THE general scope and design of the apostle in this whole epistle hath been before declared, and need not here be repeated. In this first chapter he fixeth and improveth the principal consideration that he intends to insist on throughout the epistle, — to prevail with the Hebrews unto constancy and perseverance in the doctrine of the gospel. And this is taken from the immediate author of it, the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Him, therefore, in this chapter he at large describes; and that two ways, — 1. Absolutely, declaring what he is in his person and offices, as also what he hath done for the church; and,2. Comparatively, with respect unto other ministerial revealers of the mind and will of God, especially insisting on his excellency and preeminence above the angels, as we shall see in the explication of the several parts and verses of it. ΠολυμερῶςκαὶπολυτρόπωςπάλαιὁΘεὸςλαλήσαςτοῖςπατράσινἐντοῖςπροφήταις, ἐπ᾿ἐσχάτωντῶνἡμερῶντούτωνἐλάλησεςἡμινἐνΥἱῷ, ὅνἔθηκεκληρονόμονπάντων, δι᾿οὗκαὶτοὺςαἰῶναςἐποίησεν.Many of these words being variously rendered, their true grammatical sense and importance is to be considered before we open the meaning of the whole, and aim of the apostle in them; in which way we shall also proceed throughout the whole epistle. Πολυμερῶς. αְּ ?λֻ ?μξַ ?βεָ ?ο, Syr., “in all parts,” or “by many parts.” “Multifariam,” Vulg. Eras., A. Montan., “diversely.” “Multis vicibus,” Beza; which ours render, “at sundry times.” Μείρομαι is “sortior,” “divido,” to part,” “to take part,” “to divide :” whence is μέρος, “the part of any thing;” and πολυμερής, “that which consisteth of many parts;” and πολυμερῶς, “by many parts;” which is also used as ἐντῷμέρει, for “alternis vicibus,” “sundry changes.” The word properly is,” by many parts,” “fully,” “by several parts at several times,” as our translation intimates; yet so that a diversity of parts and degrees, rather than of times and seasons, is intended. Καίπολυτρόπως. εαְּ ?λֻ ?μγַּ ?ξְ ?εָ ?ο, Syr., “in all forms.” “Multisque modis,” Vulg. Eras., A. Montan., Beza, “many ways ;” or as ours, “divers manners.” Πάλαι. ξֵ ?οχְ ?γִ ?ιν, Syr., “ab initio,” “from the beginning.” “Olim,” the Latin translation, “of old,” “formerly,” “in times past.” Πάλαι is “olim,” quondam, pridem, jamdudum, any time past that is opposed τῷἄρτι, or νῦν, to that which is present, properly time some good while past, as that was whereof the apostle treats, having ended in Malachi four hundred years before.Τοῖςπατράσιν. ςַ ?νΰֲ ?αָ ?δֵ ?ιο Syr., “with our fathers,” “to the fathers.”᾿Εντοῖςπροφήταις. αּ ?πְ ?αִ ?ιֵ ?ΰּ, Syr., “in the prophets.” So all the Latin translations, “in prophetis.” ᾿Επ᾿ἐσχάτωντῶνἡμερῶντούτων. εαְּ ?δָ ?μֵ ?ιοιַ ?εְ ?ξָ ?ηֵ ?ΰΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ΰּ, Syr., “and in those, last days.” “Ultimis diebus hisce,” “ulitmis diebus istis,” “in these last days.” “Novissime diebus istis,” Vulg., — “last of all in these days.” Some Greek copies have ἐπ᾿ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων, “in extremo dierum istorum,”” in the end of these days.” The reason of which variety we shall see afterwards.᾿ΕνΥιῷ, as before, “in the prophets;” not “by his Son,” but “in the Son.” The emphasis of the expression is necessarily to be retained, as the opening of the words will discover.Τοὺςαἰῶνας. “Mundos,” “secula.” μְ ?ςָ ?μְ ?ξֵ ?ΰ, Syr., “the ages,” “times,” “worlds.” In the remaining words there is no difficulty, as to the grammatical signification; we shall then read them,’[1] — [1] VARIOUS . — On the authority of manuscripts ABDEJK, most of the versions, and the majority of the fathers, Tischendorf, in his second edition of the New Testament, inserts ἐσχάτου in the text. In most critical editions since the time of Bengel, the same reading has been preferred and adopted. Our author himself, to judge from a remark which he makes in the course of exposition, had a decided leaning to it. . — II. καὶπ. “Of the two modes of interpreting these words, I rather prefer that which separates them, and gives a distinct meaning to each: ‘God, who in ancient times made communications to the fathers by the prophets, in sundry parts and in various ways, has now made a revelation to us by his Son:’i. e., he has completed the whole revelation which he intends to make under the new dispensation by his Son, his Son only, and not by a long-continued series of prophets, as of old.” — Stuart. “They have been considered merely a rhetorical amplification.” — Tholuck. “Πολυμερῶς means, not ‘many times,’but ‘manifoldly, in many parts.’The antithesis is not that God has spoken often by the prophets, but only once by his Son;..... the opposition is between the distribution of the Old Testament revelation among the prophets, and the undivided fullness of the New Testament revelation by Christ.” — Ebrard.᾿Επἐσχ. τῶνἡμ. “Under the last period, viz., of the Messiah.” — Stuart. “On the confines of the former period, and of the new everlasting epoch; not within the later, and also not within the former.” — Tholuck. “The end of this time, in reference to the ςεμνδζδof the Jews, the period of the world which preceded the coming of Christ, whose work was to form the transition from it to the period terminating in the resurrection.” — Ebrard. “The period of the gospel, the last dispensation of God.” — Bloomfield. ΕνΨἱῷ. A specimen of the arbitrary use of the article, for “Ψἱῷ is monadic: it designates one individual peculiarly distingished, and the pronoun αὐτοῦ is omited after it; on all which accounts, according to theory, the article should be added.” — Stuart. “‘God spake to us by one who was Son,’who stood not in the relation of prophet, but in the relation of Son to him. If it were ἐντῷΨἱῷ, then Christ would be placed as this individual, in opposition to the individuals of the prophets; but as the article is wanting, it is the species that is placed in opposition to the species, although, of court, Christ is the single individual of his species.” — Ebrard. “Ψἱός may in this use be considered (like Χριστός, put for ῾ΟΧριστός) as an appellative converted into a sort of proper name.” — See Middleton on the Greek article, note Matthew 1:1; Matthew 4:3; Bloomfield. Κληρονόμος. “The Son inherited the world neither by lot nor by the demise of the possessor. Like the Hebrew ιָ ?ψַ ?ωׁ, of which inherit is only a secondary sense, it means to take into possession in any manner.” — Stuart. “The prophets were heralds of the promised future inheritance; Christ is the heir himself..... The principal idea is, not that of a possession which any one receives through the death of another, but a possession which he on his part can transfer as an inheritance to his posterity; consequently a permanent possession, over which he has full authority.” — Ebrard. “Καὶ connects a new thought with what precedes; the same being who, according to his divine human nature, shall possess all things in the world, is also, according to his divine nature, the author of all things.” — Tholuck. “Αἰών must necessarily signify the world. This is decisively shown by the parallel passage, Hebrews 11:3, and likewise by that in the Epistle to the Colossians, Colossians 1:15-17, and φέρωντὰπάντα in Hebrews 1:3.” — Tholuck. . — II. καὶπ. “Often, and in various ways.” — Stuart. “In many portions, and in many ways.” — Craik. Τοὶςπατ. “To our fathers.” — De Wette. Πάλ. “Since primeval times.” — Tholuck. “In ancient times.” — Stuart. Επἐσχ. κ. τ. λ. “In the end of these days.” — Conybeare and Howson. ᾿ΕνΨ. “In the person of the Son.” — Conybeare and Howson. Κλ. “Lord of all things.” — Stuart. Αἰών. “The world.” — Stuart. “The universe.” — Conybeare and Howson.Hebrews 1:1-2. — By sundry parts, and in divers manners, God having formerly [or, of old] spoken unto the fathers in the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us in the Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all, by whom also he made the worlds.The apostle intending a comparison between the Mosaical law and the gospel, referreth it unto two heads, — first, Their revelation and institution, whence the obligation to the observance of the one and the other did arise; and, secondly, Their whole nature, use, and efficacy. The first he enters upon in these words, and premising that wherein they did agree, distinctly lays down the severals wherein the difference between them doth consist; both which were necessary to complete the comparison intended. That wherein they agree is the principal efficient cause of their revelation, or the prime author from whom they were. This is God. He was the author of the law and gospel. He spake of old “in the prophets,” he spake in the last days “in the Son.” Neither of them was from men; not one from one principle, and the other from another, — both have the same divine original. See 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21. Herein they both agree.Their difference in this respect, namely, in their revelation, he refers to four heads, all distinctly expressed, saving that some branches of the antithesis on the part of the gospel are only included in the opposite expressions that relate unto the law. Their difference, First, respects the manner of their revelation, and that in two particulars:1. The revelation of the will of God under the law was given out by “divers parts;” that under the gospel at once, or in one dispensation of grace and truth.2. That “in divers manners;” this one way only, by the Spirit dwelling in the Lord Christ in his fullness, and by him communicated unto his apostles. Secondly, The times and seasons of their revelation. That of the law was made “of old,” “formerly, in times past;” this of the gospel “in these last days.”Thirdly, The persons to whom the revelation of them was made. That was to the “fathers,” this to “us.”Fourthly, and principally, The persons by whom these revelations were made. That was by “the prophets;” this by “the Son.” God spake then in the prophets; now he hath spoken in the Son. The whole stress of the apostle’s argument lying on this last instance, omitting the prosecution of all the other particulars, he enters upon the further description of this immediate revealer of the gospel in whom God spake, the Son, and lays down in general, 1. The authority committed unto him, — God made him “heir of all;”2. The ground and equity of committing that great power and trust unto him, in these words, “By whom also he made the worlds:” whereby he opens his way to the further declaration of his divine and incomparable excellencies, wherein he is exalted far above all or any that were employed in the revelation or administration of the law of Moses, and the holy worship instituted thereby.All these particulars must be opened severally, that we may see the intendment of the apostle, and the force of his argument in the whole; and some of them must necessarily be somewhat largely insisted on, because of their influence into the ensuing discourse. That wherein the law and gospel do both agree is, that God was the author of them both. About this there was no difference as to the most of them with whom the apostle treated. This he takes for granted. For the professing Jews did not adhere to Mosaical institutions because God was their author, not so of the gospel; but because they were given from God by Moses in such a manner as never to be changed or abrogated. This the apostle lays down as an acknowledged principle with the most, that both law and gospel received their original from God himself; proving also, as we shall see in the progress of our discourse, to the conviction of others, that such a revelation as that of the gospel was foretold and expected, and that this was it in particular which was preached unto them. Now, God being here spoken of in distinction from the Son expressly, and from the Holy Ghost by evident implication, it being he by whom he spake in the prophets, that name is not taken οὐσιώδως, substantially, to denote primarily the essence or being of the Deity, and each person as partaking in the same nature, but ὐποστατικῶς, denoting primarily one certain person, and the divine nature only as subsisting in that person. This is the person of the Father; as elsewhere the person of the Son is so signified by that name, Acts 20:28; John 1:1; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 5:20 ; — as also the person of the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:11; Colossians 2:2. So that God, even the Father, by the way of eminency, was the peculiar author of both law and gospel; of which afterwards. And this observation is made necessary from hence, even because he immediately assigns divine properties and excellencies unto another person, evidently distinguished from him whom he intends to denote by the name God in this place; which he could not do did that name primarily express, as here used by him, the divine nature absolutely, but only as it is subsisting in the person of the Father. From this head of their agreement the apostle proceeds to the instances of the difference that was between the law and the gospel as to their revelation from God; of which, a little inverting the order of the words, we shall first consider that which concerns the times of their giving out, sundry of the other instances being regulated thereby. For the first, or the revelation of the will of God under the old testament, it was, “of old.” God spake πάλαι, “formerly,” or “of old.” Some space of time is denoted in this word which had then received both its beginning and end, both which we may inquire after. Take the word absolutely, and it comprises the whole space of time from the giving out of the first promise unto that end which was put unto all revelations of public use under the old testament. Take it as relating to the Jews, and the rise of the time expressed in it is the giving of the law by Moses in the wilderness. And this is that which the apostle hath respect unto. He had no contest with the Jews about the first promise, and the service of God in the world built thereon, nor about their privilege as they were the sons of Abraham; but only about their then present church privilege and claim by Moses’law. The proper date, then, and bound of this πάλαι, “of old,” is from the giving out of Moses’law, and therein the constitution of the Judaical church and worship, unto the close of public prophecy in the days of Malachi. From thence to the days of John Baptist God granted no extraordinary revelation of his will, as to the standing use of the whole church. So that this dispensation of God speaking in the prophets continued for the space of twenty-one jubilees, or near eleven hundred years. That it had been now ceased for a long time the apostle intimates in this word, and that agreeably to the confessed principles of the Jews; whereby also he confirmed his own of the coming of the Messiah, by the reviving of the gift of prophecy, as was foretold, Joe 2:28-29.And we may, by the way, a little consider their thoughts in this matter; for, as we have observed and proved before, the apostle engageth with them upon their own acknowledged principles. “The Jews, then, generally grant, unto this day, that prophecy for the public use of the church was not bestowed under the second temple after the days of Malachi, nor is to be expected until the coming of Elias. The delusions that have been put upon them by impostors they now labor all they can to conceal; and they are of late, by experience, made incredulous towards such pretenders as in former ages they have been brought to much misery by. Now, as their manner is to fasten all their conjectures, be they true or false, on some place, word, or letter of the Scripture, so have they done this assertion also. Observing or supposing the want of sundry things in the second house, they pretend that want to be intimated, Haggai 1:7-8, where God, promising to glorify himself in that temple, the word ΰֶ ?