2. God saw that this was needful to encourage and secure the faith of the church. There were many things defective in the priesthood under the law, as we have partly seen already, and shall yet see more fully in our progress. And it suited the design and wisdom of God that it should be so. For he never intended that the faith of the church should rest and be terminated, in those priests or their office. What he granted unto them, was sufficient unto the end and use whereunto he had designed it; so as that the church might have all that respect for it, which was needful or for their good. But so many defects there were in that administration, as might sufficiently evidence: that the faith of the church was not to acquiesce therein, but to look for what was yet to come, as our apostle proves by many instances in this chapter. But upon the introduction of the priesthood of Christ, God really and actually proposeth and exhibiteth unto the church, all that they were to trust unto, all that he would do, or was any way needful to be done for their peace and salvation. No other relief was to be expected for the future; therefore did God, in infinite wisdom and grace, for the stability and security of their faith, grant the highest and most peculiar evidences, of the everlasting confirmation of his priesthood. And hereby did he manifest, that this dispensation of his will and grace was absolutely unchangeable, so that, if we comply not therewithal, we must perish forever. Thus the whole Scripture, and all contained therein, direct us to our ultimate hope and rest in Christ alone.
Ver. 21.—In the application of this assertion, the apostle affirms that those priests, of μεν yao, ‘the priests under the law,’ were made without an oath. No such thing is mentioned in all that is recorded concerning their 08}} and consecration. For where they are expressly declared in their outward circumstances, Exod. xxviii. xxix, there is mention made of no such thing. But their dedication consisted in three things. |
I. A call from God expressed, εἰσιν ἱερεις yeyovorec, Exod. xxviii. 1. We have shown how necessary this was unto the first erection of any priesthood, though it-was to be continued by an ordinary succession; see ch. v.4. It is therefore granted, that in this general foundation of the office, Aaron had it, even as Christ had, though not in the same way or manner. For the call of Christ was far more eminent and glorious than that of Aaron, as hath been shown.
2. It consisted in the appointment and preparation of those peculiar garments, and mystical ornaments, wherein they were to administer their office, and their unction with the holy anointing oil, when clothed with those garments..
3. In the sacrifices wherewith they were consecrated, and actually set apart unto that office whereunto they were called. And these two were peculiar unto them, there being no use of them in the consecration of Christ, for both of them did declare their whole administration to be external and carnal, and therefore could never make any thing perfect, nor were capable of a confirmation unto perpetuity.
But the promise made unto Phinehas, seems to be express for an eternity in this priesthood. ‘ Behold,’ saith God, 41 give unto him my covenant of peace, and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood,’ Num. xxv. 12, 13. But this proves not a certain absolute perpetuity of this priesthood of Phinehas. For,
1. The covenant intended, was not a complete solemn covenant confirmed either by oath or sacrifice, but only a naked promise or declaration of the will of God. And that ma is frequently used for such a promise, as wherein the nature of a covenant is not contained, is acknowledged by the Jews themselves.
2. All the special covenants or promises that God made unto, or with any under the law that had respect unto legal administrations, were all of them commensurate unto the duration and continuance of the law itself. Whilst the covenant of the law itself was in force, they also continued; and when that ceased, then also were they to cease. Vor the foundation being taken away, the whole building must come to the ground. Now that this old covenant of the law was to cease and be taken away, by the introduction of another and a better, God did openly and frequently declare under the Old Testament, as our apostle manifests by one signal instance in the next chapter. And this is the sense of ndiyd, ‘for ever,’ in this case constantly. It expresseth a certain continuance of any thing so as not to be changed, or to have another thing substituted in the room of that whereunto it is applied, whilst that legal dispensation continued. And so it was in this promise made unto Phinehas. For although there was an intercision made afterwards, as to the continuance of the priesthood in the line of his family, by the interposition of Eli and his sons, who were of the posterity of Ithamar, yet he returned again into the enjoyment of this promise, in. the person of Zadok in the days of Solomon, and so continued until the second temple was forsaken of God also, and made a den of thieves.
But neither with respect unto him or any other, is there any mention of the cath of God. For indeed God did never solemnly interpose himself with an oath ina way of privilege or mercy, but with direct respect unto Jesus Christ. So he sware by himself unto Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, whereby he declared the immutability of his counsel, in sending his Son to take his seed upon him. So he sware unto David by his holiness, that his seed, namely Christ, should sit on the throne for ever. Wherefore, although God never changeth any real internal acts of his will, or his purposes, for with him there it neither variableness nor shadow of turning; yet he often works an alteration in some things, which on some conditions, or for some time, he hath proposed and enjoined unto his church, unless they were confirmed by his oath. For this declares them to be absolutely immutable.
This is the account the apostie gives of the Aaronical priests, καὶ οἱ μεν χωρις doKwpoorac, ‘ and they truly,’ that is, Aaron and all his posterity that exercised the priest’s office in a due manner, they were all made priests, that is, by God himself. They did not originally take this honour unto themselves, but were called of God. For he hath no regard unto them who in those days invaded the priest’s office with violence, deceit, or bribery, and so not only corrupting, but evacuating the covenant of Levi. Those that entered into and executed their office according to the law, are here intended by nim. These were all made priests in the way of God’s appointment; but neither all of them, nor any of them, were made priests by an oath. God, into whose sovereign will and pleasure all these things are resolved, granted unto them what he saw convenient, and withheld what seemed good unto him; what he did was suflicient to oblige the people unto obedience, during that dispensation of his will; and what he did not add, but reserved for a further dispensation of his grace, intimated that liberty which he reserved unto himself of making an alteration therein, as he saw good. And we may see, that,
Obs. III. Although the decrees and purposes of God were always firm and immutable, yet there was no fixed state of outward dispensations, none confirmed with an oath, until Christ came. Nor shall we find any rest in any thing, until we come to Christ.
The apostle in the next words declares in particular, and positively, what he had in general and negatively before laid down; ‘but this with an oath,’ 6 δὲ, ‘ but he, this man,’ he who was to bea priest after the order of Melchisedec. He was made μεθ᾽ ὁρκωμοσιας, ‘with an oath.’ This is first asserted, and then proved by the testimony of the Psalmist; and the assertion may have a double signification. 1. That this oath was constituent of his office. Therein his call and consecration did consist. 2. That his call, constitution, or consecration, was confirmed and ratified with an oath. And the latter sense is intended; for so doth the antithesis require. Those legal priests had a divine constitution and call, but they had no confirmation by the addition of an oath: God used not an oath in or about any thing that belonged unto them. Wherefore, this man was also to have another call unto and constitution of his office, but he was to be confirmed therein by an oath. Wherein this call of Christ unto his office did consist, what were the acts of the divine will thereabout, and what was the manifestation of them, I have declared at large in the Exercitations about the priesthood of Christ. Two things are to be considered in this oath. 1. The form; and, 2. The matter of it. 1. The form of it is in those words, wuoce Κυριος καὶ ov μεταμεληδησεται, ‘The Lord sware, and will not repent.’ And the matter of it is, that he im his own person should be a priest for ever.
The person swearing is God the Father, who speaks unto the Son in the Ps. cx. 1, ‘ The Lord said unto my Lord;’ and the oath of God is nothing but the solemn, eternal, unchangeable decree and purpose of his will, under an especial way of declaration. So the same act and counsel of God’s will is called his decree, Ps. 11.7 Wherefore, when God will so far unveil a decree and purpose, as to testify it to be absolute and unchangeable, he doth it in the way of an oath, as hath been declared, ch. vi. 138, 14. Or to the same purpose, God affirms that he hath sworn in the case.,
If, then, it be demanded, When God thus sware unto Christ? 1 answer, we must consider the decree itself unto this purpose, and the peculiar revelation or declaration of it, in which two this oath doth consist. And as to the first, it belongs entirely unto those eternal federal transactions between the Father and the Son, which were the original of the priesthood of Christ, which I have at large explained in our Exercitations. And as for the latter, it was when he gave out that revelation of his mind, in the force and efficacy of an oath in the Psalm by David. | It is, therefore, not only a mistake, but an error of danger in some expositors, who suppose that this oath was made unto Christ upon his ascension into heaven. _ For this apprehension being pursued, will fall in with the tpwrov Wevdoe of the Socinians in this whole cause, namely, that the kingly and priestly offices of Christ are not really distinct. Moreover, it supposeth the principal discharge of the priesthood of Christ, in his sacrifice, to have been antecedent unto this oath, which utterly enervates the apostle’s argument in these words. For if he were made a priest, and discharged his office without an oath, as he must be and do on this supposition, that the oath of God was made unto him after his ascension, (or {πα his death and oblation therein belonged not unto his priestly office,) he had no preeminence herein above the Aaronical priests. He might so have a subsequent privilege of the confirmation of his office, but he had none in his call thereunto.
Wherefore, this oath of God, though not in itself solely the constituent cause of the priesthood of Christ, yet it was, and it was necessarily to be, antecedent unto his actual entrance upon, -or discharge of any solemn duty of his office.
This God by this word declares shall never be; no alteration or change, no removal or substitution, shall ever be made in this matter.
2. The matter of this oath is, ov iepeve, that Christ is and should be a priest for ever. He was not only made a priest with an oath, which they were not, but a priest for ever. This adds unto the unchangeableness of his office, that he himself, in his own person, was to ' bear, exercise, and discharge it, without substitute or successor.
