Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews

There is in the words a comparison and opposition between the Levitical priests and Melchisedec in this matter of receiving tithes, which in general was common to them both. And we may consider in them, 1. The circumstances of the comparison. 2. The general agreement of both sorts, which is the ground of the comparison. 3. The parts of the antithesis, or opposition, or dissimilitude between

First. The manner of its introduction, in the earnestness of the assertion, in the particle μὲν; it is as much as quidem or equidem, ‘truly, verily,’ which is omitted in our translation,” though elsewhere the same particle is so rendered. ‘ ‘This, moreover, is the state of the case in this matter.’ And the insertion of it is proper unto an affirmation upon a concession, as this here is.

Secondly. The determination of the time or place, or manner of the opposition in those adverbs ὧδε and exe, ‘ here and there,’ ‘Qée usually refers unto place; and some think that the apostle hath respect unto Jerusalem the seat of the Levitical priesthood, and the land of Canaan, which alone was titheable according to the law. For the Jews do judge and that rightly, that the law of legal tithing extended not itself beyond the bounds of the land of Canaan; a sufficient evidence that it was positive and ceremonial. In oposition hereunto, exe, ‘there,’ must signify some other places, or any place where the priesthood of Melchisedec hath its signification; that is, in Christian religion. But the truth is, if ὧδε here signifies a certain and determinate place, that opposed in exe, ‘there,’ must be Salem, where Melchisedec dwelt, which was not only afterwards titheable, as within the bounds of Canaan, but most probably was Jerusalem itself, as we have declared, This conjecture, therefore, is too curious; nor do we need to tie u ourselves unto the precise signification of the word ὧδε, although that also be sometimes used with respect unto time as well as place. Wherefore, these words, ‘ here and there,’ do express the several different states under consideration. ‘ Here,’ is in thecase of the Levitical priesthood; and ‘there’ respects the case of Melchisedec, as stated, Gen. xiv.

Secondly. The foundation of the comparison, that wherein both agreed, is in this, that they received tithes. It is expressed of the one sort only, namely, the Levitical priests—they received tithes; but it is understood of the other also, whereon the word is repeated and inserted in our translation—but there he receiveth them. δΔεκατας λαμξανουσι, ‘they do receive tithes,’ in the present tense. But it may be said, there was none that then did so; or at least, de jure, could do so, seeing the law of tithing was abolished. Wherefore, an enallage may be allowed here of the present time for that which was past: they do, that is, they did so whilst the law was in force. But neither is this necessary; for, as I have before observed, the apostle admits or takes it for granted, that the Mosaical system of worship was yet continued, and argueth on that concession unto the necessity of its approaching abolition. And yet we need not here the use of this supposition. For the words determine neither time nor place, but the state of religion under the law. According to the law are tithes to be paid unto, and received by such persons. ‘This, therefore, is agreed, that both the Levitical priests and Melchisedec received tithes.

Thirdly. The opposition and difference lies in the qualification and properties of them by whom they are received. For, 1. Those on the one side, that is, of the Levitical priesthood, were αποθνησκοντες ανθρωποι, homines qui moriuntur, or homines morientes, ‘men that die, dying men;’ that is, men subject unto death, mortal men, who lived and died in the discharge of their office, according unto the common law of mortality. And the observation of Slichtingius on these words is, as far as I can understand, useless unto his own design, much more to the apostle’s. Notandum vero quod non mortalibus hominibus, sed morientibus tantum Melchisedecum autor opponat, nec immortalem eum esse, sed vivere dicit; vita autem non mortalitati sed morti proprie opponitur. Something is aimed at in way of security unto another opinion, namely, that all men were created in a state of mortality, without respect unto sin. But nothing is gotten by this subtlety. For by ‘dying men,’ the apostle intends not men that were actually dying, as it were at the point of death. For in that condition the priests could neither execute their office, nor receive tithes of the people. Only he describes such persons as in the whole course of their ministry were liable unto death, from the common condition of mortality, and in their several seasons died accordingly. Wherefore, dying men, or men subject to death, and mortal men, are in this case the same. And although life, as to the principle of it, be opposed unto death, yet as unto a continual duration, the thing here intended by the apostle, it is opposed unto mortality, or an obnoxiousness unto death. For a representation is designed of him, who was made a priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Wherefore, saith the apostle those who received tithes after the law, were all of them mortal men, that had both beginning of days and end of life. So the death of Aaron, the first of them, and in him of all his successors, is recorded in the Scripture.

In opposition unto this state of the Levitical priests, it is affirmed that exe:,in the case of Melchisedec, μαρτυρουμενος ore Jy, ‘it is witnessed that he liveth.’ How h® liveth, and how it is witnessed unto that he liveth, we must inquire. For it is apparently of Melchisedec, of whom, in the first place, as the type, these things are spoken; and yet we know that really, and in his own person, he was dead long before. But there are several things on the account whereof it is said, that it is witnessed that he liveth. For, 1. Whatever the Scripture is silent in as to Melchisedec, which it usually relates of others in the like state, our apostle takes for a contrary testimony unto him. For he lays down this general principle, that what the Scripture conceals of Melchisedec, it doth it to instruct us in the mystery of his person and — ministry, as types of Christ and his. Hence, the silence of the Scripture in what it useth to express, must in this case be interpreted as a testimony unto the contrary. So it witnessed of him, that he was without father, without mother, without descent, in that it mentioneth none of them. And, whereas he had neither beginning of days nor end of life recorded in the Scripture, it is thereby witnessed, that not absolutely, but as to his typical consideration, he liveth. For there are no bounds nor periods fixed unto his priesthood, nor did it expire by the bringing in that of Levi, as that did by the introduction of Christ’s. 2. He did actually continue his office unto the end of that dispensation of God, and his worship wherein he was employed; and this witnesseth the perpetuity of his life, in opposition unto the Levitical priests. For these two states are compared by the apostle, that of Melchisedec and that of Levi. There was a time limited unto this priesthood in the house of Aaron; and during that time one priest died and another succeeded in several generations, until they were greatly multiplied, as the apostle observeth, ver. 23. But during the whole dispensation of things with respect unto Melchisedec, he continued in his own person to execute his office from first to last, without being subject unto death, wherein it is witnessed that he liveth. 3. He is said ‘ to live,’ that is, always to do so, because his office continueth for ever, and yet no mere mortal man succeeded him therein. 4. In this whole matter, he is considered not absolutely and personally, but typically, and as a representation of somewhat else. And what is represented in the type, but is really, subjectively, and properly found only in the antitype, may be affirmed of the type as such. So it is in all sacramental institutions; as the paschal lamb was called expressly God’s passover, Exod. xii. 11, when it was only a pledge and token thereof; as under the New Testament, the bread and wine in the sacred supper, are called the body and blood of Christ, which they do represent. Thus it is true really and absolutely of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he liveth for ever, that he is a priest for ever, which the apostle much insisteth on, and urgeth to his purpose afterwards. ‘This eternity, or ever-living of Jesus Christ, was represented in Melchisedee, in that it is not said any where in the Scripture that he died: it is witnessed, therefore, that he liveth, because he whom he represents doth really do so, and his own death is not mentioned, on purpose that he might so represent him. And the apostle’s argument, unto the dignity and preeminence of Melchisedec above the Levitical priests in this instance, is of an unquestionable evidence. For consider Melchisedec, not in his natural being and existence, which belongs not unto this mystery, but in his Scripture-being and existence, and he is immortal, always living, wherein he is more excellent than those, who were always obnoxious unto death in the exercise of their office. And from the branches of this comparison we may take two observations,

Obs. VII. In the outward administration of his worship, God is pleased to make use of poor, frail, mortal, dying men. So he did of old, and so he continues still todo. ‘Our fathers, where are they? and the prophets do they live for ever?’ Zech. 1. 5. The prophets of old, the most eminent administrators under the Old Testament, they were all mortal dying men, and whilst they lived in this world, they were subject unto like passions with other men, James v.17. And the same account the apostle giveth us of the principal administrators of the New Testament, 2 Cor. iv. 8—12, vi. 8,9. And we know itis so with all those into whose hands the same work is transmitted. Yea, ofttimes as to the infirmities of body and outward condition, their weakness and frailty are signalized above others. Nor doth any advantage accrue to the gospel, by the secular exaltations of such as pretend unto the same employment, wherein, without other qualifications, they do little resemble the ministry of Christ himself. Such, I say, doth God please to make use of, persons obnoxicus unto all infirmities and temptations with all other believers, and equally with them falling under the stroke of mortality. He could have accom- _ plished his whole design immediately by his grace and Spirit, without the institution of any administrators. He could have employed his holy angels in the declaration and dispensation of the gospel; or he could have raised up men so signalized with wisdom, and all endowments of mind and body,as should have eminently distinguished them from the whole race of mankind besides. But waving these, and all other ways possible and easy unto his infinite wisdom and power, he hath chosen to make use in this great occasion, of poor, infirm, frail, tempted, sinning, dying men. And sundry reasons of this his holy counsel are expressed in the Scripture.

