacrifice of expiation, whose institution, rites, and solemnities are at large declared, Leviticus 16. And herein, — 1. The person designed unto this service was the “high priest alone,” and no other person, Leviticus 16:2,32. And he was to be so alone as that none were to attend, assist, or accompany him, in any part of the service.

Yea, it was so far from it, that any person entered with him into the most holy place, that no one was allowed to be in the other part of the sanctuary, where he might so much as see the veil opened, or look in after him whilst he performed his service, verse 17. As all the people were kept out of the sanctuary and waited at the door whilst the priests entered daily into it; so all the priests were kept without the sanctuary whilst the high priest entered into the most holy place. Hence there was one always provided, who was next in succession unto that office, to perform this office in case of sickness or occasional pollutions of him who was actually high priest. And he was called “the second priest,” 2 Kings 25:18. From whence, in times of disorder and confusion, they had afterwards two high priests at once, John 18:13,24. Thus sacredly was the presence of God in the holy place made inaccessible, not only to all the people, but even unto all the priests themselves.

Some say that indeed the high priest went alone into the most holy place once a-year only, but with other priests and on other occasions he might enter oftener. But this is weak beneath consideration; for the express institution was, that he should go alone, and go but once. And this was that great truth which in this ordinance God stated unto the church, namely, that there is no entrance into the gracious presence of God but by the high priest. That the true high priest should take along all believers with him, and give them admission with boldness unto the throne of grace, was, as the apostle declares in the next verse, not as yet made known. 2. The way whereby he engaged into this service was, that he went into this holy place. This, as we observed before, is not here expressed, but is necessarily traduced from the foregoing verse. And it is his entrance through the veil that is intended; which also was a part of his service. For it was a type both of the entrance of Christ into heaven, and of our entrance by him unto the throne of grace, verse 24, Hebrews 10:19,20.

This was that veil which in the temple was rent from the top to the bottom upon the death of our Savior, Matthew 27:51. For hereby the way was laid open into the holy place, and the gracious presence of God discovered unto all that come unto him by Christ. 3. The time of this service is expressed, that it was only “once every year.” The first order unto this purpose was a prohibition or negative precept, that the high priest “should not come at all times into the holy place,” Leviticus 16:2; that is, not every day, as he did into the sanctuary, — not at any time of his own choice. He might not choose, he might not appoint a time for the service of this holy place, whatever occasion he apprehended of it or necessity for it. Times of sacred worship are the Lord’s, no less than the things of it. Our own stated times are no less disapproved by him than any other parts of sacred worship of our own finding out, 1 Kings 12:32,33. And as this time of the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place was limited unto “once every year,” which our apostle observes; so the precise day of the year was determined by the law. It was fixed unto “the tenth day of the seventh month,” or Tisri; which, reckoning from Nisan, the beginning of their ecclesiastical year, answers unto our September. This was the great day of atonement, which with the fast of it ensued thereon, Leviticus 16:29.

But whereas it is said that he entered “once every year,” the meaning is, that upon one day in the year only he did so, and had liberty so to do: for it is evident that on that day he went twice into it; yea, it is most probable that he did so four times. He had three offerings or sacrifices to offer on the day of expiation. The first was of a bullock and a ram, for himself and his household, Leviticus 16:3. This the apostle notes distinctly, “which he offered for himself.” Secondly, a goat, for a sin-offering, which he offered for the people, for “the errors of the people,” verse 9. Thirdly, the service of the scape-goat, which also had the nature of a sacrifice, verse 10.

Of the first two, whose blood was offered on the altar, it is said distinctly that he carried of the blood into the most holy place. He did so, first that of the bullock and the ram, before he offered the goat for the sins of the people. He killed not the goat until he came out of the holy place, after he had carried in the blood of the sacrifice for himself, verses 11-14. After this he carried in the blood of the goat that was offered for the sins of the people, verse 15. So that of necessity he must enter twice distinctly on that one day into the most holy place.

Yea, it is most probable and almost very certain, that he entered into it four times on that day. For before he carried in the blood, he was to go in with the incense to make a cloud over the mercy-seat. And it is evident that he could not carry in the incense and the blood at the same time: for when he went in with the incense, he had in one hand a censer full of burning coals from the altar, and he so carried it, that besides both his hands were filled with incense, verse 12; so that he could carry no blood with him at that time. And when he carried in the blood also, both his hands were in like manner employed. For with the finger of one he was to sprinkle the blood upon and before the mercy-seat: whence it is of necessity that he must have had the blood which he sprinkled in his other hand; for he was to sprinkle it seven times, which could not be done with the blood that was at once upon the finger wherewith he sprinkled it.

Wherefore this” once every year” is on one day only; for that day he entered four times into the holy place within the veil, as is plain in the order of the service according unto its institution.

When all this was done, that there might be a full representation of the atonement to be made by the Lord Christ, and of the plenary remission of sins by his blood, the high priest laid all the sins of the people on the head of the scape-goat, which carried them away into the wilderness of everlasting oblivion, verses 20-22.

As these institutions were multiplied to typify the one single sacrifice and oblation of the body of Christ, because of the imperfection inseparable from the nature of earthly things, whereby no one of them could absolutely represent it; so in this distinction and distribution of them, the condescension, love, and grace of God, were adorable and glorious. For in the shedding of the blood of the sacrifice, and offering it by fire on the altar, he plainly declared the imputation of the guilt of their sins unto the sacrifice, its bearing of them, and the expiation of their guilt thereby. By carrying of the blood into the holy place, he testified his acceptance of the atonement made, and his reconciliation unto the people. And hereon the full remission and pardon of all their sins, no more to be had in remembrance, was manifested, in the sending away of the scape-goat into the wilderness. Hence the Jews have a saying, that on the day of expiation all Israel were made as innocent as in the day of creation. How all this was accomplished in and by the sacrifice of Christ must be afterwards declared. 4. As to the nature of this service, the apostle tells us that it was “not without blood.” tie so expresseth it to show the impossibility of entering into the holy place any otherwise. And from hence he takes his ensuing argument of the necessity of the death and blood-shedding of the mediator or high priest of the new testament. “Not without blood;” as he might not do it otherwise, so he did it by blood. And this was the manner of the service: After the high priest had filled the most holy place with a cloud of incense, he returned to the altar of burnt-offerings without the tabernacle, where the sacrifice had been newly slain; and whilst the blood of the beast was fresh, and as it were living, Hebrews 10:20, he took of it in his hand, and entering again into the holy place, he sprinkled it seven times with his finger towards the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:11-14. And there is, as was said, an emphasis in the expression, “Not without blood,” to manifest how impossible it was that there should be an entrance into the gracious presence of God without the blood of the sacrifice of Christ. The only propitiation for sins is made by the blood of Christ; and it is by faith alone that we are made partakers thereof, Romans 3:25,26. 5. This blood is further described by the use of it; “which he offered.”

Where or when he offered it, is not expressed. In the most holy place there was no use of this blood, but only the sprinkling of it; but the sprinkling of blood was always consequential unto the offering or oblation properly so called. For the oblation consisted principally in the atonement made by the blood at the altar of burnt-offerings. It was given and appointed for that end, to make atonement with it at that altar, as is expressly affirmed, Leviticus 17:11. After this, it was sprinkled for purification. Wherefore, by prosfe>rei , the apostle here renders the Hebrew aybihe , used in the institution, Leviticus 16:15; which is only to bring, and not to offer properly. Or he hath respect unto the offering of it that was made at the altar without the sanctuary. The blood which was there offered he brought a part of it with him into the most holy place, to sprinkle it, according unto the institution. 6. The apostle declares for whom this blood was offered. And this was “for himself and the people;” first for himself, and then for the people. For he hath respect unto the distinct sacrifices that were to be offered on that day. The first was of a bullock and a ram; which was for himself. And this argued, as the apostle observes, the great imperfection of that church-state.

They could have no priest to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people, but he must first offer for himself, and that the blood of other creatures. But the true high priest was to offer his own blood; and that not for himself at all, but for others only. (1.) Re offered “for himself;” that is, for his own sins, Leviticus 16:6.

Wherefore the Vulg. Lat. reads the words, “pro sua et populi igno-rantia,” very corruptly, changing the number of the substantive; but very truly applying ajgnohma>twn to the priest as well as unto the people. Others would supply the words by adding tw~n before eJautou~ , and so repeat ajgnohma>twn. But the apostle expresseth the words of the institution, wOlArv,a\ , “which for himself,” leaving the application unto the series of the context and the nature of the service: “For himself;” —that is, his own sins. (2.) The blood was offered also “for the people;” that is, the people of Israel, the people of God, the church, the whole congregation. And as the high priest herein bore the person of Christ, so did this people of all the elect of God, who were represented in them and by them. It was that people, and not the whole world, that the high priest offered for; and it is the elect people alone for whom our great high priest did offer and doth intercede. 7. That which he offered for. It was their “errors,” or their sins. The Socinians, some of them, —not for want of under standing, but out of hatred unto the true sacrifice of Christ, —contend from hence that the anniversary sacrifice on the great day of expiation, the principal representation of it, was only for sins of ignorance, of imbecility and weakness. But it is a fond imagination; at least the argument from these words for it is so. For besides that the Scripture calls all sins by the name of “errors,” Psalm 19:12, 25:7; and the worst, the most provoking of all sins, is expressed by “erring in heart,” Psalm 95:10; and the LXX. frequently render “to sin” by ajgnoei~n , 2 Chronicles 16:9; 1 Samuel 26:21; Hosea 4:16, etc; —besides, I say, this application of the word elsewhere unto all sorts of sins, in the enumeration of those errors of the people which the high priest offered for they are said to be “all their iniquities,” and “all their transgressions in all their sins,” Leviticus 16:21.

Wherefore to offer for the “errors” of the people, is to offer for “all their sins,” of what nature soever they were. And they are thus called, because indeed there is no such predomi-nancy of malice in any sin in this world as wherein there is not a mixture of error, either notional or practical, of the mind or of the heart, which is the cause or a great occasion of it. See Timothy 1:13; Matthew 12:31,32. Here, indeed, lies the original of all sin. The mind being filled with darkness and ignorance, alienates the whole soul from the life of God. And as it hath superadded prejudices, which it receives from corrupt affections, it yet neither directs nor judgeth aright, as unto particular acts and duties, under all present circumstances. And what notions of good and evil it cannot but retain, it gives up in particular instances unto the occasions of sin. Wherefore, — Obs. I. Spiritual illumination of the mind is indispensably necessary unto our walking with God.

Obs. II. Those who would be preserved from sin, must take care that spiritual light do always bear sway in their minds. And therefore, — Obs. III. Constantly to watch against the prevalency of corrupt prejudices and affections in their mind. And, — Obs. IV. When the light of the mind is solicited by temptations to suspend its conduct and determination on present circumstances, to know that sin lies at the door; this is its last address for admission. And, — Obs. V. If error grow strong in the heart through the love of sin, truth will grow weak in the mind as to the preservation of the soul from it. And, — Obs. VI. Nothing ought to influence the soul more unto repentance, sorrow, and humiliation for sin, than a due apprehension of the shameful error and mistake that is in it.

VERSE 8.

Tou~to dhlou~ntov tou~ Pneu>matov tou~ aJgi>ou mh>pw pefanerw~sqai thwn oJdothv skhnh~v ejcou>shv sta>sin .