λָּ ?αְ ?γָ, ‘I will glorify,’is written defectively, without δ, as the Keri notes. That letter, being the numeral note of five, signifies, as they say, the want of five things in that house. The first of these was, ΰψεο, — ‘the ark and cherubim;’the second, δξωηδωξο— ‘the anointing oil;’the third, ςφιδξςψλδ, — ‘the wood of disposition,’or ‘perpetual fire;’the fourth, ΰεψινεϊεξιν, — ‘Urim and Thummim;’the fifth, ψεηδχγω, — ‘the Holy Ghost,’or ‘Spirit of prophecy.’They are not, indeed, all agreed in this enumeration. The Talmud in ιεξΰ, Joma, cap. v., reckons them somewhat otherwise: —1. The ark, with the propitiatory and cherubim; 2. The fire from heaven, which answers the third, or wood of disposition, in the former order; 3. The divine Majesty, in the room of the anointing oil:4. The Holy Ghost; 5. Urim and Thummim.Another order there is, according to Rabbi Bechai, Comment. in Pentateuch., sect. ειβω; who places the anointing oil distinctly, and confounds the ωλιπδ, or; ‘divine Majesty,’with ψεηδχγεω, ‘the Holy Ghost,’contradicting the Gemara. The commonly approved order is that of the author of Aruch, in the root λαγ: — “ΰψεολτεψϊελψεαΰηγ, — ‘the ark, propitiatory, and cherubim, one.’ “ωλιπδωπι, — ‘the divine Majesty, the second thing.’ “ψεηδχγεωωδεΰπαεΰδωμεωι, — ‘the Holy Ghost, which is prophecy, the third.’ “ΰεεινεϊεξινψαιςι, — ‘Urim and Thummim, the fourth thing.’ “ΰωξοδωξινηξιωι, — ‘fire from heaven, the fifth thing.’“But as this argument is ridiculous, both in general in wire-drawing conclusions from letters deficient or redundant in writing, and in particular in reference to this word, which in other places is written as in this, as Numbers 24:11, 1 Samuel 2:30, Isaiah 66:5; so the observation itself of the want of all these five things in the second house is very questionable, and seems to be invented to give countenance to the confessed ceasing of prophecy, by which their church had been planted, nourished, and maintained, and now, by its want, was signified to be near expiration. For although I will grant that they might offer sacrifices with other fire than that which was traduced from the flame descending from heaven, though Nadab and Abihu were destroyed for so doing, because the law of that fire attended the giving of it, whence upon its providential ceasing, it was as lawful to use other fire in sacrifice as it ‘was before its giving out; yet as to the ark, the Urim and Thummim, the matter is more questionable, and as to the anointing oil out of question, because it being lawful for the high priest to make it at any time, it was no doubt restored in the time of Ezra’s reformation. I know Abarbanel, on Exodus 30 sec. ϊωΰ, affirms that there was no high priest anointed with oil under the second house; for which he gives this reason, μτιωααψδιδπβπζωξοδξωηδ, ‘Because the anointing oil was now hid;’ωβπζειΰωιδεςνωΰψδγαψινδχγεωιν, ‘for Josiah had hid it with the rest of the holy things ;’a Talmudical figment, to which he adds, μδνψωεϊμςωεϊεεμΰδιδ, ‘and they had no power to make it.’I will not much contend about matter of fact, or what they did: but that they might have done otherwise is evident from the first institution of it; for the prohibition mentioned, Exodus 30:31-32, respects only private persons. And Josephus tells us that God ceased to give answer by Urim and Thummim two hundred years before he wrote, book 3 chapter 8; which proves they had it.“It is indeed certain that at their first return from Babylon they had not the Urim and Thummim, Ezra 2:63, — there was no priest with Urim and Thummim; yet it doth not appear that afterwards that jewel, whatever it were, was not made upon the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, whereby the restoration of the temple and the worship belonging thereunto was carried on to perfection, especially considering the vision of Zechariah about clothing the high priest with the robes of his office, chapter 3; after which time it seems they were made and in use, as Josephus shows us, book 11, chapter 8, treating of the reverence done by Alexander the Great to the name of God engraven in the plate of gold on the high priest’s forehead. And Maimonides, Tractat. Sanhed. cap. 10, sect. 10, says expressly that all the eight robes of the high priest were made under the second temple, and particularly the Urim and Thummim. Howbeit, as he says, they inquired not of God by them, because the Holy Ghost was not on the priests. Of the ark we shall have occasion to treat afterwards, and of its fictitious hiding by Jeremiah or Josiah, as the Jews fancy. This we may observe for the present, that as it is certain that it was carried away by the Babylonians, amongst other vessels of gold belonging to the temple, either amongst them that were taken away in the days of Jehoiakim, 2 Chronicles 36:7; or those taken away with Jehoiachin his son, 2 Chronicles 36:10; or when all that was left before, great and small, was carried away in the days of Zedekiah, 2 Chronicles 36:18 : so it may be supposed to be restored by Cyrus, of whom it is said that he returned ‘the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem,’ Ezra 1:7. And it is uncertain to what end was the solemn yearly entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, observed to the very destruction of the second house, if neither ark nor mercy-seat were there. Neither is this impeached by what Tacitus affirms, Hist. lib. v., that when Pompey entered the temple, he found ‘nullas Deum effigies, vacuum sedem, et inania arcana;’for as he wrote of the Jews with shameful negligence, so he only intimates that they had no such images as were used among other nations, — nor the head of an ass, which himself, not many lines before, had affirmed to be consecrated in their sanctuary. For aught, then, appears to the contrary, the ark might be in the second house, and be carried thence to Rome with the book of the law, which Josephus expressly mentions. And therefore the same Abarbanel, in his commentary on Joel, tells us that Israel by captivity out of his own land lost εξτϊινειγιςϊΰμδιϊωֶ ?μωδξϊπεϊωϊιεδνπαεΰδ— ‘three excellent gifts, prophecy, miracles, and divine knowledge,’Psalms 74:9; all which he grants were to be restored by the Messiah, without mention of the other things before recited. And they confess this openly in Sota Distinc. Egla Hampha: ηβιζλψιδεξμΰλιπρϊμχδψεηδχεγωξιωψΰμξωξϊεδπαιΰινδΰηψεπιν; — ‘After the death of the latter prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit was taken away from Israel.’”It is, then, confessed “that God ceased to speak to the church in prophets, as to their oral teaching and writing, after the days of Malachi; which season of the want of vision, though continuing four hundred years and upwards, is called by Haggai, Haggai 2:6, ξְ ?ςַ ?θΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊ:, ‘unum pusillum,’‘a little while,’in reference to the continuance of it from the days of Moses; whereby the Jews may see that they are long since past all grounds of expectation of its restoration, all prophecy having left them double the time that their church enjoyed it, which cannot be called ξְ ?ςַ ?θΰηַ ?ϊ, ‘a little while,’in comparison thereof.” To return. This was the πάλαι, these the times, wherein God spake in the prophets: which determines one instance more of the comparison, namely, “the fathers,” to whom he spake in them; which were all the faithful of the Judaical church, from the days of giving the law until the ceasing of prophecy in the days of Malachi.In answer to this first instance, on the part of the gospel, the revelation of it is affirmed to be made in these last days, “Hath spoken in these last days;” the true stating of which time also will discover who the persons were to whom it was made, “Hath spoken to us.” Most expositors suppose that this expression, “The last days,” is a periphrasis for the times of the gospel. But it doth not appear that they are anywhere so called; nor were they ever known by that name among the Jews, upon whose principles the apostle proceeds. Some seasons, indeed, under the gospel, in reference to some churches, are called “The last days,” 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:1; but the whole time of the gospel absolutely is nowhere so termed. It is the last days of the Judaical church and state, which were then drawing to their period and abolition, that are here and elsewhere called “The last days,” or “The latter days,” or “The last hour,” 2 Peter 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18. For, —1. As we before observed, the apostle takes it for granted that the Judaical church-state did yet continue, and proves that it was drawing to its period, chap. 8 ult., having its present station in the patience and forbearance of God only, without any necessity as unto its worship or preservation in the world. And hereunto doth the reading of the words in some copies, before intimated, give testimony, ῾Επ᾿ἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶντούτων, — “ In the end” (or “extremity’’) “of these days;” which, as the event hath proved, can no way relate to the times of the gospel. 2. The personal ministry of the Son, whilst he was upon the earth in the days of his flesh, is here eminently, though not solely intended: for as God of old spake in the prophets, so in these last days he spake in the Son; that is, in him personally present with the church, as the prophets also were in their several generations, Hebrews 2:3. Now, as to his personal ministry, he was sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” Matthew 15:24 (to whom also alone in his own days he sent his apostles, Matthew 10:5-6); and is therefore said to have been “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God,” Romans 15:8, being in the last place sent to the same vineyard unto which the prophets were sent before, Matthew 21:37. The words there used, “Last of all he sent unto them his Son,” are exegetical of these, “He spake in the Son in the last days.” 3. This phrase of speech is signally used in the Old Testament to denote the last days of the Judaical church. So by Jacob, Genesis 49:1, “I will tell you that which shall befall you αְּ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊδַ ?ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν,” — “in the last days:” which words the LXX. render, ᾿Επἐσχάτωντῶνἡμερῶν, the words here used by the apostle; the days pointed unto by Jacob being those wherein the Messiah should come, before Judah was utterly deprived of scepter and scribe. Again, by Balaam the same words are used to signify the same time, Numbers 24:14, where they are rendered ᾿Επἐσχάτουτῶνἡμερῶν, “In the end of the days,” as many copies read in this place. And in all the prophets this is the peculiar notation of that season, δַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ινΰηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, Micah 4:1, Isaiah 2:2, “In the latter” (or “last”) days; and δΰδιγιςδ, “the He hajediah,” prefixed, noteth that course of days that was then running, as Deuteronomy 31:29, “Evil will overtake you αְּ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν,” — “ in the end of those days.” And the promise of the conversion of some of the Jews by David their king is annexed to the same season, Hosea 3:5. From these places is the expression here used taken, denoting the last times of the Judaical church, the times immediately preceding its rejection and final ruin. Hence Manasseh, lib. 3 de Resurrect. cap. 3, tells us out of Moses Gerundensis, δξωιηλμξχενωπΰξψαεαΰηψιϊδιξινδεΰμιξεϊ; — “ In every place that mentions the ‘latter days,’the days of the Messiah are to be understood;” which saying of his is confirmed by Manasseh himself, though attended with a gloss abominable and false, that is purely Judaical. The days of the Messiah and the days of the end of the Judaical church are the same. And these words are expressly also used by R. D. Kimchi, Comment. in Isaiah 2:2; who honestly refers all the words of that prophecy unto the Messiah.It is not for nothing that the apostle minds the Hebrews that the season then present was the “last days,” whereof so many things were foretold in the Old Testament. Many of their concernments lay in the knowledge of it: which, because they give great light unto the whole cause, as stated then between him and them, must be opened and considered. The sum is, that the end of their church and state being foretold to be a perpetual desolation, Daniel 9:27, the last days being now come upon them, they might understand what they were shortly to expect and look for. The end of the Jews being a people, a church, and kingdom, was to bring forth the Messiah, whose coming and work must of necessity put an end to their old station and condition. Now, because herein is enwrapped the most infallible demonstration that the Messiah is long since come, the apostle mentioning the last days to intimate that upon necessity he must be come in them, I shall further open his design in this matter, but with briefness, having been large on this head in our Prolegomena, and for their sakes who by any difficulties may be deterred from the consideration of them. “God having from the foundation of the world promised to bring forth the ‘Seed of the woman,’to work out the redemption of his elect in the conquest of Satan, did, in the separation of Abraham from the rest of the world, begin to make provision of a peculiar stock, from whence the Seed of the woman should spring. That this was the cause and end of his call and separation is evident from hence, that immediately thereupon God assures him that ‘in his seed all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed,’ Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 22:18; which is all one as if he had expressly said to him, ‘For this cause have I chosen and called thee, that in thee I might lay a foundation of bringing forth the promised Seed, by whom the curse is to be taken away, and the blessing of everlasting life procured,’as Galatians 3:13-14. For this cause was his posterity continued in a state of separation from the rest of the world, that He might seek a godly seed to himself, Numbers 23:9; Malachi 2:15 : for this cause did he raise them into a civil, regal, and church state, that he might in them typify and prefigure the offices and benefits of the promised Messiah, who was to gather to himself the nations that were to be blessed in the seed of Abraham, Genesis 49:10; Psalms 45; Hosea 3:5; Ezekiel 34:23. And all their sacrifices did but shadow out that great expiation of sin which he was to make in his own person, as hath been already proved.