1, He doth it to make it evident that itis his own power, and nothing else, which gives efficacy and success unto all gospel administrations. 2 Cor. iv. 7, " We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.’ There is an excellency of power which accompanieth the dispensation of the word. Mighty spiritual effects are produced by it, such as wherein the glory of God doth consist, and whereon the eternal welfare of the souls of men doth depend. This glory in subduing the adverse power of sin, Satan, and the world, in the quickening, sanctifying, saving the souls of the elect, God will be seen and owned in, he will not give it unto another. Whereas, therefore, those by whom these treasures are communicated unto others, are frail, perishing, earthen vessels, or those by whom the gospel is dispensed are poor, frail, weak men, seen and known so to be, there is no veil by their ministry cast over the glory of God. There is not a soul convinced, converted, or comforted by their word, but they may truly say of it, as the apostles did of the miracle which they wrought, Acts. 1.19, ‘Why look ye so on us, as though by our own power and holiness we made this man to walk?” this blind man to see? this dead man to live? By the consideration of our meanness, all may discern that the excellency of this power is of God, and not of us. Yea, for this very end, our apostle refused to make use of such a persuasiveness of words and exercise of wisdom, as might give any appearance or countenance unto such an apprehension, as though by them this effect were produced. 1 Cor. u. 4, 5, « My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.’ And herein ought he to be an example unto us all. But it is come to that with many, that being destitute utterly of what he had, namely, an ability to dispense the word in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, they do wholly betake themselves unto what he refused, or the enticing words of man’s wisdom, according to their ability, But what the Jews spoke blasphemously of Christ, upon his opening the eyes of him who was born blind, may in a sense be truly spoken of any of us, upon the opening of the eyes of them that were spiritually blind: ‘ Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner.’

2. God hath so ordered things in wisdom and grace, that the adminstrators of holy things unto others, might have experience in themselves of their state and condition, so as to be moved with compassion towards them, care about them, and zeal for them. Without these graces, and this constant exercise, men will be but very useless instruments in this work. And these will not grow any where but in men’s own experience. For how shall he be tender, compassionate, careful, towards the souls of others, who knows no reason why he should be so towards his own? The high priest of old was such a one as could have compassion.en the ignorant and them that are out of the way, for that he himself was encompassed with infirmity, Heb. v. 2. And therein was he a type of Christ, who was in all points tempted as we are, that he might be ready to succour them that are tempted. This vave him the experience of compassion in the exercise of it. Wherefore, when a minister of the gospel knows his own weakness, infirmities, and temptations, his need of mercy and grace, the ways of his obtaining supplies of them, the danger of the snares which he is exposed unto, the value of his own soul, the preciousness of the blood of Christ, and excellency of the eternal reward, he cannot, considering the charge committed unto him, and the duty required of him, but be moved with pity, compassion, tenderness, love, and zeal, towards those unto whom he doth administer, especially considering how greatly their eternal welfare depends on his ability, diligence, and faithfulness, in the discharge of his duty. And this proves on sundry accounts, greatly to the advantage of the poor tempted disciples ot Christ. For it makes a representation unto them of his own compassion and love, as the great Shepherd of the sheep, Isa. xl. 11, and causeth a needful supply of spiritual provisions -to be always in readiness for them, and that to be administered unto them with experience of its efficacy and success. |

_ 3. That the power of gospel grace and truth may be exemplified unto the eyes of them unto whom they are dispensed, in the persons of them by whom it is administered according unto God’s appointment. All who know aught in this matter, know what temptations and objections will arise in the minds of poor sinners, against their obtaining any interest in the grace and mercy that is dispensed in the gospel.. Some, they judge, may be made partakers of them, but for them, and such as they are, there seems to be no relief provided. But is it no encouragement unto them, to see that by God’s appointment the tenders of his grace and mercy are made unto their souls, by men subject unto like passions with themselves, and who, if they had not freely obtained grace, would have been as vile and unworthy as themselves? For as the Lord called the apostle Paul to the ministry, who had been a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious, that he might in him show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern unto them who should hereafter believe on him to everlasting life, that is, for the encouragement even of such high criminal offenders to believe, 1 Tim. i. 13-—-16; so in more ordinary cases, the mercy and grace which the ministers of the gospel did equally stand in need of, with those to whom they dispense it, and which they have received, is for a pattern, example, and encouragement of them to believe after their example.

4. In particular, God, in this matter, maketh use of persons that die, that their testtmony unto the truth of gospel grace and mercy, may be complete and unquestionable. Death is the great touch-stone and trial of all things of this nature, as to their efficacy and sincerity. Many things will yield relief, and various refreshments in life, which upon the approach of death vanish into nothing. So it is with all the comforts of this world, and with all things that have not an eternal truth and substance in them. Had not those therefore who dispense sacred things, been designed themselves to come unto this touch-stone of their own faith, profession, and preaching, those who must die, and know always that they must do so, would have been unsatisfied what might have been the condition with them, had they been brought unto it; and so have ground to fear in themselves what will become of that faith, wherein they have been instructed, in the warfare of death when it shall approach. To obviate this fear and objection, God hath ordained that all those who administer the gospel, shall all of them bring their own faith unto that last trial; that so giving. a testimony unto the sincerity and efficacy of the things which they have preached, in that they commit the eternal salvation of their souls unto them, (and higher testimony none can give,) they may be encouragements to others to follow their examples, to imitate their faith, and pursue their course unto the end. And for this cause also doth God ofttimes call them forth unto peculiar trials, exercises, afflictions, and death itself in martyrdom, that they may be an example and encouragement unto the whole church.

I cannot but observe for a close of this discourse, that as the unavoidable infirmities of the ministers of the gospel, managed and passed through in a course of faith, holiness, and sincere obedience, are, on many accounts, of singular use and advantage unto the edification and consolation of the church; so the evil examples of any of them in life and death, with the want of those graces which should be excited unto exercise by their infirmities, is pernicious thereunto.

Obs. VILL. The life of the church depends on the everlasting life of Jesus Christ.— It is said of Melchisedec, as he was a type of him, ‘It is witnessed that he liveth.’ Christ doth so, and that for ever; and hereon under the failings, infirmities, and death of all other administrators, depends the preservation, life, continuance, and salvation of the church. But this must be spoken peculiarly on, ver. 27, whither 10 is remitted.

Ver. 9, ]0.—ir may be objected unto the whole preceding argument of the apostle, that although Abraham himself paid tithes unto Melchisedec, yet it followeth not that Melchisedec was superior unto the Levitical priests, concerning whom alone the question was between him and the Jews. For although Abraham might be a priest in some sense also, by virtue of common right, as were all the patriarchs, yet was he not so by virtue of any especial office, instituted of God to abide in the church. But when God afterwards, by peculiar law and ordinance, erected an order and office of priesthood in the family of Levi, it might be superior unto, or exalted above that of Melchisedec, although Abraham paid tithes unto him. This objection, therefore, the _ apostle obviates in these verses, and therewithal giving his former - argument a farther improvement, he makes a transition, according unto his usual custom (as it has been observed that it is his method to do) unto his especial design, in proving the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, above that of the law, which is the main scope of this whole discourse.

Ὡς επὸς εἰπεῖν, ut verbum dicere, ‘as to speak a word.’ Vul. Lat. ut ita dictum sit, ‘be it so said.’ Syr. ‘as ony one may say.’ Arab. ‘and it is said that this discourse, or reason, may be some way ended.’ Ut ita loquar, ‘as I may so speak.’ In the rest of the words there is neither difficulty, nor difference among translators.

There are three things observable in these words. 1. The manner of the introduction of the apostle’s new assertion. 2. The assertion itself, which hath the force of a new argument unto his purpose, ver. 9. And, 3. The preof of his assertion in ver,’ 10.

ὡς επὸος εἰπεῖν, ‘aS | may so say.’ This qualification of the assertion, makes an abatement of 1t one way or other. Now this is not, as to the truth of the proposition, but as to the propriety of the expression. The words are, as if that which is expressed, was actually so, namely, that Levi himself paid tithes, whereas it was so only virtually. The thing itself intended, was with respect unto the apostle’s purpose, as if it had been so indeed; though Levi not being then actually existent, he could not be tithed in his own person. Nor is the apostle dubious of the truth of the consequence which he urgeth from this observation, as if he had said prope dixerim, which is supposed as one signification of this phrase. Only the instance being new, and he arguing from what was virtual only, as if it had been actual, he gave his assertion this qualification. This is spoken upon an allowance of the common acceptation of the sense of these words among interpreters, For my part, I rather incline to judge, that he useth this phrase for as much as ut verbo dicam, to sum up the whole in a word. To put an issue unto this dispute, between the Levitical priesthood and that of Melchisedec; I say, that not only Abraham, but even Levi himself was tithed by him.

2. His assertion is, καὶ Λευι, that Levi who received tithes, was tithed in Abraham, namely, when Abraham gave the tithes of all to Melchisedec. By Levi he intendeth not the person of Levi absolutely, the third son of Jacob, but his posterity, or the whole tribe proceeding from him, so far as they were interested in the priesthood. For Levi himself never received tithes of any, the priesthood being erected in his family, long after his death, in the person of his great-grandchild Aaron. So then Levi who received tithes, is the same with the sons of Levi who received the priesthood, ver. 5, namely, in their several generations unto that day.

Of this Levi it is affirmed that δεδεκατωται δια Αβρααμ, ‘he was tithed or paid tithes in Abraham,’ or through him, and by him, as the word is. When Abraham himself gave tithes to Melchisedec, he did it not in his own name only, buf in the name of himself and his whole posterity. And this upon the principles before laid down and vindicated, proves the preeminence of the priesthood of Melchisedec, above that of the house and family of Levi. All the difficulty of the argument lies in the proof of the assertion, namely, that Levi did indeed so pay tithes in Abraham. This the apostle therefore proves by the observation which he lays down, ver. 10, § For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.’

3. The force of this proof seems to depend on a double principle. 1. That children, the whole posterity of any one, are in his loins before they are born. And this principle is sure in the light of nature and common reason; they are in them as the effect in its cause; nor have they any future existence, but with relation unto their progenitors, even the remotest of them. 2. That what any one doth, that all his posterity are esteemed to*do in and by him. But it is certain that this rule will not generally hold, nor indeed will it ever do so absolutely, without some other cogent circumstances. By human laws, the crimes of men reflect dishonour in some cases on their families; and on the

482 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [cH. Vii. other side, they entail the honour, which by their worth they have acquired on their posterities. What a man also gives away of his estate unto public uses, as in the foundation of schools or hospitals, his children may be said to do it in him, because so much is decreased from their inheritance. As here, what Abraham gave to Melchisedec, it was alienated from his posterity, Levi among the rest. But none of these things reach the case in hand, or are sufficient to give force or evidence unto the reasoning of the apostle. Wherefore, to find them out, sundry things must be observed, which are manifest truths in themselves, and on the supposition whereof, the apostle’s argument stands firm.