And this εἰς τον awyva, ‘ for ever,’ answers to the ‘for ever’ under the law; each of them being commensurate unto the dispensation of that covenant which they do respect. For absolute eternity belongs not unto these things. The ‘ ever’ of the Old Testament, was the duration of the dispensation of the old covenant. And this “ for ever,’ respects the new covenant, which is to continue unto the consummation of all things, no change therein being any way intimated, or promised, or consistent with the wisdom and faithfulness of God, all which were otherwise under the law. But at the end of the world, together with the dispensation of the new covenant, an end will be put unto all the mediatory offices of Christ, and all their exercise. And there are four things which the apostle declareth and evinceth in this observation.
1. That our high priest was peculiarly designed unto, and_ initiated into his office by the oath of God, which none other ever was before him.
2. That the person cf the high priest is hereby so absolutely determined, as that the church may continually draw nigh unto God in the full assurance of faith..
3. That this priesthood is liable to no alteration, succession, or sub- Stitution.
4. That from hence ariseth the principal advantage of the New Testament above the Old, as is declared in the next verse. And we may observe,
Obs. ΓΝ. That although God granted great privileges unto the church under the Old Testament, yet still in every instance he withheld that which was the principal, and should have given perfection to what he did grant. He made them priests, but without an oath.— In all things, there was a reserve for Christ, that he in all might have the preeminence.
Obs. V. God by his oath declares the determination of his sovereign pleasure unto the object of it. What he proposeth and prescribeth unto us, he declares no more of his mind and his will about, but that he requireth and approveth of our obedience unto it, but still reserves the liberty unto himself of making those alterations in it and about it, that seem good unto him. Nothing, therefore, in the whole legal administration being confirmed by the oath of God, it was always ready for a removal at the appointed season.
Obs. VI. Christ’s being made a priest by the oath of God for ever, is a solid foundation of peace and consolation to the church. For,
Obs. VII. All the transactions between the Father and the Son, concerning his offices, undertakings, and the work of our redemption, have respect unto the faith of the church, and are declared for our consolation.—Such were his solemn call to his sacerdotal office, and the oath of God whereby he was confirmed therein. [ will not say that these things were needless on the part of Christ himself, seeing it became the glory of his person, to be thus testified unto in his condescension unto office, yet was it in all these things the good and benefit of the church that was designed. What the Lord Christ said of his prayer unto God the Father, at least, so far as it was vocal, that it was not needful for him, but was only for the confirmation of the faith of others, John xi. 41, 42, may be spoken of all other transactions between God and him; the faith of others was principally respected in them, and thereunto they were absolutely needful. For,
1. The things which God proposeth unto our faith through Christ, are exceedingly great and glorious, and such as being most remote from ‘our innate apprehensions, do need the highest confirmation. Things they are, which ‘eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man,’ 1 Cor. 1. 9. Things unexpected, great, and glorious, are apt to surprise, amaze, and overwhelm our | spirits, until they are uncontrollably testified unto. So when Jacob’s sons told their father that Joseph was alive, and made governor over all the land of Egypt, Gen. xlv. 26, the tidings were too great and good for him to receive. But it is added, that when they gave evidence unto their report, by the waggons that Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob revived, ver, 27, 28. The things of the gospel, —pardon of sin, peace with God, participation of the Spirit, grace and glory, are great and marvellous. Men, at the hearing of them, are like them that dream, the words concerning them seem like the report of the woman unto the apostles, concerning the resurrection of Christ, they seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not, Luke xxiv. 11. Wherefore, God discovers the fountains of these things, that we may apprehend the truth and reality of them. His eternal covenant with his Son about them, his oath that he hath made unto him, whereby he was established in his office, and the like glorious transactions of his wisdom and grace, are revealed unto this very end, that we might not be faithless in these things, but believe. For can any thing that is proposed unto us be supposed to exceed the duty of faith, when we see it either in itself, or in its springs and foundation solemnly confirmed by the oath of God? They are glorious things which we are to expect from the priesthood of Christ, and the discharge of that office. And is it not an unspeakable encouragement thereunto, that God hath confirmed him in that office by his solemn oath unto him? For two things evidently present themselves unto our minds thereon. First. That this is a thing which the infinitely holy and wise God lays great weight and stress upon. And what is he not able to effect when he doth so, and consequently lays out the treasures of his wisdom, and engageth the greatness of his power in the pursuit of it? And, secondly. His counsel herein is absolutely immutable, and such as on no emergency can admit of alteration. _ If, therefore, the engagement of infinite wisdom, grace, and power, will not excite and encourage us unto believing, there is no remedy, but we mnst perish in our sins.
2. As the things proposed in the gospel, as effects of the priesthood of Christ, are in themselves great and glorious, requiring an eminent confirmation; so the frame of our hearts with respect unto them, is such from first to last, as stands in need of all the evidence that can be given unto them. For there is in us by nature an aversation from them, and a dislike of them. In the wisdom of our carnal minds, we look on them as foolish and useless. And when this woeful enmity is conquered by the mighty power of God, and the souls of sinners are brought over to approve of these effects of divine wisdom and grace, yet no man can recount how many doubts, fears, jealous suspicions, we are, as to our closing with them by faith, obnoxious unto. Every one’s own heart, if he have any acquaintance with it, if he be diligent in the examination of it, will sufficiently satisfy him, what objections faith hath to conflict withal in this matter. And it is to be feared, that he who is insensible of the oppositions that arise against sincere believing, never yet knew what it is to believe. To encourage and strengthen our hearts against them, to give power unto faith against all oppositions, doth God thus reveal the wisdom of his counsel, and the glorious springs of this ministration, whereinto our whole faith is principally resolved. And indeed we may try the sincerity of our faith by its respect unto these things. It may be some, for aught I know, may be carried on in such an easy course, and be so preserved from perplexing temptations, as not to be driven to seek their relief so deep, as these springs of God’s confirmation of the office of Christ by his oath do lie; but yet he that doth not, of his own choice, refresh his faith with the consideration of them, and strengthen it with pleas in his supplications taken from thence, seems to me to be greatly unacquainted with what it is truly to believe.
Kara τοσουτον, “ by so much,’ answers directly to καθ᾽ ὅσον, ver. 20, ‘inasmuch.’ There is therefore an immediate connexion of these words unto that verse. Hence, ver. 21, wherein a confirmation is interserted of the principal assertion, is justly placed in a parenthesis in our translation. So the sense of the words is to this purpose: ‘ And inasmuch as he was not made a priest without an oath, he is by so much made the surety of a better testament.
And there may be a twofold design in the words. 1. That his being made a priest by an oath, made him meet to be the surety of a better testament; or 2. That the testament whereof he was the surety, must needs be better than the other; because he who was the surety of it as made a priest by an oath. In the one way, he proves the dignity f the priesthood of Christ from the New Testament; and in the other, he dignity of the New Testament from the priesthood of Christ.
leclaratively the New Testament sets forth the dignity of the priest- 100d of Christ.
It is owned tacitly, that the priesthood of Levi, and the Old Testament, were good, or these could not be said to be better in way of comparison. And good they were, because appointed of God, and of singular use unto the church during their continuance. But this priesthdod and testament are better, by so much as that which is confirmed with an oath, is better than that which is not so, which alone gives the proportion of comparison in this place. Many other advantages there were of the priesthood of Christ, and of the New Testament in comparison unto those of old, all which increase the proportion of difference; but at present the apostle considers only what depends on the oath of God. Wherefore, the design of the comparison contained in those words, cata τοσουτον; 15, that whereas this priest, after the order of Melchisedec, was designed to be the surety of another testament, he was confirmed in his office by the oath of God, which gives a preeminence both unto his office, and to the testament whereof he was to be a surety.
In the assertion itself, that Jesus was made a surety of a better testament, we may consider, 1. What is included or supposed in it; and 2. What is literally expressed.
Three things are included and supposed in this assertion. 1. That there was another testament that God had made with his people. 2. That this was a good testament. 3. That this testament had in some sense a surety.
As to what is expressed in these words, there are four things in them. 1. The name of him who was the subject discoursed of—it is Jesus. 2. What is affirmed of him—he wasa surety. ὃ. How he became so—he was made so. 4. Whereof he was a surety, and that is of a testament of God: which, 5. Is described by its respect unto the other before mentioned, and its preference above it,—it is.a better testament. —
First. Some things are supposed. 1. It is supposed that there was another testament which God had made-with his people. This the apostle supposeth in this whole context, and at length brings his discourse unto its head and issue in the eighth chapter, where he expressly compareth the two testaments, the one with the other. Now this was the covenant or testament, that God made with the Hebrews on Mount Sinai, when he brought them out of Egypt, as is expressly declared in the ensuing chapters, whereof we must treat in its proper place.
2. It is supposed, that this was a good testament. It was so in itself, as an effect of the wisdom and righteousness of God. For all that he doth is good in itself, both naturally and morally, nor can it otherwise be. And it was of good use unto the church, namely, unto them who looked unto the end of it, and used it in its proper design. Unto the body of the people indeed, as far as they were carnal, and looked only on the one hand for temporal benefits by it, or on the other for life and salvation, it was a heavy yoke, yea, the ministration of death. With respect unto such persons and ends, it contained statutes that were not good, commandments that could not give life; and was every way unprofitable. But yet in itself it was on many accounts good, just, and holy. 1. As it had an impression upon it of the wisdom and goodness of God. 2. As it was instructive in the nature and demerit of sin, 3. As it directed unto and represented the only means of deliverance, by righteousness and salvation in Christ. 4. As it established a worship, which was very glorious and acceptable unto God during its season. But as we shall show afterwards, it came short in all excellencies and worth of this whereof Christ is the Surety.