“Things being thus disposed, God promised unto them that their civil political state, their condition as a peculiar nation and people, should be continued until the coming of the Messiah, Genesis 49:10; Ezekiel 21:27. And this was made good unto them, notwithstanding the greatoppositions of those mighty empires in the midst of whose devouring jaws they were placed, with some such short intercisions of the actual administration of rule amongst them, as, being foretold, impeached not the promise. They lost not their civil state until He came unto whom was ‘the gathering of the nations.’After that, though many of the individuals obtained mercy, yet their being a nation or people was of no peculiar use, as to any special end of God. Therefore was it immediately destroyed and irrecoverably exterminated. From that day God in a wonderful manner blasted and cursed all their endeavors, either for the preservation of what they then had, or for its recovery and restoration when lost. No means could ever retrieve them into a people or nation on the old account. What may be hereafter on a new, God knows. The end of the days was come; and it was to no purpose for men to endeavor to keep up that which God, having accomplished the utmost of his design by and upon, would lay aside. And this season was fully evidenced to all the world by the gathering of the people to the Shiloh, or the coming in of the nations to partake in the blessing of faithful Abraham, Micah 4:1-2.“Of their church-state there were two principal parts, — the temple itself, and the worship performed in it. The first of these (as was the tabernacle) was set up to typify him in whom the fullness of the Godhead should dwell bodily; and the latter the same person, as he was himself to be the great high priest and sacrifice. Both these also were to be continued until the coming of the Messiah; but by no endeavor afterwards. Hence was that promise of the glory of the second house, built after the captivity, and restored by Herod, because of his coming unto it who was signified by it, Haggai 2:9; Malachi 3:1. He was to come whilst that temple was standing; after which it was to be of no more use. And therefore Ezekiel describes third and spiritual temple to succeed in the room thereof. The condition of their sacrifices was the same. Therefore Daniel, foretelling the coming of the Messiah four hundred and ninety years after the captivity, adds that upon his death the daily sacrifice must cease for ever, and a total desolation ensue on all the things that were used, for the end accomplished, Daniel 9:24-27. The nation, state, temple, sacrifices, being set apart, set up, and designed for no other end but to bring him forth, he was to come whilst they were standing and in use; after which they were none of them to be allowed a being upon their old foundation. This is that which the apostle pointed at in mentioning the last days, that they might consider in what condition the church and people of the Jews then were. To discover the evidence of this demonstration, as confirmed in our Prolegomena, I shall here also briefly add some considerations of the miserable entanglements of the Jews in seeking to avoid the argument here intimated unto them by the apostle. “It is a common tradition among them that all things were made for the Messiah; whereby they do not intend, as some have imagined, the whole old creation, but all things of their church state and worship. So the Targum, Psalms 40:8, in the person of the Messiah, ‘I shall enter into life eternal when I study in the volume of the law ΰτθεμϊιγΰϊλϊιαΰ,’— ‘that was written for my sake.’By ‘the law’they understand their all. All depended on their Messiah, all was written for him. They see by experience that there was a coincidence of all these things in the last days, when Jesus came. No sooner had he done his work but scepter and scribe departed from Judah; they ceased to be a church and nation. The temple, which the Lord whom they formerly sought came to, was destroyed; their sacrifices, wherein they trusted, caused to cease; and the nations of the earth were gathered into the faith of Abraham. From that time they have no more been a people, nor have had any distinction of tribes or families, temple, priesthood, or sacrifice, nor any hope of a retrieve-merit into their pristine condition. Let us then see what course they do or have taken to countenance themselves in their infidelity. Two ways to relieve themselves they have fixed on: — “1. Granting that the Messiah was to come to their government and worship, they labored to keep them up, and to restore them being cast down, that so they might prolong their expectation of that as to come which indeed was already past. This, in the righteous and holy providence of God, proved the means of their ruin; for their endeavor to maintain their liberty, rule, and government, after the coming of the Messiah, was the cause of the utter overthrow of all rule, authority, and public worship amongst them, by Vespasian and Titus his son. Their endeavor to restore themselves into a state and people, under their false Messiah Bar-Cochba, was the means of their utter desolation from all hopes of being a people and nation any more, by Adrian; as also of their extermination for ever out of that country, wherein they were separated from all nations for that end which God appointed unto them. After this, once more, — still to avoid the thoughts that the Messiah was come, and had put an end unto their former condition, — they endeavored, and were encouraged by Julian the emperor, to rebuild their temple and restore their sacrifices. And this attempt also God turned to their further confusion; for whereas in former days, in the building of the temple, he encouraged and supported them against all difficulties and oppositions, being now upheld and strengthened by the favor and wealth of the Roman empire in the same work, he sets himself against them, and scatters them with no less indignation than he did the builders of Babel of old. When he would have a temple amongst them, he punished them with famine for building their own houses, and suffering his to lie waste, Haggai 1:2-11. Now they may build houses for themselves where they please; but if they take in hand to build a temple God is against them. In this state they have now continued for sixteen hundred years; and were not blindness come upon them to the utmost, they could not but see that it is not the will of God that they should be a people, state, or church, on the former account, any more. What then is become of their Messiah, who was to come unto them whilst they were a state and church, seeing they were so, by their own confession, only for his sake? This puts their later masters to their last miserable shifts; for, — “2. Contrary to the evident nature of all things relating to them from the appropriating of the promise to the family of Abraham, contrary to the whole design of the Scripture, and to the express testimonies of it before mentioned, with many other to the same purpose, they deny that their Messiah was to come to them, or at least to abide with them, for the work whereunto he was destined, whilst their state, temple, and sacrifices continued. In the management of this shift of unbelief, they are woefully divided amongst themselves.“(1.) For the continuance of their state until the coming of the Messiah, Genesis 49:10, some say that by ‘Shiloh’the Messiah is not intended; who are confuted by their own Targums, all rendering the word Messiah, and by the constant tradition of the elder doctors. Some say that by the ‘scepter and scribe’ the rod of affliction and instruction only is intended; which is a gloss evidently contrary to the design of the prophecy, to the use of the words in all places where their sense is not restrained by evident circumstances, to the Targums, and to all old writers; asserting that which was not peculiar to Judah, nor true in itself, that tribe having for so long a season enjoyed as flourishing a condition as any people in the world, — as good as the Jews look for under the Messiah. Their state, then, is utterly gone, and their Messiah, as it seems, not come. “(2.) What say they unto their temple, that second house whereunto he was to come, and so render the glory of it greater than that of the former? Haggai 2; Malachi 3. Of old they unanimously agreed that he was born whilst the temple stood, or that day that it was destroyed, as Aben Ezra confesseth on Isaiah 53. Many stories out of them might be told to this purpose, — where he was born, how, and of whom, to whom it was revealed by the αϊΰּ ?χεμ, who saw him, where he was disposed of, where he is, but being all the fancies of idle, curious heads and unbelieving hearts, — which St. Paul calls βεβήλους, 1 Timothy 4:7, ‘profane and old wives’fables,’— we shall not trouble the reader with them. Abarbanel, who in corrupting the prophecies concerning the Messiah hath a reach beyond his fellows, affirms that Haggai speaks not of the second, but of a third temple, to be built under the Messiah; but this is nothing but a bold contradiction of the prophet, who three or four times signally declares that he spake of that house which was then building, which their eyes saw, and which so many contemned as not to be compared with the former: Haggai 1:4, ‘This house;’ Haggai 2:7, ‘This house;’ Haggai 2:9, ‘This house;’ so Haggai 2:18. Others say that the glory of that house did not consist in the coming of the Messiah unto it, but in its duration and continuance; for it stood ten years longer than the former. But this also is contrary, — [1. To the catholic persuasion of their forefathers, Targums, Talmuds, and all ancient doctors. [2. To experience; for what could the miserable languishing of ten years by that house, whilst it was by their own confession ‘a den of thieves,’ contribute unto it to enable it to vie for glory with that wonder of the world, the temple of Solomon; in comparison whereof their forefathers thought it no more than some of them of old thought themselves compared to the sons of Anak? [3. To the truth, affirming that the glory of that house was to consist in the coming of the Lord, whom they sought, the desire of all nations, unto it.” All which things are vindicated in our Prolegomena. “3. Their temple being utterly destroyed, as well as their state, and their Messiah not yet come, what think they of their sacrifices? Daniel tells them that he was to come, and to be cut off, before the ceasing of the daily sacrifices; but they must confess that all sacrifices are long since utterly ceased, for surely their offering of a cock to the devil on the day of expiation is no continuance of them. Some say that the Messiah intended by Daniel was king Agrippa, whom Vespasian slew at Rome. But this obstinacy is intolerable. That a semi-pagan, as Agrippa was, should be their Messiah, so honorably foretold of, is a figment which, whatever they pretend, themselves believe not. Nor was Agrippa slain or cut off, but lived in peace to the day of his death. The most of them know not what to say, but only object that the computation of Daniel is dark and obscure, which Christians themselves are not agreed about;” concerning which I must refer the reader to our Prolegomena, as also for the full and large handling of the things here by the way only touched upon. This makes it evident who were the persons who were spoken unto in these last days, “To us;” that is, the members of the Judaical church who lived in the days of the personal ministry of Christ, and afterwards under the preaching of the gospel unto that day, Hebrews 2:3. The Jews of those days were very apt to think that if they had lived in the times of the former prophets, and had heard them delivering their message from God, they would have received it with a cheerful obedience; their only unhappiness, they thought, was that they were born out of due time as to prophetical revelations. This is intimated of them, Matthew 23:30. The apostle, meeting with this persuasion in them, minds them that in the revelation of the gospel God had spoken to themselves, — the thing they so much desired, not questioning but that thereon they should believe and obey. If this word, then, they attend not unto, they must needs be self-condemned. Again, that care and love which God manifested towards them in speaking immediately unto them required the same obedience, especially considering the manner of it, so far excelling that which before he had used towards the fathers; of which afterwards. And these are two instances of the comparison instituted, relating unto times and persons. The next difference respects the manner of these several revelations of the will of God, and that in two particulars; for, — 1. The former was made πολυμερῶς, “by divers parts,” one after the other. The branch of the antithesis that should answer hereunto is not expressed, but implied to be ἅταξ or ἐφάπαξ, “at once.” Πολυμερῶς, “by many