1. That Abraham was now called of God, and separated unto his service, so as to be the foundation of a new church in the world. And there is a relation unto such an original stock in all the branches, beyond what they have unto any other’ intermediate progenitors. Hence, all the idolatrous nations in the world, constantly made the first persons from whom they derived their original, of whose offspring they would be accounted, their gods whom they worshipped. These were their Joves indigetes, their home-born deities, whom they honoured, and whose honours they thought descended unto them by inheritance.

2. He had now received the promise, that God would be a God unto him and to his seed after him; whereby all his posterity were taken into covenant with him, and hereon Abraham covenanted with God in the name of, and as the great representative of all his seed. And such covenants are the foundation of all order and rule in this world. For after persons, or a people have covenanted into such agreements in government, and as to the administration of common right among themselves, provided the terms whereon they have agreed be good, and suitable to the light of nature, their posterity are not at liberty to alter and change them at their pleasure. For whereas they derive all their right and inheritances from their progenitors, they are supposed in them to have consented to all that was done by them.

3. Hereon what God said and did unto Abraham, he said it and did it unto all his seed in him. The promises were theirs, and the inheritance was theirs; yea, what God is said to give unto Abraham so often, namely, the whole land of Canaan, was never actually made good unto him in his own person, no, not a foot-breadth. But he received the grant of it as a representative of his posterity, who, four hundred years after, had the actual possession of it.,

4, What Abraham did solemnly in obedience unto God, by virtue of the covenant as a public condition thereof, he did undertake in it for his posterity, and performed it in their name. And therefore God enjoined him to bring all his posterity under the token of that engagement in circumcision, so soon as they were capable thereof. And on the other hand, God continually affirms that he would do them good, because of his oath and engagement unto Abraham, seeing- they were intended therein. Wherefore, °

5. Abraham in this solemn address unto God, by Melchisedec the type of Christ, wherein he expressed his covenant obedience unto him, was the representative of all his posterity, and in particular, of

Levi and of all the priests that descended from him. And having now received the whole land, by virtue of a covenant in the behalf of his posterity, that it should be theirs, though he himself had never possession of it, nor in it, he doth in the name of his posterity, and as their representative, give the tenths unto God by Melchisedec, as that chief rent which God for ever reserved unto himself, upon his grant. When the people came actually to possess the land, they held it always on this condition, that the tenths of all should be given unto God. And this Abraham in his taking seisin of it for them, paid in their name. So truly and virtually was Levi himself tithed in the loins of Abraham when Melchisedec met him. Wherefore, it was not merely Levi being in the loins of Abraham with respect unto natural generation, whence he is said to be tithed in him, but his being in him with respect unto the covenant which Abraham entered into with God in the name of his whole posterity.

This reasoning of the apostle’s, I confess, at first view seemeth as intricate and more remote from cogency, than any elsewhere used by him. And therefore by some profane persons hath it been cavilled at. But all things of that nature arise merely from want of a due reverence unto the word of God. When we come unto it with those satisfactions in our minds, that there is truth, and divine wisdom in every expression of it, that all its reasonings are cogent and effectual, though we understand them not, we shall not fail upon a humble inquiry to attain what we may safely embrace, or see what we ought to admire. And so this place, which at first sight seems to present us with a reasoning on a very uncertain foundation, being duly inquired into, we find it resolved into the firm principles of reason and religion.

And the foregoing observation will expedite two difficult questions which expositors raise to themselves on this verse. The first whereof is, whether Christ himself may not as well as Levi, be said to pay. tithes in Abraham, as being in his loins? which would utterly frustrate the design of the apostle. The second is, how, or in what sense one may be said to do any thing in another, which may be reckoned or imputed to him?

For the first of these, Austin and others have well laboured in the solution of it: the sum of what they say is, That the Lord Christ was not in Abraham as Levi was, not in his nature as it was corrupted; nor did he educe or derive his nature from him by carnal generation, or by the common way of the propagation of mankind. And these things do constitute a sufficient difference and distance between them in this matter. But yet with these considerations, and on the supposition of them, there is another which contains the true and proper reason of this difference. And that is, that the Lord Christ was never in Abraham as a federate, as one taken into covenant with him, and so represented by him, as Levi was. Abraham was taken into covenant with Christ, as the Head, Sponsor, Surety, and Mediator of the New Covenant, with respect whereunto he says of himself and the. elect, ‘ Behold. I and the children which the Lord hath given me.’ Hereon he was the representative of Abraham and of all that believe, and what he did is imputed to them. But he was never balcey into covenant with Abraham, nor was capable of so being, seeing to him it was a covenant of pardon and justification by faith, which he was no way concerned in but as the procurer of them for others. Wherefore what Abraham did, cannot be imputed to him, so as that he should be esteemed to have done them in him.

And this makes way for the solution of the general question, How one may be said to do any thing in another which shall be reckoned to him as his own act? And this may be by virtue of a covenant, and no otherwise. Hence divines do usually illustrate the imputation of the sin of Adam to his posterity by this example of Levi, though I have not met with any who truly understand the ground of the comparison, which is Abraham acting as a covenanter in the name of his posterity. But whereas this is is opposed with some vehemency by Slichtingius in his comment on this place, I shall transcribe his words, and consider his

discourse. ‘ Hec sententia non ad omnes actiones transferenda est; sed ad eas tantum, que proprié versantur vel in auctione vel m diminutione rerum que a parentibus in lberos devolvi et heereditario jure transferri solent, qualis actio est decimarum solutio. Persolvuntur enim de bonis et facultatibus, que hactenus cum sunt liberorum, quatenus jus hereditatis ad eos spectat, presertim si certum sit, fore liberos, qui in bona succedant, quemadmodum Abrahamo contigit, cui certa fuit ἃ Deo promissa posteritas. Quemadmodum enim heredes personam patris post mortem ratione possessionis bonorum veluti repreesentant, ita antequam heeredes a patre separentur et de bonis paternis statuendi arbitrium habeant, pater omnium liberorum suorum personam quadam ratione refert, et quicquid de illis statuerit aut fecerit id heredes quodammodo fecisse censentur. Dico, quodammodo, quia proprie id dici non potest; nec autor hic D. id propric factum esse asserit, sed improprietatem verbis suis subesse ipsemet profitetur, ut antea vidimus. Ex dictis autem facile intelligitur, id quod nos una cum autore D. statuimus, ad eos tantum successores seu posteros esse extendendum ad quos vel c-rto, ut Abrahami posteris conugit, vel saltem verisimiliter perventura sit hereditas parentis et notabilis aliqua bonorum ob eo profectorum portio. Alioquin vis illa hereditatis de qua diximus, expirabit, nec posteris tribui poterit id quod majorum aliquis circa bona sua fecerit. Quibus ita explicatis, facile jam apparet falli eos qui ex hoc loco colligunt omnem Adami posteritatem in ipso Adamo parente suo peccasse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. Nam vel de eo nunc quidquam dicam ipsum autorem improprietatem in hac loquendi forma agnoscere, nequaquam id extendendum est ad parentum majorumve peccata ac merita. Etenim peccata ac merita qua talia mere sunt personalia, seu personam ejus qui peccat non egrediuntur, nec eatenus parentes posteritatem suam representant; licet fieri queat ut ex eorum delicto damnum aliquod nec exiguum ad liberos redundet, quemadmodum quidem in Adami delicto contigit; ipsum tamen peccatum ac meritum Adami revera non -ommunicatur cum ejus posteritate, ac proinde posteri Adami ob parentis sui noxam revera non puniuntur, nisi et ipsi parentem fuerint imitati.’