Tou~to dhlou~ntov . Vulg. Lat., “hoe significante,” “hoc declarante,” “hoc innuente.” Syr., a[;d]w]m’ ad;h;B] “by this manifesting.” “Manifestans,” “patefaciens,” “notum faciens;” “making known.” Dh~lov , is “openly manifest.” Kai< tuflw~| dh~lon , “which a blind man may see.” And dhlo>w , is “manifestly, plainly, perspicuously to declare.”

Mh>pw pefanerw~sqai . Vulg. Lat., nondum propalatam esse, made palam, “open,” “manifest.” Syr., lykid[‘ ty’l]g’t]a, al; , “not yet revealed.” “Manifestata,” “facta manifests;” “not made evidently to appear.”

Thwn oJdo>n . Vulg. Lat., “viam sanctorum,” “the way of the holies.” Beza, “viam ad sacrarium,” “the way into the sanctuary.” “Viam in sancta sanctorum,” “the way into the most holy place.” None suspect aJgi>wn to be of the masculine gender. jEcou>shv sta>sin . Vulg. Lat., “habente statum,” “having” or “continuing its state or condition.” And sta>siv is sometimes so used; “having its station;” “adhuc consistente,” as yet abiding, continuing its state, standing, consisting.

Ver. 8. —The Holy Ghost this signifying, [Syr., signifying hereby, evidently declaring, ] that the way into the holiest of all [the way of the most holy place, of the holies ] was not as yet made manifest, whilst yet the first tabernacle was standing, [kept its station ].

The apostle in this verse enters on a declaration of the use which he designed to make of the description of the tabernacle, its furniture and its utensils, which he had before laid down. Now, this was not to give a particular account of the nature, use, and signification of every thing in it, — which he declined in his close of the recounting of them, affirming that it belonged not to his purpose to treat of them particularly on this occasion, —but from the consideration of the whole, in its structure, order, and services, he would prove the dignity, pre-eminence, and efficacy of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, above those which belonged thereunto.

And hence would he manifest the unspeakable advantage of the church in the removal of the one and introduction of the other.

The first inference which he makes unto this purpose is laid down in this verse. And it is taken from what he had observed immediately before concerning the time and manner of the high priest’s entrance into the most holy place. It was done by him alone, and that only once a-year, and that not without the blood of the sacrifices which he offered. None of the people were ever suffered to draw nigh thereunto; nor might the rest of the priests themselves come into the sanctuary, the place of their daily ministration, whilst the high priest went in, and was in the most holy place. ‘In this order, this disposal of the institutions of divine service,’ saith he, ‘there was that instruction provided for the use of the church which I shall now declare.’ And three things he expresseth with respect hereunto: 1. Who gave that instruction; it was the Holy Ghost. 2. The way whereby he gave it; it was by the manifest signification of his mind, in and by what he did, appointed, ordered, or prescribed. 3. What was the instruction he gave; namely, “that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, whilst the first tabernacle was standing.”

And concerning this we must inquire, 1. What is here intended by “the holiest of all.” 2. What is the “way into this holiest of all,” or “the way of the holies.” 3. How this way was “manifest,” and how it was “not manifest.” 4. What was the duration of that state wherein this way was not manifest; namely, “whilst the first tabernacle was standing.”

First , The author of this instruction was the Holy Ghost: “The Holy Ghost this signifying;” that is, saith Grotius, “Deo per affiatum suum Mosi haec prsecipiente.” So they speak by whom the divine personality of the Holy Ghost is denied. But it is not only here supposed, but it may be hence undeniably proved. For he that by his word and works teacheth and instructeth the church, is a person. For acts of understanding, will, power, and authority, such as these are, are the acts of a person. We intend no more by a person, but one that hath an understanding, will, and power of his own, which he is able to act and exert. Moreover, he is a divine person. For he who by his authority and wisdom disposed of the worship of God under the old testament, so as it might typify and represent things afterwards to come to pass and be revealed, is so, and none other. He who doth these things, and can do them, is he in whom we believe, the Holy Spirit. And as he is the immediate author and appointer of all divine worship, so there are characters of his wisdom and holiness on all the parts of it.

Secondly , The way whereby he gave this instruction was by the signification of the things intended, —”signifying, declaring manifestly, evidently, openly.” He did it not by any especial revelation made unto Moses about it, he did not in words declare it, or express it as a doctrinal truth; but this signification was made in the nature and order of the things appointed by him. The framing of the tabernacle and the constitution of the services belonging thereunto, made this declaration. For things in his wisdom were thus disposed, that there should be the first tabernacle, whereinto the priests did enter every day, accomplishing the divine services that God required. Howbeit in that tabernacle there were not the pledges of the gracious presence of God, —it was not the especial residence of his glory: but the peculiar habitation of God was separated from it by a veil; and no person living might so much as look into it, on pain of death. But yet, lest the church should apprehend that indeed there was no approach, here or hereafter, for any person into the gracious presence of God, he ordained that once a-year the high priest, and he alone, should enter into that holy place with blood. Hereby he plainly signified that an entrance there was to be, and that with boldness, thereinto. For unto what end else did he allow and appoint that once ayear there should be an entrance into it by the high priest, in the name of and for the service of the church? But this entrance being only once a-year, by the high priest only, and that with the blood of atonement, —which was always to be observed whilst that tabernacle continued, —he did manifest that the access represented was not to be obtained during that season. For all believers in their own persons were utterly excluded from it. And we may hence observe, — Obs. I. That the divine ordinances and institutions of worship are filled with wisdom sufficient for the instruction of the church in all the mysteries of faith and obedience. —How eminent was the divine wisdom of the Holy Ghost in the structure and order of this tabernacle! What provision of instruction for the present and future use of the church was laid up and stored in them! What but infinite wisdom and prescience could order things so in their typical signification? He that considers only the outward frame and state of these things, may see a curious and beautiful structure, a beautiful order of external worship; yet can he find nothing therein but what the wisdom and contrivance of men might attain unto; at least, they might find out things that should have as glorious an outward appearance. But take them in their proper state, as unto their signification and representation of spiritual and heavenly things in Christ Jesus, and there is not the least concernment of them but it infinitely transcends all human wisdom and projection. He alone in whose divine understanding the whole mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God and his mediation did eternally reside, could institute and appoint these things. And to instruct us unto a humble adoration of that wisdom, is the framing of the whole fabric, and the institution of all its ordinances, contained in the sacred record for the use of the church.

Obs. II. It is our duty with all humble diligence to inquire into the mind of the Holy Ghost in all ordinances and institutions of divine worship. — Want hereof lost the church of Israel. They contented themselves with the consideration of outward things, and the external observance of the services enjoined unto them. Unto this day the Jews perplex themselves in numberless curious inquiries into the outward frame and fashion of these things, the way, manner, and circumstances of the external observation of the services of it. And they have multiplied determinations about them all, and every minute circumstance of them, so as it is utterly impossible that either themselves or any living creature should observe them according to their traditions and prescriptions. But in the meantime, as unto the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, their true use and signification, they are stark blind and utterly ignorant. Yea, hardness and blindness are so come upon them unto the utmost, that they will not believe or apprehend that there is either spiritual wisdom, instruction, or signification of heavenly things in them. And herein, whilst they profess to know God, are they abominable and disobedient. For no creatures can fall into higher contempt of God than there is in this imagination, namely, that the old institutions had nothing in them but so much gold and silver, and the like, framed into such shapes, and applied to such outward uses, without regard unto things spiritual and eternal. And it is a great evidence of the apostate condition of any church, when they rest in and lay weight upon the external parts of worship, especially such as consist in corporeal observances, with a neglect of spiritual things contained in them, wherein are the effects of divine wisdom in all sacred institutions.

And whereas the apostle affirms that this frame of things did plainly signify (as the word imports) the spiritual mysteries which he declares, it is evident with what great diligence we ought to search into the nature and use of divine institutions Unless we are found in the exercise of our duty herein, the things which in themselves are plainly declared will be obscure unto us, yea, utterly hidden from us. For what is here said to be clearly signified, could not be apprehended but by a very diligent search into and consideration of the way and means of it. It was to be collected out of the things he ordained, with the order of them, and their respect unto one another. Most men think it not worth while to inquire with any diligence into sacred institutions of divine worship. If any thing seem to be wanting or defective therein, if any thing be obscure and not determined, as they suppose, in the express words, without more ado they supply it with somewhat of their own. But there are many things useful and necessary in the worship of God which are to be gathered from such intimations of the mind of the Holy Ghost as he hath in any place given of them; and those who with humility and diligence do exercise themselves therein, shall find plain, satisfactory significations of his mind and will in such things as others are utterly ignorant of.

Thirdly , That which the Holy Ghost did thus signify and instruct the church in, (the tou~to , “this,” in the words,) was, “that the way into the most holy place” (“ the way of the holies”) “was not yet made manifest.”

And for the explication hereof we must consider the things before proposed: — 1. What the apostle intends by “the holies.” It is generally supposed by expositors that it is heaven itself which is hereby intended. Hence some of the ancients, the schoolmen, and sundry expositors of the Roman church, have concluded that no believers under the old testament, none of the ancient patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, or David, were admitted into heaven whilst the first tabernacle stood; that is, until the ascension of Christ.

Hereon they framed a limbus for them in some subterranean receptacle, — whither they suppose the soul of Christ went, when it is said that he “descended into hell,” —where they were detained, and whence by him they were delivered. But whatever becomes of that imagination, the most learned expositors of that church of late, such as Ribera, Estius, Tena, Maldonate, A Lapide, do not fix it on this text; for the supposition whereon it is founded is wholly alien from the scope of the apostle, and no way useful in his present argument. For he discourseth about the privileges of the church by the gospel and priesthood of Christ in this world, and not about its future state and condition. Besides, he says not that there was no entrance into the holies during that season, but only that “the way of it was not yet manifest.” Wherefore they might enter into it, although the way whereby they did so was not yet openly declared; for they had but a shadow, or dark, obscure representation of good things to come. And this is the interpretation that most sober expositors do give of the words: Heaven with eternal blessedness was proposed unto the faith, hope, and expectation of the saints under the old testament. This they believed, and in the hope of it walked with God, as our apostle proves at large, Hebrews 11. Howbeit the way, that is, the means and cause of communicating the heavenly inheritance unto them, namely, by the mediation and sacrifice of Christ, was but obscurely represented; not illustriously manifested, as it is now, life and immortality being brought to light by the gospel. And as these things are true, so this interpretation of the words being consonant unto the analogy of faith, is safe, only we may inquire whether it be that which is peculiarly intended by the apostle in this place or no.