parts,” and so, consequently, at sundry times. The gradual discovery of the mind and will of God, by the addition of one thing after another, at several seasons, as the church could bear the light of them, and as it was subserving unto his main design of reserving all pre-eminence to the Messiah, is that which is intended in this expression. How all this is argumentative to the apostle’s purpose will instantly appear. Take the expression absolutely to denote the whole progress of divine revelation from the beginning of the world, and it compriseth four principal parts or degrees, with those that were subservient unto them.The first of these was made to Adam in the promise of the seed, which was the principle of faith and obedience to the fathers before the flood; and unto this were subservient all the consequent particular revelations made to Seth, Enos, Enoch, Lamech, and others, before the flood. The second to Noah after the flood, in the renewal of the covenant and establishing of the church in his family, Genesis 8:21-22; Genesis 9:9-10; whereunto were subservient the revelations made to Melchizedek, Genesis 14:18, and others, before the calling of Abraham.The third to Abraham, in the restriction of the promise to his seed, and fuller illustration of the nature of it, Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15:11-12; Genesis 17:1-2; confirmed in the revelations made to Isaac, Genesis 26:24; Jacob, Genesis 49; Joseph, Hebrews 11:22, and others of their posterity.The fourth to Moses, in the giving of the law, and erection of the Judaical church in the wilderness; unto which there were three principal heads of subservient revelations: — 1. To David, which was peculiarly designed to perfect the revelation of the will of God concerning the old testament worship in those things that their wilderness condition was not capable of, 1 Chronicles 23:25-32; 1 Chronicles 28:11-19. To him we may join Solomon, with the rest of the prophets of their days. 2. To the prophets after the division of the kingdom unto the captivity, and during the captivity, to whom pleading with the people about their defection by sin and false worship was peculiar.3. To Ezra, with the prophets that assisted in the reformation of the church after its return from Babylon, who in an especial manner incited the people to an expectation of the coming of the Messiah.These were the principal parts and degrees of the revelation of the will of God, from the foundation of the world until the coming of Christ in his forerunner, John the Baptist, And all this I have fully handled and unfolded in my discourse of the rise, nature, and progress of Scripture divinity or theology. [2] [2]— ED. See the Theologoumena of our author, in vol. 17 of his works. But, as I showed before, if we attend unto the special intention of the apostle, we must take in the date of these revelations, and begin with that to Moses, adding to it those other subservient ones mentioned, peculiar to the Judaical church, which taught and confirmed the worship that was established amongst them. This, then, is that which in this word the apostle minds the Hebrews of, namely, that the will of God concerning his worship and our obedience was not formerly revealed all at once to his church, by Moses or any other, but by several parts and degrees, — by new additions of light, as in his infinite wisdom and care he saw meet. The close, and last hand was not to be put unto this work before the coming of the Messiah. He, they all acknowledged, was to reveal the whole counsel of God, John 4:25, after that his way had been prepared by the coming of Elias, Malachi 4; until when they were to attend to the law of Moses, with those expositions of it which they had received, Malachi 4:4-5. That was the time appointed, μηְ ?ϊֹּ ?νηָ ?ζεֹ ?οεְ ?πָ ?αιΰ, also ηθָּ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊμְ ?ηָ ?ϊֵ ?ν, “to seal,” complete, and finish, “vision and prophet; as “to seal up sin,” or, as we render it, “to make an end of sin,” or the controversy about it, which had held long agitation by sacrifices, that could never put an end to that quarrel, Hebrews 10:1-2; Hebrews 10:14. Now, in this very first word of his epistle doth the apostle clearly convince the Hebrews of their mistake, in their obstinate adherence unto Mosaical institutions. It is as if he had bidden them consider the way whereby God revealed his will to the church hitherto. Hath it not been by parts and degrees? hath he at any time shut up the progress of revelation? hath he not always kept the church in expectation of new revelations of his mind and will? did he ever declare that he would add no more unto what he had commanded, or make no alteration in what he had instituted? What he had revealed was to be observed, Deuteronomy 29:29, and when he had revealed it; but until he declare that he will add no more, it is folly to account what is already done absolutely complete and immutable. Therefore Moses, when he had finished all his work in the Lord’s house, tells the church that God would raise up another prophet like him; that is, who should reveal new laws and institutions as he had done, whom they were to hear and obey on the penalty of utter extermination, Deuteronomy 18:18.“And this discovers the obstinacy of the modern Jews, who from the days of Maimonides, who died about the year of our Lord 1104, have made it one of the fundamental articles of their religion, which they have inserted in their prayer-books, that the law of Moses is never to be changed, and that God will never give them any other law or rule of worship. And as they further ground that article in Ezrim Vearba, printed in the end of Bomberg’s Bibles, they affirm that nothing can be added unto it, nothing taken away from it, no alteration in its obligation be admitted; which is directly contrary both to the truth and to the confession of all their predecessors, who looked for the Messiah, as we shall afterwards declare.” In opposition to this gradual revelation of the mind of God under the old testament, the apostle intimates that now by Jesus, the Messiah, the Lord hath at once begun and finished the whole revelation of his will, according to their own hopes and expectation. So, Jude 1:3, the faith was “once delivered unto the saints;” not in one day, not in one sermon, or by one person, but at one season, or under one dispensation, comprising all the time from the entrance of the Lord Christ upon his ministry to the closing of the canon of Scripture; which period was now at hand. This season being once past and finished, no new revelation is to be expected, to the end of the world. Nothing shall be added unto nor altered in the worship of God any more. God will not do it; men that attempt it, do it on the price of their souls. God spake in the prophets πολυτρόπως, “after divers sorts” or “manners.” Now this respects either the various ways of God’s revealing himself to the prophets, by dreams, visions, inspirations, voices, angels, every way with an equal evidence of their being from God; or the ways of his dealing with the fathers by the prophets, by promises, threats, gradual discoveries of his will, special messages and prophecies, public sermons, and the like. The latter, or the various ways of the prophets in delivering their messages to the people from God, is principally intended, though the former be not excluded, it being that from whence this latter variety did principally arise and flow. In opposition hereunto, the apostle intimates that the revelation of God and his will by Christ was accomplished μοςοειδῶς, in one only way and manner, — by His preaching the gospel who was anointed with the Spirit without measure.The last difference or instance in the comparison insisted on by the apostle, is, that of old God spake “in the prophets,” but now “in the Son:” ᾿Εντοῖςπροφήταις, — ἐν for διά, say most expositors, “in” for “by,” διὰτῶνπροφητῶν: as Luke 1:70, Διὰστόματοςτῶνἀγίωνπροφητῶν, — “By the mouth of the holy prophets.” But ἐν here answers the Hebrew αְּ, Numbers 12:2, “God spake αְּ ?ξωֶׁ ?δ, “in Moses.” The certainty of the revelation and presence of God with his word is intimated in the expression. So the word of the Lord was αְּ ?ιָ ?γ, “in the hand,” of this or that prophet. They were but instruments to give out what from God they had received.Now these prophets, in whom God spake of old, were all those who were divinely inspired, and sent to reveal his will and mind as to the duty of the church, or any special concernment of his providence in the rule and government thereof, whether they declared the inspirations they had, or revelations they received, by word of mouth or by writing. “The modern Jews make a distinction between the gift of prophecy and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, following Maimonides in his More Nebuchim, part. 2 cap. 32. His opinion, which he calls the opinion or sentence of the law about prophecy, in general is the same with that of the Gentile philosophers, as he professeth. In one thing only he differs from them, namely, that ‘prophecy doth not so necessarily follow after due preparation as that a man cannot but prophesy who is rightly prepared.’But the gift of prophecy he asserts wholly to depend on the temperature of the brain, natural and moral exercises for the preparing and raising of the imagination; upon which divine visions will succeed. A brain-sick imagination, confounding; divine revelation with fanatical distempers! But in the eleven degrees of prophecy which he assigns, and attempts to prove by instances out of Scripture, he placeth that of inspiration by the Holy Ghost in the last and lowest place. And therefore by the late masters is the book of Daniel cast into this latter sort, though eminently prophetical, because they are so galled with his predictions and calculations; other reason of that disposition none readily occurs. And this is the ground of their disposition of the books of the Scripture into ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ, ‘the law,’or five books of Moses, given in the highest way and degree of prophecy; πְ ?αִ ?ΰִ ?ιν, of two sorts, ψִ ?ωεֹ ?πִ ?ιν, and ΰηֲ ?ψִ ?εֹ ?πιν, ‘prophets, former’(or books historical), ‘and latter;’and λְּ ?ϊεּ ?αִ ?ιν, or ψεַּ ?ηδַ ?χָ ?γεֹ ?ω, ‘books written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.’Of the ground of which distinction see Kimchi in his preface to the Psalms. Their mistake lies in this, that prophecy consists principally in, and is distinguished into several degrees, by the manner of revelation; as by dreams, visions, appearances of angels, or men, and the like. But as πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ, ‘a prophet,’and πְ ?αεּ ?ΰָ ?δ, ‘prophecy,’are of a larger signification than that pretended, as, Numbers 11:29, 1 Samuel 10:5, 1 Chronicles 25:1-3, will appear; so that which made any revelation to be prophecy, in that sense as to be an infallible rule for the guidance of the church, was not the means of communicating it to the prophets, but that inspiration of the Holy Ghost which implanted upon their minds, and gave forth by their tongues or pens, that which God would utter in them and by them, 2 Peter 1:20-21.” In answer unto this speaking of God in the prophets, it is asserted that in the revelation of the gospel God spake “in his Son.” This is the main hinge, on which all the arguments of the apostle in the whole epistle do turn; this bears the stress of all the inferences afterwards by him insisted on. And therefore having mentioned it, he proceeds immediately unto that description of him which gives evidence to all that he draws from this consideration. Now, because no one argument of the apostle can be understood unless this be rightly stated, we must of necessity insist somewhat largely upon it; and unto what we principally intend some previous observations must be premised: — 1. I take it at present for granted that the Son of God appeared unto the prophets under the old testament. Whether ever he spake unto them immediately, or only by the ministry of angels, is not so certain. It is also granted that there was in vision sometimes signs or representations of the person of the Father, as Daniel 7. But that the Son of God did mostly appear to the fathers under the old testament is acknowledged by the ancients, and is evident in Scripture. See Zechariah 2:8-11. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The apostle, in the pursuit of his argument, proceeds in the description of the person of Christ; partly to give a further account of what he had before affirmed concerning his divine power in making the worlds; and partly to instruct the Hebrews, from their own typical institutions, that it was the Messiah who was figured and represented formerly unto them, in those signs and pledges of God’s glorious presence which they enjoyed. And so by the whole he confirmeth the proposition he had in hand concerning the excellency and eminency of Him by whom the gospel was revealed, that their faith in him and obedience unto him might not be shaken or hindered. Hebrews 1:3. — Οςὢ῝νἀπαύγασματῆςδόξηςκαὶχαρακτὴρτῆςὐποστάσεωςαὐτοῦ, φέρωντετὰπάντατῷῤήματιτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ, δι᾿ἐαυτοῦκαθαρισμὸνποιησάμενοςτῶνἀμαρτιῶνἡμῶν, ἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτῆςμεγαλωσόνηςἐνὑψηλοῖς.Δι᾿ἐαυτοῦ is wanting in MS. T.; but the sense requires the words, and all other ancient copies retain them. ῾Ηυῶν is wanting in some copies; and one or two for ἐκάθισε have καθίζει, which hath nothing whereunto it should relate. Some also read, τῷθρόνῳτῆςμεγαλωσύνης, taken from Hebrews 12:2, where the word is used. ῝Οςὢ῝ν, “qui est,” “qui cum sit,” “qui existens;” — “who is,” “who when he is,” or “was;” “who existing:” as Philippians 2:6, ῝ΟςἐνμορφῇΘεοῦὑπάρχων, — “Who being in the form of God.”“Who being ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης,” — “splendor,” “radius,” “jubar,” “effulgentia,” “refulgentia,” “relucentia;” — “the splendor” “ray,” “beam,” “effulgency,” or “shining forth of glory.” Syr., φֶ ?ξְ ?ηָ ?ΰ, “germen;” so Boderius; — “the branch.” Tremellius and De Dieu, “splendor,” the Arabic concurring.