I have transcribed these words at large, because their design is to defeat that article of our faith concerning the imputation of the sin of Adam to all his posterity, which there is no doubt but they will make use of, who are gone over among ourselves to the negative of it: and that 1t might appear whose heifer they plough withal, who deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to justification, because those things that are personal and inherent in one, cannot be communicated to another. 1 say, therefore, 1. That this assertion, of one being accounted to another in what he doth, holds only in those things which belong to the increase or diminution of an inheritance, which descends from parents to children, and not otherwise, is gratis dictum, without pretence or confirmation. Even in things moral, God threatens to visit the sins of the fathers on the children. So the Israelites wandered penally in the wilderness forty years, and bare the iniquity of their parents. The infants that perished in the flood, and at the conflagration of Sodom, died penally under the judgment that came for the sin of their parents. Wherefore the general foundation of his whole discourse is unproved and false, and the application of it to the present case, as we shall see, weak and impertinent. For, 2. This renders the argument of the apostle as weak and impertinent as any thing can be imagined. For it allows Levi to be no otherwise tithed in Abraham, but as part of the goods which Abraham gave in tithe to Melchisedec would have descended to him. For he was but one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandchild of Abraham, whose share in those tithes cannot be computed to be worth mentioning, much less to bear the weight of an argument in so great a cause. Besides, it is not the person of Levi, but his posterity in the family of Aaron, that is intended. And such moveables as were tithed by Abraham, do seldom descend through so many generations. It is therefore ridiculous to impose such a kind of argumentation on the holy apostle. ὦ, Yea, this interpretation is directly contrary to what the apostle designed to confirm by the instance he gives. For that which he aimed at, was to prove Levi inferior to Melchisedec, by his paying of tithes in the loins of Abraham. But if he did this no otherwise, but that some goods that should have descended to him were given to Melchisedec, it argues him rather superior to him; for absolutely he that gives is superior to him that receives, as it is in general a more blessed thing to give than to receive. 4. That which he proceeds on, is a general rule of his own framing, which is no way applicable to this particular case, as it 's a particular case. Itis that, as children succeed into the room of their parents as to their goods, and after a sort represent them; so parents before their children come to inherit, do represent their children, so as that they may be said in some sense, to do what is done by their parents. But this is a rule made without any colour of reason. For, Ist. I would know when this representation and concernment should expire, or whether it hold to all generations. If it hold for ever, then may we all be said, in some sort, to do what Adam did with his goods and lands before he died, and so of all our intervenient progenitors. If it do expire, and this relation abideth only for a season, I desire to know the bounds of that season. Aaron was the first of the house of Levi, who is intended in these words, and he was the seventh generation from Abraham, in which time, it is probable, if ever, this right of inheritance would expire. Qdly. It is not true in any sense, in the very next parents in most cases. For suppose a parent be wicked and flagitious, and shall waste his substance and goods in riotous living, in what sense shall his son, suppose him a person fearing God, be said so to have disposed of his goods in him? 3dly. The truth is, unless it be by a subsequent approbation of what our progenitors have done, or by virtue of a cove~ nant whereby they and their posterity were obliged, which is the case in hand, children can in no sense be said to do what their progenitors have done, in the disposal of their goods and inheritances. Neither indeed will a subsequent approbation give any tolerable sense to this assertion, unless there be a power of an effectual dissent in the children also. If aman give a part of his estate to found an hospital, and leave the care of it to his posterity, with this proviso, that if any of them saw just cause for it, they should resume the estate into their own possession; in case they do not so, they may in some sense be said to do, what indeed their father did. But if this be not in their power, though they approve of what he did, they cannot be said to have done it. But in covenants the case is plain. Men may enter_ imto a mutual covenant for the erection of a government among them, which proving a foundation of all their civil rights for the future, their posterity may be said to have made that covenant, and to be obliged thereby, as it was in this case. 5. Neither will it advantage his pretence, with a seeming acknowledgment of some impropriety in his assertion in those words, ὡς eroc emev, as I may so say.’ For although it should be granted that he intends some impropriety in the expression, yet there must be truth in his assertion, which this interpretation will not allow: for if it be true only in the sense he contends for, it is true in none at all, for that is not any. But the meaning of these words is, ut verbo dicam, that I may give you a summary of the whole, that which my argument riseth up to. 6. Having given us this crooked rule, he adds a limitation to it, whereby he hopes to reduce the whole to his purpose. “ For,’ saith he, ὁ this rule is not to be extended to the merits or sins of parents and ancestors, though some loss may acerue to the children thereby;’ for thence he infers, that though we may suffer some loss by the sin of Adam, yet his sin is not imputed to us. But, Ist. How far the children of flagitious parents may not only suffer loss, but undergo temporal punishment also for the sins of their parents, was shown before in the instances of those who perished in their infancy, both by the flood and in the conflagration of Sodom. 2dly. The case between any other parent and his posterity, is not the same as it was between Adam and us all; so that these things are sophistically jumbled together. There is indeed an analogy between Adam and his posterity on the one hand, and Christ with believers on the other, and never was there, nor shall there be the like relation between any else. For these two individual persons were appointed of God to be the heads of the two covenants, and representatives of the federates as to the ends of the covenants. Hence the whole evil of the one and the good of the other, as they were, and as far as they were, heads of the covenants, are imputed to them who derive from them in their respective covenants. But after the first sin Adam ceased to be a head to his posterity, as to the good or evil of that covenant, which was now broken and disannulled. Neither was he, nor any of his posterity ever after, restored or assumed into the same state and condition. It is therefore highly vain, to confound the consideration of our concern in what Adam did as he was the head of the covenant, with what he afterwards did, and other intervenient progenitors might do. All this our apostle confirms at large, Rom. v. 7. Abraham was taken into a new administration of the covenant with new promises and seals. But he neither was, nor could be, made the head and representative of that covenant whereinto he was taken, otherwise than typically. Hence his moral good or evil could not be reckoned to his posterity in covenant. But yet he was made the head and spring of the administration of its outward privileges; and this, so far as his trust extended, was imputed to his posterity, as in the case of circumcision. Wherefore seeing what he did to Melchisedec, belonged to the administration of the covenant committed to him, Levi is rightly said to have done it in him also. And so these things. do mutually illustrate one another. But to deny that we were all in Adam as the head of the first covenant, that we sinned in him, that the sin which we in any sense have sinned is imputed to us, is not to dispute with us, but expressly to contradict the Holy Ghost.

Obs. IX. They who receive tithes: of others for their work in holy administrations, are thereby proved to be superior to them of whom they do receive them.—They are given to them among other ends, as an acknowledgment of their dignity. So it was when they were paid of old by God’s institution; and so it would be still, if they might be paid or received in a due manner, with respect to the labour of any in gospel administrations. But whereas not one among thousands, doth give or pay them on any other ground but because they must do so whether they will or no; nor would do so any more, were it not for the coercive enforcing power of human laws; and whereas they on the other side that do receive them, do look on them not as a free pledge of the people’s respect and the honour that they bear to them, but as their own right and due by law, they are a testimony neither of the people’s obedience, nor of the minister’s dignity, but only of the extreme disorder of all things in religion.

Obs. X. It is of great concern to us, what covenant we do belong to, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representatives in our name.—There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned. The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam and with all in him, And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed to us as if we had done it, Rom. v. 12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lieth the life and hope of our souls, that what Christ did as the Head of that covenant as our representative, it is all imputed to us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance to us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong to; we are also some way concerned in them, by whom that one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed to us. For before we make our own personal voluntary choice, we are by the law of our natures, and of the covenant itself, inclosed in the Same condition with our progenitors, as to their covenant-state. And thence it is that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved, being esteemed in some manner _ to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings on the other hand are they partakers of, who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace. For such parents succeed in the room of Abraham every one of them. And what Abraham did as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place, and therefore had the seal of the covenant given to them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so ~ to he. |

Ver. 11.—In this verse, after so long a preparation and introduction, whereby he cleared his way from objections, and secured his future building, the apostle enters on his principal argument, concerning the priesthood of Christ, and all the consequences of it with re~ spect unto righteousness, salvation, and the worship of God, which depend thereon. This being his main design, he would not engage into it, before he had in every respect declared and vindicated the dig~ _nity and glory of the person of Christ, as vested with his blessed offices. And from hence unto the didactical part of the epistle, he proceeds in a retrograde order unto what he had before insisted on, For whereas he had first declared the glory of the person of Christ in now entered on his sacerdotal, he goes on to enlarge upon this last function; then he returns unto his prophetical, and shuts up the whole with a renewed mention of his kingly power, as we shall see in their order and proper places.

scruple, ‘ by the Levitical priesthood,’ the priesthood that was confined to the house, family, tribe, and posterity of Levi.

‘O λαος yap ex’ αὐτῃ νενομοϑετητο, M.S. evevonooSernro, corruptly; Nam sub hoc, populo sancita est lex, Beza. ‘ For under it the law was established to the people.’ Sub ipso populus legem accepit, acceperat; Syr. ΝΡ Nowa) DD 727, ‘ by whom, or whereby the law was imposed upon the people.’ If mas, ‘by whom,’ relate unto Levi, the sense is mistaken; and much more by the Arab. which takes the law only for the law of the sarcerdotal ottice, from which it is plainly distinguished. The Ethiopic reads the whole verse to this purpose: ‘ And the people did according to the law of the priesthood which was appointed; what need was there therefore that he should give another priest, whose appointment one should say was according to Melchisedec?? which argues the great unskilfulness of that interpreter.

Tec ere χρεία, quid adhuc, quid amplius opus erat, esset; necessarium fuit? ‘What need was there yet, or moreover.’ Syr. N22, wherefore,’ ad quid? ‘ to what purpose 2”

Καὶ ov κατα την ταξιν Ααρων λεγεσϑαι, Et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici, Syr. pt “0x, which is rendered in the translation in the Polyglot, sed dixit, ‘but he said, it shall be, or‘he shall be in the likeness of Aaron:’ Dixisset autem, which, regulated by the precedent interrogation, gives us the trae sense of the place. ‘ Suppose there must another priest arise, yet if perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood, he would have said that he should be of the order of Aaron.’ ‘

Ver. 11.—IJf therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law) what farther need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron.

The first thing in the words, is the introduction of the ensuing discourse and argument, in those particles of inference, εἰ μὲν ουν, ‘ if therefore.’ If things be as we have declared, he had a peculiar scope and design in all those things. These he is now introducing. The improvement of his whole preceding discourse, and the whole mystery of the priesthood of Melchisedec, he will now make an application of unto the great cause he had in hand. He hath proved by all sorts of arguments, that the priesthood of Melchisedec was superior unto that of Aaron. Before he had evinced that there was to be another priest after his order; and this priest must of necessity be greater than all those who went before him of the tribe of Levi, inasmuch as he was so, by whom he was represented before the institution of that priesthood. Now he will let the Hebrews know whither all these things do tend in particular, and what doth necessarily follow from, and depend upon them. This he lays the foundation of in this verse, and declares in those following. And that they might consider how what he had to say was educed from what he had before proved, he introduceth it with these notes of inference, εἰ μὲν ovv, ‘if therefore.’ And to comprehend the meaning of these words in general, with the design of the apostle in them, we may observe,

1. That his reasoning in this case is built upon a supposition which the Hebrews could not deny. And this is, that τελείωσις, ‘ perfection or consummation,’ is the end aimed at in the priesthood of the church. That priesthood which perfects or consummates the people, in order unto their acceptance,with God, and future enjoyment of him, their present righteousness and future blessedness, is that which the church stands in need of, and cannot rest till it comes unto. That priesthood which doth not do so, but leaves men in an imperfect unconsummated estate, whatever use it may be of for a season, yet cannot it be perpetual unto the exclusion of another. For if so, either God had not designed to consummate his people, or he must do it some other way, and not by a priesthood. The first is contrary to the truth and faithfulness of God in all his promises, yea, would ‘make all religion vain and ludicrous. For if it will never make men perfect, to what end doth it serve, or what must do so in the room thereof? That this should be done in any other way, than by a priesthood, the Hebrews did neither expect nor believe. For they knew full well, that all the ways appointed by the law, to make atonement for sin, to attain righteousness and acceptance with God, depended on the priesthood and services of it, in sacrifices and other parts of divine worship. If therefore the apostle proves that perfection could not be attained by, nor under the Levitical priesthood, it necessarily follows, that there must be some more excellent priesthood remaining as yet to be introduced. This therefore he undeniably evinceth by this consideration.