The comment of Grotius on these words is, that the apostle signifies “superaetherias sedes. Via eo ducens est evangelium, praecepta habens vere coelestia Eam viam Christus primus patefecit; aditumque fecit omnibus ad summum coelum. Pervenient quidem, eo, Abrahamus, Isaacus, Jacobus, ut videre est, Matthew 8:11, et alii viri eximii, ut videbimus infra, cap. 11:40. Sed hi eo pervenient quasi per machinam, non per viam; extraordinaria quadam et rara Dei dispensatione.” But these things are most remote from the mind of the Holy Ghost, not only in this place, but in the whole Scripture also. For, — (1.) How far the gospel is this “way into the holiest” shall be declared immediately. That it is so because of the heavenly precepts which it gives, that is, which were not given under the old testament, is most untrue. For the gospel gives no precepts of holiness and obedience that were not for the substance of them contained in the law. There is no precept in the gospel exceeding that in the law, “Thou shalt love theLORD thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” Only the gospel adds new motives unto obedience, new encouragements and enforcements of it, with directions for its due performance. (2.) That Christ should be no otherwise the way but only as he revealed and declared the gospel and the precepts of it, is not only untrue and injurious unto the honor of Christ, but directly contrary unto the design of the apostle in this place. For he is treating of the sacerdotal office of Christ only, and the benefit which the church doth receive thereby; but the revelation of the doctrine or precepts of the gospel was no duty of that office, nor did it belong thereunto. That he did as the prophet of the church; but all his sacerdotal actings are towards God in the behalf of the church, as hath been proved. (3.) That the ancient patriarchs went to heaven by a secret engine, and that some of them only in an extraordinary way, is plainly to deny that they were saved by faith in the promised Seed, —that is, to affirm that they were not saved by the mediation of Christ; which is contrary unto the whole economy of God in the salvation of the church, and to many express testimonies of the Scripture. These Socinian fictions do not cure but corrupt the word of God, and turn away the minds of men from the truth unto fables. We shall therefore yet further inquire into the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in these words.

The apostle by aJgi>wn here, oJdown, intends the same with what, verse 3, he called a[gia tw~n aJgi>wn, “the holy of holies,” the second part of the sanctuary; whereinto the high priest alone could enter once ayear, as he declares in the foregoing verse: only whereas he there spake of the material fabric of the tabernacle, and the things contained in it, here he designs what was signified thereby; for he declares not what these things were, but what the Holy Ghost did signify in and by them. Now, in that most holy place were all the signs and pledges of the gracious presence of God, — the testimonies of our reconciliation by the blood of the atonement, and our peace with him thereby. Wherefore, to enter into these holies, is nothing but an access with liberty, freedom, and boldness, into the gracious presence of God, on the account of reconciliation and peace made with him. This the apostle doth so plainly and positively declare, Hebrews 10:19-22, that I somewhat admire so many worthy and learned expositors should utterly miss of his meaning in this place. The “holies,” then, is the gracious presence of God, whereunto believers draw nigh in the confidence of the atonement made for them, and of acceptance thereon. See Romans 5:1,2; Ephesians 2:14-18; Hebrews 4:14-16, 10:19. The atonement being made, and received by faith, conscience being purged, bondage and fear being removed, believers do now under the gospel enter with boldness into this gracious presence of God. 2. We must consider what is the “way ” into these holies, which was “not yet made manifest.” And here also expositors indulge unto many conjectures, very needlessly, as I suppose; for the apostle doth elsewhere expressly declare himself, and interpret his own meaning, namely, Hebrews 10:19,20. This way is no other but the sacrifice of Christ, the true high priest of the church. For by the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place with blood the Holy Ghost did signify that the way into it, namely, for believers to enter by, was only the one true sacrifice which he was to offer and to be. And accordingly, to give an indication of the accomplishment of this type, when he expired on the cross, having offered himself unto God for the expiation of our sins, the veil of the temple, which enclosed and secured this holy place from any entrance into it, was rent from the top to the bottom, whereby it was laid open unto all, Matthew 27:51. And an evidence this is that the Lord Christ offered his great expiatory sacrifice in his death here on earth, a true and real sacrifice; and that it was not an act of power after his ascension, metaphorically called a sacrifice, as the Socinians dream. For until that sacrifice was offered the way could not be opened into the holies; which it was immediately after his death, and signified by the rending of the veil. This is oJdown , the only way whereby we enter into the most holy place, the gracious presence of God, and that with boldness. 3. Of this way it is affirmed that it was “not yet made manifest, whilst the first tabernacle was standing.” And a word is peculiarly chosen by the apostle to signify his intention. He doth not say that there was no way then into the most holy place, none made, none provided, none made use of; but, there was not a fane>rwsiv , an “open manifestation” of it. There was an entrance under the old testament into the presence of God, as unto grace and glory, namely, the virtue of the oblation of Christ; but this was “not as yet made manifest.” Three things were wanting thereunto: — (1.) It was not yet actually existent, but only was virtually so. The Lord Christ had not yet actually offered himself unto God, nor made atonement for sin. Howbeit by virtue of the eternal agreement that was between the Father and him, concerning what he should accomplish in the fullness of time, the benefit of what he was so to do was applied unto them that did believe; they were saved by faith, even as we are. Hence is he called, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” that is, in and from the giving of the first promise. (2.) Although the coming of his person was promised, and his sacrifice variously shadowed out or represented unto the church, yet their perception and understanding thereof was weak and dark, —proportionate unto the means of its revelation. Hence, whatever were its virtue and efficacy, yet was it not in itself and its own nature made manifest. (3.) There were many blessed privileges that attended the opening of this way, or the actual existence of it, in the oblation of Christ, which the church of the old testament was not acquainted with, nor made partaker of. And although these things belonged not unto the essence of the way, yet they did so as unto our entrance into it. We could not without them, —that is, the administration of the Spirit in gospel ordinances, —make use of this way, though prepared and set open, unto the glory of God and our own spiritual advantage.

Wherefore the plain, open manifestation of the way into the holiest, which the apostle denies unto the church under the old testament, consists in these three things: — (1.) In the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh, and his sacrifice of himself, making atonement for sin; for hereby alone was the way laid open unto an access with boldness into the gracious presence of God. Without this, the law and its curse were like the cherubim and flaming sword, that turned every way to keep sinners from drawing nigh unto God. Hereby were they removed, a new and living way being consecrated for our access unto him. (2.) In the full, plain declaration of the nature of his person and of his mediation. And therefore, although the gospel be not this way in the precepts of obedience which it gives unto us, yet is it the declaration and manifestation of this way, and our sole direction how to make use of it, or how to enter by it into the most holy place. This they enjoyed not under the old testament, but were limited unto typical institutions directing the priests how,to enter into the sanctuary made with hands; which were but an obscure representation of these things. (3.) In the introduction or revelation and establishment of those privileges of gospel-worship whereby believers are led comfortably into the presence of God, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 10:19-22. For they are full of light and grace, and a guide unto all the steps of faith and obedience in this way. Hereunto may be added all those things which we have declared to belong unto that perfection or consummation of the church-state, which the law could not bring it unto, on Hebrews 7:11.

In these things consisteth that manifestation of the way into the most holy place which is here denied unto the old testament. 4. The continuance of this state is added: “Whilst the first tabernacle was standing.” (1.) By “the first tabernacle,” the apostle understands not that first part of the tabernacle into which the priests entered continually, accomplishing the divine services, which before he had so called; but he intends the whole tabernacle, with respect unto the true tabernacle of the body of Christ, which succeeded into its room. Neither yet doth he understand precisely that tent or tabernacle which was erected in the wilderness, —which was not in itself of any long continuance, nor designed thereunto, for it was only suited unto the service of the church whilst it was in an unsettled condition, —but he intends the whole worship instituted together with it and belonging unto it, celebrated afterwards in the temple according unto the laws of that tabernacle. For there was the same worship and the same order of things in the one and the other; and so the same signification made at first by the Holy Ghost in the constitution of the tabernacle was still continued under the temple also. (2.) It was continued whilst this first tabernacle, or the tabernacle in this sense, was “standing.” “Having its station;” that is, according unto the mind of God, it had its state and use in the church. This it had absolutely until the death of Christ, and no longer. For until then both the Lord Christ himself and all his disciples continued the observation of all its services, according to the mind of God; for he was made under the law of it, whilst it was in force, Declaratively it continued until the day of Pentecost; for then, in the coming of the Holy Ghost, was the foundation of the gospel church-state, order, and worship, solemnly laid, whereon, a new way of worship being established, the abrogation of the old was declared. And this,was yet further made known by the determination put unto the observation of it among the Gentile converts by the Holy Ghost, in the council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Actually it continued until the destruction of the temple, city, and people, some years after. Its first station it had in God’s appointment, the second in his connivance, and the third in his,patience.

It is the first of these that is here intended. The tabernacle, —that is, the laws and service of it, —preserved its station and use in the church, by God’s ordinance and appointment, unto the death of Christ. Then did he pronounce concerning it and all things belonging unto it, “It is finished.”

Then was the veil rent, and the way into the holiest laid open. Then was peace with God publicly confirmed by the blood of the cross, Ephesians 2:14-16; and the nature of the way of our access unto him made known. And some things we may hence observe, which also tend unto the further explication of the mind of the Holy Ghost in the text: — Obs. III. Although the Lord Christ was not actually exhibited in the flesh under the old testament, nor had actually offered himself unto God for us, yet had believers then an access into the grace and favor of God, though the way, the cause and means of it, was not manifestly declared unto them. The apostle doth not exclude them all from the grace and favor of God, but only shows their disadvantage in comparison of believers under the gospel, in that this way was not manifested unto them.

Obs. IV. The design of the Holy Ghost in all the tabernacle ordinances and institutions of worship, was to direct the faith of believers unto what was signified by them.

Obs. V. Typical institutions, attended diligently unto, were sufficient to direct the faith of the church unto the expectation of the real expiation of sin, and acceptance with God thereon. God was never wanting unto the church in what was necessary unto it in its present condition, so as that it might be guided in its faith and encouraged unto obedience.

Obs. VI. Though the standing of the first tabernacle was a great mercy and privilege, yet the removal of it was a greater; for it made way for the bringing in of that which was better.

Obs. VII. The divine wisdom in the economy and disposal of the revelation of the way into the holiest, or of grace and acceptance with himself, is a blessed object of our contemplation. The several degrees of it we have considered on Hebrews 1:1,2.

Obs. VIII. The clear manifestation of the way of redemption, of the expiation of sin, and peace with God thereon, is the great privilege of the gospel.

Obs. IX. There is no access into the gracious presence of God but by the sacrifice of Christ alone.

VERSES 9, 10. \Htiv parazolh< eijv tota , kaq j o[n dw~ra> te kai< zusi>ai prosfe>rontai , mh< duna>menai kata< sunei>dhsin teleiw~sai toonta , mo>non ejpi< brw>masi kai< po>masi kai< diafo>roiv baptismoi~v , kai< dikaiw>masi sarkocri kairou~ diorqw>sewv ejpikei>mena . [Htiv parazolh<. Vulg. Lat., “quae parabola est.” Syr., al;t]m’ , “an exemplar,’’ or “example.” So all render it, though it answers the Hebrew lv;m; , “a parable” or “proverb.” “quod erat exemplar;” so Beza and others.

Eijv ton tota . Vulg. Lat., “temporis instantis,” “of the instant time” or “season;” which Arias rectifies into “in tempus praesens,” “for the time present;” Beza, “pro tempore illo praesente,” “for that present time;” “pro tempore tum praesente,” “for the time that was then present;” Syr., wh; an;b]z’l] , “for that time,” omitting ejnesthko>ta .

Kaq j o[n . Vulg. Lat., “juxta quam.” It being uncertain what he refers “quam” unto, Arias rectifieth it, “juxta quod;” for o[n answereth unto kairo>n , and not unto parazolh> . “Quo,” “wherein;” Syr., “in quo,” “wherein.”

Dw~ra> te kai< zusi>ai . Vulg. Lat., “munera et hostiae,” “dona et sacrificia.” Syr., “gifts (that is, meat and drink offerings) and sacrifices by blood.” Syr., ajeb]d,w] aneb;rWq , “oblations and victims,” or “bloody sacrifices.”