3. It is supposed that this testament had a Mediator. For this New Testament having a surety, the other must have so also. But who this was must be ‘inquired. 4
First. Some would have our Lord Jesus Christ to be the surety of that testament also. For so our apostle affirms in general: ‘ There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself ἃ ransom for all to be tastified in due time,’ 1 Tim. i. 5,6. Bethe covenant or testament what or which it will, there is but one Mediator between God and man. Hence our apostle Says | of him, that ‘ Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, Heb. xii. 8. If therefore he be the only Mediator to-day under the New Testament, he was so also yesterday under the Old.
Answ. 1. There is some difference between a mediator at large, and such a mediator as is withal a surety. And however on any account, Christ may be said to be the mediator of that covenant, he cannot be said to be the surety of it.
2. The place in Timothy cannot Riad the old covenant, but is exclusive of it. For the Lord Christ is there called a Mediator, with respect unto the ransom that he paid in his death and blood-shedding. This respected not the confirmation of the old covenant, but was the abolition of it; and the old was confirmed with the blood of beasts, as the apostle expressly declares, ch. ix. 18, 19.
3. The Lord Christ was indeed in his divine person, the immediate administrator of that covenant, the angel and messenger of it on the behalf of God the Father’; but this doth not constitute him a mediator properly; for a mediator is not of one, but God is one.
4. The Lord Christ was a Mediator under that covenant, as to the original promise of grace, and the efficacy of it, which were administered therein; but he was not the Mediator and Surety of it as it was a covenant; for had he been so, he being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, that covenant could have never been disannulled.
Secondly. Some assert Moses to have been the-surety of the Old Testament. For so it is said, that the law was given by the disposition of angels in the hand of a mediator, Gal. 11. 19, that is, of Moses, whom the people desired to be the internuncius between God and them, Exod. xx. 19; Deut. v. 24, xvi. 16.
Answ. 1. Moses may be said to be the Mediator of the old covenant, in a general sense, inasmuch as he went between God and the people, to declare the will of God unto them, and to return the profession of obedience from them unto God. But he was in no sense the surety thereof. For on the one side God did not appoint him in his stead, to give assurance of his fidelity unto the people. This he took absolutely unto himself, in those words wherewith all his laws were pre- faced, “1 am the Lord thy God.’ Nor did he, nor could he, on the other side, undertake unto God for the people; and+so could: be esteemed in any sense the surety of the covenant. 2.The apostle hath no such argument in hand, as to compare Christ with Moses, nor is he treating of that office whetein he compares him with him, and prefers him above him, which was his prophetical office, whereof he had before discoursed, ch. i1i1.4—7. Wherefore,
Thirdly. It was the high priest alone who was the surety of that covenant. It was made and confirmed by sacrifices, Ps. 1. 5. as we shall see more at large afterwards, ch. ix. 19, 20. And if Moses were. concerned herein, it was as he executed the office of the priest in an extraordinary manner. Therefore the high priest offering solemn sacrifices, in the name and on behalf of the people, making “atonement for them according to the terms of that covenant, supplied the place of the surety thereof. And we may observe, that,
Obs. VIII. How good and glorious soever any thing may appear to be, or really be in the worship of God, or as a way of our coming to him, or walking before him; if it be ποὲ ratified in and by the immediate suretiship of Christ, it must give way unto that which is better; it could be neither durable in itself, nor make any thing perfect m them that made use of it.
1, The person who is the subject spoken of, and that is Incove, ‘Jesus.’ He had in general declared the nature of the priesthood of him who was to have that office, according to the order of Melchisedec. But he had not yet in this whole chapter, that is, from the beginning of this discourse, mentioned who that person was, or named him. But here he makes application of the whole unto him: it is Jesus who in all these things was intended. And this he doth suitably unto his design and occasion. For two things were in question among the Hebrews. 1. What was the nature of the office of the Messiah. 2. Who was the person. For the first of these, he proves unto them from their own acknowledged principles, that he was to be a priest, as also what was the nature of that priesthood, and what would be the necessary consequents of the setting up that ofice in the church, and _ the exercise of it: this his whole precedent discourse is designed unto. Now he asserts the second part of the difference, namely, that it was Jesus who is this priest, because in him alone do all things concur that were to be in that priest, and he had now discharged ‘the principal part and duty of that office.
It was sufficient for the church of the Jews to believe in the Messiah, and to own the work of redemption which he was to accomplish. Nor did the mere actual coming of Christ make it absolutely necessary that they should all immediately be obliged to believe him to be the person. Many, I doubt not, died after his incarnation, and went to heaven, without an actual Belige that it was he who was their Redeemer. But their obligation to faith towards that individual person, arose from the declaration that was made of him, and the evidence given to prove him to be the Son of God, the Saviour of the world.
So he tells those to whom he preached, and who saw his miracles, ‘ If ye believe not that 1 am he, ye shall die in your sins,’ John viii. 24. It would not now suffice them to believe in the Messiah in general, but they were also to believe that Jesus was he, or they must perish for their unbelief. Howbeit they were only intended, who, hearing his words and seeing his miracles, had sufficient evidence of his being the Son of God. Of others in the same church, this was not as yet required. Nor, it may be, doth our Saviour oblige them immediately unto faith in this matter, only he declares what would be the event with them, who upon the accomplishment of his work in the earth, and the sending of the Holy Ghost after his ascension, whereby he gave the principal declaration and evidence of his being the Messiah, should continue in their unbelief. Hereon, and not before, the belief in his individual person, in Jesus the Son of God, became the foundation of the church; so that whoever believed not in him, did die in their sins. Wherefore, the apostles, immediately upon the coming of the Holy Ghost, made this the first and principal subject of their preaching, namely, that ‘Jesus was the Christ.’ See Acts ii.—v. So our apostle in this place, having asserted the nature of the office of the promised Messiah, makes an application of it unto his person, as he also had done, ch. ii. 9. And we may observe that,
Obs. IX. All the privileges, benefits, and advantages of the offices and mediation of Christ, will not avail us, unless we reduce them all unto faith in his person. Indeed it is not so much what is done, though that be inconceivably great, as by whom it is done, namely, Jesus the Son of God, God and man in one person.
It isa matter of somewhat a surprising nature that divers in these days, do endeavour to divert the minds and faith of men, from a respect unto the person of Christ. Were it not that the crafts of Satan have made nothing, be it ever so foolish or impious in religion, to seem strange, a man could not but admire, how such an attempt should be either owned or countenanced. For my part, I must acknowledge, that I know no more of Christian religion, but what makes me judge, that the principal trouble of believers in this world, lies herein, that they can no more fervently love, nor more firmly believe in the person of Christ, than what they have as yet attained unto. Bat this notion hath been vented and carried on among us, by persons who, out of an aim after things novel and contrary to the received faith, have suffered themselves to be imposed on by those, who have other principles than what they seem to own. For the Socinians, denying the divine nature of Christ, do (in the pursuit of that infidelity) their utmost to take the minds of men from a regard unto his person, and would reduce all religion unto a mere obedience to his commands. And indeed, there can be no place for that divine faith in him, trust on him, and love unto him, which the church always professed, if it. be supposed that he is not God and man in one person. And their reasonings, they are to this purpose, which some represent unto us, who yet will not avow that principle from whence alone they are taken and do rise. But so long as we can hold the Head, or this great, foundation of religion, that tie Lord Christ is the eternal Son of God, BP which alone gives life and efficacy unto his whole work of mediation, our faith in all its actings will be reduced unto his person: there it beginneth, there it endeth. It is Jesus who is this Mediator and surety of the covenant, in whose person God redeemed the church with his own blood.
1. The way whereby he became so, is expressed by yeyovs, ‘he was made so.’ So is this word used with respect unto him, ch. 1. 4, of the same importance with another, translated, ‘appointed, ch. it. 2, and it signifies what is expressed, ch. v. 5. The places may be consulted, with our exposition of them. Respect is had herein, unto the acts of God the father in this matter. What those acts of God are, whether eternal or temporal, that did concur unto, or any way belong unto the investiture of Christ in his office, I have at large declared on ch. 1. 1—3. And more particularly for what concerns his priesthood, it hath been handled apart in our exercitations on that subject. But we may here also observe, that
Obs. X. The whole undertaking of Christ, and the whole efficacy of the discharge of his office, depends on the appointment of God,- even the Father.
3. It is affirmed that he was thus made, appointed, or constituted, that is, by God himself, a surety, which is farther declared by the addition of that whereunto his suretiship had a respect, namely, a better covenant; κρείττονος διαϑηκης. Of the proper signification of the word διαϑηκη, and its use, we must treat expressly afterwards. Here we shall only observe, that in this word the apostle takes many things as granted among the Hebrews. As,
1. That there was to be another covenant or testament of God, with and towards the church, besides that which he made with Israel, when he brought them out of Egypt. The promises hereof are so frequently repeated in the prophets, especially those who prophesied towards the latter end of their church state, that there could be no question about it, nor could they be ignorant of it.