2. Look unto the Levitical priesthood in the days of David and Solomon. Then was that order in its height and at its best; then was the tabernacle first, and afterwards the temple, in their greatest glory, and the worship of God performed with the greatest solemnity. The Hebrews would grant, that the priesthood of Levi could never arise to a higher pitch of glory, nor be more useful than it was in those days. Yet, saith he, it did not then consummate the church; perfection was not then attainable by it. This the Jews might deny, and plead that they desired no more perfection than what was in those days attamed unto. Wherefore our apostle proves the contrary; namely, that God designed a perfection or consummation for his church, by a priesthood, that was not then attained. This he doth by the testimony of David himself, who prophesied and foretold that there was to be another priest after the order of Melchisedec. For if the perfection of the church was all that God ever aimed at by a priesthood; if that were attained, or attainable by the priesthood in David’s time, to what end should another be promised to be raised up of another order? To have done so, would not have been consistent with the wisdom of God, nor the immutability of his counsel. For unto what purpose should a new priest of another order be raised up, to do that which. was done before? Wherefore,

3. The apostle obviates an objection that might be raised against the sense of the testimony produced by him, and his application of it. For it might be said, that as after the institution of the Levitical priesthood, there was yet mention of another priest to rise, it might be some eminent person of the same order, such a one as Joshua the son of Josedec after the captivity, who was eminently serviceable in the house of God, and had eminent dignity thereon, Zech. iii. 4—-7. So that the defect supposed might be in the persons of the priests, and not in the order of the priesthood. This the apostle obviates, by declaring that if it had been so, he would have been called or spoken of as one of the order of Aaron. But whereas there were two orders of the priesthood, the Melchisedecian and Aaronical, it is expressly said that this other priest should be of the former, and not of the latter.

4. He hath yet a farther design, which is not only to prove the necessity of another priest and priesthood, but thereon also a change and an abrogation of the whole law of worship under the Old Testament. Hence he here introduceth the mention of the law, as that which was given at the same time with the priesthood, and had such a relation thereunto, as that of necessity it must stand and fall with it. And this may suffice for a view of the scope of this verse, and the force of the argument contained in it. We shall now consider the particulars of it.

1. A supposition is included, that τελείωσις, which we render ὁ perfection,’ is the adequate and complete end of the office of the priesthood in the church. This, at one time or another, in one order or another, it must attain, or the whole office is useless. And the apostle denies that this could be obtained, dia της Λευϊτικης ἱερωσυνης, ‘ by the Levitical priesthood.’ And he calls the priesthood of the law Levitical, not only because Levi was their progenitor, the patriarch of their tribe, from whom they were genealogised; but also because he would comprise in his assertion, not only the house of Aaron, unto whom the right and exercise of the priesthood was limited and confined, but he would also take into consideration the whole Levitical service which was subservient unto the office of the priesthood, and without which it could not be discharged. Wherefore the Levitical priesthood is that priesthood in the family of Aaron, which was assisted in all their sarcerdotal actings and duties by the Levites, who were consecrated of God unto that end. That τελείωσις, or ‘ perfection,’ was of this priesthood, is denied in a restrictive interrogation. If it had been so, it would have been otherwise with respect unto another priest, than as it is declared by the Holy Ghost.

that are sanctified.’ This τελείωσις, the effect and product of τετελειίωκεν, is wrought towards them who are sanctified, and so doth not consist in their sanctification. Much less therefore doth.it signify an absolute perfection of inherent holiness. Some men no sooner hear the name of perfection in the Scripture, but they presently dream of an absolute, sinless, inherent perfection of holiness, which, if they are not utterly blinded and hardened, they cannot but know themselves far enough distant from. But this word hath no such signification. But if it denote not internal holiness at all, it cannot denote the perfection of it. Nor is any such perfection attainable in this life, as the Scripture every where testifies. Wherefore the apostle hath no need to prove that it was not attainable by the Levitical priesthood, nor to reflect upon it for that reason, seeing it is not attainable by any other way or means whatever. We must therefore diligently inquire into the true notion of this τελείωσις, or “ perfection,’ which will guide the remaining interpretation of the words. And concerning it we may observe in general,

First. That it is the effect, or end, or necessary consequent of a priesthood. This supposition is the foundation of the whole argument of the apostle. Now the office and work may be considered two ways. 1. With respect unto God, who is the first immediate object of all the proper acts of that office. 2. With respect unto the church, which is the subject of all the fruits and benefits of its administration.

If we take it in the first way, then the expiation of sin is intended in this word. For this was the great act and duty of the pmesthood towards God, namely, to make expiation of sin, or atonement for it by sacrifice. And if we take the word in this sense, the apostle’s assertion is most true. For this perfection was never attaimable by the Levitical priesthood. It could expiate sin, and make atonement only typically, and by way of representation; really and effectually, as to all the ends of spiritual reconciliation unto God, and the pardon of sin, they could not do it. For it was not possible, as our apostle observes, that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins, ch. x. 4, which he also proves in his ensuing discourse at large. But I do not know that this word is any where used in this sense, nor doth it include any such signification. And whereas God is the immediate object of that sacerdotal energy whereby sin is expiated, it is the church that is here said to be perfected; so that expiation of sin cannot be intended thereby, though it be supposed therein. Besides, the apostle doth not here understand sacrifices only, by which alone atonement was made, but all other administrations of the Levitical priesthood whatever.

The Socinians would have expiation of sin here intended, and I shall therefore examine briefly what they speak to this purpose, in

their comment on this place. Perfectionis, reAcuwoewc, Nomine hoe loco nihil aliud intelligit autor, quam veram et perfectam expiationem peccatorum, qua non tantum quorundam sed omnium etiam gravissi-~ morum criminum reatus, isque non tantum peenz alicujus temporarie et ad hanc vitam spectantis, sed ipsius eternze mortis aufertur, Jusque homini vitae sempiterne conceditur; qua denique non tantum reatus omnis omnium peccatorum, sed et ipsa peccata in hominibus tolluntur.

Namque his in rebus vera hominum perfectio coram Deo consistit. Si ergo hc perfectio hominibus contingere potuisset per sacerdotium Leviticum, certé nullus fuisset usus novi sacerdotis Melchisedeciani. Sacerdotium enim propter peccatorum expiationem constituitur. At ‘si perfecta peccatorum expiatio contingebat per Aaronicum sacerdotium, quid opus erat novum istum superinducere sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedeci, ut scilicet perageret id, quod peragere potuerat Aaronicus? Quocirea cim Deus illum constituere voluerit, atque adeo jam constituerit; hinc patet nemini per Leviticum sacerdotium, perfectionem seu perfectam expiationem contigisse, ut certe non contigit. Quorundam enim peccatorum expiatio per illud fiebat, nempe ignorantiarum et infirmitatum; gravium autem peccatorum et scelerum poena mortis luenda erat. Nec ista expiatio ad tollendam zternam mortem quidquam virium habuit, sed tantum ad tollendas quasdam poenas temporarias, et huic vite proprias. Nec denique illis sacrificiis ulla vis inerat homines ab ipsis peccatis retrahendi.