Kata< sunei>dhsin teleiw~sai ton latreu>onta . Vulg. Lat, “juxta conscientiam perfectum facere servientem,” “make him that did the service perfect according to conscience;” others, “in conscientia sanctificare cultorem;” others, “consummare:” of the sense of the word we have spoken before. Syr., “perfect the conscience of him that offered them.”

Mo>non ejpi< brw>masi . Syr., “in meat and drink,” in the singular number.

Kai< diafo>roiv baptismoi~v . Syr., ˆynez] ˆynez]D’ at;ydiWm[\m’B]w’ “And in the washing of kinds kinds,” that is, various kinds; with respect not unto the various rites of washing, but the various kinds of things that were washed.

Dikaiw>masi sarko>v . Vulg. Lat., “justitiis carnis;” so it renders dikai>wma by “justitia,” or “justificatio,” constantly, but very improperly. Syr ar;s]b,D] areq;Wp “precepts of the flesh.” “Ritibus carnalibus,” “ordinances, institutions, rites of the flesh, concerning fleshly things.” jEpikei>mena. Vulg. Lat., “impositis;” others, “imposita;” “incumbent on, lying on them.” f16 Ver. 9, 10 . —Which [was ] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect, as per-raining to the conscience; [which stood ] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them ] until the time of reformation.

I shall not alter the translation, but show what might be more properly expressed, as unto some instances, in our exposition.

Expositors have made use of various conjectures in their commentaries on this place. What is material in the most eminent of them, the reader may see in Mr Poole’s Collections. But I must needs say, that in my judgment they have brought more difficulty unto the text than they have freed it from. Wherefore I shall not detain the reader in the examination of them; but I shall give that interpretation of the text which I hope will evidence its truth unto such as impartially seek after it, and are in any measure acquainted with the things treated of.

The apostle, in these two verses, gives a summary account and reason of the imperfection of the tabernacle and all its services, wherein the administration of the old covenant did consist. This was direct and proper unto his present argument. For his design is to prove the pre-eminence of the new covenant above the old, from the excellency of the high priest thereof, with his tabernacle and sacrifice. Unto this end a discovery of the imperfection and weakness of the first tabernacle and services was indispensably necessary. And if, notwithstanding its outward excellency and glory, it was no other but what it is here declared to be, as evidently it was not, then was it not only an unreasonable thing, and a plain rejection of the wisdom and grace of God, to adhere unto it in opposition unto the gospel, — which was done by the most of the Hebrews, — but it was altogether unmeet and useless to be retained with the profession of the gospel, which the residue of them earnestly contended for. This was that which the apostle designed ultimately to convince them of. And a work herein both great and difficult was committed unto him. For there is nothing more difficult than to dispossess the minds of men of such persuasions in religion as they have been bred up in, and received by a long tract of tradition from their fathers. So we find it to be in such persuasions and observances as are evidently false and impious, unto the understandings of all that are not under the power of such prejudices: so is it at present with them of the Roman church, and others. But these Hebrews had a pretense or plea for their obstinacy herein which none other ever had in the like case but themselves; for the things which they adhered unto were confessedly of divine institution. Wherefore the apostle labors principally to prove, that in the will and wisdom of God they were to continue only for a season, and also that the season of their expiration was now come. And this he doth in this place, by a declaration of their nature and use whilst they did continue; whence it is evident that God never designed them a perpetual station in the church, and that because they could not effect what he purposed and had promised to do for it.

This is the substance of his present argument.

There are in the words themselves, 1. The subject spoken of, h[tiv , “which.” 2. The proper use and end of it; it was “a figure.” 3. The limitation of that use as unto time; “for the time then present.’’ 4. The especial nature of it; the “offering of gifts and sacrifices.” 5. The imperfection of it therein; “they could not consummate the worshippers in conscience.” 6. The reason of that imperfection; it “stood only in meats and drinks,” etc. 7. The manner of its establishment; it was “imposed.” 8. The time allotted for its continuance; “until the time of reformation.” 1. The subject spoken of is expressed by h[tiv , “which.” Some would refer it unto parazolh> following, and so read the words, “Which figure was for the time present.” But there is no cause for this traduction of the words.

The verb substantive, h=n , is deficient, as usually, and is to be supplied as in our translation, “which was.” “Which,” that is, skhnh> , “the tabernacle;” — not only the fabric and structure of it, but the tabernacle in both parts of it, with all its furniture, vessels, utensils, and services, as before described. 2. As unto its proper use and end, the apostle affirms that it was parazolh>, — figura, exemplar,” exemplum,” “comparatio,” “similitudo,” “typus,” “ representatio:” so variously is this word rendered by interpreters. Most fix on “exemplar’’ or “ exemplum;” but they are tu>pov and uJpo>deigma , not parazolh>. And in all these versions the proper sense of the word as used in the Scripture is missed. It is not tynib]T’ that the apostle intends, but lv;m; , as it is rendered by the Syriac.

And this many have observed, namely, that it answers unto lv;m; , but yet have missed in the interpretation of it. lv;m; is the same with hd;yji wherewith it is joined, as of the same signification and importance, Psalm 49:5, 78:2. And whereas it is said that the queen of Sheba tried the wisdom of Solomon twOdyjiB] , 1 Kings 10:1; the Targum renders it by ˆyltmb , the Chaldee ltm , and the Syriac altm , being the same with the Hebrew lv;m; . Now hd;yji is enigma, problema, gri~fov, “a riddle,” “a hard question;” and dWj is to speak enigmatically, obscurely, so as that one thing is to be gathered out of another. So is lv;m; used also, Ezekiel 20:49, “Is he not µyliv;m] lVem’m] , “proverbiator proverbiorum?” —”one that speaks darkly and obscurely;” that expresseth one thing and intends another, using similitudes and metaphors; an obscure, mystical instruction, by figures, signs, symbols, metaphors, and the like.

Thus is parazolh> almost constantly used in the New Testament. So our Lord Jesus Christ expressly opposeth speaking in parables unto a clear, plain, open teaching, so as to be understood of all. See Matthew 13:10,13. John 16:28,29, “Now speakest thou openly, and no parable.”

Wherefore parazolh> , in this place, is an obscure, mystical, metaphorical instruction. God taught the church of old the mysteries of our redemption by Christ, by the tabernacle, its fabric, parts, utensils, and services; but it was but an obscure, parabolical, figurative instruction. So should the word here be rendered, “a figurative instruction,” or the word “parable” be here retained, as it is in other places. This was God’s way of teaching the mysteries of his wisdom and grace; which, as it was sufficient for the state of the church which was then present, so it instructs us in what he requires, what he expects from us, unto whom all these things are unfolded, made plain and evident. 3. The third thing in the text is the time or season wherein the tabernacle was so parabolically or mystically instructive. It was eijv ton tota . Some few copies for to>n read tou~ton , as doth that now before me, —”unto this present time.” This reading is generally rejected by expositors, as not suited unto the mind of the apostle in this place. For he intends not the time that was then present when he wrote the epistle, not the times of the gospel, not the time after the resurrection of Christ until the destruction of the temple, which the addition of that word would denote; for God had prepared another kind of instruction for that season, and not by parables, or mystical metaphors. But yet the word may be retained, and a sense given of the words both sound and proper. For eijv may well signify as much as “until;” or be taken telikw~v , as it is often.

Eijv tou~ton kairo>n, —” unto this season;” ‘until the time that God would grant another kind of teaching, which now he hath done. It served until this present season, wherein the gospel is preached, and all the things signified by it are accomplished.’ But I shall rather follow the reading of the most copies, though the Vulgar Latin reading “temporis instantis” seems to favor the first. And Arias rectifying it into “in tempus praesens,” gives the same sense also. But the word ejnesthko>ta being of the preterimperfect tense, signifies a time that was then present, but is now past. And it is therefore well rendered by our translators, “the time then present;” as if to>te had been in the text; —the time then present when the tabernacle was made and erected, oJ kairov , the season of the church which was then present. For the apostle in this whole discourse not only respects the tabernacle, and not the temple, but he considers the first erection of the tabernacle in a peculiar manner; for then was it proposed as the means of the administration of the first covenant and the worship thereunto belonging. It is the covenants which he principally designeth a comparison between. And he doth in that way of the disposition and administration of them, which was given and appointed at their first establishment. As this in the new covenant was the person, office, sacrifice, and ministry of Christ; so as unto the first, it was the tabernacle and all the services of it.

Wherefore “the time then present,” was the state and condition of the church at the first setting up of the tabernacle. Not as though this time were confined unto that or those ages wherein the tabernacle was in use, before the building of the temple; but this instruction, which was then signally given, was the whole of what God granted unto the church during that state wherein it was obliged unto the ordinances and services which were then instituted. The instructions which God thought meet to grant unto the church at that season were obscure, mystical, and figuratively representative; yet was it sufficient for the faith and obedience of the church, had it been diligently attended unto, and what the Holy Ghost signified thereby. So are all God’s ways of instruction in all seasons. We cannot err but either by a neglect of inquiry into them, or by looking for more than God in his wisdom hath committed unto them.

And this sense those who render parazolh> by a “figure,” “type,” or “example,” must come unto: for the use of it is confined unto the time of the erection of the tabernacle, and the institution of the ordinances thereunto belonging; but a type or figure was unto them of no use but so far as it was instructive, which was obscurely and mystically. And that this is the sense of the word the apostle declares, verse 8, where he shows the substance of what the Holy Ghost signified by the building, disposal, and services of the tabernacle; that is, what he taught the church thereby parabolically and figuratively.

This kind of instruction, whatever now it seem to us, was meet and fit for them unto whom it was given. And by the administration of grace in it, it was a blessed means to ingenerate faith, love, and obedience, in the hearts and lives of many unto an eminent degree. And we may consider from hence what is required of us, unto whom the clear revelation of the wisdom, grace, and love of God, is made known from the bosom of the Father, by the Son himself. 4. The especial nature and use of this tabernacle and its service is declared: “In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices.” Kaq j o[n , the Vulgar Latin reads “juxta quam;” making the relative to answer unto h[tiv , or to parazolh>. But the gender will not allow it in the original. Kaq j o[n is as much as ejn w=| , “in which time,” “during which season:” for immediately upon the setting up of the tabernacle God gave unto Moses laws and institutions for all the gifts and sacrifices of the people, which were to be offered therein. This was the first direction which God gave after the setting up of the tabernacle, namely, the way and manner of offering all sorts of gifts and sacrifices unto him.

And the apostle here distributes all the µyniB;r]q; , all the “sacred offerings,” into dw~ra and zusi>av , —that is, unbloody and bloody sacrifices; as he did before, Hebrews 5:1, where the distinction hath been explained.