2. That this new covenant or testament, should be better than the former, which was to be disannulled thereby. This carried along with it, its own evidence. For after God in his wisdom and goodness had made one covenant with his people, he would not remove it, abolish it, and take it away by another, unless that other were better than it; especially declaring so often as he doth, that he granted them this new covenant, as the highest effect of his grace and kindness towards them. And that indeed it was expressly promised to be better covenant than the former, we shal] see in the next chapter, if we live and God will.
3. It is supposed that this better covenant must have a surety. The original covenant that God made with Adam, had none, and therefore was it quickly broken and disannulled. The especial covenant made with Israel, had no surety, properly so called. Only therein the high priest, did represent what was to be done by any one that should undertake to be such a surety.
Of the word εγγυος and its signification, we have spoken before. And in our inquiry into the nature of this suretiship of Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, namely, whether the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the part of God unto us, to assure us that the promise of the covenant on his part should be accomplished, or also an undertaker on our part, for the performance of what is required, if not of us, yet with respect unto us, that the promise may be accomplished. - The first of these is vehemently asserted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond, in their annotations on this place.
The words of Slichtingius are:—‘ Sponsor foedetis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis spoponderit, id est, fidem fecerit, Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse. Non vero quasi pro nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, foedus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se recepit, ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter sed foederis sponsor nominatur. Spopondit autem Christus pro feederis divini veritate, non tantum quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetud testatus est, sed etiam quatenus muneris sul fidem maximis rerun ipsarum comprobavit documentis, tum perfecta vite innocentia et sanctitate, tum divi-
‘nis plané que patravit operibus, tum mortis aded truculente, quam pro doctrine: sue veritate subiit, perpessione.’ After which, he sub-
joins a long discourse, about the evidences which we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account of their whole opinion concerning the mediation of Christ. The words of Grotius are:—‘Spopondit Christus, i.e. nos certos promissi fecit, non solis verbis sed perpetua vite sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata, et miraculis plurimis,’ which are an abridgment of the discourse of Slichtingius. To the same purpose Dr. Hammond expounds it, that he was a sponsor or surety for God unto the confirmation of the promises of the covenant.
‘On the other hand, the generality of expositors, ancient and modern, of the Roman and Protestant churches, affirm that the Lord Christ as the surety of the covenant, was properly a surety or undertaker unto God for us, and not a surety or undertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the faith and consolation of the church is highly concerned, I shall insist distinetly upon if.
And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to prove, that Christ was only a surety for God unto us. Now this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office or work of a surety, por
_ from the nature of the covenant whereof he was a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on, is, that we do not give Chist as a surety of the covenant unto God, but he gives him unto us, and therefore he is a surety for God, and the accomplishment of his promises, and not for us to pay our debts, or to answer what is required of us.
But there is no force in this argument. For it belongs not unto the nature of a surety, by whom he is or may be designed unto his office and work. His own voluntary susception of the office and work, is all that is required thereunto, however he may be designed or induced to undertake it. He who of his own accord, doth voluntarily undertake for another, on what grounds, reasons or considerations soever he doth so, is his surety. And this the Lord Christ did in the behalf of the church. For when it was said, ‘ Sacrifice and burnt-offerings and whole burnt-offerings for sin, God would not have,’ or accept as sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so as that the covenant might be established and made effectual unto us, then said he, ‘ Lo I come to do thy will, O God,’ Heb. x. 5, 6. He willingly, and voluntarily, out of his own abundant goodness and love, took upon him to make atonement for us, wherein he was our surety. And accordingly this undertaking is ascribed unto that love which he exercised herein, Gal. ii. 20; 1 John ii. 16; Rev.i. 5. And there was this in it moreover, that he took upon him our nature, or the seed of Abraham, wherein he was our surety. So that although we neither did nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us that wherein and whereby he was so: which was as much as if we had designed him unto his work, as to the true reason of his being our surety. Wherefore, notwithstanding those antecedent transactions, that werebetween the Father and him in this matter, it was the voluntary engagement of himself to be our surety, and his taking our nature upon him for that end, which was the formal reason of his being instituted in that office. |
2. We may consider the arguments, whence it is evident that he neither was, nor could be a surety unto us for God, but was so for us to God. For,
1. Eyyvog or eyyunrne, a ‘surety,’ is one that undertaketh for another, wherein he is defective really, or in reputation. Whatever that undertaking be, whether in words of promise, or in depositing of real security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal envagement of life and body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any one becomes a surety. Such a one is sponsor or fidejussor, in all good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a reputation every way unquestionable, there is no need of a surety unless in case of mortality. The words of a surety in the behalf of another, whose ability or reputation 1s dubious, are, ad me recipio, faciet aut faciam. And when eyyvoce is taken adjectively, as sometimes it is, it signifies him who is satisdationibus obnoxius; liable to payments for others that are non-solvent.
2. God can therefore have no surety properly, because there can be no imagination of any defect on his part. There may be indeed a question, whether any word or promise, be a word or promise of God. To assure us hereof, it is not the work of a surety, but only of any one or any means that may give evidence that so itis. But upon a supposition that what is proposed, is his word or promise, there can be no imagination or fear of any defect on his part, so as that there should be any need of a surety for the performance of it. He doth indeed make use of witnesses to confirm his word, that is, to testify that such promises he hath made, and so he will do. So the Lord
Christ was his witness, Isa. xliii. 10, ‘ Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen.’ But they were not all his sureties. So he affirms that he came into the world to bear wit~ ness unto the truth, John xviii. 37, that is, the truth of the promises of God; for he was the ‘ minister of the circumcision for the truth of the promises of God unto the fathers, Rom. xv. ὃ. Buta surety for God properly so called, he was not, nor could be. The distance and difference is wide enough between a witness and a surety; for a surety must be of more ability, or more credit and reputation, than he for whom he is asurety, or there is no need of his suretiship. This none can be for God, no not the Lord Christ himself, who in his whole work, was the servant of the Father. And the apostle doth not use this word in a general improper sense, for any one that by any means gives assurance of any other thing; for so he had asserted nothing peculiar unto Christ. For in such a sense all the prophets and apostles were sureties for God, and many of them confirmed tie truth of his word and promises, with the laying down of their lives. But such a surety he intends as undertaketh to do that for others, which they cannot do for themselves, or at least are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them. |. 3. The apostle had before at large declared, who and what was God’s surety in this matter of the covenant, and how impossible it was that he should have any other: and this was himself alone, interposing himself by his oath. For in this cause, ‘ because he had none greater to swear by, he sware by himself,’ Heb. vi. 13, 14. Wherefore, if God would give any other surety besides himself, it must be one greater than he. This being every way impossible, he swears by himself only. Many ways he may and doth use for the declaring and testifying of his truth unto us, that we may know and believe it to be his word; and so the Lord Christ in his ministry, was the principal witness’ of the truth of God. But other surety than himself, he can. have none. And therefore,
4, When he would have us in this matter, not only come to the full assurance of faith concerning his promises, but also to have strong consolation, he resolves it wholly into the immutability of his counsel, as declared by his promise and oath, Heb. vi. 18, 19. So that neither is God capable of having any surety, properly so called, neither do we stand in need of any on his part, for the confirmation of our faith in the bighest degree.
5. We on all accounts stand in need of a surety for us, or on our behalf. For without the interposition of such a surety, no covenant between God and us, could be firm and stable, or an everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure. In the first covenant made with Adam, there was no surety, but God and man were the immediate covenanters. And although we were then ina state and condition able to perform and answer all the terms of the covenant, yet was it broken and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the promise of God, it was necessary that on the making of a new covenant, he should have a surety to undertake for him, that the covenant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false and and blasphem- ous toimagine, It was man alone who failed and brake that covenant. Wherefore, it was necessary that upon the making of the new covenant, and that with a design and purpose that it should never be disannulled, as the former was, that we should have a surety and undertaker for us. For if that first covenant was not firm and stable, because there was no surety to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that ability which we had to answer the terms of it, how much less can any other be so, now our natures are become depraved and sinful Ὁ Wherefore, we alone are capable of a surety, properly so called for us: we alone stood in need of him, and without him, the covenant could not be firm and inviolable on our parts. The surety, therefore, of this covenant, is so with God for us.
6. It is the priesthood of Christ that the apostle treats of in this place, and that alone. Wherefore he is a surety as he is a priest and in the discharge of that office, and is therefore so with God on our behalf. This Shichtingius observes, and is aware what will ensue thereon against his pretensions which he endeavours to obviate. ‘ Mi-
rum (saith he) porrd alicui videri posset, cur 1). Autor de Christi sacerdotio in superioribus et in sequentibus agens derepente eum sponsorem foederis, non vero sacerdotem vocet. Cur non dixerit, tantdpreestantioris foederis factus est sacerdos Jesus? hoc enim plané requirere videtur totus orationis contextas. Credibile est in voce sponsoris sacerdotium quoque Christi intelligi. Sponsoris enim non est solum alieno nomine quippiam promittere, et fidem suam pro alio interponere; sed etiam si ita res ferat, alterius nomime id quod spopondit, prestare. In rebus quidem humanis, si id non prestet is pro quo sponsor fidejussit; hic vero propter contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum habere non potest) nempe quatenus ille, pro quo spopondit Christus, per ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet, qua in re preecipué Christi sacerdotium continetur.’