Αὐγή is “lux,” “light,” particularly the morning light: Acts 20:11, ῾ομιλήσαςἄχριςαὐγῆς, — “He talked until the break of day,” or the beaming of the morning light. Αὐγὴἡλίου, Gloss. Vet., “jubar solis” — “the sun-beam.” And sometimes it denotes the day itself. It is also sometimes used for the light that is in burning iron. ῾Απαυγή is of the same signification; properly “splendor lucis,” — “the brightness, shining, beauty, glory or lustre of light.” Hence is αὐγάζω, to a shine forth,” to “shine into” to “irradiate:” 2 Corinthians 4:4, Εἰςτὸμὴαὐγάσαιαὐτοῖς, — “That the light of the gospel should not irradiate” (shine) “into them.” ᾿Απαυγάζω is of the same importance; and from thence ἀπαύγασμα. The word is nowhere used in the New Testament save in this place only; nor doth it occur in the Old of the LXX. Only we have it, Wis 7:26. Wisdom is said to be ἀπαύμασμαφωτὸςἀϊδίου, — “a beam of eternal light;” to which place the margin of our translation refers. And it is so used by Nazianzen: Μεγάλουφωτὸςμικρὸνἀπαύγασμα, — “A little beam of a great light.” It answers exactly to the Hebrew πֹ ?βַ ?δּ, or ΰεֹ ?ψπֹ ?βַ ?δּ ?that is; that is, “The morning light:” Proverbs 4:18, “The path of the righteous λְּ ?ΰεֹ ?ψπֹ ?βַ ?δּ,” — “ut lux splendoris,” Jerome; “as the light of brightness,” — that is, “of the morning,” αὐγή, Acts 20:11. And it is also applied to the light of fire, or fire in iron, Isaiah 4:5, πֹ ?βַ ?δּ ΰֵ ?ωׁ, — “The light of fire;” and the fiery streaming of lightning, Habakkuk 3:11.The brightness, shining, ray, beam, τῆςδόξης, “of glory.” Some look on this expression as a Hebraism, ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης, “the beam of glory,” for ἔνδοξονἀπαύγασμα, “a glorious beam;” but this will not answer the design of the apostle, as we shall see afterwards.Our translators have supplied “his,” “the brightness of his glory,” by repeating αὐτοῦ from the end of the sentence; perhaps, as we shall find, not altogether necessarily, — in which case alone such supplements unto the text are allowed in translations.Καὶχαρακτὴρ, — “character.” “Imago,” “forma,” “figura,” “expressa forma,” “figura expressa,” φָ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ΰ, Syr.; — “the character,” “image,” “form,” “figure, “express form,” “express figure:” so variously is the word rendered by translators, with little difference. It is nowhere used in the New Testament but only in this place. In other authors it hath many significations. Sometimes they use it properly and naturally; sometimes metaphorically and artificially, as when it denotes several forms of speech or orations. Properly, from χαράσσω or χαράττω, to engrave with a tool or style, is χάραγμα and χαρακτήρ which is firstly and properly the note or mark cut by a tool or instrument into wood, or any other subject capable of such impression, or the stamp and sign that is left in the coining of money. The mark or scar also left by a wound is by the LXX. termed χαρακτήρ, Leviticus 13:28. It is in general an express representation of another thing, communicated unto it by an impression of its likeness upon it, opposed unto that which is umbratile and imaginary. Τῆςὑποστάσεωςαὐτοῦ, — “substantiae,” “subsistentiae,” “personae.” Syr., ιִ ?ΰιϊεּ ?ϊֵ ?δּ, “substantiae ejus;” — “hypostasis,” “substance,” “subsistence,” “person.” The word is four times used in the New Testament, — thrice in this epistle, in this place, and Hebrews 3:14, and Hebrews 11:1, as also 2 Corinthians 9:4, — everywhere in a different sense; so that the mere use of it in one place will afford no light unto the meaning of it in another, but it must be taken from the context and subject treated of. The composition of the word would denote “substantia,” but so as to differ from and to add something unto οὐσία, “substance,” or being; which in the divine nature can be nothing but a special manner of subsistence. But the controversy that hath been about the precise signification of these words we shall not here enter into the discussion of.Φέρων, “agens,” “regens,” “moderans;” — “acting,” “disposing,” “ruling,” “governing.” Also “portans,” “bajulans,” “sustinens;” — “bearing,” “supporting,” “carrying,” “upholding.” Which of these senses is peculiarly intended we shall afterwards inquire into.Τῷῤήματιτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ, — “by the word of his power,” “by his powerful word.” Syr., αִּ ?ηַ ?ιְ ?μָ ?ΰγְּ ?ξִ ?μְּ ?ϊֵ ?δּ, — “by the power of his word,”changing the order of the words, but not the meaning of them: “By the power of his word,” or, “the word of his power;” that is, his powerful word. Αὐτοῦ; some would read it αὐτοῦ, and refer it unto the Father, — “By the powerful word of him;” that is, of the Father, by whose power, they say, the Son disposed of all things. But all copies with accents have αὐτοῦ constantly, none αὐτοῦ, nor will the disposition of the words bear that reference.Δι᾿ἑαυτοῦ, — “by himself,” “in his own person.”Καθαρισμὸνποιησάμενος, — “purgationem faciens,” “purgatione facta;” — “having purged,” “cleansed,” “expiated” or “purified” (us from) “our sins.” “Having made a purgation or purification of our sins.”᾿Εκάθισεν. Καθίζω is used both neutrally and actively, answering to ιָ ?ωַׁ ?α both in Kal and Hiphil, signifying “to sit down,” and “to cause to sit down.” Chrysostom seems to have understood the word in the latter sense, referring it to God the Father causing the Son to sit down. But it is hard to find any antecedent word whereby it should be regulated, but only ὅς, “who,” in the beginning of the verse, — that is, he himself; and, as Erasmus observes, γενόμενος in the following words, will not grammatically admit of this construction; for if ἐκάθιοε be to be understood actively and transitively, it must have been γενόμενον. And the apostle clears the neutral sense of the word, Hebrews 8:1. It is well, then, rendered by our translators, “he sat,” or “sat down.” ᾿Ενδεξιᾷ. Psalms 110:1, ωֵׁ ?αμִ ?ιξִ ?ιπִ ?ι. LXX., κάθουἐκδεξιῶν, in the plural number. So is the same thing expressed, Acts 7:55; and by Mark, ἐνδεξιοῖς, Mark 16:5. Our apostle constantly keepeth the singular number, with ἐν, Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 12:2. The same thing in both expressions is intended; only that of ἐκδεξιῶν, or ἐνδεξιοῖς, in the plural number, is more eminently destructive of the folly of the Anthropomorphites; for they cannot hence pretend that God hath a right hand, unless they will grant that he hath many, which were not only to turn the glory of the invisible God into the likeness of a man, but of a monster. And Austin well observes that in the psalm where that expression is first used, “Sit on my right hand,” it is added, ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ιςַ ?μΰּ ?ιְ ?ξִ ?ιπְ ?κָ. “The Lord on thy right hand,” — at the right hand of him who sat on his right hand; which removes all carnal apprehensions from the meaning of the words. Τῆςμεγαλωσύνης. This word is seldom used in other authors: twice in this epistle, here, and Hebrews 8:1; once by Jude, Jude 1:25; and nowhere else in the New Testament; by the LXX. not at all. The apostle evidently expresseth by it λָּ ?αεֹ ?γ or βְּ ?αεּ ?ψָ ?δ not as they are used appellatively for glory, power, or majesty, but as they are names and denote the essential glory of God, “The glorious God.” So thatμεγαλωσύνη is God himself; not absolutely considered, but with reference unto the revelation of his glory and majesty in heaven, God on his throne; as our apostle declareth, Hebrews 8:1.᾿Ενὑψηλοῖς, — “in the highest.” Μεγαλωσύνηἐνὐψηλοῖς is ὐψίστος; that is, ςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο, “the Highest,” God himself. See Luke 1:35. [3] [3]— ED. VARIOUS . — Owen, though perhaps it is a misprint, reads αὐτοῦ after ὑποστάσεως both in the text of the verse and in the subsequent explanation of the words; the textus receptus has αὐτοῦ. He reads δυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ in agreement with the textus receptus; Tischendorf here gives αὐτοῦ. The words δι᾿ἑαυτοῦ are omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf; who, together with Hahn, omit ἡμων also. . — ᾿Απαύγ. τ. δ. plainly means the same as the Hebrew λָ ?αεֹ ?γ, namely, splendor, brightness. Comp. Luke 2:9,” etc. — Stuart. “The idea that God in the Λόγος finds and reflects himself as in his counterpart is expressed by Paul when, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, he calls the Logos εἰκὼντοῦΘεοῦ, denotes the splendor which surrounds God, Luke 2:9.” — Tholuck. “Nouns ending in μα denote not the act as continuing, but the result of the act as finished. ᾿Απαύγ. denotes not the brightness received from another body, and thrown back as a reflection or a mirrored image, not the light continually proceeding from a shining body, as a light streaming out and losing itself in space; but a light radiated from another light, in as far at it is viewed as now become an independent light. It is more than a mere ray, more than a mere image, — a sun produced from the original light.” Δόξ., “the eternal essential glory of the Father.” According to the explanation which refers it to the Shechinah, “the Son would be degraded beneath the Old Testament imperfect typical form of the divine manifestation; seeing that he would be represented as an ἀπαύγ of the latter, which was not even itself an ἀπαύγ., but a mere reflection.” — Ebrard. Χαρακ. τ. ὑ. α. plainly retains the more ancient meaning of substance or essence.... Christ is “the development of that substance to our view, the delineation of it.... Ancient Greek annotators, and after them most of the modern ones, have applied these words to the divine nature of Christ. In the opinion that the verse now under consideration relates to the incarnate Messiah, I find that Scott and Beza concur.” — Stuart. “ ῾Ψπ. means being, essence. Many expositors, offended at the Son being called only the copy of the Being, took ὑπ. in the sense adopted by the church, of Person.” — Tholuck. Δόξ signifies the essence of the Father,with reference to the glory in which he represents himself before the eyes of the suppliant creature; ὑπ., this essence as essence, and without regard to its outward manifestation. Χαρ. is here used “in the sense of a form cut out or engraven.” The δόξ represents itself in a form composed of rays, a sun; the ὑπ. stamps itself out in a manifest figure. These appositions belong more properly to the Logos qua eternally pre-existent. — Ebrard.Φέρ. corresponds to the Hebrew πָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰIsaiah 46:3; Isaiah 66:9, curo, conservo, to sustain, to preserve, as a mother does her child. Τῷῥήμ. τ. δ. α., by his own powerful word, the word of the Son, not the word of God, as αὐτοῦ would mean. — Stuart. According to Bleek, αὐτοῦ corresponds to ἐμαυτοῦ of the first person, αὐτοῦ to ἐμου. If the former, the emphasis being on “self,” the phrase would be, By the word of his own power.” “There is no occasion for this emphasis here. Αὐτοῦ applies in a reflexive sense to the Son, and not to the Father.” — Ebrard. Καθ., purification; in Hellenistic Greek expiation, e.g., Exodus 29:36; Exodus 30:10 not purification by moral means, because it is joined with δι᾿ἑαυτοῦ, which is explained in Hebrews 2:14 by διὰτοῦζανάτου; in Hebrews 9:12 by διὰτοῦἰδίουαἵματος; and in Hebrews 9:26 by διὰτῆςζυσίαςαὐτοῦ. — Stuart. “The purification in the Biblical sense consists in the atonement, the gracious covering (λַ ?τֵ ?ψ Leviticus 16:30) of guilt.” — Ebrard. ᾿Εκάθ. corresponds to the Hebrew ιָ ?ωַׁ ?α; which applied to God and to kings, does not mean simply to sit, but to sit enthroned, Psalms 2:4.— Stuart. “As man, and continuing to be man, he was exalted to a participation in the divine government of the world.” — Ebrard. . — ᾿Απαύγ. κ. τ. λ. the radiance of his glory and the exact image of his substance. — Stuart. An emanation of his glory and an express image of his substance. — Conybeare and Howson. The radiance of his glory and the impress of his substance. — Craik. The brightness of his glory and the exact impression of his manner of existence. — Pye Smith. The refulgence of his glory and the impression of his essence. — De Wette. The ray of his glory and the stamp of his substance. — Turner. Φέρωνκ. τ. λ. Controlling all things by his own powerful word. — Stuart. Καθαρ. π. After he had made expiation. — Stuart. Having made expiation. — Bloomfield. When he had made purification. — Conybeare and Howson. When he had made atonement. — Craik. After he had by himself purified us from sins by making an expiation. — Turner.Hebrews 1:3. — Who being the brightness of glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding [or, disposing of] all things by the word of his power, having by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; The apostle proceeds in his description of the person in whom God spake in the revelation of the gospel, ascending unto such a manifestation of him as that they might understand his eminency above all formerly used in the like ministrations; as also how he was pointed out and shadowed by sundry types and figures under the Old Testament. Of this description there are three parts; the first declaring what he is; the second, what he doth, or did; and the third, the consequent of them both, in what he enjoyeth.Of the first part of this description of the Messiah there are two branches, or it is two ways expressed: for he affirms of him, first, that he is the “brightest beam,” or “splendor of the glory;” and, secondly, “the express image,” or “character of his Father’s person.” In the second also there are two things assigned unto him, — the former relating unto his power, as he is the brightness of glory, he “sustaineth,” or ruleth and disposeth of “all things by the word of his power;” — the latter unto his love and work of mediation, — “by himself,” or in his own person, he hath “purged our sins.” His present and perpetual enjoyment, as a consequent of what he was and did, or doth, is expressed in the last words: “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Some of these expressions may well be granted to contain some of those δυσνόητα, “things hard to be understood,” which Peter affirms to be in this epistle of Paul, 2 Peter 3:16; which unstable and unlearned men have in all ages wrested unto their own destruction. The things intended are unquestionably sublime and mysterious; the terms wherein they are expressed are rare, and nowhere else used in the Scripture to the same purpose, some of them not at all, which deprives us of one great help in the interpretation of them; the metaphors used in the words, or types alluded unto by them, are abstruse and dark: so that the difficulty of discovering the true, precise, and genuine meaning of the Holy Ghost in them is such as that this verse, at least some part of