Of them all he affirms, Prosfe>rontai , —”They are offered;” not that they were so: for the apostle erects a scheme of the first tabernacle and all its services at its first institution, and presents it unto the consideration of the Hebrews as if it were then first erected. He doth, indeed, sometimes speak of the priests and sacrifices as then in being, with respect unto that continuance of the temple and its worship which it had in the patience of God, as we have showed on Hebrews 8:4; but here, treating only of the tabernacle and its worship, as that which was granted in the confirmation and for the administration of the old covenant, then entered into, —as the tabernacle, priesthood, and sacrifice of Christ were given in the confirmation of the new, —he represents that as present which was past long before. The tabernacle served aptly for the use whereunto it was designed, —it was meet for the offering of gifts and sacrifices; and so alone is the tabernacle of Christ for its proper end also. 5. On these concessions, the apostle declares the imperfection of this whole order of things, and its impotency as unto the great end that might be expected from it; for these “gifts and sacrifices could not make perfect him that did the service, as pertaining unto the conscience.” This was the end aimed at, this was represented in them and by them. And if they could not really effect it, they were weak and imperfect, and so not always to be continued. The end represented in and by them, was to make atonement for sin, that the anger of God being pacified, they might have peace with him. The covenant was then newly established between God and the church, before any laws were given about these offerings and sacrifices, Exodus 24. God knew that there would be among the people, and even the priests themselves, many sins and transgressions against the rules and laws of that covenant. This of itself it could not dispense withal; for its sanction was the curse against every one that continued not in all things written in the book of it: wherefore if this curse on all just and righteous occasions should rigidly have been put in execution, the covenant would only have proved the means and cause of the utter destruction and excision of the whole people; for “there is no man that liveth and sinneth not.” And on many occasions sin abounded in that state of the church, wherein light and grace were but sparingly dispensed, in comparison of the times of the new covenant. Wherefore God, in his mercy and patience, provided that by sacred gifts and offerings atonement should be made for sin, so as that the curse of the covenant should not be put in immediate execution against the sinner, Leviticus 17:11. But there were two things to be considered in those sins which God had appointed that atonement should be made for. The first was, the external, temporal punishment which was due unto them, according unto the place which the law or covenant had in the polity or commonwealth of Israel. The other, that eternal punishment which was due unto every sin by the law, as the rule of all moral obedience; for “the wages of sin is death.” In the first of these, the person of the sinner, in all his outward circumstances, his life, his goods, his liberty, and the like, was concerned. In the latter, his conscience, or the inward man alone was so.

And as unto the first of them, the gifts and sacrifices mentioned, being rightly offered, were able in themselves, “ex opere operato,” to free the sinner from all temporal, political inconvenience or detriment, so as that his life and inheritance should be continued in the land of Canaan, or his state preserved entire in the commonwealth of Israel This the apostle here tacitly acknowledgeth, namely, that the gifts and sacrifices were able to free the sinner from temporal punishment, and give him outward peace in his possessions. But as unto the latter, wherein conscience was concerned, he denies that they had any such efficacy.

They were not able, —mh> duna>menai . It agrees in gender with zusi>ai , only, and not with dw~ra , which being of the neuter gender, usually regulates the construction in such conjunctions: but most think it equally respects both the antecedent substantives; and instances may be given where a participle respecting more antecedent substantives than one may agree in gender with either of them, as, “Leges et plebiscita coactae.” But I rather think that the apostle confines the impotency he mentions unto “sacrifices” only; that is, zusi>ai , “slain and bloody sacrifices.” For those things which were dw~ra , “gifts,” and no more, were not designed to make atonement for sin; that was to be done by blood, and no otherwise: so the words should be read, “offered gifts and sacrifices that could not perfect.”

These sacrifices were impotent and ineffectual unto this end, teleiw~sai.

What the telei>wsiv is which the apostle so frequently mentions in this epistle, I have before declared, and so what it is teleiw~sai . It is indeed to “perfect,” to “consummate,” to “sanctify,” to “dedicate,” to “consecrate;” but whereas those sacrifices did all these things outwardly, and as unto the flesh, as the apostle grants, verse 13, he doth not here absolutely deny it unto them, but in a certain respect only.

They could not do it kata< sunei>dhsin —as unto the conscience of the sinner before God. What he intends hereby he doth more fully declare, Hebrews 10:2. There is a conscience condemning for sin. This could not be taken away by those sacrifices. They were not able to do it; for if ‘they could have done so, the sinner would have had complete peace with God, and would not have had need to have offered those sacrifices any more.

But they were multiplied and often repeated, because of their disability unto this end. Wherefore teleiw~sai kata< sunei>dhsin , is to give peace of conscience unto men, through a sense of perfect atonement made for sin, in the sight of God, with an interest in his love and favor thereon.

This, it is to be “perfect” or “consummated, as pertaining to conscience” in the sight of God, namely, to have a conscience condemning for sin taken away. This those sacrifices of the law could not effect. It will be said, then, ‘Unto what end did they serve? Were they of no use but only to free men from the penalties of the law or covenant, as it was a rule of the polity or commonwealth of Israel, and the tenure of their possessions in Canaan?’ Yes, they were moreover part of the parazolh> or “mystical instruction” which God granted the church in those days, directing them unto the one sacrifice and offering of Christ, typically representing it, and through faith applying the virtue and efficacy of it unto their consciences every day. 6. The person is described towards whom this effect of purifying the conscience is denied. They could not thus perfect to onta, — “him that did the service,” saith our translation, I think not so properly.

He that did the service was the priest only; but respect is had unto every one that brought his gift or offering unto the altar. jEpitelei~n taav , “sacredly to accomplish the services,” was the work of the priest alone, verse 6. But oJ latreu>wn, is the same with oJ proserco>menov, Hebrews 10:1; that is, every one who brought his sacrifice to be offered, that atonement might be made for him. And latreu>wn comprehends the whole of divine worship in all individuals:

Tw~| Qew~| latreu>seiv, Matthew 4:10. But he also may be said to do the service, on whose account and in whose stead it was performed.

But the defect charged doth not in the first place reflect on the persons, as though it was by their default. They worshipped God according unto his own institutions; but it was in the sacrifices themselves. And if they could not make the worshippers, those who did the service, perfect, they could make none so, for it was they alone who had the benefit of them.

The note of Grotius on this place is, “Isti cultus non possunt sectatorum suorum animos purgare a vitiis quemadmodum evan-gelium;” —most remote from the mind of the Holy Ghost: for he speaks not of purging our minds from vices, but of purifying conscience by atonement made for the guilt of sin; and opposeth not those sacrifices unto the doctrine of the gospel, but unto the sacrifice of Christ. And we may hence observe, — Obs. I. There is a state of perfect peace with God to be attained under imperfect obedience. For it is charged as a weakness in the legal administrations, that they could not give such a peace where any sin remained; it is therefore to be found in the sacrifice of Christ, as is proved at large in the next chapter. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.”

Obs. II. Nothing can give perfect peace of conscience with God but what can make atonement for sin. And whoever attempt it any other way but by virtue of that atonement, will never attain it, in this world nor hereafter.

Ver. 10. —”Only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them ] until the time of reformation.”

It is acknowledged that there is no small difficulty in the connection of these words, or their relation unto what doth immediately precede; and therefore expositors have multiplied conjectures about it, in whose examination we are not concerned. I shall therefore no further consider any of them, but as they relate unto what I judge to be their true coherence.

Two things are plain and evident unto this purpose: — 1. That the design of the apostle in the words themselves, is to manifest and declare the weakness of the services of the tabernacle, and their insufficiency for attaining the end proposed in them. This end in general was the perfecting of the church-state in religious worship; and in particular, to make the worshippers perfect as unto their consciences before God. And he gives such a description of them as of itself will sufficiently evince their weakness and insufficiency. For what is it possible that things of that kind and nature which is here described can contribute unto these ends 2. That the things instanced in do comprise a great part of the Levitical institutions; and his assertion concerning them may, by a parity of reason, be extended unto them all. For to render his description of them comprehensive, the apostle (1.) Expresseth them in a particular enumeration of the heads whereunto they might be reduced, “Meats and drinks, and divers washings.” And then, (2.) To show that he intends all things of an alike nature with them, he adds the general nature of them all, — they were “carnal ordinances:” — (1.) A great part of the Levitical religious observances may be reduced unto these heads of “meats and drinks, and divers washings.’’ Laws and institutions were multiplied about these things; what they might eat, and what they might not; what was clean, and what was unclean unto that end; what they might drink, and what vessels defiled all liquors; what were to be, their eatings and drinkings, and when upon their peace-offering, and at their solemn feasts; their great variety of washings, of the priests, of the people, of their garments, and their flesh, stated and occasional, do take up a great part of the entire system of their ordinances. And as laws were multiplied concerning these things, so many of them were enforced with very severe penalties. Hence they were difficultly to be learned, and always impossible to be observed. The Mishna and Talmud —that is, the whole religion of the present Jews —consist almost wholly in scrupulous inquiries, and endless determinations, or rather conjectures, about these things and their circumstances. (2.) All the laws concerning these things were carnal, “carnal ordinances;” such as, for the matter, manner of performance, and end of them, were carnal. This being their nature, it evidently follows that they were instituted only for a time, and were so far from being able themselves to perfect the state of the church, as that they were not consistent with that perfect state of spiritual things which God would introduce, and had promised so to do.

The scope and design of the apostle being thus fixed, the coherence and interpretation of the words will not be so difficult as at first view they may appear.

Mo>non ejpi< brw>masi , —”Only in meats and drinks,” etc, Our translators observing the sense elliptical, have supplied it with “which stood,” — which stood only in meats and drinks.” And that supplement may give a double sense: —1. It may respect the substance of the things spoken of. “Which,” relates to “gifts and sacrifices.” And so the sense intended is, that they consisted “in meats and drinks, and divers washings.” And this was the natural substance of them. They consisted in such things as might be eaten and drunk, being duly prepared, as flesh, flour, salt, oil, and wine.

Hence were they called meat and drink-offerings. And they had washings also that belonged unto them, as the washing of the inwards, Exodus 29:17; and of the burnt-offerings peculiarly, Leviticus 1:9,13; of the hands and feet of the priests, Exodus 30:18,19; and of the leper, Leviticus 14:9. Howbeit it cannot be said that the gifts and sacrifices, as they were such, did consist in these things, though in them things of this nature were offered unto God. Wherefore the supplement of, “which stood,” cannot be admitted in that sense. 2. It may respect the consummation of these gifts and sacrifices, or the celebration of the whole service that belonged unto them, and all their necessary circumstances or consequents: ‘which stood in these things;’ that is, which were accompanied with them. and not perfected without them.

The argument in the words is to prove the insufficiency of the gifts and sacrifices of the law unto the end mentioned, of perfecting conscience before God. And this is evidenced by the consideration of their necessary adjuncts, or what belonged unto them, and were inseparable from them. It is not said that these “gifts and sacrifices” were only meats and drinks, and so things of no value: for neither doth the apostle treat of the old institutions with such contempt, nor would the truth of his assertion have been evident unto the Hebrews; but he argues unto a discovery of their use and end from the things that did always accompany them, and were inseparable from them. For those by whom they were offered were obliged, by the same divine institution, at the same time unto sundry “meats and drinks, and divers washings;” which proves both the gifts and sacrifices to have been of the same kind, and to have had respect unto carnal things, as they had. For if those gifts and sacrifices had an immediate effect on the consciences of men unto their purification before God, by any virtue inherent in them, whence is it that the observances which by the same law accompanied them were only about “meats and drinks, and divers washings?” And this sense is not to be refused.

But whereas there is an ellipsis in the connection of the words, it may be otherwise supplied. For having mentioned the “gifts and sacrifices” of the law, the apostle makes an addition unto them of the remaining institutions and ceremonies of it, whose very nature and use declared their insufficiency unto the end inquired after; —”[And other laws ] only concerning meats and drinks, and divers washings;” which in general he calls “carnal rites.” Hereby is the argument in hand carried on and completed.