Answ. 1. It may indeed seem strange unto any one who imagineth Christ to be such a surety as he doth, why the apostle should so call him and so introduce him, in the description of his priestly office, as that which belongeth thereunto. But grant what is the proper work and duty of a surety, and who the Lord Jesus was a surety for, and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent could be mentioned by him, when he was in the declaration of that office. 2. He confesseth that by his exposition of this suretiship of Christ, as making a surety for God, he contradicteth the nature and only notion of a surety among men. For such a one he acknowledgeth doth nothing but in the defect and inability of them for whom he is engaged and doth undertake. He is to pay that which they owe, and to do what is to be done by them, which they cannot perform. And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place, the apostle makes use of a word nowhere else used in the whole Scripture, to teach us that which it doth never signify among men, which is improbable and absurd. For the sole reason why he did make use of it-was, that from the nature and notion of 10 among men in other cases, we may understand the signification of it, what he intends by it, and what under that name he ascribes unto the Lord Jesus. 3. He hath no way to solve the apostle’s mention of Christ’s being a surety in the description of his priestly office, but by overthrowing the nature of that office also. For to confirm this absurd notion that Christ as a priest was a surety for God, he would have us believe that the priesthood of Christ consists in his making effectual unto us the promises of God, or his effectually communicating of the- good things promised unto us; the falsehood of which notion, really destructive of the priesthood of Christ, I have elsewhere at large detected and confuted. Wherefore seeing the Lord Christ is the surety of the covenant as a priest, and all the sacerdotal actings of Christ have God for their immediate object, and are performed with him on our behalf, he was a surety for us also.
It remaineth that we inquire positively, how the Lord Christ was the surety of the new covenant, and what is the benefit we receive thereby. And unto this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the mediation of Christ, was only to procure the new covenant; although at first view it be irreconcileable unto the nature and notion of a surety. Fora surety is not the procurer of that whereof he is the surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the new covenant by his death and mediation. And to this end we must observe, that the new. covenant may be considered divers ways in various respects.
1, In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits, in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it distinguished from the decree of election, which first and properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared. For this respects the preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. It is true, this purpose or counsel of God’s will, is not called the covenant of grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The covenant of grace, I say, is only the declaration of this counsel of God’s will, accompanied with the means and powers of its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first thing that ought tocome under consideration. For nothing can be the procuring cause of the covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it, of this idea of it in the mind of God. But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ, and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by any thing that is external and temporal, And besides, it is expressly assigned unto absolute love and grace; see Eph. i. 4—6, with all those places where the love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the designation of Christ unto his office, and the sending of him.
2. It may be considered with respect unto the federal transactions between the Father and Son, concerning the accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my exercitations. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture. But it is that wherein it had its establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual to the glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause, but that which was the cause of this covenant of the Mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it, is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understandings. Who can conceive that Christ by his death, should procure the agreement between God and him, that he should die?
3. With respect unto the declaration of it: this you may call God’s making or establishing of it with us, if you please, though making of the covenant in the Scripture is applied only unto its execution or actual application unto persons. But this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the Mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glory, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold.
1. In the way of a singular and absolute promise, as it was first declared unto, and thereby established with Adam and afterwards with Abraham. This is the declaration of the purpose of God, or the free determination of his will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God was the only cause, Heb. vin. 8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he was to do for us, was the substance of that promise wherein this declaration of God’s grace and purpose was made, or of this covenant of grace which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disanulled as to the ends and benefits of a covenant. The substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from sin and misery by his death, Gen. im. 15. Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself; then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nordo we owe it thereunto.
2. In the additional prescription of the way and ‘means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. Thisis not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part, whereon we are made partakers of it. Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the death of Christ or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant, is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted, that the constitution of these terms of the covenant, doth respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God’s grace; and so although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of making the new covenant in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our Mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is every-where expressed in the Scripture.
It may be therefore inquired what respect the covenant of grace hath to the death of Christ, or what influence it hath thereunto.
1, In that it was confirmed, ratified, made irrevocable thereby. This our apostle insists upon at large, ch. ix. 15—20. And he compares his blood in his death and sacrifice of himself, to the sacrifices and their blood whereby the old covenant was confirmed, purified, dedicated or established, ver. 18,19. Now these sacrifices did not procure that covenant or prevail with God to enter into it, but only ratified and confirmed it; and this was done in the new covenant by - the blood of Christ, in the way that shall be afterwards declared.
2. He. thereby underwent, and performed all that which the righteousness and wisdom of God required, that the effects, fruits, benefits, and grace intended, designed, and prepared in the new covenant, might be effectually accomplished and communicated to sinners. Hence although he procured not the covenant for us by his death, yet he was in his person, mediation, life and death, the only cause and means, whereby the whole grace of the covenant is made effectual to us. For
3. All the benefits of it were procured by him; that is, all the grace, mercy, privileges, and glory that God had prepared’in the counsel of his will, and proposed in the covenant or promises of it, are purchased, merited, and procured by his death, and effectually communicated or applied to all the covenanters, by virtue thereof, with other of his mediatory acts. And this is much more an eminent procuring of the new covenant, than what is pretended about the procurement of its terms and conditions. Tor if he should have procured no more but this, if we owe this only to his mediation, that God would thereon, and did grant and establish this rule, law, and promise, that whosoever believed should be saved, it was possible that no one should be saved thereby; yea if he did no more, considering our state and condition, it was impossible that any one should be saved.
These things being premised, we shall now briefly declare how or wherein he was the surety of the covenant, as he is here called.
A surety, sponsor, vas, prees, fidejussor, for us the Lord Christ, was by his voluntary undertaking out of his rich grace and love, to do, answer, and perform all that is required on our parts, that we may enjoy the benefits of the covenant, the grace and glory prepared, proposed, and promised in it, in the way and manner determinéd on by divine wisdom. And this may be reduced to two heads.
1. He undertook as the surety of the covenant to answer for all the sins of those who are to be, and are made partakers of the benefits of it. That is, to undergo the punishment due to their sins; to make atonement for them, by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for their expiation, redeeming them by the price of his blood from their state of misery and bondage under the law and the curse of it. Isa. lin. 4—6, 10; Matt. xx. 28; 1Tim.ii. 6; 1 Cor. vi. 20; Rom. ii. 25, 26; Heb. x. O—8; Rom. viii. 2,3; 2 Cor. v. 19—21; Gal. in. 13. And this was absolutely necessary, that the grace and glory prepared in the covenant might be communicated unto us. Without this undertaking of his, and performance of it, the righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit, that sinners, such as had apostatized from him, despised hisauthority, and rebelled against him, falling thereby under the sentence and curse of the law, should again be received into his favour, and be made partakers of grace and glory. This therefore the Lord took on himself as the surety of the covenant. Ὲ
2. That those who were to be taken into this covenant, should receive grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it, fulfil its conditions and yield the obedience which God required therein. For by the or- - dination of God, he was to procure,and did merit and procure for them the Holy Spirit, and all the needful supplies of grace to make them new creatures, and enable them to yield obedience to God from a new principle of spiritual life, and that faithfully to the end. So was he the surety of this better covenant.
Obs. XI. The stability of the new covenant depends on the suretiship of Christ, and is secured to believers thereby.—The introduction of a surety in any case, is to give stability and security. For it is never done but on a supposition of some weakness or defect on one account or other. Ifinany contract,bargain, or agreement, a man be esteemed every way responsible both for ability and fidelity, there is no need of a surety, nor is it required. But yet whereas there isa defect or weakness amongst all men, mentioned by our apostle in the next verses, namely, that they are all mortal and. subject to death, in which case neither ability nor fidelity will avail any thing; men in all cases of importance need sureties. These give the utmost confirmation that affairs aniong men are capable of. So doth the suretiship of Christ on our bebalf in this covenant. For the evidencing whereof, we may consider,
First. ‘The first covenant as made with Adam, had no surety. As to that which in the new covenant the suretiship of Christ doth principally respect, it had no need of any. For there was no gjn, transgression, or rebellion against God to be satisfied for, so that it was absolutely incapable of a surety to that end. But as.to the second part of it, or his undertaking for us, that through supplies of strength from him, we shall abide faithful in the covenant, according to the terms and tenor of it; this had no inconsistency with that first state. As the Lord Christ, on his undertaking the work of mediation became an immediate head to the angels that sinned not, whereb they received their establishment and security from any future defection;so might he have been such a head to, and such an undertaker for man in innocency. No created nature was or could have been unchangeable in its condition and state, merely on its root of creation. As some of the angels fell at first, forsaking their habitation, falling from the principle of obedience which had no other root but in themselves; so the rest of them, all of them, might afterwards in like manner haveapostatized, and fallen from their own innate stability, had they not been gathered up into the new head of the creation, the Son of God as Mediator; receiving a new relation from thence, and establishment thereby. So it might have been with manininnocency. But God in his infinite sovereign wisdom, saw it not meet that so it should be. Man shall be left to the exercise of. that ability of living to God, which he had received in his creation, and which was suflicient for that end; a surety God gave him not. And therefore although he had all the advantage of a sinless nature, filled with holy principles, dispositions, and inclinations, free from all vicious habits, rebellious affections, inordinate imaginations could afford to him, yet he broke the covenant, and forfeited all the benefits thereof. Whatever there was besides, in that covenant, of grace, power, ability, and the highest obligations to duty, yet all was lost for want of a surety. And this abundantly testifies to the preeminence of Christ in all things.’ For whereas Adam with all the innumerable advantages he had, that is, all helps necessary in himself, and no opposition or difficulty from himself to conflict withal, yet utterly brake the covenant wherein he was created and placed; believers who have little strength in themselves, and a powerful inbred opposition to their stability, are yet secured in their station by the interposition of the Lord Christ as their surety.