it, may well be reckoned among those places which the Lord hath left in his word to exercise our faith, and diligence, and dependence on his Spirit, for a right understanding of them. It may be, indeed, that from what was known and acknowledged in the Judaical church, the whole intention of the apostle was more plain unto them, and more plainly and clearly delivered than now it seemeth unto us to be, who are deprived of their advantages. However, both to them and us the things were and are deep and mysterious; and we shall desire to handle (as it becometh us) both things and words with reverence and godly fear, looking up unto Him for assistance who alone can lead us into all truth. We begin with a double description given us of the Lord Christ at the entrance of the verse, as to what he is in himself. And here a double difficulty presents itself unto us; — first, In general unto what nature in Christ, or unto what of Christ, this description doth belong; secondly, What is the particular meaning and importance of the words or expressions themselves. For the first, some assert that these words intend only the divine nature of Christ, wherein he is consubstantial with the Father. Herein as he is said to be “God of God, and Light of Light,” — an expression doubtless taken from hence, — receiving, as the Son, his nature and subsistence from the Father, so fully and absolutely as that he is every way the same with him in respect of his essence, and every way like him in respect of his person; so he is said to be “the brightness of his glory,” and “the character of his person” on that account, This way went the ancients generally; and of modern expositors very many, as Calvin, Brentius, Marlorat, Rollock, Gomar, Pareau, Estius, Tena, a Lapide, Ribera, and sundry others. Some think that the apostle speaks of him as incarnate, as he is declared in the gospel, or as preached, to be “the image of God,” 2 Corinthians 4:4. And these take three ways in the explication of the words and their application of them unto him: — First, Some affirm that their meaning is, that whereas God is in himself infinite and incomprehensible, so that we are not able to contemplate on his excellencies, but that we are overpowered in our minds with their glory and majesty, he hath in Christ the Son, as incarnate, contemperated his infinite love, power, goodness, grace, greatness, and holiness, unto our faith, love, and contemplation, they all shining forth in him, and being eminently expressed in him. So Beza.Secondly, Some think that the apostle pursues the description that he was entered upon, of the kingly office of Jesus Christ as heir of all; and that his being exalted in glory unto power, rule, and dominion, expressing and representing therein the person of his Father, is intended in these words. So Cameron. Thirdly, Some refer these words to the prophetical office of Christ, and say that he was the brightness of God’s glory, etc., by his revealing and declaring the will of God unto us, which before was done darkly only and in shadows. So the Socinians generally, though Schlichtingius refers the words unto all that similitude which they fancy to have been between God and the man Christ Jesus whilst he was in the earth; and therefore renders the participle ὥν, not by the present, but preterimperfect tense, “who was;” that is, whilst he was on the earth, — though, as he says, not exclusively unto what he is now in heaven.I shall not examine in particular the reasons that are alleged for these several interpretations, but only propose and confirm that sense of the place which on full and due consideration appears, as agreeable unto the analogy of faith, so expressly to answer the design and intendment of the apostle; wherein also the unsoundness of the two last branches or ways of applying the second interpretation, with the real coincidence of the first, and first branch of the latter exposition, will be discovered. To this end the following positions are to be observed: — First, It is not the direct and immediate design of the apostle to treat absolutely of either nature of Christ, his divine or human, but only of his person. Hence, though the things which he mentioneth and expresseth may some of them belong unto, or be the properties of his divine nature, some of his human, yet none of them are spoken of as such, but are all considered as belonging unto his person. And this solves that difficulty which Chrysostom observes in the words, and strives to remove by a similitude, namely, that the apostle doth not observe any order or method in speaking of the divine and human natures of Christ distinctly one after another, but first speaks of the one, then of the other, and then returns again to the former, and that frequently. But the truth is, he intends not to speak directly and absolutely of either nature of Christ; but treating ex professo of his person, some things that he mentions concerning him have a special foundation in and respect unto his divine nature, some in and unto his human, as must every thing that is spoken of him. And therefore the method and order of the apostle is not to be inquired after in what relates in his expressions to this or that nature of Christ, but in the progress that he makes in the description of his person and offices; which alone he had undertaken. Secondly, That which the apostle principally intends in and about the person of Christ, is to set forth his dignity, pre-eminence, and exaltation above all; and that not only consequentially to his discharge of the office of mediator, but also antecedently, in his worth, fitness, ability, and suitableness to undertake and discharge it, — which in a great measure depended on and flowed from his divine nature.These things being supposed, we observe, Thirdly, That as these expressions are none of them singly, much less in that conjunction wherein they are here placed, used concerning any other but Christ only, so they do plainly contain and express things that are more sublime and glorious than can, by the rule of Scripture or the analogy of faith, be ascribed unto any mere creature, however raised or exalted. There is in the words evidently a comparison with God the Father: he is infinitely glorious, eternally subsisting in his own person; and the Son is “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Angels are called “the sons of God,” are mighty in power, and excellent in created glory; but when they come to be compared with God, it is said they are not pure in his sight; and he charged them with folly, Job 4:18; and they cover their faces at the brightness of his glory, Isaiah 6:2 : so that they cannot be said so to be. Man also was created in the image of God, and is again by grace renewed thereinto, Ephesians 4:23-24 : but to say a man is the express image of the person of God the Father, is to depress the glory of God by anthropomorphitism. So that unto God asking that question, “Whom will ye compare unto me? and whom will ye liken me unto?” we cannot answer of any one who is not God by nature, that he is “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Fourthly, Though the design of the apostle in general be to show how the Father expressed and declared himself unto us in the Son, yet this could not be done without manifesting what the Son is in himself and in reference unto the Father; which both the expressions do in the first place declare. They express him such an one as in whom the infinite perfections and excellencies of God are revealed unto us. So that the first application of the words, namely, to the divine nature of Christ, and the first branch of the second, considering him as incarnate, are very well consistent; as a Lapide grants, after he had blamed Beza for his interpretation. The first direction, then, given unto our faith in these words, is by what the Son is in respect of the Father, namely, “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;” whence it follows that in him, being incarnate, the Father’s glory and his person are expressed and manifested unto us. Fifthly, There is nothing in these words that is not applicable unto the divine nature of Christ. Some, as we have showed, suppose that it is not that which is peculiarly intended in the words; but yet they can give no reason from them, nor manifest any thing denoted by them, which may not be conveniently applied thereunto. I say, whatever can be proved to be signified by them or contained in them, if we will keep ourselves within the bounds of that holy reverence which becomes us in the contemplation of the majesty of God, may be applied unto the nature of God as existing in the person of the Son. He is in his person distinct from the Father, another not the Father; but yet the same in nature, and this in all glorious properties and excellencies. This oneness in nature, and distinction in person, may be well shadowed out by these expressions, “He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” The boldness and curiosity of the schoolmen, and some others, in expressing the way and manner of the generation of the Son, by similitudes of our understanding and its acts, declaring how he is the image of the Father, in their terms, are intolerable and full of offense. Nor are the rigid impositions of those words and terms in this matter which they or others have found out to express it by, of any better nature. Yet I confess, that supposing with some that by the first expression here used, “The brightness of glory,” the apostle intends to set forth unto us the relation of the Son to the Father by an allusion unto the sun and its beams, or the light of fire in iron, some relief may thence be given unto our weak understandings in the contemplation of this mystery, if we observe that one known rule, whose use Chrysostom urgeth in this place, namely, that in the use of such allusions every thing of imperfection is to be removed, in their application unto God. A few instances we may give unto this purpose, holding ourselves unto an allusion to the sun and its beams 1. As the sun in comparison of the beam is of itself, and the beam of the sun; so is the Father of himself, and the Son of the Father.2. As the sun, without diminution or partition of its substance, without change or alteration in its nature, produceth the beam; so is the Son begotten of the Father. 3. As the sun in order of nature is before the beam, but in time both are co- existent; so is the Father in order of nature before the Son, though in existence both co-eternal.4. As the beam is distinct from the sun, so that the sun is not the beam, and the beam is not the sun; so is it between the Father and the Son.5. As the beam is never separate from the sun, nor can the sun be without the beam, no more can the Son be from the Father, nor was the Father ever without the Son.6. As the sun cannot be seen but by the beam, no more can the Father but in and by the Son.I acknowledge that these things are true, and that there is nothing in them disagreeable unto the analogy of faith. But yet as sundry other things may be affirmed of the sun and its beam, whereof no tolerable application can be made to the matter in hand, so I am not persuaded that the apostle intended any such comparison or allusion, or aimed at our information or instruction by them. They were common people of the Jews, and not philosophers, to whom the apostle wrote this epistle; and therefore either he expresseth the things that he intends in terms answering unto what was in use among themselves to the same purpose, or else he asserts them plainly in words as meet to express them properly by as any that are in use amongst men. To say there is an allusion in the words, and that the Son is not properly, but by a metaphor, “the brightness of glory,” is to teach the apostle how to express himself in the things of God. For my part, I understand as much of the nature, glory, and properties of the Son, in and by this expression, “He is the brightness of glory,” as I do by any of the most accurate expressions which men have arbitrarily invented to signify the same thing. That he is one distinct from God the Father, related unto him, and partaker of his glory, is clearly asserted in these words; and more is not intended in them. Sixthly, These things, then, being premised, we may discern the general importance of these expressions. The words themselves, as was before observed, being nowhere else used in the Scripture, we may receive a contribution of light unto them from those in other places which are of their nearest alliance. Such are these and the like: “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,” John 1:14. “He is the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15. The glory of God shines forth in him, 2 Corinthians 4:6. Now in these and the like places, the glory of the divine nature is so intimated, as that we are directed to look unto the glory of the absolutely invisible and incomprehensible God in him incarnate. And this in general is the meaning and intendment of the apostle in these expressions: ‘The Son, in whom God speaks unto us in the revelation of the gospel, doth in his own person so every way answer the excellencies and perfections of God the Father, that he is in him expressly represented unto our faith and contemplation.’It remaineth, then, in the second place, that we consider the expressions severally, with the reasons why the apostle thus expresseth the divine glory of Jesus Christ: ῞Οςὣνἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης· — “Who being the brightness” (“light, lustre, majesty”) “of glory.” The apostle, in my judgment (which is humbly submitted unto consideration), alludes unto and intends something that the people were instructed by typically under the old testament, in this great mystery of the manifestation of the glory of God unto them in and by the Son, the second person in the Trinity. The ark, which was the most signal representation of the presence of God amongst them, was called “his glory.” So the wife of Phinehas, upon the taking of the ark, affirmed that the glory was departed: 1 Samuel 4:22, “The glory is departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken.” And the psalmist, mentioning the same thing, calls it “his glory” absolutely: Psalms 78:61, “He delivered his glory into the enemy’s hand;” that is, the ark. Now, on the filling of the tabernacle with the signs of God’s presence in cloud and fire, the Jews affirm that there was a constant ἀπαὺμασμα, a ϊτΰψδ, or “majestic shining glory,” resting on the ark; which was the ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης, “the splendour of the glory of God,” in that typical representation of his presence. And this was to instruct them in the way and manner whereby God would dwell amongst them. The apostle, therefore, calling them from the types, by which in much darkness they had been instructed in these mysteries, unto the things themselves represented obscurely by them, acquaints them with what that typical glory and splendor of it signified, namely, the eternal glory of God, with the essential beaming and brightness of it in the Son, in and by whom the glory of the Father shineth forth unto us. So that the words seem to relate unto that way of instruction which was of old granted unto them.Besides, they were wont to express their faith in this mystery with words unto this purpose: λָּ ?