There are four things in the words: 1. An account of the legal institutions, under several heads. 2. Their nature in general, with that of others of the same kind; they were “carnal ordinances,” or fleshly rites. 3. The way of the relation of the people unto them; they were “imposed” on them. 4. The time for which they were imposed, or the measure of their duration; which was, “until the time of reformation.”

First , For the nature of them, they consisted, 1. In “meats and drinks.” Take the words in their full extent, and they may be comprehensive of four sorts of institutions: — (1.) Of all those which concerned meats, or things to be eaten or not eaten, as being clean or unclean; an account whereof is given, Leviticus 11 throughout. With reference thereunto doth the apostle reflect on the Levitical institutions in these words, “Touch not, taste not, handle not; which all are to perish with the using,” Colossians 2:21,22, — are all carnal things. (2.) The portion of the priests out of the sacrifices; especially what they were to eat in the holy place, as the portion of the sin-offering, Exodus 29:31-33; Leviticus 10:12,13,17; and what they were to eat of the peace-offerings in any clean place, verses 14, 15. And the prohibition of drinking wine or strong drink in the holy place, verses 8, 9, may be here respected in “drinks,” about which these institutions were. And these were such, as without which the service of the sacrifices could not be acceptably performed, verses 17, 18. And therefore are they intended in this place in an especial manner, if it be the design of the apostle to prove the insufficiency of the sacrifices from the nature of their inseparable adjuncts, which were carnal and perishing things. (3.) The eating of the remainder of the peace-offering, whether of a vow or of thanksgiving; the law whereof is given as a holy ordinance, Leviticus 7:14-17. (4.) The laws concerning the feasts of the whole people, with their eating and drinking before the Lord, Leviticus 23. All these divine ordinances were ejpi< brw>masi kai< po>masi , —”concerning meats and drinks,” that were necessary to be observed with their offering of “gifts and sacrifices,” declaring of what nature they were. And the observation of them all was at the same time imposed on them. 2. They consisted in, or were concerning “divers washings” Baptismo>v is any kind of washing, whether by, dipping or sprinkling, —putting the thing to be washed into the water, or applying the water unto the thing itself to be washed. Of these washings there were various sorts or kinds under the law: for the priests were washed, Exodus 29:4; and the Levites, Numbers 8:7; and the people, after they had contracted any impurity, Leviticus 15:8,16. But the apostle seems to have particular respect unto the washings of the priests and of the offerings in the court of the tabernacle, before the altar; for these were such, as without which the gifts and sacrifices could not be rightly offered unto God.

Secondly , It is added in the description of these things, kai< dikaiw>masi sarko>v , —”institutis carnalibus,” “ritibus,” “ceremoniis,” “justitiis, justificationibus carnis.” “Carnal ordinances,” say we. The signification of dikai>wma in this place hath been spoken unto before. Rites of worship arbitrarily imposed, whose “jus” or “right” depended on the will or pleasure of God. And they are said to be of the flesh for the reason given, verse 13, — “they sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh,” and no more.

The words may be an expression of the nature in general of the law about meats, drinks, and washings; they were “carnal ordinances.” But the distinctive copulative, kai> , “and,” will not admit of that sense. It seems, therefore, to contain an addition of all those other legal ordinances which any way belonged unto the purifications of the law.

The force of the reasonings in these words is evident. For the design of the apostle is to prove, that, in the perfect church-state which God would bring in under the new covenant, the worshippers were to enjoy peace of conscience, with joy and boldness in the presence of God, from a perfect atonement and purification of sin. Holy this is effected by the one sacrifice of Christ, he afterwards declares. But the ordinances of the law, and the Levitical sacrifices, were weak and imperfect as unto this end; for in them and by them men were conversant wholly in carnal things, in meats, drinks, washings, and such like carnal observances, which could reach no farther than the sanctification of the flesh, as he evidenceth in the application of all these things unto his present argument, verse 13. And the faith of believers is rather weakened than confirmed by all things of the like nature, that divert their minds from an immediate respect unto and total dependence on the one sacrifice of Christ.

Thirdly , Concerning all these things it is affirmed, that they were “imposed” on the people, —ejpikei>mena . There is a difficulty in the syntax of this word, which all interpreters take notice of. If it refers unto the substantives immediately foregoing, brw>masi kai< po>masi , etc., it agrees not with them in case; if unto zusi>av in the other verse, it agrees not with it in gender. And the apostle had before adjoined unto it a participle of the feminine gender, —duna>menai . Some think that the letter iota is added unto the first word, or taken from the latter, so that originally they were both of the same gender. But whereas the apostle had put together dw~ra kai< zusi>av , the one of the neuter, the other of the feminine gender, he might apply his adjectives either to one or both, without offense to grammar. Yet I rather judge that in this word he had respect unto all the things whereof he had discoursed from the very beginning of the chapter. Concerning them all he declares that they were thus “imposed;” and so the use of the word in the neuter gender is proper.

Many judge that there is an objection anticipated in these words. For upon the description of the nature and use of the tabernacle, with all its furniture and services, he declares that they could not all of them, nor any of them, perfect the worshippers that attended unto them. Hereon it might be well inquired, ‘To what purpose, then, were they appointed? unto what end did they serve?’ Hereunto he replies, ‘That they were never designed unto perpetual use, but only imposed on the people unto the time of reformation.’ But whether there be a respect unto any such objection or no, he plainly declares their use and duration according unto the mind of God; which were such as their nature did require. And hereby also he confirms his argument of their insufficiency unto the great end of perfecting, sanctifying, or consecrating the state of the church. And hereof there are two evidences in these words: — 1. They were things imposed; that is, on the people under the law. They were laid on them as a burden. The word is properly “incumbentia,” lying on them; that is, as a burden. There was a weight in all these legal rites and ceremonies, which is called a “yoke,” and too heavy for the people to bear, Acts 15:10. And if the imposition of them be principally intended, as we render the word, “imposed,” it respects the bondage they were brought into by them. Men may have a weight lying on them, and yet not be brought into bondage thereby. But these things were so imposed on them as that they might feel their weight, and groan under the burden of it. Of this bondage the apostle treats at large in the epistle unto the Galatians.

And it was impossible that those things should perfect a church-state, which’ in themselves were such a burden, and effective of such a bondage. 2. As unto the duration assigned unto them, they were thus imposed mecri< kairou~ , —for a determined limited, season. ‘They were never designed to continue for ever. And this is the great controversy which we have at this day with the Jews. The principal foundation of their present unbelief is, that the law of Moses is eternal, and that the observation of its rites and institutions is to be continued unto the end of the world. The contrary hereunto the apostle had evidently proved in the foregoing chapters. Whereas, therefore, he had undeniably demonstrated that they were not to be of perpetual use in the church, nor could ever effect that state of perfection which God designed unto it, he now declares that there was a certain determinate season fixed in the purpose and counsel of God for their cessation and removal. And this he describes in the last word.

This was the season diorqw>sewv : “correction,” say some; “direction,’’ others; we, “of reformation,” restraining the word unto the things spoken of, and retaining its usual signification, most improperly. For “reformation” is the amendment and reduction of any thing in the church unto its primitive institution, by abolishing and taking away the abuses that have crept into it, or corrupt additions that have been made unto it; but nothing of that nature is here intended. Many such seasons there were under the old testament, wherein the things belonging unto the worship of God were so reformed; but now not the reduction of the tabernacle and its services unto its first institution is intended, but its utter removal and taking away out of the service of God in the church. But if respect be had unto the whole state of the church in general, and what God designed unto it, taking the word “reformation” in a universal sense, for the introduction of a new animating form and life, with new means and ways of their expression and exercise in new ordinances of worship, the word may be of use in this place.

Those who render it, “of correction,” are no less out of the way. For “correction” might be applied unto the abuses that had crept into the worship of God; —so it was by our Savior with respect unto pharasaical traditions: but the apostle treats here of the worship itself as it was first instituted by God, without respect unto any such abuses. This was not the object of any just correction.

The time intended is sufficiently known and agreed upon. It is the great time or season of the coming of the Messiah, as the king, priest, and prophet of the church, to order and alter all things, so as it might attain its perfect state. This was the season that was to put an end unto all legal observances, wherein they were to expire.

Unto the bringing in of this season God had ordered and disposed all things from the foundation of the world. See Luke 1:68-75. And it is called kairosewv , because therein God finally disposed and directed all things in the church unto his own glory and the eternal salvation thereof. See Ephesians 1:10. And we may observe from the whole verse, — Obs. I. That there is nothing in its own nature so mean and abject, but the will and authority of God can render it of sacred use and sacred efficacy, when he is pleased to ordain and appoint it. — Such were the “meats and drinks, and divers washings,” under the law; which, however contemptible in themselves, had a religious use from the appointment of God. For others to attempt the like, as they do with their salt, and oil, and the like, in the Papacy, is foolishly to imitate his sovereignty, and proudly to usurp his authority.

Obs. II. The fixing of times and seasons, for the state of things in the church, is solely in the hand of God. and at his sovereign disposal. —He alone appointed this “time of reformation;” the church could neither hasten it nor was to refuse it. Wherefore quiet waiting alone is our duty, as unto the accomplishment of all promises concerning the state of the church in this world.

Obs. III. It is a great part of the blessed liberty which the Lord Christ brought into the church, namely, its freedom and liberty from legal impositions, and every thing of the like nature in the worship of God.

Obs. IV. The time of the coming of Christ was the time of the general final reformation of the worship of God, wherein all things were unchangeably directed unto their proper use.

VERSE 11.

Unto this verse the account of the Levitical priesthood, its sanctuary and services, is continued. Amongst them, the service of the high priest in the most holy place on the day of expiation was principally designed; for this was looked on and trusted unto by the Hebrews, as the principal glory of their worship, and as of the greatest efficacy as unto atonement and reconciliation with God. And so it was, in its proper place. Hence they have a saying yet common amongst them, “That on the day of expiation, when the high priest entered into the most holy place, all Israel were made as innocent as in the day of creation.” In what sense it neither was nor could be so shall be declared on Hebrews 10:1-3. But in these things the glory of the administration of the old covenant did consist; which the apostle allows unto it in his demonstration of the excellency of the new above it. Wherefore this ministry of the high priest on that day he hath an especial respect unto, in the account he gives of the priesthood of Christ and its administration.

But yet, although he hath a principal regard hereunto, he doth not respect it only and singly. The whole description of the sanctuary and its services he also regards, in the comparison he intends between the Lord Christ in his office and these things. In him, his office, sanctuary, and sacrifice, do the excellency and efficacy of the new covenant consist, in opposition unto all those of the like kind under the law. The want of a due observation hereof hath led some expositors into mistakes: for they would confine all that he says unto a correspondency with what was done on that solemn day by the high priest, whereas he doth also expressly declare that the truth, reality, and substance of the tabernacle, all its utensils, its services and sacrifices, were to be found in him alone; for unto this end doth he give us such a description of them all in particular.

But, as was said, that which he principally respects in the comparison he makes between the type and the antitype, is the high priest and his especial service in the most holy place, which he makes an entrance into in this verse.

Ver. 11. — Cristomenov , ajrciereuntwn ajgaqw~n , dia< th~v mei>zonov kai< teleiote>rav skhnh~v , ouj ceiropoih>tou , tout j e]stin , ouj tau>thv th~v kti>sewv . f17 Parageno>menov . Vulg., “assistens,” “assisting.” Syr., at;aDe , “who cometh.” “Adveniens,” “coming.” jArciereu>v. Syr., ar,m;WK bw’ aw;h\ , “was an high priest,” or “was made an high priest;” whereunto it adds, instead of “good things to come,” “of the good things which he hath wrought.”