1. What in general is suited unto the apostle’s argument, whatever be the sense of the reAewwore here mentioned, is approved. The question is, whether the expiation of sin be here intended, what is the nature of that expiation, and what was the use of the sacrifices under the law? All which on this occasion are spoken unto, and the mind of the Holy Ghost in them all perverted. For, 1. That expiation of sin, properly so called, by an act of the priestly office towards God, 15 not here intended, hath been before declared, beth from the signification of the word, and the design of the apostle. What these men intend by the expiation of sin, and how remote it is from that which the Scripture teacheth, and the nature of the. thing itself requireth in the reason and common understanding of all mankind, | have fully evinced in the Excercitations about the priesthood of Christ. And take expiation in the sense of the Scripture, with the common sense and usage of mankind, and in their judgment, it was by the Levitical priesthood, and was not by the priesthood of Christ. For it cannot be denied, but that the Levitical priests acted towards God, in their offering of sacrifices to make atonement for sin. But that the Lord Christ did so, is by these men denied. For that which under this name they ascribe unto him, is only the taking away of punishment due unto sin by his power, which power was given him of God upon his ascension or entrance into heaven as the holy place. 2. They deny that expiation was by the Levitical priesthood, on two grounds.” First. Because they did expiate only some lesser sins, as of ignorance and infirmity; and so it cannot be said to be by them, because they were only some few sins that they could expiate. Secondly. Because their expiation concerned only deliverance from temporal punishment. That expiation, in the Scripture sense, could not be really effected by the Levitical priesthood, is granted, and shall afterwards be proved. But both these pretended reasons of it are false. For, First. There was an atonement made in general for all the sins of the people. For when Aaron made an atonement by the scapegoat, Lev. xvi. 10, he confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sin, ver. 21. And herein the greatest as well as the least of their sins were comprised. For although there were some sins which being capital, according unto the constitutions of their commonwealth, in which respect there was no sacrifice appointed in particular whereby they who were guilty of them might be freed from punishment, that the ordinances of God might not seem to interfere; yet had they by their interest in the more general sacrifices, a right unto expiation of sin as to its guilt, for otherwise every one who died penally, must of necessity die eternally. Secondly. It is also false that their sacrifices had no other use but to free men from temporal punishments. Indeed it is a wild apprehension, that the use of sacrifices in the church of old, to be observed by the people with so creat solemnities, and under so great penalties, wherein the principal actings of faith did consist, as also the great exercise of the spiritual obedience of the whole church, should serve only to free men from legal, outward, civil, temporal punishments for lesser sins of ignorance and infirmity, which were none at all for the most part. Absolutely indeed, and of themselves, by virtue of their own worth, or by their own innate efficacy, they neither did, nor could expiate sin, as to its cuilt and eternal punishment, which attended all sin by the curse of law; nor did God ever appoint them for that end, yet they did it relatively and typically, that is, they represented and exhibited unto the faith of the sacrificers, that true effectual sacrifice to come, whereby all their sins were pardoned and done away. Wherefore, Thirdly. The difference between the expiation of sin by the Levitical priesthood and by Christ, did not consist in this, that the one expiated sin only with respect unto temporal punishments, the other with respect unto them that are eternal; but in the manner of their expiation, and the efficacy of each to that end. They expiated sins only typically, doctrinally, and by way of representation; the benefit received from their sacrifices being not contained in them, nor wrought by their causality, nor procured by their worth or value, but these were exhibited unto the faith of the sacrificers, by virtue of their relation unto the sacrifice of Christ. Hence were they of many sorts and often repeated, which sufficiently argues that they did not effect what they did represent. But the Lord Christ, by the one offering of himself, wrought this effect really, perfectly, and absolutely, by its own value and efficacy, according unto the constitution of God. But this is not the perfection here intended by the apostle.. Secondly. This τελείωσις respects the church, which is the subject of all the benefits of the priesthood, and it is that perfect state of the church in this world, which God from the beginning designed unto it. He entered upon its erection in the first promise, with respect unto his worship, and the blessed condition of the church itself. Hereon, and with respect hereunto, is the church-state of the Old Testament said to be weak and imperfect, like that of a child under governors and tutors. Hence, also, it had a yoke imposed on it, causing fear and bondage: ‘ God having ordained better things for us,’ or the church under the New Testament, iva un χωρις ἡμων τελειωθωσι, Heb. xi. 40, ‘that they without us should not be consummated,’ or made perfect in their church-state. And this state of the church is expressed by this word in other places, as we shall see. The foundation of it was laid in that word of our Saviour wherewith he gave up the ghost, τετελεσ- ται, John xix. 30, ‘It is finished,’ or completed; that is, all things belonging to that great Sacrifice whereby the church was to be perfected, were accomplished. For he had respect unto all that the prophets had foretold; all that he was to do in this world, and the consummatiun of the church was to ensue thereon, when, by one offering, he for ever perfected them that are sanctified. And those who were throughly instructed in the privileges of this church-state, and had a sense of the benefits thereof, are called τελειοι, ‘ perfect,’ 1 Cor. il. 6. We speak wisdom, εν τοῖς τελείοις, the mysteries of the gospel, wherein such persons discerned the wisdom of God. And so are they called, Heb. v. 14. This our Saviour prayed for in the behalf of his church, immediately before he procured it by his sacrifice, John xvil. 23, iva wot τετελειωμενοι, ‘that they may be perfected.’ And the end of the institution of the ministry of the gospel, to make his mediation effec tual unto the souls of men by the application of it in the word unto them, was to bring the church, εἰς avdpa τελειον, Eph. iv. 19, ‘to a perfect man,’ or that perfection of state which it is,capable of in this life. So the apostle informs us, that what he aimed at in his ministry, by warning every man, and teaching them in all wisdom, was that he might present, παντὰ avOpwrov τέλειον ev Χριστῳ, Col.i. 28, ‘every man,’ that is, all believers, ‘ perfect in Christ Jesus.’ For, ‘in him we are complete,’ ch. 1. 10, where, though another word be used, (πεπλη- owpevor) yet the same thing is intended; namely, that perfect com plete state of the church which God designed to bring it unto in Christ. And that our apostle useth the same word in the same sense in sundry places in this Epistle, we shall see in our progress.

1. As to its absolute completeness in its final issue. This the apostle denies that he himself had as yet attained, Phil. iii. 12, ‘ Not as though I had already attained, or received,’ cha€ov, namely, the whole of what is purchased for me by Christ, ἡ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, or were already made perfect,’ which could not be without attaining the resurrection of the dead, ver. 11, though the substance be so already in the saints departed; whence he calls them the spirits of just men, τετελει- ὠμενων, Heb. xii. 23, ‘made perfect.’ And this he calls absolutely, zo τέλειον, 1 Cor. xiii. 10, ‘that which is perfect;’ or that state of absolute perfection which we shall enjoy in heaven.

2. It may be considered as to its initial state in this world, expressed in the testimonies before recited; and this is that which we inquire after. And the Lord Christ, as the sole procurer of this state, is said to be τελειωτης, ‘the consummator, the perfecter, the finisher of our faith, or religious worship,’ Heb. xii. 2, as having brought us into a state τελειωσεως, ‘of perfection.’

This is that, whatever it be, which we shall immediately inquire into, that is denied unto the Levitical priesthood, and afterwards unto the law, as that which they could not effect. They could not, by their utmost efficacy, nor by the strictest attendance unto them, bring the church into that state of perfection, which God had designed for it in this world, and without which the glory of his grace had not been demonstrated.

Fourthly. The chief thing before us, therefore, is to inquire what this state of perfection is, wherein it doth consist, and what is required unto the constitution of it; and in the whole, to show that it could not be by the Levitical priesthood or law. Now, the things that belong unto it, are of two sorts. 1. Such as belong unto the souls and consciences of believers, that is, of the church: and, 2. Such as belong to the worship of God itself. For with respect unto these two, doth the apostle discourse, and asserts a state of perfection in opposition to the imperfect state of the church under the law, with respect unto them both. And as unto the first, there are seven things concurring unto the constitution of this state. 1. Righteousness. 2. Peace. 3. Light or knowledge. 4. Liberty with boldness. 5. A clear prospect unto a future state of blessedness. 6. Joy. 7. Confidence and glorying in the Lord. And the latter, ‘or the worship of the gospel, becomes a part of this state of perfection. 1. By its being spiritual. 2. Easy, as absolutely suited unto the principles of the new creature. 3. In that it is instructive. 4. From its relation unto Christ as the high priest. 5. From the entrance we have therein into~ the holy place. In these things consists that state of perfection which the church is called unto under the New Testament, which it could never attain by the Levitical priesthood. This is that kingdom of God which is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. xiv. 17. But because these things are of great importance, although the particulars are many, I shall briefly © consider them all apart.

First. The first thing constituting this gospel state of perfection, is righteousness. The introduction of all imperfection and weakness in the church, was by sin. This made the law weak, Rom. vill. 3, and sinners to be without strength, Rom. v. 7. Wherefore, the reduction of perfection, must in the first place be by righteousness. This was the great fundamental promise of the times of the New Testament, Isa. Ix. 21; Ps. Ixxu. 7, Ixxxv. 10,11. And this was to be brought in by Christ alone. Wherefore, one name whereby he was promised unto the church, was, ‘the Lord our righteousness,’ Jer. xxi. 6. Righteousness of our own we had none, nor could any thing in the whole creation supply us with the least of its concerns, with any thing that belongs thereunto; yet without it must we perish for ever. Wherefore, Jehovah himself becomes our righteousness, that we might say, ‘In Jehovah have we righteousness and strength, and that in him all the seed of Israel might be justified and glory,’ Isa. xlv. 24, 25. For ‘ by him are all that believe justified from all things from which they could not be justitied by the law of Moses,’ Acts xii. 39. To this end he brought in everlasting righteousness, Dan. ix. 24, pyadiy pr. Not a temporary righteousness suited unto the ody, the age of the church under the old covenant, which is often said to be everlasting in a limited sense; but that which was for all ages to make the church blessed unto eternity. So is he made unte us of God righteousness,

This is the foundation of the gospel τελείωσις, or ‘ perfection;’ and it was procured for us, by the Lord Christ offering up himself in sacrifice as our great high priest. For, ‘we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,’ Eph. i. 7. God having set him forth to be a ‘ propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the forgiveness of sins.’ And this he is in opposition unto whatever the law could effect, taking away that condemnation which issued from a conjunction of sin and the law. For ‘what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in. us,’ Rom. viii. 3, 4. The end of the law, in the first place, was to be a means and instrument of righteousness unto those to whom it was given. But after the entrance of sin, it became weak, and utterly insuflicient unto any such purpose: for, ‘by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” Wherefore, ‘ Christ is become the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth, Rom.x.4. And by whomsoever this is denied, namely, that Christ is our righteousness, which he cannot be but by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, they do virtually overthrow the very foundation of that state of perfection, which God had designed to bring his church unto. This, the Levitical priesthood could not effect, for the reason given in the words following: ‘ For under it the people received the law.’ It could do no more but what the law could do; but that could not make us righteous, because it was weak through the flesh. And by the deeds of the law, no man can be justified..

It may be said that believers had this righteousness under the Levitical priesthood, or they could not have had a good report through faith, namely, this testimony, that they pleased God.

Answ. 1. Our apostle doth not deny it, yea, he proves it at large by manifold instances, ch. xi, that they had it. Only he denies that they had it by virtue of the Levitical priesthood, or any duties of the law. He speaks not of the thing itself with respect unto the persons of believers under the Old Testament, but of the cause and means of if. What they had of this kind, was by virtue of another priesthood, which therefore, was to be introduced; and the other, which could not effect it, was therefore to be removed. He denies not perfection unto persons under the Levitical priesthood, but denies that they were made partakers of it thereby.