αεֹ ?γ, “glory,” is sometimes put for God himself: Psalms 85:9, μִ ?ωְׁ ?λֹּ ?ολָּ ?αεֹ ?γαְּ ?ΰַ ?ψְ ?φֵ ?βεּ, — “That glory may dwell in our land;” that is, the God of glory, or glorious God. This glory the Targum calls ιχψΰ; and the majesty of that glory, ωλιπδ. See Haggai 1:8. Psalms 44:24, they render these words, μָ ?ξָּ ?δΰּ ?τָ ?πֵ ?ικָ ϊַ ?ρְ ?ϊִּ ?ιψ, “Why hidest thou thy face?” μξδωλιπϊιχψκְ ϊρμχ, “Why takest thou away the majesty of thy glory?” as both the Venetian and Basle Bibles read the place: for the Regia have only ωλιπδ, omitting ιχψκְ. And in the vision of Isaiah, Isaiah 6:1, they say it was δλαεγ, so Kimchi; ωλιπδ, so Rashi; ιχψΰγιι, so the Targum. And they affirm that it was the same which came down and appeared on mount Sinai, Exodus 19:20; where these words, ςμΰּ ?δַ ?ψρִ ?ιπַ ?ιεַ ?ιִּ ?ψֶ ?γιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ, “And the LORD descended on mount Sinai,” are rendered by Onkelos, εΰϊβμιιχψΰγιι, “The majesty of God was revealed;” which words, from Psalms 68:18, are applied by our apostle unto the Son, Ephesians 4:8. ᾿᾿Απαύγασματῆςδόξης, then, is nothing else but ιχψΰωλιπϊ, or ωλιπϊδλαεγ, “the essential presence or majesty of the glorious God.” This, saith he, is Christ the Son. And thus of old they expressed their faith concerning him.The words, as was showed before, denote the divine nature of Christ, yet not absolutely, but as God the Father in him doth manifest himself unto us. Hence he is called ωλιπδ, or ωλιπϊΰ, or ωλιπΰ. The word is from ωλַ ?ο, “he dwelt.” Elias in Tishbi gives us somewhat another account of the application of that name, in the root: χψΰεγζιμμψεηδχγωωλιπδςμωνωδεΰωλοςμδπλΰιν, — “The rabbins of blessed memory called the Holy Ghost Shechinah, because he dwelt upon the prophets.” But that this is not so may be observed throughout the Targum, wherein the Holy Ghost is always expressly called ψεηδχγω; and the Shechinah is spoken of in such places as cannot be applied unto him. But as the fullness of the Godhead is said to dwell in the Lord Christ σωματικῶς, Colossians 2:9, and he, as the only-begotten Son of God, to dwell amongst us, John 1:14; so is he said in the same sense to be ωλιπδδλαεγ, or ἀπαύγασματῆςδόξης, “the majesty, presence, splendor of the glory,” or “the glorious God.”This, then, is that whereof the apostle minds the Jews: God having promised to dwell amongst them by his glorious presence, — from whence the very name of Jerusalem was called, “The LORD is there,” Ezekiel 48:35, — he who in and under that name was with them, as sent by Jehovah, Zechariah 2:8, was the Son, in whom he had now spoken unto them in these latter days. And this must needs be of weight with them, being instructed that he who had revealed the will of God unto them was none other but he who had dwelt among them from the beginning, representing in all things the person of the Father, being typically revealed unto them as the “brightness of his glory.” The apostle adds, that he is χαρακτὴρὑποστάσεωςαὐτοῦ, “the express figure” (or “image”) “of his person;” that is, of the person of God the Father. I shall not enter into any dispute about the meaning of the word ὐποστασις, or the difference between it and οὐσία. Many controversies about these words there were of old. And Jerome was very cautious about acknowledging three hypostases in the Deity, and that because he thought the word in this place to denote “substantia;” and of that mind are many still, it being so rendered by the Vulgar translation. But the consideration of these vexed questions tending not to the opening of the design of the apostle and meaning of the Holy Ghost in this place, I shall not insist upon them.1. The hypostasis of the Father is the Father himself. Hereof, or of him, is the Son said to be the “express image.” As is the Father, so is the Son. And this agreement, likeness, and conveniency between the Father and Son, is essential; not accidental, as those things are between relations finite and corporeal. What the Father is, doth, hath, that the Son is, doth, hath; or else the Father, as the Father, could not be fully satisfied in him, nor represented by him. 2. By “character” two things seem to be intended: —(1.) That the Son in himself is ἐνμορφῇΘεοῦ, “in the likeness of God,” Philippians 2:6.(2.) That unto us he is εἰκὼνΘεοῦ, “the image of God,” representing him unto us, Colossians 1:15. For these three words are used of the Lord Christ in respect unto God the Father, μορφή, εἰκών, χαρακτὴρ. And their use seems thus to difference them: —(1.) It is said of him, ᾿ΕνμορφῇΘεοῦὑπάρχων, Philippians 2:6, — “Being” (“existing, subsisting”) “in the form of God:” that is, being so, essentially so; for there is no μορφή, or “form,” in the Deity but what is essential unto it. This he was absolutely, antecedently unto his incarnation, the whole nature of God being in him, and consequently he being in the form of God. (2.) In the manifestation of God unto us, he is said to be ΕἰκὼντοῦΘεοῦτοῦἀορα.του, Colossians 1:15, — “The image of the invisible God;” because in him, so partaker of the nature of the Father, do the power, goodness, holiness, grace, and all other glorious properties of God, shine forth, being in him represented unto us, 2 Corinthians 4:6. And both these seem to be comprised in this word, χαρακτήρ; both that the whole nature of God is in him, as also that by him God is declared and expressed unto us.Neither were the Jews of old ignorant of this notion of the Son of God. So Philo expresseth their sense, de Confusione Linguarum: ΚἂνμηδέπωμέντοιτυγχάνῃτιςἀξιόχρεωςὥνυἱὸςΘεοῦπροσαγορεύεσθαι, σπούδαζεκοσμεῖσθαικατὰτὸνπρωτόγονοναὐτοῦΛόγον, τὸνἅγγελονπρεσβὺτατονὠςἀρχάγγελονπολυώνομονὑπάρχοντα, καὶγὰρἀρχὴ, καὶὄνομαΘεοῦ, καὶλόγος, καὶὁκατ᾿εἰκόναἄνθρωπος, καὶὀρῶν᾿Ισραὴλπροσαγορεύεται— “If any one be not yet worthy to be called the son of God, yet endeavor thou to be conformed unto his first-begotten Word, the most ancient angel, the archangel with many names; for he is called ‘The beginning,’‘The name of God,’‘The man according to the image of God,’‘The seer of Israel.’” And again, ΚαὶγὰρεἰμήπωἱκανοὶΘεοῦπαῖδεςνομίζεσθαιγεγόναμεν, ἀλλάτοιτῆςἀϊδίουεἰκόνοςαὐτοῦΛόγουτοῦἱερώτατου·ΘεοῦγὰρεἰκὼνΛόγοςὁπρεσβύτατος— “For if we are not meet to be called the sons of God, let us beso of his eternal image, the most sacred Word; for that most ancient Word is the image of God.” Thus he, expressing some of their conceptions concerning this eternal “character” of the person of the Father. We have seen what it is that is intended in this expression, and shall only add thereunto a consideration of that from whence the expression is taken. The ordinary engraving of rings, or seals, or stones, is generally thought to be alluded unto. It may be also that the apostle had respect unto some representation of the glory of God by engraving amongst the institutions of Moses. Now, there was scarcely any thing of old that more gloriously represented God than that of the engraving of his name on a plate of gold, to be worn on the front of the mitre of the high priest; at the sight whereof the great conqueror of the east fell down before him. Mention of it we have Exodus 28:36, “Thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet,” μιδָֹ ?εδχֹ ?γֶ ?ω, — “Holiness of Jehovah,” or “to Jehovah.” Here was that name of God which denotes his essence and being characterized and engraven, to represent his holiness and glory to his people. And Aaron was to wear this engraven name of God on his forehead, that he might bear the iniquity of the holy things and gifts of the children of Israel; which could really be done only by him who was Jehovah himself. And thus, also, when God promiseth to bring forth the Son as the cornerstone of the church, he promiseth to engrave upon him the seven eyes of the Lord, Zechariah 3:9, or the perfection of his wisdom and power, to be expressed unto the church in him. There having been, then, this representation of the presence of God, by the character or engraving of his glorious name upon the plate of gold, which the high priest was to wear that he might bear iniquities; the apostle lets the Hebrews know, that in Christ the Son is the real accomplishment of what was typified thereby, the Father having actually communicated unto him his nature, denoted by that name, whereby he was able really to bear our iniquities, and most gloriously represent the person of his Father unto us. And this, with submission to better judgments, do I conceive to be the design of the apostle in this his description of the person of Jesus Christ. It pleased the Holy Ghost herein to use these terms and expressions, to mind the Hebrews how they were of old instructed, though obscurely, in the things now actually exhibited unto them, and that nothing was now preached or declared but what in their typical institutions they had before given their assent unto. We have been somewhat long in our explication of this description of the person of the Son of God; yet, as we suppose, not any longer than the nature of the things treated of and the manner of their expression necessarily required us to be. We shall therefore here stay a while, before we proceed to the ensuing words of this verse, and take some observations, from what hath been spoken for our direction and refreshment in our passage. I. All the glorious perfections of the nature of God do belong unto and dwell in the person of the Son. Were it not so, he could not gloriously represent unto us the person of the Father; nor by the contemplation of him could we be led to an acquaintance with the person of the Father. This the apostle here teacheth us, as in the explication of the words we have manifested. Now, because the confirmation of this allusion depends on the proofs and testimonies given of and unto the divine nature of Christ, which I have elsewhere largely insisted on and vindicated from exceptions, I shall not here resume that task, especially considering that the same truth will again occur unto us. II. The whole manifestation of the nature of God unto us, and all communications of grace, are immediately by and through the person of the Son. He represents him unto us; and through him is every thing that is communicated unto us from the fullness of the Deity conveyed.There are sundry signal instances wherein God reveals himself, and communicates from his own infinite fullness unto his creatures, and in all of them he doth it immediately by the Son: — 1. In the creation of all things; 2. In their providential rule and disposal; 3. In the revelation of his will and institution of ordinances; 4. In the communication of his Spirit and grace: in none of which is the person of the Father any otherwise immediately represented unto us than in and by the person of the Son.1. In the creation of all things, God both gave them their being and imparted unto them of his goodness, and manifested his nature unto those that were capable of a holy apprehension of it. Now, all this God did immediately by the Son; not as a subordinate instrument, but as the principal efficient, being his own power and wisdom. This we have manifested in our explication of the last words of the verse foregoing. In express testimony hereunto, see John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6. The Son, as the power and wisdom of the Father, made all things; so that in that work the glory of the Father shines forth in him, and no otherwise. By him was there a communication of being, goodness, and existence unto the creation. 2. In the providential rule and disposal of all things created, God further manifests himself unto his creatures, and further communicates of his goodness unto them. That this also is done in and by the Son, we shall further evidence in the explication of the next words of this verse.3. The matter is yet more plain as to the revelation of his will, and the institution of ordinances from first to last. It is granted that after the entrance of sin, God did not graciously reveal nor communicate himself unto any of his creatures but by his Son. This might fully be manifested by a consideration of the first promise, the foundation of all future revelations and institutions, with an induction of all ensuing instances. But whereas all revelations and institutions springing from the first promise are completed and finished in the gospel, it may suffice to show that what we assert is true with peculiar reference thereunto. The testimonies given unto it are innumerable. This is the substance and end of the gospel: — to reveal the Father by and in the Son unto us; to declare that through him alone we can be made partakers of his grace and goodness, and that no other way we can have either acquaintance or communion with him. See John 1:18. The whole end of the gospel is to give us “the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” 2 Corinthians 4:6; that is, the glory of the invisible God, whom none hath seen at any time, 1 Timothy 6:16; 1 John 4:12. That is to be communicated unto us, But how is this to be done? absolutely and immediately, as it is the glory of the Father? No, but as it “shines forth in the face of Jesus Christ,” or as it is in his person manifested and represented unto us; for he is, as the same apostle says in the same place, 2 Corinthians 4:4, “the image of God.” And herein also, as to the communication of grace and the Spirit, the Scripture is express, and believers are daily instructed in it. See Colossians 1:19; John 1:16; especially 1 John 5:11; 1 John 5:14. Now, the grounds of this order of things lie, —1. In the essential inbeing of the Father and Son. This our Savior expresseth, John 10:38, “The Father is in me, and I in him.” The same essential properties and nature being in each of the persons, by virtue thereof their persons also are said to be in each other. The person of the Son is in the person of the Father, not as such, not in or by its own personality, but by union of its nature and essential properties, which are not alike, as the persons are, but the same in the one and the other. And this inbeing of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in him, our Savior affirms to be manifested by the works that he wrought, being wrought by the power of the Father, yet as in him, and not as in the Father immediately. See to the same purpose John 14:10-11, and John 17:21. 