Dia< mei>zonov kai< teleiote>rav skhnh~v . Vulg. Lat., “per amplius et perfectius tabernaculum;” barbarously for “mains et praestantius.” Syr. aB;r’ an;K]v]m,l] l[‘w] an;m;l]v’m]w’ , “and he entered into that great and perfect tabernacle.”

Ouj tau>thv th~v kti>sewv . Vulg. Lat., “non hujus creationis.” Syr., ˆyleh; ˆme at;y]y’B] , “of” or “from among these creatures.” Most, “hujus structurae,” “of this building.”

Ver. 11 . —But Christ being come, an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.

The introduction of the comparison in the redditive conjunction de< , “but,” answers unto me>n in the first verse of the chapter; which are the common notes of comparison and opposition. Ei=ce me>n ...... CristoChrist,” etc. In this and the next verse the apostle lays down in general what he proves and confirms by instances in this, and unto the 20th verse of the following chapter.

And there are two things which he declares in this and the verse ensuing: 1.

Who is the high priest of the new covenant, and what is the tabernacle wherein he administered his office, ver. 11. 2. What are the especial services he performed, in answer unto those of the legal high priest, and their preference above them, ver. 12.

In this verse he expresseth the subject whereof he treats, or the person of the high priest concerning whom he treats. And he describes him, 1. By his name; it is “Christ.” 2. By his entrance on his office; “being come.” 3. His office itself; “an high priest.” 4. The effects of his office, or the especial object of it; “good things to come.” 5. The tabernacle wherein he administereth or dischargeth his office; which is described by a comparison with the old tabernacle, and that two ways: (1.) Positively; that it was “greater” and “more perfect” or “more excellent” than it. (2.) By a double negation, the latter exegetical of the former; “not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building” or “creation.” All these particulars must be distinctly opened, to give a right understanding of the sense of the; place and meaning of the words: — First , The person spoken of is “Christ.” I have observed before the variety of appellations or names whereby the apostle on various occasions expresseth him in this epistle, otherwise than he is wont to do in any other of his epistles. Sometimes he calls him Jesus only, sometimes Christ, sometimes Jesus Christ, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Son of God. And he had respect herein unto the various notions which the church of the Jews had concerning his person from the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament. And he useth none of them peculiarly but when there is a peculiar reason for it, as we have already observed on sundry occasions. And so there is in this place. He doth not say Jesus is come, or the Son, or the Son of God, but “Christ being come;” that is, “the Messiah being come.” Under that name and notion was he promised from the beginning, and the fundamental article of the faith of the church was, that the Messiah was to come; —all their desires and expectations were fixed on the coming of the Messiah. Hence oJ ejrco>menov , “he that was to come,” was the name whereby they expressed their faith in him. Su< ei+ oJ ejrco>menov ; Matthew 11:3, — “Art thou he who is to come?” And the coming of Christ, or the Messiah, was the time and the cause wherein and whereby they expected the last revelation of the will of God, and the utmost perfection of the church. Wherefore the apostle on this occasion mentions him by his name, ‘He who was promised of old that he should come, upon whose coming the faith of the church was built, by whom and at whose coming they expected the last revelation of the will of God, and consequently a change in their present administrations, the promised Messiah being come.’ The church was founded of old on the name Jehovah, as denoting the unchangeableness and faithfulness of God in the accomplishment of his promises, Exodus 6:2,3. And this name of Christ is declarative of the accomplishment of them. Wherefore by calling him by this name, as it was most proper when he was to speak of his coming, so in it he minds the Hebrews of what was the ancient faith of their church concerning him, and what in general they expected on his coming. He had now no more to offer unto them but what they had for many ages expected, desired, and earnestly prayed for.

Secondly , As a general foundation of what is afterwards ascribed unto him, or as the way whereby he entered on his office, he affirms that he is “come:” “Christ being come,” —parageno>menov . The word is nowhere else used to express the advent or coming of Christ. Hence by the Vulgar it is rendered “assistens;” which as it doth not signify to “come,” so the sense is corrupted by it. The Rhemists render that translation, “but Christ assisting an high priest.” But this increaseth the ambiguity of the mistake of that translation, as not declaring that Christ himself was this high priest, which is the direct assertion of the apostle. That which is intended is the accomplishment of the promise of God, in the sending and exhibition of Christ in the flesh: ‘He being now come, according as was promised from the foundation of the world.’ For although the word is inseparable in its construction with what followeth, “an high priest,” —”being come an high priest;” yet his coming itself in order unto the susception and discharge of that office is included in it. And upon this coming itself depended the demonstration of the faithfulness of God in his promises. And this is the great fundamental article of Christian religion, in opposition unto Judaism, as it is declared, 1 John 4:2,3. Wherefore, by his being “come,” in this place, no one single act is intended, as his advent or coming doth usually signify his incarnation only; but the sense of the word is comprehensive of the whole accomplishment of the promise of God in sending him, and his performance of the work whereunto he was designed thereon. In that sense is he frequently said to come, or to be come, 1 John 5:20.

And, as was before observed, there is not only argument herein unto the apostle’s design, but that which, being duly weighed, would fully determine all the controversy he had with these Hebrews. For all their legal administrations were only subservient unto his coming, and representations thereof, —all given in confirmation of the truth of the promises of God that so he should come: wherefore upon his coming they must all necessarily cease and be removed out of the church.

Thirdly , There is in the words a determination of the especial end of his coming, under present consideration, —”an high priest,” “being come an high priest;” that is, in answer unto and in the room of the high priest under the law. This states the subject of the apostle’s argument. He had before proved that he was to be a priest, that he was a priest, and how he came so to be. He now asserts it as the foundation of those actings which he was to ascribe unto him in answer unto those of the legal high priests, whose offices and services, with the effects of them, he had before declared: ‘Those high priests did so, “but Christ being come an high priest,” etc.’

Fourthly , He adds the especial object of his office, or the things about which he is conversant in the discharge of it: “ Of the good things to come.” As the assertion is positive, so there is a comparison and opposition included in it. The high priests of the law were not so. They were not priests of “good things;” that is, absolutely, or such as were necessary unto the purification, sanctification, and justification of the church. And so far as they were priests of good things, they were so of good things present, not of the good things promised, that were for to come. And this is the force of the article tw~n, “of the good things;” namely, that God had promised unto the church. A priest, or a high priest, may be said to be the priest of the things that he doth in the execution of his office, or of the things which he procureth thereby; he is the priest of his duties, and of the effects of them; — as a minister may be said to be a minister of the word and sacraments which he administereth, or of the grace of the gospel which is communicated thereby. Both are here included, both the duties which he performed and the effects which he wrought.

The things whereof Christ is a high priest, are said to be “things to come;” — that is, they are yet so, absolutely so; or they were so called with respect unto the state of the church under the old testament. Most expositors embrace the first sense. ‘These good things to come,’ they say, ‘are that future eternal salvation and glory which were procured for the church by the priesthood of Christ, and were not so by the Levitical priesthood. To the administration of the priesthood under the law he assigns only things present, temporal things, or what could be effected by them in their own virtue and power; but unto that of Christ he assigns eternal things, as he speaks immediately, he hath “obtained eternal redemption for us.” The eternal salvation and glory of the church were procured by the priesthood of Christ, or Christ himself in the discharge of that office, and were not so by the Levitical priests. These things are true, but not the meaning, at least not the whole meaning, of the apostle in this place. For, — 1. This confines the relation of the priesthood of Christ in this place unto the effects of it only, and excludes the consideration of his sacerdotal actings in the great sacrifice of himself; for this was not now to come, but was already past and accomplished. But this is so far from being excluded by the apostle, as that it is principally intended by him. This is evident from the words ensuing, wherein the tabernacle is described in which he was thus “an high priest of good things to come;” for this was his human nature, wherein he offered himself, as we shall see. 2. He doth not in this place compare together and oppose the future state of glory which we shall have by Christ with and unto the state of the church in this world under the old testament; which were not equal, nor would be cogent unto his purpose, seeing the saints of old were also made partakers of that glory. But he compares the present state of the church, the privileges, advantages, and grace which it enjoyed by the priesthood of Christ, with what it had by the Aaronical priesthood; for the fundamental principle which he confirms is, that the telei>wsiv , or present “perfection” of the church, is the effect of the priesthood of Christ.

Wherefore the apostle expresseth these things by that notion of them which was received under the old testament and in the church of the Hebrews, namely, the “good things to come;” —that is, they were so from the beginning of the world, or the giving of the first promise. Things which were fore-signified by all the ordinances of the law, and which thereon were the desire and expectation of the church in all preceding ages; the things which all the prophets foretold, and which God promised by them, directing the faith of the church unto them; in brief, all the good things in spiritual redemption and salvation which they looked for by the Messiah, are nero called the “good things to come.” Of these things Christ was now come the high priest; the law having only the shadow, and not so much as the perfect image of them, Hebrews 10:1. And these things may be referred unto two heads: — (1.) Those wherein the actual administration of his office did consist, for, as we said, he was the high priest of the duties of his own office, he by whom they were performed. These in general were his oblation and intercession. For although his intercession be continued in heaven, yet was it begun on the earth; as his oblation was offered on the earth, but is continued in heaven, as unto the perpetual exercise of it. The whole preparation unto, and actual oblation of himself, was accompanied with most fervent and effectual intercessions, Hebrews 5:7. And such was his solemn prayer recorded John 17:These things themselves, in the first place, were the “good things to come.” For these were they which were designed in, and the substance of, the first promise; as also of all those which were afterwards given for the confirmation of the faith of the church therein. These did all the legal institutions direct unto and represent. And that they are here intended by the apostle, he plainly declares in the next verse; for with respect unto these good things to come, he opposeth his own blood and sacrifice, with the atonement he made thereby, unto the blood of bulls and of goats, with whatever could be effected thereby. (2.) The effects of these sacerdotal actings are also intended: for these also are reckoned hereunto in the close of the next verse, in the instance of one of them, namely, “eternal redemption,” which is comprehensive of them all. And these also were of two sorts: — [1.] Such as immediately respected God himself. Of this nature was the atonement and reconciliation which he made by his blood, and peace with God for sinners thereon. See 2 Corinthians 5:19,20; Ephesians 2:14-16. [2.] The benefits which hereon are actually collated on the church, whereby it is brought into its consummate state in this world. What they are we have discoursed at large on Hebrews 7:11.

These, therefore, are the “good things to come,” consisting in the bringing forth and accomplishing of the glorious effects of the hidden wisdom of God, according unto his promises from the beginning of the world, in the sacrifice of Christ, with all the benefits and privileges of the church, in righteousness, peace, and spiritual worship, which ensued thereon. And we may observe, — Obs. I. These things alone are the true and real good things that were intended for and promised unto the church from the beginning of the world. —The Jews had now utterly lost the true notion of them, which proved their ruin; and yet do they continue in the same fatal mistake unto this day. They found that great and glorious things were spoken of by all the prophets, to be brought in at the coming of the Messiah; and the hope of good things to come they lived upon, and continue yet so to do. But being carnal in their own minds, and obstinately fixed unto the desire of earthly things, they fancied them to consist in things quite of another nature; —honor, riches, power, a kingdom and dominion on the earth, with a possession of the wealth of all nations, were the good things which they hoped were to come. As to reconciliation and peace with God by a full and perfect atonement for sin, righteousness, deliverance from spiritual adversaries, with a holy worship acceptable unto God, they are things which they neither desired nor regarded. Wherefore, choosing the world and the things of it before those which are spiritual and heavenly, unto the world they are left, and the curse which it lieth under. And it is to be feared that some others also have deceived themselves with carnal apprehensions of the good things, if not of the priesthood, yet of the kingdom of Christ.