2. They had this righteousness really and as to the benefits of it, but had it not in that clearness and evidence of its nature, cause, and effects, as it is now revealed in the gospel. Hence, although their interest in it was sufficient to secure their eternal concernments, yet they had it not in such a way as was required unto this τελείωσις in this life. For we know how great a portion of the perfect state of the gospel consists in a clear apprehension, that Christ is, and how he 1s our righteousness, whereon the main of our present comforts do depend. The great inquiry of the souls of men is, how they may have a righteousness before God. And the clear discovery of the causes of it, of the way and manner how we are made partakers of it, is a great part of the perfection of the gospel state. 7:

3. It was so obscurely represented unto them, as that the law rose up in a competition with it, or rather against it, in the minds of the generality of the people. ‘They ‘looked for righteousness as it were by the works of the law,’ Rom. ix. 32, and on this rock of offence, this stumbling-stone, they shipwrecked their eternal condition, ver. 32, 33. For whilst they ‘ went about to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not unto the righteousness of God,’ Rom. x. 3. And we may easily apprehend how great a snare this proved to them. For there is in corrupted nature, such an opposition and enmity unto this righteousness of God in Christ, and the dictates of the law are so rivetted in the minds of men by nature, that now after the full and clear declaration of it in the gospel, men are shifting a thousand ways, to set up a righteousness of their own in the room of it. How strong, then, must the same inclination be in them who had nothing but the law to guide them, wherein this righteousness was wrapt up under many veils and coverings. Here, therefore, at the last, the body of the people lost themselves, and continne unto this day under the curse of that law, which they hoped would justify and save them.

Secondly. Peace is the next thing that belongs unto this gospel state of perfection. The ‘kingdom of God is peace,’ Rom. xiv. 17. To lay the foundation of this kingdom, the Lord Christ both made peace, and preached peace, or declared the nature of the peace he had made, tendering and communicating of it unto us, Eph. iu. 14—17. And this peace of evangelical consummation, is threefold. 1. With God. 2. Between Jews and Gentiles. 3. In and among ourselves.

1. It is peace with God. This is the first effect and fruit of the righteousness before mentioned, Isa. xxx. 17. For, ‘ being justified by faith, we have peace with God, Rom. v. 1. And hereon depends our peace in the whole creation above and below. And if we look into the promises of the Old Testament concerning the kingdom of Christ, the greatest part, and the most eminent of them, respect peace with God and the whole creation. All things in the creation were at odds, jarring and interfering continually, upon the entrance of sin. For an enmity thereby being introduced between God and man, it extended itself unto all other creatures that had either dependence on man, or were subservient naturally unto his use, or were put in subjection to him by God, the Lord of all. Hereby were they all cast into a state of vanity and bondage, which they groan under, and as it were, look out for a deliverance from, Rom. viii. 20—23. But in this gospel state, God designs a reconciliation of all things, or a reduction of them into their proper order. For he ‘ purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he would gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him,’ Eph. 1. 9,10. The avaxepadawore here mentioned, is the same on the matter with the τελείωσις in this place. God has in his counsel and purpose, distributed the times or ages of the world, into several parts or seasons, with respect unto his own works, and the revelation of his mind and will unto men. See our exposition on ch. i. 1. Every one of these parts or seasons, had its particular οἰκονομία, or ‘ dispensation.’ But there was a πληρωμα των Katpwy, “ἃ certain time or season,’ wherein all the rest that were past before, should have their complement and perfection. And this season had its especial οἰκονομία, or ‘dispensation’ also. And this was the ανακεφαλαιωσις mentioned; the peace-making and reconciliation of all things, by gathering up the scattered, divided, jarring parts of the creation into one Head, even Christ Jesus. Andas this enmity and disorder entered into the whole by the sin of man, so the foundation of this catholic peace and order, from which nothing is excluded but the serpent and his seed, must be laid in peace between God and man. This, therefore, God designed in Christ alone, 2 Cor. v. 20,21. The first and fundamental work of Christ, as the high priest of the new covenant, was to make peace between God and sinners. And this he did by bringing in everlasting righteousness. So was he typed by Melchisedec, first king of righteousness, then king of peace. For ‘when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son,’ Rom. ν. ~10. Hence his name was m>w Ὁ, ‘the Prince of peace,’ Isa. ix. 6. Wherefore, this reconciliation and peace with God, is a great part of this gospel perfection. So our Saviour testifieth, John xiv. 27, ‘ Peace,’ saith he, ‘I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth, give [ unto you: let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.’ Assured peace with God, delivering the souls of his disciples from all trouble and fear, is that which he peculiarly bequeathed unto them. And so great a share in this τελείωσις doth this peace with God, and the consequents of it in peace with the residue of the creation bear, that the kingdom of Christ is most frequently spoken of under this notion, Isa. x1. 4—9, &c. But these things are liable unto a double objection. For, |

First. Some may complain hereon, Behold our bones are dried, our hope is lost, we are cut off for our parts. For we cannot attain unto this peace with God, being exercised with fear and disconsolations all our days, so as that we seem to have no interest in this gospel state. Answ. 1. Peace is made for all that believe. 2. The way of attaining itis laid open unto them, Isa. xxvil. 5. 5. Patient abiding in faith, will in due time bring them into this peace. 4. It is one thing to have peace with God, which all believers have; another to have the constant sense and comfort of it in their own souls, which they may want for a season.

Secondly. Some say, they are so far from finding peace with the whole creation, that on all accounts they meet with great enmities in the world. Answ. 1. It is not said that peace is made for us with Satan or the world, the serpent and his seed. This belongs not unto this perfection. 2. Whatever troubles we may have with other things, yet in the issue, they shall all work together for our good, which is sufficient to constitute a state of peace.

This part of the perfection of the church, could not be attained by the Levitical priesthood. For two things belonged thereunto. 1. That peace be actually made. 2. That it be fully declared. So ep apostle expresseth it as it was effected by Christ, Eph. 11. 14.—He is our peace: and that, 1. By making peace—he made peace, ver. 15, 16. 2. By declaring it. ver 17.—he came and preached peace. Neither of these could be done by the Levitical priesthood. Not the first, it could not make peace, because it could not bring in righteousness, which is the cause and foundation of it, Isa. xxxu. 17; Rom. v. 1. Not the second, it could not declare or preach this peace. For the giving of the law, with all tokens of dread and severity, with the curse annexed unto it, was directly contrary hereunto. This, therefore, was brought in by this better priesthood alone. |

2. Peace between Jews and Gentiles, belongs unto this state. For God designed not the erecting of his kingdom amongst one party or sort of mankind. That it should be otherwise, that the Gentiles should become the children of Abraham, and be made heirs of the promise, was a great mystery under the Old Testament, Eph. 11. 4—6. And we know how slow the disciples of Christ himself were, in the receiving and understanding hereof. But evident it is, that this was | God’s design from the giving of the first promise, and we see now in the light of the gospel, that he gave many intimations of it unto the» church of old, with respect whereunto the veil abideth on the minds οἵ the Jews unto this day. Wherefore, without this peace also, the perfect state of the church aimed at, could not be attaimed. But this could never have been brought about by the Levitical. priesthood and law. For they were indeed the principal occasion of the distance between them, and the means of the continuance of their disagreement. And that which the Jews thought to have been the principal advantage and privilege of Abraham in his posterity, was that which, whilst it continued, kept him from the actual possession of his greatest glory, in being the heir of the world, and a father of a multitude of nations. Nor whilst that priesthood was standing, could Japheth be persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem. Hence, this peace was so far from being the effect of the Levitical priesthood and the law, as that it could not be introduced and established until they were both taken out of the way, as our apostle expressly declares, Eph. 11. 14—16. The last issue of this contest, came unto these two heads. 1. Whether the Gentiles should at all be called unto the faith of the gospel. 2. Whether being called, they should be obliged unto the observance of the law of Moses. The first fell out among the apostles themselves, but quickly determined by our Lord Jesus Christ unto their joy and satisfaction. And this he did two ways. 1. By sending.Peter to preach the gospel unto Cornelius, and therein bestowing the Holy Ghost on them that did believe, Acts x. 14, 17, 45, 46, 47, xi. 17, 18. 2. By giving Paul an open full commission to go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel unto them, Acts xxii. 21, xxvi. 15—18. Here the body of the people of the Jews, fell off with rage and madness. But the other part of the controversy, was of longer continuance. The Jews, finding that the Gentiles were by the gospel brought so near unto them, as to turn from dumb idols unto God, and to receive the promise no less than themselves, would by all means have brought them over unto the obedience of the law of Moses also. This yoke, the Gentiles being greatly afraid of, were in no small perplexity of mind what to do. The gospel they were resolved to embrace, but were very unwilling to take on them the yoke of the law. Wherefore, the Holy Ghost in the apostles, at length puts an issue unto the difference also, and lets the church know, that indeed the wall of partition was broken down, the law of commandments contained in ordinances was taken away, and that the Gentiles were not to be obliged unto the observance of it, which they greatly rejoiced in, Acts xv. 31. Other way there was none for the reconciliation of those parties, who had been at so long and so great a variance.

It will be said, that we yet see a variance between Jews and Gentiles continued all the world over; and they are in all places mutually an abomination unto each other. And it is true it is so, and is likely so to continue. For there is no remedy that can be so effectual to heal a distemper, or make up a fracture, as that it will work its cure without use or application. The gospelis not at all concerned in what state and condition men are who reject it, and refuse to believe it. They may still live in enmity and malice, hateful and hating one another. But where it is believed, embraced, and submitted unto, there an absolute end is put unto all difference or enmity between Jews and Gentiles, as such, seeing all are made one in Christ. And this τελείωσις belongs only unto them who do obey the gospel,

3. Peace among ourselves, that is, among believers, doth also belong hereunto. There was peace and brotherly love required under the law. But no duty receiveth a greater improvement under the gospel. The purchase of it by the blood of Christ, his prayer for it, the new motives added unto it, the communication of it as the legacy of Christ among his disciples, with the especial ends and duties of it, do constitute it a part of the perfect state of the church under the gospel.