Secondly. When God made a covenant with the people in the wilderness, to manifest that there could be no stability in it without respect to a surety, that it could not continue, no not for a day, he caused it to be dedicated or confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. This the apostle declares, and withal its typicalness with respect to the new covenant and the confirmation of it with the blood of Christ, ch. ix. 18—21. And afterwards, as we have declared, the high priest in the sacrifices that he offered, was the typical mediator or surety, of that covenant. And the end of this appointment of God, was to manifest, that it was from the blood of the true sacrifice, namely, that of Jesus Christ, that the new covenant was to receive its stability, And we need a surety to this purpose,
1. Because in the state and condition of sin, we are not capable of immediate dealing or covenanting with God. There can be no covenanting between God and sinners, unless there be some one to stand forth in our name, to receive the terms of God, and to undertake for us. So when God began to treat immediately from heaven with the people of old, they all jointly professed, that such was the greatness and glory of God, such the terror of his majesty that it was impossible for them so to treat with him; and if he spake to them any more, they should all die and be consumed. Wherefore with one consent they desired that there might be one appointed between God and them, to transact all things and to undertake for them as to their obedience which God well approved in them, Deut. v. 23—31. Adam indeed - in the state'of innocency could treat immediately with God, as to that covenant wherein he was placed. For notwithstanding his infinite distance from God, yet God had made him for converse with himself, and did not despise the work of hisown hands. But immediately on the entrance of sin he was sensible of the loss of that privilege, whereon he both fled and hid himself from the presence of God. And hence those who of old thought they had seen God, concluded that they | should die, as being sensible of their incapacity to treat immediately with him. So when the prophet cried out that he was undone or cut off, because of the immediate presence of God, his eyes having ‘seen the King, the Lord of hosts,’ Isa. vi. 5, he was not relieved from his apprehensions, until his mouth was touched with a coal from the altar, a type of the mediation and sacrifice of Christ. Whilst we have any thing of sin remaining in us, we can have nothing to do with God immediately. Wherefore that there may be any covenant between God and us, much more such an one as shall be ‘ ordered inall things, and sure,’ there must be one to stand before God in our stead, to re= ceive the terms of God, and declare them to us, and to undertake for us, that we shall stand to them and make them good to the glory of God. And in this sense was the new covenant first made with Christ, not only as he undertook the work of mediation, which he did on the especial eternal compact which was between the Father and him; but also as he undertook for all the elect to receive the terms of the covenant from God for them, in which sense the promise in the ‘first place was made unto the seed that is one, which is Christ,’ Gal. 1. 16, and to answer for them, that they should receive and stand to those terms. For he said, ‘ Surely they are my people, children that will not lie, so he was their Saviour,’ Isa. lxiii. 8. Whereforethe holiness and glorious greatness of God, would not admit that there should be any new covenant at all between God and sinners, without the interposition of a surety. Nor did it become the infinite wisdom of God, after man had broken and disannulled the covenant made with him in innocency, to enter into a new covenant with him in his fallen condition, without an immediate undertaker, that it should be assuredly kept and the ends of it attained. If you have lent a mana thousand pounds on his own security, when he owed nothing else, nor was mdebted to any other; and he hath not only failed in his payment, but contracted other debts innumerable, will you now lend him ten thousand pounds on the same security, expecting to receive it again? Had God entered into never so many covenants with men, without such a surety and undertaker, they would have been all broken and disannulled, as he well knew. He knew that we, ‘would deal very treacherously,and were nghtly called transgressors from the womb,’ Isa. xlviii. ὃ. But so to covenant with us, would no way have become the infinite wisdom of God. Wherefore ‘he laid help upon one that is mighty, he exalted one chosen out of the people,’ Ps. Ixxxix. 19. He committed this work to Jesus Christ, and then said concerning us, ‘now deliver for I have found a ransom.’; Ῥ
2. The changeableness of our condition in this world requires a surety for us, to render the covenant firm, stable, and unalterable. So the Psalmist, complaining of our frail and mutable condition, shows that it is in Christ alone that we have all our establishment, Ps. cii. 25—28,* Of old thou hast laid the foundations of the earth,’ &e. That it is the Lord Christ, the Son of God, that in an especial manner is intended, I have shown and proved at large on ch. 1. 10, where this passage in the Psalm is applied to him. And the conclusion that the Psalmist makes from the consideration of his immutability, is this, ‘the children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee,’ ver. 28. Without an interest in him and his stability, we are subject to change, alter, decline, so as it is impossible the covenant should be sure to us. The very nature of the principle whereby we live, and walk before God in this world, zenders our condition alterable in itself. For ‘we walk by faith and not by sight,’ 2 Cor. v. 7. It%is vision alone, or the immediate enjoyment of God which will instate us in an unalterable condition. Whilst we walk by faith, it is otherwise with us, and we depend wholly on our surety for our security in thé covenant..
3. Who is it among the whole society of believers, that is not sensi-~ ble of such actual dispositions to change, yea such actual changes, as that it is not evident to him, that his final stability depends on the undertaking of a surety? No mancan give an account from himself whence it is, that he hath not already utterly broken covenant with God..There is no one corruption, no one temptation, but doth evidence a sufficiency in themselves to defeat us of our covenant interest, if we stood on our own bottoms. It is faith alone with respect to the suretiship of Christ, which discovers how we have been kept hitherto, and which gives us any comfortable prospect of our future preservation. And the same is evident from the consideration of all the adversaries of our covenant interest. |
Here we might stay awhile to contemplate the glory of divine wisdom and grace, in providing this surety of the covenant, and to adore ~ the infinite love and eondescension of him, who undertook the discharge of this office for us. But we must proceed, only observing,
Obs. XII. That the Lord Christ’s undertaking to be our surety, gives the highest obligation to all duties of obedience according to the covenant.—For he hath undertaken for us, that we shall yield to God this covenant obedience, and said, ‘surely they are children that will not lie. He is no believer who understands not somewhat of. the force and power of this obligation.
sacerdotes, ‘and many others truly were made priests,’ or, ‘and others truly were made many priests.’ The Rhemists reduce it to this sense, ‘and the other indeed were made priests being many;’ rendering of μεν, by alii, instead of illi, which corrupts the sense, and takes off from the immediate respect to the priests of the order of Aaron, intended by the apostle.
Et illi quidem plures sunt facti sacerdotes. ‘And they truly were many priests.” So the Syr. ΝΥΝ xv NT pm, ‘and they were many priests,’ omitting the note of asservation, μεν, ‘ truly.’
Evot yeyovorec, ‘ were made,’ not only the event and matter of fact, but God’s institution is also intended.
Ava ro θανατω κωλυεσθαι. Vulg. Lat. [dcireo quod morte prohiberentur permanere, Rhem. ‘ because that by death they were prohihited to continue.’ Ours, ‘ because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death,’ quoniam per mortem, non sinebantur permanere; which is the true meaning of the words. Syr. ‘ Because they died and were not left to continue.’
Tove προσερχομενους; accedentes per semetipsum ad Deum. Rhemists, * he is able to save for ever going by himself to God;’ strangely darkening the sense. For going seems to respect his own going to God, which the Vulg. accedentes will not bear, eos qui per ipsum accedunt ad Deum, ‘ those who by him draw nigh to God.’
_{lavrore ζων; semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis, ‘always living to make intercession for us,’ instead of ‘for them, avrwy, Syr. prrpdn xmdp pom, ‘causing to ascend, or offering prayers for them.’
Ver. 23—25.—And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able to save them also to the uttermost, that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
The apostle in these words proceedeth to his last argument, from the consideration of the priesthood of Christ, as typed and represented by that of Melchisedec. And his intention is still to prove the excellency of it above the Levitical, and of his person above theirs. - And in particular he makes it manifest that the bringing in of this better hope, did perfect or consummate all things ‘which the law could not do.
That he hath in these verses a respect to Melchisedec as a type of Christ, and what we are taught thereby, is evident from the matter treated of in them. He had observed that, as to the description given of him in the Scripture, ‘he abideth a priest continually,’ ver. 3, and that it is witnessed of him that he lives, seeing it is nowhere mentioned that he died, ver. 8, and this is the last consideration of him which be improv eth to his purpose, and it is that which gives virtue and efficacy to all the other that he had before insisted on. Set this aside, and all the other, whether advantages or excellencies which he had discoursed of, πη be as ineffectual ‘to the ends aimed at, as the law itself. For what profit could it be to the church, to have so excellent and glorious a priest for a season, and then immediately to be deprived of him by the expiration of his office.
Moreover, as what the apostle affirms here of Christ, hath respect to what he had before observed concerning Melchisedec, so what he affirms of the Levitical priests, depends on what he had before declared concerning them, namely, that they were all mortal dying men and no more, who actually died in their successive generations, ver. 8.
1. The state and condition of the Levitical priests by reason of their mortality, ver. 23. ‘This he observes because he is not declaring the dignity of Christ and his priesthood absolutely, but with respect to them; whose state therefore was the antithesis in the comparison.