Obs. II. These things alone are absolutely good unto the church; all other things are good or evil as they are used or abused. —Outward peace and prosperity are good in themselves, but oftentimes they prove not so to the church. Many a time have they been abused unto its great disadvantage.

They are not such things as are too earnestly to be desired, for who knows what will be the end of them? But these things are absolutely good in every state and condition.

Obs. III. So excellent are these good things, as that the performance and procuring of them were the cause of the coming of the Son of God, with his susception and discharge of his sacerdotal office. —They are excellent in their relation unto the wisdom, grace, and love of God, whereof they are the principal effects; and excellent in relation unto the church, as the only means of its eternal redemption and salvation. Had they been of a lower or meaner nature, so glorious a means had not been designed for the effecting of them. Woe unto them by whom they are despised! “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?” And, — Obs. IV. Such a price and value did God put on these things, so good are they in his eyes, as that he made them the subject of his promises unto the church from the foundation of the world. —And in all his promises concerning them, he still opposed them unto all the good things of this world, as those which were incomparably above them and better than them all. And therefore he chose out all things that are precious in the whole creation to represent their excellency; which makes an appearance of promises of earthly glories in the Old Testament, whereby the Jews deceived themselves. And because of their worth, he judged it meet to keep the church so long in the desire and expectation of them.

Fifthly , That which the apostle hath immediate respect unto in the declaration of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, is what he had newly at large declared concerning the tabernacle and the service of the high priest therein. Wherefore he assigns a tabernacle unto this high priest, in answer unto that under the law, whereby he came, or wherein he administered the duties of his office. And concerning this he, 1. Asserts that “he came by a tabernacle.” 2. Describes this tabernacle in comparison with the former: (1.) Positively, that it was “greater and more perfect;” (2.) Negatively, in that being “not made with hands,” it was not of the same building with it. 1. He came by a tabernacle. These words may have prospect unto what is afterwards declared in the next verse, and belong thereunto; —as if he bad said, ‘Being come an high priest, he entered into the holy place by a perfect tabernacle, with his own blood;’ for so the high priest of the law entered into the holy place, by or through the tabernacle, with the blood of others But the words do rather declare the constitution of the tabernacle intended than the use of it, as unto that one solemn service; for so before he had described the frame and constitution of the old tabernacle, before he mentioned its use. “Being come an high priest, by such a tabernacle;” that is, wherein he administered that office. What is the tabernacle here intended, there is great variety in the judgment of expositors, Some say it is the church of the new testament, as Chrysostom, who is followed by many. Some say it is heaven itself. This is embraced and pleaded for by Schlichtingius, who labors much in the explanation of it. But whereas this is usually opposed, because the apostle in the next verse affirms that “Christ entered into the holies,” which he expounds of heaven itself, by this tabernacle, which therefore cannot be heaven also, he endeavors to remove it. For he says there is a double tabernacle in heaven. For as the apostle hath in one and the same place described a double tabernacle here on earth, a first and a second, with their utensils and services, distinguished the one from the other by a veil; so there are two places in heaven answering thereunto. The first of these he would have to be the dwelling-place of the angels; the other the place of the throne of God himself, represented by the most holy place in the tabernacle. Through the first of these he says theLORD Christ passed into the second, which is here called his tabernacle. And it is indeed said that the Lord Christ in his exaltation did “pass through the heavens,” and that he was “made higher than the heavens;” which would seem to favor that conceit, though not observed by him. But there is no ground to conceit or fancy such distinct places in heaven above; yea, it is contrary to the Scripture so to do, for the residence of the holy angels is before and about the throne of God. So are they always placed in the Scripture, Daniel 7:10; Matthew 18:10; Revelation 5:11. And these aspectable heavens, which Christ passed through, were not so much as the veil of the tabernacle in his holy service, which was his own flesh, Hebrews 10:20. The only reason of this ungrounded, curious imagination, is a design to avoid the acknowledgment of the sacrifice of Christ whilst he was on the earth. For this cause he refers this tabernacle unto his entrance into the most holy place, as the only means of offering himself. But the design of the apostle is to show, that as he was a high priest, so he had a tabernacle of his own wherein he was to minister unto God. 2. This tabernacle, whereby he came a high priest, was his own human nature. The bodies of men are often called their tabernacles, Corinthians:5:1; 2 Peter 1:14. And Christ called his own body the temple, John 2:19. His flesh was the veil, Hebrews 10:20. And in his incarnation he is said to “pitch his tabernacle among us,” John 1:14.

Herein dwelt “the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9, — that is, substantially; represented by all the pledges of God’s presence in the tabernacle of old. This was that tabernacle wherein the Son of God administered his sacerdotal office in this world, and wherein he continueth yet so to do in his intercession. For the full proof hereof I refer the reader unto our exposition on Hebrews 8:2.

And this gives us an understanding of the description given of this tabernacle in the adjuncts of it, with reference unto that of old. This is given us, — (1.) Positively, in a double comparative property: — [1.] That it was “greater” than it; —greater in dignity and worth, not quantity and measures. The human nature of Christ, both in itself, its conception, framing, gracious qualifications and endowments, especially in its relation unto and subsistence in the divine person of the Son, was far more excellent and glorious than any material fabric could be. In this sense, for comparative excellency and dignity, is mei>zwn almost constantly used in the New Testament. So is it in this epistle, Hebrews 6:13,16. The human nature of Christ doth thus more excel the old tabernacle than the sun doth the meanest star. [2.] “More perfect.” This respects its sacred use. It was more perfectly fitted and suited unto the end of a tabernacle, both for the inhabitation of the divine nature and the means of exercising the sacerdotal office in making atonement for sin, than the other was. So it is expressed, Hebrews 10:5, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not have, but a body hast thou prepared me.” This was that which God accepted, wherewith he was well pleased, when he rejected the other as insufficient unto that end. And we may hence observe, that, — Obs. V. The human nature of Christ, wherein he discharged the duties of his sacerdotal office in making atonement for sin, is the greatest, the most perfect and excellent ordinance of God; far excelling those that were most excellent under the old testament. —An ordinance of God it was, in that it was what he designed, appointed, and produced unto his own glow; and it was that which answered all ordinances of worship under the old testament, as the substance of what was shadowed out in them and by them. And I have labored elsewhere to represent the gloW of this ordinance as the principal effect of divine wisdom and goodness, the great means of the manifestation of his eternal glory. The wonderful provision of this tabernacle will be the object of holy admiration unto eternity. But the glory of it is a subject which I have elsewhere peculiarly labored in the demonstration of. And unto the comparison with those of old, here principally intended, its excellency and glory may be considered in these as in other things: 1st. Whatever they had of the glory of God in type, figure, and representation; that it had in truth, reality, and substance. 2dly. What they only shadowed out as unto reconciliation and peace with God, that it did really effect. 3dly. Whereas they were capable only of a holiness by dedication and consecration, which is external, giving an outward denomination, not changing the nature of the things themselves; this was glorious in real internal holiness, wherein the image of God doth consist. 4thly. The matter of them all was earthly, carnal, perishing; his human nature was heavenly as unto its original, —”the Lord from heaven;” and immortal or eternal in its constitution, —he was “made a priest after the power of an endless life;” for although he died once for sin, yet his whole nature had always its entire subsistence in the person of the Son of God. 5thly. Their relation unto God was by virtue of an outward institution or word of command only that of his was by assumption into personal union with the Son of God. 6thly. They had only outward, typical pledges of God’s presence; “in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” 7thly. They were exposed unto the injuries of time, and all other outward occurrences, wherein there was nothing of the glory or worship of God; he never did nor could suffer any thing but what belonged unto his office, and is now exalted above all adversities and oppositions. And other considerations of the like nature might be added.

Obs. VI. The Son of God undertaking to be the high priest of the church, it was of necessity that he should come by or have a tabernacle wherein to discharge that office, — He” came by a tabernacle.” So it is said unto the same purpose, that it “was of necessity that he should have somewhat to offer,” Hebrews 8:3. For being to save the church by virtue of and in the discharge of that office, it could not be otherwise done than by the sacrifice of himself in and by his own tabernacle. (2.) He describes this tabernacle by a double negation: [1.] That it was “not made with hands.” [2.] That it was “not of this building.” And this latter clause is generally taken to be exegetical of the former only, and that because of its introduction by tout j e]stin , “that is to say.” I shall consider both: — [1.] It was ajceiropoi>htov, — ”not made with hands.” The old tabernacle whilst it stood was the temple of God. So it is constantly called by David in the Psalms. Temples were generally sumptuous and glorious fabrics, always answering the utmost ability of them that built them. Not to have done their best therein they esteemed irreligious; for they designed to express somewhat of the greatness of what they worshipped, and to beget a veneration of what was performed in them. And this men in the degenerate state of Christianity are returned unto, endeavoring to represent the greatness of God, and the holiness of his worship, in magnificent structures, and costly ornaments of them. Howbeit the best of them all are made by the hands of men; and so are no way meet habitations for God, in the way he had designed to dwell among us. This Solomon acknowledgeth concerning the temple which he had built, which yet was the most glorious that ever was erected, and built by God’s own appointment: Chronicles 2:5, 6, “The house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?”

And 1 Kings 8:27, “Will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?”

Service was to be done unto God in that temple according unto his appointment, but a meet habitation for him it was not. And our apostle lays it down as a principle suited unto natural light, that “God, who made all things, could not dwell ejn ceiropoih>toiv nasi~v ,” —”in temples made with hands,” Acts 17:24. Such was the tabernacle of old; but such was not that wherein our Lord Jesus administereth his office.

There seems to me to have been an apprehension among the Jews that there should be a temple wherein God would dwell, that should not be made with hands. Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the first year of his ministry, upon his purging of the temple, upon their requiring a sign for the justification of his authority in what he had done, says no more but only, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” John 2:19.

He spake of the same temple, as to their destruction of it and his own raising it again. Thus he called his own body. “He spake,” saith the evangelist, “of the temple of his body.” That other fabric was a type thereof, and so partook of the same name with it; but yet was no further a temple, or a habitation of God, but as it was typical of that body of his, wherein the fullness of the Godhead did dwell. This testimony of his seemeth to have provoked the Jews above every other; —unless it was that, when he plainly declared his divine nature unto them, affirming that he was before Abraham; for this cast them into so much madness, as that immediately “they took up stones to cast at him,” John 8:58,59. But their malice was more inveterate against him for what he thus spake concerning the temple; for, three years after, when they conspired to take away his life, they made these words the ground of their accusation. But as is usual in such cases, when they could not pretend that his own words, as he spake them, were criminal, they variously wrested them to make an appearance of a crime, though they knew not of what nature. So the psalmist prophesied that they should do, Psalm 56:5,6. Some of them affirmed him to have said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days,” Matthew 26:61.

Which was apparently false, as is evident in comparing his words with theirs. Wherefore others of them observing that the witness was not yet home unto their purpose, and the d