Thirdly. The third thing wherein this τελείωσις, or perfection, doth consist, is spiritual light and knowledge with respect to the mysteries of the wisdom and grace of God. God had designed for the church a measure of spiritual light and knowledge which was not attainable under the law, which is the subject of that great promise, Jer. xxxi. 34, the.accomplishment of which is declared, 1 John i. 27, And there are three things which concur to the constitution of this privilewes”: ]. The principal revealer of the mind and will of God. Under the law God made use of the ministry of men to this purpose, as of Moses and the prophets. And he employed also, both in the erection of the church-state, and in sundry particulars afterwards, the ministry of angels, as our apostle declares, ch. i. 2, And in some sense that state was thereby put in subjection to angels, ver. 5. But this ministry, the dispensation of light and knowledge thereby, could not render it complete, yea, it was an argument of the darkness and bondage under which it was. For there was yet one greater than they all, and above them all, one more intimately acquainted with God and all the counsels of his will by whom he would speak forth his mind, Deut. xviu. 18,19. This was the Son of God himself, without whose immediate ministry the consummation of the church-state could not be attained,

This consideration our apostle insists on at large in the first chapter and the beginning of the second, concluding from thence the preeminence of the evangelical state above the legal. The especial nature whereof we have declared in the exposition of those places. A most eminent privilege this was, yea, the highest outward privilege that the church is capable of, and eminently concurs to its perfection. For whether we consider the dignity of his person, or the perfect knowledge and comprehension he had of the whole counsel of God, and the mysteries of his grace, it incomparably exalts the church state above that of old, whence our apostle draws many arguments to the necessity of our obedience, above what they were urged witha]. See ch. 1]. 2,3, xil. 25. And this full revelation of his counsels by the ministry © of his Son, God did reserve, partly that he might have a preeminence in all things, and partly because none other either did or could comprehend the mysteries of it as it was now to be revealed. See ΠΗ 7, 18.

2. The matter or things themselves revealed. There was under the Levitical priesthood a shadow of good things to come, but no perfect image or complete delineation of them, ch. x. 1. They had the first promise, and the enlargements of it to Abraham and David. Sundryexpositions were also added to them, relating to the manner of their accomplishment. And many intimations were given of the grace of God thereby. But all this was done so darkly, so obscurely, so wrapped up in types, shadows, figures, and allegories, as that no perfection of light or knowledge, was to be obtained. The mystery of them continued still hid in God, Eph. 11.9. Hence are the doctrines concern-_ ing them called parables and dark sayings, Ps. Ixxviii. 2. Neither did the prophets themselves see into the depth of their own predictions, 1 Pet.i. 11, 12. Hence the believing church waited with earnest expectation, ‘ till the day should break, and the shadows should flee away,’ Cant. 11. 17,iv.6. They longed for the breaking forth of that glorious light, which the Son of God was to bring, attending in the meantime to the word of prophecy, which was as the light of a candle to them shining in a dark place... They lived on that great promise, Mal. iv. 2. They expected righteousness, light, and grace, but knew not the way of them. Thence their prophets, righteous men, and kings, desired to see the things of the gospel, and saw them not, Matt. xni. 17; Luke x. 24, And therefore John the Baptist, who was greater than any of the prophets, because he saw and owned the Son of God as come in the flesh, which they desired to see, and saw not; yet living and dying under the Levitical priesthood, not seeing life and immortality brought to light by the gospel, the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he in spiritual knowledge. Wherefore it belonged to the τελειωσις; or perfect state of the church, that there should be a full and plain reve- Jation and declaration made of the whole counsel of God, of the mystery of his will and grace, as the end of those things which were to be done away. And this is done in the gospel, under that new priesthood which was to be introduced. Nor without this priesthood could it be so made. For the principal part of the mystery of God depends on, consists in the discharge of the office of that priesthood. They do so on his oblation and intercession, the atonement made for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness thereby. The plain revelation of these things, which could not be made before their actual accomplishment, is a great part of this gospel perfection. This the apostle disputes at large, 2 Cor. iil. from ver. 7, to the end of the chapter.

3. The inward spiritual light of the minds of believers, enabling them to discern the mind of God, and the mysteries of his will as revealed, doth also belong to this part of the perfection of the gospel church-state. This was promised under the Old Testament, Isa. xi. 9, liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 34. And although it was enjoyed by the saints of old, yet was it so in a very small measure and low degree, in comparison of what it is now after the plentiful effusion of the Spirit. See 1 Cor. ii. 11,12, This is that which is prayed for Eph. 1. 17—19, i. 18,19. Wherefore this head of the τελείωσις, or perfection intended, consists in three things. 1. The personal ministry of Christ in the preaching of the gospel, or declaration of the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in himself. 2. The dispensation or mission of the Holy Ghost to reveal and fully make known the same mystery by the apostles and prophets of the New Testament, Eph. iii. 5. 3. In the effectual illumination of the minds of them that do believe, enabling them spiritually to discern the mysteries so revealed, every one according to the measure of his gift and grace. See concerning it, 1 Pet. 1]. 9; Eph. iii. 17—19, v. 8.

Fourthly. There belongs to this perfection that rappnova, that liberty and boldness which believers have in their approaches to God. This is frequently mentioned as an especial privilege and advantage of the gospel state, Eph. iii. 12; Heb. ii. 6, iv. 16, x. 19,35; 1 Johnii. 21, iv. 17, v. 14. And on the contrary, the state under the Levitical priesthood is described asa state of fear and bondage, that is comparatively, Rom. viii. 15; 2 Tim. 1. 7; Heb. ii. 15. And this bondage, or fear arose from sundry causes inseparable from that priesthood and the administrations of it. As,:

1. From the dreadful manner of giving the law. This filled the whole people with terror and amazement. On the administration of the Spirit by the gospel, believers do immediately cry, ‘Abba Father,’ Rom. viii. 16; Gal.iv.6. They have the liberty and boldness to draw nigh to God, and to call bim Father. But there was such an administration of a spirit of dread and terror in the giving of the law, as that the people were not able to bear the approaches of God to them, nor the thought of an access to him. And therefore they desired that all things for the future might be transacted by an internuncius, one that might go between God and them whilst they kept at their distance, Deut. v. 23—27. When any first hear the law, they are afraid of God, and desire nothing more than not to come near him. They would be saved by a distance from him. When any first hear the gospel, that is, so as to believe it, their hearts are opened with love to God, and all their desire is, to be near to him, to draw nigh to his throne. Hence it is called the joyful sound. Nothing can be more opposite than these two frames. And this spirit of fear and dread thus first given out in the giving of the law, was communicated to them in all their generations, whilst the Levitical priesthood continued. For as there was nothing to remove it, so itself was one of the ordinances provided for its continuance. This are we now wholly delivered from. See ch. xii. 18—21.

2. Itarose from the revelation of the sanction of the law in the eurse. Hereby principally the law gendered to bondage, Gal. iv. 26. For all the people were in some sense put under the curse; namely, so far as they would seek for righteousness by the works of the law. So saith our apostle, ‘ As many as are of the work of the law are under the curse,’ Gal. iii. 10. This eurse was plainly and openly denounced as due to the breach of the law, as our apostleadds, ‘ lt is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.’ And all their capital punishments were representations thereof. This could not but take a deep impression on their minds, and render them obnoxious to bondage. Hence, although on the account of the promise they were heirs, yet by the law they were made as servants and kept in fear, Gal. iv. |. Neither had they such a prospect into the nature and signification of their types, as to set them at perfect liberty from this cause of dread. For as there _ was a veil on the face of Moses, that is, as all the revelations of the mind and will of God by him, were veiled with types and shadows; so there was a veil on their hearts also in the weakness of their spiritual light, that ‘they could not look steadfastly to the end of that which is abolished,’ 2 Cor. 111. 13, that is, to him ὁ who is the end of the law for righteousness unto them that do believe,’ Rom. x. 4. It was therefore impossible but that their minds must ordinarily be filled with anxiety and fear. But there is now no more curse in the gospel state. Rev. xxii. ὦ. The curse abideth only on the serpent and his seed, Isa. lxv. 25. ‘The blessing of the promise doth wholly possess the place of it, Gal. i. 13, 14. Only they who will choose still to be under the law, by living in the sins that it condemneth, or seeking for righteousness by the works which it commands, are under the curse.

3. Under the Levitical priesthood, even their holy worship was so appointed and ordered, as to keep them partly in fear, and partly at a distance from the presence of God. The continual multiplication of their sacrifices, one day after another, one week after another, one month after another, one year after another, taught them, that by them all there was not an end made of sin, nor everlasting righteousness brought in by any of them. This argument our apostle makes use of to this purpose, ch. x. ], ‘The law, saith he, ‘ could never by those sacrifices: which they offered year by year continually, rove προσερ- Xomevouc τελειωσαι, bring the worshippers to this perfection.’ And he gives this reason for it, namely, because they had still a conscience of sin, that is, a conscience condemning them for sin, and therefore there was a remembrance made of sin again every year, ver. 2,3. Hereby they were kept in dread and fear. And in their worship they were minded of nothing so much as their distance from God, and that they had not as yet aright to an immediate access to him. For they were not so much as once to come into the holiest, where were the pledges and tokens of God’s presence. And the prohibitions of their approaches to God were attended with such severe penalties, that the people cried out they were not able to bear them, Num. xvii. 12, 13, which Peter reflects on, Acts xv. 10, ‘The Holy Ghost thereby signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not made manifest whilst the first tabernacle was standing,’ Heb. ix. 8. No man had yet right to enter into it with boldness, which believers now have, ch. x. 19, 20.