2. The state and condition of the priesthood of Christ on the account of his glorious immortality, ver. 24.
3. The blessed effects and consequents of the priesthood of Christ, inasmuch as by virtue of his immortality, he was ‘a priest for ever,’ ver. 25. ᾿
In the first, (ver. 29. there is, 1. The introduction of his assertion and ebservation, καὶ of μεν, ‘and they truly.’
3. Whence that came to pass; namely, ‘ because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death;’ which is not alleged only as the cause and reason of their being many, but also as a proof of their weakness and infirmity.
First. In the introduction of his assertion, there is a note of connexion, and another of asseveration.
Ist. The first is the copulative conjunction, ‘ and,’ ca. A process to a new argument to the same purpose with those focucaee is intended hereby. The former design is continued, and a new confirmation of it is added. For he resolved to omit nothing that was of moment and to his purpose.
tion; and of μεν, ‘they truly.’ He had used the same note before in the same manner, ver. 21, where we omit the emphasis of it without cause. And in other places the same translators render this particle by ‘truly, as they do here, 1 Johni. 3. But he doth not so much assert a thing by it that was dubious, as positively declare that which was well known, and could no way be gainsaid by them with whom he had to do. And an argument pressed ‘ex concessis is forcible. This is a known truth.
Secondly. That which he affirms of them is, πλειϑνες evoe yeyovorec ἵερεις, ‘that they were many priests, or there were many made priests, or they who were made priests were many. The sense is the same. By the appointment of God himself, there were many who were made priests, or executed the office of the priesthood. It is of the high priests only, Aaron and his successors, of whom he speaks; and it is with respect to their succession one to another, that he affirms they were many. This both the reason of it which he subjoins, and what he afterwards adds concerning the priesthood of Christ, wherein there was no succession, do evidently declare. For there neither was nor could be by the law any more than one at a time. Perhaps in the disorder and confusion of that church, there might be more that were - so called and esteemed, as were Annas and Caiaphas; but that confusion he takes no notice of, but attends to what always was or ought to have been according to the law.
By succession these high priests were many. For from Aaron, the first of them, to Phinehas, who was destroyed with the temple, there were inclusively four score and three high priests. Of these, thirteen lived under the tabernacle, before the building of the temple by Solomon; eighteen under the first temple before its destruction by the Babylonians; and all the rest lived under the second temple, which yet stood no longer than the first. And the multiplication of high priests under the second temple, the Jews look on as a punishment and token of God’s displeasure: for because the sins of a nation, their rulers are many and frequently changed.
Whatever advantages there may be inan orderly succession, yet 15 it absolutely an evidence of imperfection. And by the appointment of this order God signified an imperfection and mutability in that church state. Succession indeed was a relief against death; but it was but a relief, and so supposed a want and weakness. Under the gospel it is not so, as we shall see afterwards. Observe, that
Obs. I. God will not fail to provide instruments for his work that he hath to accomplish.—If many priests be needful, many the church shall have.
Thirdly. The reason of this multiplication of priests was, δια τὸ Sa- νάτῳ κωλυεσϑαι παραμενειν, ‘because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death.’ They were mortal men, subject to death, and they died. Death suffered them not to continue in the execution of their office. It forbade them so to do, in the name of the great sovereion Lord of life and death. And hereof an instance was given in Aaron, the first of them. God, to show the nature of this priesthood unto the people, and to manifest that the everlasting priest was not yet come, commanded Aaron to die in the sight of all the congregation, Num. xx. 25—28. So did they all afterwards, as other men, die in their several generations. ‘They were all by death forbidden to continue. Death laid an injunction on them one after another, from proceeding any farther in the administration of their office. It is not surely without some especial design, that the apostle thus expresseth their dying: ‘ they were by death prohibited to continue.’ Wherefore, he shows hereby, 1. 'The way whereby an end was put unto the personal administration, and that was, by death. 2. That there was an imperfection in the administration of that office, which was so frequently interrupted. 3. That they were seized upon by death, whether they would or not, when it may be, they would have earnestly desired to continue, and the people also would have rejoiced in it. Death came on them, neither desired nor expected, with his prohibition. 4. That when death came and seized on them, it kept them under its power, so that they could never more attend unto their office. But it was otherwise with the priest of the better covenant, as we shall see immediately. Observe,
Obs. II. There is such a necessity of the continual administration of the sacerdotal office in behalf of the church, that the interruption of it by the death of the priests, was an argument of the weakness of that priesthood,
The high priest is the sponsor and mediator of the covenant. Those of old were so typically, and by way of representation. Wherefore, all covenant transactions between God and the church, must be through him. He is to offer up all sacrifices, and therein represent all our prayers. And it is evident from thence, what a ruin it would be to the church, to be without a high priest one moment. Who would venture a surprisal to his own soul in such a condition? Could any man enjoy a moment’s peace, if he supposed that in his extremity, the high priest might die? This now is provided against, as we shall see in the next verse.
Ver. 24.— But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
In opposition unto what was observed in the Levitical priests, the contrary is here affirmed of the Lord Christ. And the design of the apostle is still the same, namely, to evince by all sorts of instances, his preeminence as a priest above them as such also.
1. The person spoken of is expressed by ὃ δε. The exceptive conjunction δὲ, ‘ but,’ answereth unto μὲν before used, and imtroduceth the other member of the antithesis “Ὁ, hic, ille, iste, he of whom we speak, namely, Jesus, the surety of the New Testament. We render it, ‘ this man, not: mproperly; he was the Mediator between God and man, ‘the man, Christ Jesus.’ Nor doth the calling of him, ‘ this man,’ exclude his divine nature; for he was truly a man, though God and man in one person. And the things here ascribed unto him, were wrought in and by the human nature, though he that wrought them were God also; but ‘he,’ or ‘this man,’ who was represented by Melchisedec, of whom we speak.
2. It is affirmed of this person, that he hath an unchangeable priesthood; the ground and reason whereof is assigned, namely, δια To μένειν avrov, “ because he continueth ever,’ which must be first considered. The sole reason here insisted on by the apostle, why the Levitical priests were many, is because they were forbidden by death to continue. It is sufficient, therefore, on the contrary, to prove the perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ, that he abideth for ever. For he doth not absolutely hereby prove the perpetuity of the priesthood, but his perpetual uninterrupted administration of it. Ava τὸ μένειν εἰς TOV αἰωνα.
This was the faith of the Jews concerning the Messiah, and his office. We have heard, say they, out of the law, ὅτι ὁ Χριστος pevee εἰς τὸν awva, John xi. 34, ‘that Chmst abideth for ever;’ whereon they could not understand what he told them about his being lifted up by death. And so the word peve signifieth ‘to abide,’ ‘to continue in any state or condition,’ John xxi. 22, 29. And this was that in which principally he was typified by Melchisedec, concerning whom there is no record, as to the beginning of days or end of life, but as unto the Scripture description of him he is said to abide a priest for ever.
It may be said in opposition hereunto, that the Lord Christ died also, and that no less truly and really than did Aaron or any priest of his order. Wherefore, it will not hence follow, that he had any more an uninterrupted priesthood than they had. In answer to this, some ‘say, the apostle here considers the priesthood of Christ only after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, after which he dies no more, ~ death hath no more power over him. And if we will believe the Socinians, then he first began to bea priest. This figment I have fully confuted elsewhere. And there is no ground in the context, on which we may conjecture that the apostle intends the administration of his priesthood in heaven only, although he intends that also. For he speaks of his priesthood as typified by that of Melchisedec, which, as we have proved before, respected the whole of his office.
I say, therefore, that although Christ died, yet he was not forbid by death to abide in his office as they were. He died as a priest, they died from being priests. He died as a priest, because he was also to be a sacrifice. But he abode, and continued not only vested with his office, but in the execution of it in the state of death. Through the indissolubleness of his person, his soul and body still subsisting in the person of the Son of God, he was a capable subject of his office. And this being in the state of the dead belonged unto the administration of his office, no less than his death itself. So that from the first moment of his being a priest, he abode so always without interruption or intermission. This is the meaning of dia τὸ μενεῖν avrov, ‘he in his own person abideth.” Nor doth the apostle say, that he did not die, but only that he abideth always.
but he delivereth over unto another, as Aaron did his unto Eleazar his son, or it falls unto another by some right or law of succession; a priesthood that goes from hand to hand. ‘Ieowovvn απαραξατος, is a priesthood that doth not pass from one unto another. And this the apostle seems directly to intend, as is evident from the antithesis. The priests after the order of Aaron were many, and that by reason of death. Wherefore it was necessary that their priesthood should pass from one to another by succession. So that when one received it, he that went before him ceased to be a priest. And so it was, either the predecessors were taken off by death, or on any other just occasion, as it was in the case of Abiathar, who was put from the priest’s office by Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 27. Howbeit, our apostle mentions their going off by death only; because that was the ordinary way, aud which was provided forin the law. With the Lord Christ it was otherwise. He received his priesthood from none. Although he had sundry types, yet he had no predecessor. And he hath none to succeed him, nor can have any added or joined unto him in his office. The whole office of the priesthood of the covenant, and the entire administration of it, are confined unto his person. There are no more that follow him than went before him.
The expositors of the Roman church, are greatly perplexed in the reconciling of this passage of the apostle, unto the present priesthood of their church. And they may well be so, seeing they are undoubtedly irreconcileable. Some of them say that Peter succeeded unto Christ in his priesthood, as Eleazar did unto Aaron. So Ribera. Some of them deny that he hath any successor, properly so called. ‘Successcrem non habet, nec ita quisquam Catholicus loquitur, si bene et circumspecté loqui velit,’ saith Estius. But it is openly evident that some of them are not so circumspect as Estius would have them, but do plainly affirm that Peter was Christ’s successor. A Lapide indeed aflirms that Peter did not succeed unto Christ as Eleazar did to Aaron, because Eleazar had the priesthood in the same degree and dignity with Aaron, and so had not Peter with Christ. But yet that he had the same priesthood with him, a priesthood of the same kind, he doth not deny.
That which they generally fix upon is, that their priests have not another priesthood, or offer another sacrifice, but are partakers of his priesthood, and minister under him, and so are not his successors, but his vicars; which [ think is the worst composure of this difficulty they could have thoughtupon. For,
1. This is directly contrary unto the words and design of the apostle. For the reason he assigns why the priesthood of Christ doth not pass from him unto any other, 1s because he abides himself for ever to discharge the office of it. Now this excludes all subordination and conjunctions: all vicars, as well as successors, unless we shall suppose that although he doth thus abide, yet is he one way or other disabled to discharge his office.
2. The successors of Aaron had no more another priesthood but what he had, than it is pretended that the Roman priests have no other priesthood but what Christ had. Nor did they offer any other saeri- fice than what he offered, as these priests pretend to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did. So that still the case is the same between Aaron and his successors, and Christ and his substitutes.
9. They say that Christ may have substitutes in his office, though he abide a priest still, and although the office still continue the same unchangeable. So God in the government of the world makes use of judges and magistrates, yet is himself the supreme rector of all. But this pretence is vain also. For they do not substitute their priests unto him, in that which he continueth to do himself, but in that which he doth not, which he did indeed, and as a priest ought to do, but. now ceaseth to do for ever in his own person. For the principal act of the sacerdotal office of Christ consisted in his oblation, or his offering himself a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour unto God. This he did once, and ceaseth for ever from doing so any more. But these priests are assigned to offer him in sacrifice every day, as partakers of the same priesthood with him, which is indeed not to be his substitutes, but his successors; and to take his office out of his hand, as if he were dead, and could henceforth discharge it no more. For they do not appoint priests to intercede in his room, because they grant he eontinueth himself so to do; but to offer sacrifice in his stead, because he ~ doth so no more. Wherefore, if that be an act of priesthood, and of their priesthood, as is pretended, it is unavoidable that his priesthood is passed from him unto them. Now, this is a blasphemous imagination, and directly contrary both unto the words of the apostle, and the whole design of his argument. Nay, it would lay the advantage on the other side. For the priests of the order of Aaron had that privilege, that none could take their office upon them, nor officiate in it whilst they were alive. But although Christ abideth for ever, yet according unto the sense of these men, and their practice thereon, he stands in need of others to officiate for him, and that in the principal part of his duty and office. For offer himself in sacrifice unto God, he neither now doth, nor can, seeing henceforth he dieth no more. This is the work of the mass-priests alone, who must, therefore be honoured as Christ’s successors, or be abhorred as his murderers, for the sacrifice of him must be by blood and death.
The argument of the apostle, as it is exclusive of this imagination, so it is cogent unto his purpose. Forso he proceedeth. That priesthood which changeth not, but is always vested in the same person, and in him alone, is more excellent than that which was subject to change continually from one hand to another. For that transmission of it from one unto another, was an effect of weakness and imperfection. And the Jews grant that the frequency of their change under the second temple, was a token of God’s displeasure. But thusit was with the priesthood of Christ which never changeth, and that of Aaron which was in a transient succession. And the reasons he gives of this contrary state of these two priesthoods do greatly enforce the argument. For the first priesthood was so successive, because the priests themselves were obnoxious to death, the sum and issue of all weaknesses and infirmities. Butas to the Lord Christ, his priesthood is perpetual and unchangeable, because he abideth personally for ever, being made a priest according to the power of an endless life, which is the sum of all perfections that our nature is capable of. And we may observe,.
Obs. III. The perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ depends on his own perpetual life. He did not undertake any office for the church to lay it aside whilst he lives, until the whole design and work of it be accomplished. And therefore, he tells his disciples, ‘ that because he liveth they shall live also,’ John xiv. 19. For whilst he lives, he will take care of them. But this must be spoken unto on the next verse.
Obs. IV. The perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ, as. unchangeably exercised in his own person, is a principal part of the glory of that office. His discharge of this office for the church in his own person throughout all generations is the glory of it. 1. Herecn’ depends the church’s preservation and stability. There is neither a ceasing, nor any the least intermission of that care ‘and providence, of such interposition with God on its behalf, which are required thereunto. Our high priest is continually ready to appear, and put in for us on all occasions. And his abiding for ever, manifests the continuance of the same care and love for us, that he ever had. The same love wherewith, as our high priest, he laid down his life for us, doth still continue in him, and every one may, with the same confidence, go unto him with all their concerns, as peor diseased and distempered persons went unto him when he was upon earth; when he never showed greater displeasure than unto those who forbade any to come unto him, whatever their pretences were. 2. Hereon depends the union and communion of the church with itself in all successive generations. For, whereas he is their head and high priest, in whom they all centre as unto their union and communion, and who hath all their graces and duties in his hand to present them unto God, they have a relation unto each other, and a concern in one another. We that are alive in this generation have communion with all those that died in the faith before us, as shall be declared, if God will, on ch. xil. ver. 22—24. And they were concerned in us, as we are also in the generations that are to come. | For all the prayers of the church, from first to last, are lodged in the hands of the same high priest who abides for ever. Afid he returns the prayers of one generation unto another. We enjoy the fruits of the prayers, obedience, and blood of those that went before us; and if we are faithful in our generation, serving the will of God, those shall enjoy the fruits of ours, who shall come after us. Our joint interest in this our abiding priest, gives a line of communication unto all believers in all generations. And, 3. Theconsolation of the church also depends hereon. Do we meet with troubles, trials, difficulties, temptations, and distresses? Hath not the church done so in former ages? What do we think of those days wherein prisons, tortures, swords, and flames, were the portion of the church all the world over? But did any of them miscarry? Was any one true believer lost for ever? And did not the whole church prove victorious in the end? Did not Satan rage, and the world gnash their teeth, to see themselves conquered and their power broken, by the faith, patience, and suffering of them whom they hated and despised? And was it from their own wisdom and courage that they were so preserved? Did they overcome merely by their own blood, or were delivered by their own power? No, but all their preservation and success, their deliverance and eternal salvation, depended merely on the cave and power of their merciful high priest. It was through his blood, the blood of the Lamb, or the efficacy of his sacrifice, that they overcame their adversaries, Rev. xii. 11. By the same blood were their robes washed and made white, ch. vil. 14. From thence had they their righteousness in all their sufferings. And by him had the church its triumphant issue out of all its trials. Now is he not the same that he ever was, vested with the same office, and hath he not the same qualifications of love, compassion, care, and power for the discharge of it, as he always had? Whence, then, can any just cause of despondence in any trials or temptations arise? We have the same high priest to take care of us, to assist and help us, ‘as they had, who were all of them finally victorious. 4, This gives perpetual efficacy unto his sacrifice, &c.
Obs. V. The addition of sacrificing priests as vicars of, or substitutes unto Christ, in the disharge of his office, destroys his priesthood, as to the principal eminency of it, above that of the Levitieal priesthood.
Ver. 25.— Wherefore he is able also to save them ito the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
In this verse, the apostle brings his whole preceeding mysterious discourse unto an issue, in the application of it unto the faith and comfort of the church. Jt was not his design merely to open mysterious truths in the notion of them; nor only to prove the glory and preeminence of the gospel church-state, above that of the same church, under Mosaic institutions, on the account of the priesthood of Christ: but his principal design was, to demonstrate the spiritual and eternal advantages of all true believers by these things. ‘The sum of what he intends, he proposeth in this verse, and afterwards enlargeth on unto the end of the chapter. What believers ought to seek in, and what they may expect from this blessed glorious priesthood, is that which he now undertakes to declare. In lke manner, on all occasions he manifests, that the end of God in the whole mystery of his grace by Jesus Christ, and institutions of the gospel, is the salvation of his elect unto the praise of the glory of his grace. There are in the words,
9. The end of that power, or the effect of it: it is to save, which is farther described, 1. By the extent of it—‘it is unto the hac ara 2. The especial object of it—‘ those that come to God by
4, The reasons of the whole; which are, 1. His perpetual life. Ἦ His perpetual work—‘he ever liveth to make intercession for them.’
The note of inference ὅθεν, is frequently made use of by our apostle in this argumentative discourse, as ch. 11. 17, 1. 1, viii. 3, ix. 18, and in this place, ideo, quapropter. Nor is it any where else in the New ‘Testament used for the introduction of a conclusion or inference from premises in a way of argument. And the causality which here it includes, may respect the whole foregoing discourse, as asserting that which necessarily follows thereon. Orit may bave respect only unto the ensuing clause in this verse; as if the apostle had only intended in particular, that the Lord Christ is able to save to the uttermost, because he ever abideth. But he rather seems to make an inference from the whole foregoing discourse, and the close of the verse is only an addition of the way and manner, how the Lord Christ aecomplisheth what is ascribed unto him by virtue of his office. Being such a high priest as we have evidenced him to be, made by an oath and abiding for ever, he is able to save.