2. The Father being thus in the Son, and the Son in the Father, whereby all the glorious properties of the one do shine forth in the other, the order and economy of the blessed Trinity in subsistence and operation require that the manifestation and communication of the Father unto us be through and by the Son; for as the Father is the original and fountain of the whole Trinity as to subsistence, so as to operation he works not but by the Son, who, having the divine nature communicated unto him by eternal generation, is to communicate the effects of the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, by temporary operation. And thus he becomes “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person,” namely, by the receiving his glorious nature from him, the whole and all of it, and expressing him in his works of nature and grace unto his creatures. 3. Because in the dispensation and counsel of grace God hath determined that all communication of himself unto us shall be by the Son as incarnate. This the whole gospel is given to testify. So that this truth hath its foundation in the very subsistence of the persons of the Deity, is confirmed by the order, and operation, and voluntary disposition in the covenant of grace.And this discovers unto us, first, the necessity of coming unto God by Christ. God in himself is said to be “in thick darkness,” as also to dwell “in light,” whereunto no creature can approach; which expressions, though seeming contrary, yet teach us the same thing, — namely, the infinite distance of the divine nature from our apprehensions and conceptions, “no man having seen God at any time.” But this God, invisible, eternal, incomprehensibly glorious, hath implanted sundry characters of his excellencies and left footsteps of his blessed properties on the things that he hath made; that, by the consideration and contemplation of them, we might come to some such acquaintance with him as might encourage us to fear and serve him, and to make him our utmost end. But these expressions of God in all other things, besides his Son Christ Jesus, are all of them partial, revealing only something of him, not all that is necessary to be known that we may live unto him here and enjoy him hereafter; and obscure, not leading us unto any perfect stable knowledge of him. And hence it is that those who have attempted to come unto God by the light of that manifestation which he hath made of himself any other way than in and by Christ Jesus, bare all failed and come short of his glory. But now, the Lord Christ being “the brightness of his glory,” in whom his glory shines out of the thick darkness that his nature is enwrapped in unto us, and beams out of that inaccessible light which he inhabits; and “the express image of his person,” representing all the perfections of his person fully and clearly unto us, — in him alone can we attain a saving acquaintance with him. On this account he tells Philip, John 14:9, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” the reason of which assertion, taken from the mutual inbeing of Father and Son, and his expression of his mind and glory, he asserts in the next verses. He, then, is the only way and means of coming unto the knowledge and enjoyment of God, because in and by him alone is he fully and perfectly expressed unto us.And therefore this, secondly, is our great guide and direction in all our endeavors after an acceptable access unto Him. Would we come to that acquaintance with the nature, properties, and excellencies of the Father, which poor, weak, finite creatures are capable of attaining in this world, — which is sufficient that we may love him, fear him, serve him, and come unto the enjoyment of him? would we know his love and grace? would we admire his wisdom and holiness? — let us labor to come to an intimate and near acquaintance with his Son Jesus Christ, in whom all these things dwell in their fullness, and by whom they are exhibited, revealed, unfolded unto us; seek the Father in the Son, out of whom not one property of the divine nature can be savingly apprehended or rightly understood, and in whom they are all exposed to our faith and spiritual contemplation. This is our wisdom, to abide in Christ, to abide with him, to learn him; and in him we shall learn, see, and know the Father also. Φέρωτετὰπάντατῷῤήματιτῆςδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ. After the description of the person, the apostle returns unto an assertion of the power of Christ, the Son of God, and therein makes his transition from the kingly and prophetical unto his sacerdotal office; on all which he intends afterwards to enlarge his discourse. He showed before that by him the worlds were created; whereunto, as a further evidence of his glorious power, and of his continuance to act suitably unto that beginning of his exercise of it, he adds that he also abides to uphold, or rule and dispose of all things so made by him. For the explication of these words, two things are to be inquired after; — first, How, or in what sense, Christ is said to “uphold” or rule “all things;” secondly, How he doth it by “the word of his power.” Φέρων is taken by expositors in a double sense, and accordingly variously rendered in translations.1. Some render it by “upholding, supporting, bearing, carrying.” And these suppose it to express that infinite divine power which is exerted in the conservation of the creation, keeping it from sinking into its original of confusion and nothing. Hereof our Savior saith, “My Father worketh hitherto,” ἕωςὔρτι, (or “yet,”) “and I work;” that is, in the providential sustentation of all things made at the beginning. “And this,” saith Chrysostom on this place, “is a greater work than that of the creation.” By the former all things were brought forth from nothing; by the latter are they preserved from that return unto nothing which their own nature, not capable of existence without dependence on their First Cause, and their perpetual conflict by contrariety of qualities, would precipitate them into.2. Some take the word to express his ruling, governing, and disposing of all things by him made, and (which is supposed) sustained; and so it may denote the putting forth of that power over all things which is given unto the Son as mediator; or else that providential rule over all which he hath with his Father, which seems rather to be intended, because of the way expressed whereby he exerciseth this rule, namely, “by the word of his power.”The use of the word φέρω is not so obvious in this latter sense as it is in the former; as in the proverb, Εἰδύναμαιτῆςαι῏γαφέρειν, ὲπίθετέμοιτὸνβοῦν. But I see no reason why we should suppose an inconsistency in these senses, and not rather conclude that they are both of them implied; for as absolutely it is the same divine power and providence which is exercised in the upholding and the ruling or disposing of all things, so all rule and government is a matter of weight and burden. And he who rules or governs others is said to bear or carry them. So Moses expresseth his rule of the people in the wilderness, Numbers 11:11-12 : “Thou hast put,” saith he, ξωָּׂ ?ΰ, “the weight” (or “burden”) “of this people upon me; and thou hast said, ωָׂ ?ΰֵ ?δεּ, bear” (or “carry”) “them in thy bosom.” And hence from πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰ, “to bear or carry,” is πָ ?ωִׁ ?ιΰ, “a prince or ruler;” that is, one that carries and bears the burden of the people, that upholds and rules them. To bear, then, or uphold, and to rule and dispose, may be both well intended in this word; as they are both expressed in that prophecy of Christ, Isaiah 9:6, “The rule” (or “government”) “shall be upon his shoulder,” — that together with his power and rule he may sustain and bear the weight of his people. Only, whereas this is done amongst men with much labor and travail, he doth it by an inexpressible facility, by the word of his power. And this is safe, to take the expression in its most comprehensive sense. But whereas the phrase of speech itself is nowhere else used in the New Testament, nor is φέρω applied unto any such purpose elsewhere (though once φερόμενος be taken for “actus” or “agitatus,” 2 Peter 1:21), we may inquire what word it was among the Hebrews that the apostle intended to express, whereby they had formerly been instructed in the same matter. 1. It may be he intended ξְ ?λַ ?μְ ?λֵּ ?μ, a participle from λּ ?εּ ?μ, “to sustain, to bear, to endure,” as Malachi 3:2. It signifies also “to feed, nourish, and cherish, 1 Kings 4:7; Rth 4:15; Zechariah 11:16. φέρωντεπαντα, that is, ξְ ?λַ ?μְ ?λֵּ ?μλָ ?μ, “sustinens, nutriens omnia,” — “sustaining and cherishing all things” But this word hath no respect unto rule or disposal. And in this sense, as the work of creation is eminently ascribed unto the Father, who is said to make all things by the Son, so that of the preservation and cherishing of all things is here peculiarly assigned unto the Son. And this is not unsuitable unto the analogy of faith: for it was the power of God that was eminently exalted and is conspicuously seen in the work of creation, as the apostle declares, Romans 1:20, although that power was accompanied also with infinite wisdom; and it is the wisdom of God that is most eminently manifested in the preservation of all things, though that wisdom be also exercised in power infinite. At least, in the contemplation of the works of the creation, we are led, by the wonder of the infinite power whereby they were wrought, to the consideration of the wisdom that accompanied it; and that which in the works of providence first presents itself unto our minds is the infinite wisdom whereby all things are disposed, which leads us also to the admiration of the power expressed in them. Now, it is usual with the Scripture to assign the things wherein power is most eminent unto the Father, as those wherein wisdom is most conspicuously exalted unto the Son, who is the eternal Wisdom of the Father. And this sense is not unsuitable unto the text. 2. πֹ ?ωֵׂ ?ΰ is another word that may be intended; and this denotes a bearing like a prince in government, as πָ ?ωִׂ ?ιΰ. And in this sense the word ought to be referred unto Christ as mediator, intrusted with power and rule by the Father. But neither the words nor context will well bear this sense: for, —(1.) It is mentioned before, where it is said that he is “appointed heir of all;” and it is not likely that the apostle, in this summary description of the person and offices of the Messiah, would twice mention the same thing under different expressions.(2.) The particle τε added unto φέρων refers us to the beginning of this verse, ῝Οςὥν,..... φέρωντε, — “Who being the brightness of glory,..... and bearing all things.” So that these things must necessarily be spoken of him in the same respect: and the former, as we have showed, relateth unto his person in respect of his divine nature; so therefore doth the latter, and his acting therein.3. There is yet another word, which I suppose the apostle had a principal aim to express, and this is ψֹ ?λֵ ?α. ψָ ?λַ ?α is properly “to ride, to be carried, to be carried over;” and it is frequently, though metaphorically, used concerning God himself: as Deuteronomy 33:26, ωξַ ?ιִ ?νψֹ ?λֵ ?α, “riding on the heavens;” “on the clouds,” Isaiah 19:1; “on the wings of the wind,” Psalms 18:10, and Psalms 68:5; whereby his majesty, authority, and government are shadowed out unto us. And hence also the word signifies “to administer, dispose, govern or preside in and over things.”Thus in Ezekiel’s vision of the glorious providence of God in ruling the whole creation, it is represented by a chariot (ξֶ ?ψְ ?λָ ?αָ ?δ) of cherubim (λְּ ?ψεּ ?αִ ?ιν). The λְּ ?ψεּ ?αִ ?ιν, “cherubim,” with their wheels, made that chariot, over which sat the God of Israel, in his disposing and ruling of all things. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The design of the apostle, as we have now often showed, is to evince the necessity of abiding in the doctrine of the gospel, from the excellency of the person by whom it pleased God to reveal it unto us. This he hath done already in general, in that description which he hath given us of his person, power, works, offices, and glory; whereby he hath made it evident that no creature whom God was pleased at any time to make use of in the revelation of his will, or the institution of his worship, was any way to be compared with him. Having proceeded thus far in general, he descends now to the consideration of particular instances, in all those whom God employed in the ministration of the law and constitution of Mosaical worship; and takes occasion from them all to set forth the dignity and incomparable excellencies of the Lord Christ, whom in all things he exalts. First, then, he treateth concerning angels, as those who were the most glorious creatures, employed in the giving of the law. The Hebrews owned, yea, pleaded this in their own defense, that besides the mediation of Moses, God used the ministry of angels in the giving of the law, and in other occasional instructions of their forefathers. Some of them contend that the last of the prophets was personally an angel, as the signification of his name imports. Holy Stephen, upbraiding them with their abuse and contempt of their greatest privileges, tells them that they “received the law by the disposition” (“ordering,” or “ministry”) “of angels,” Acts 7:53. And the Targum interprets the chariots of God, with the thousands of angels, Psalms 68:17-18, of the angels by whose ministry God taught Israel the law. This, then, might leave a special prejudice in their minds, that the law being so delivered by angels must needs have therein the advantage above the gospel, and be therefore excellent and immutable. To remove this prejudice also, and further to declare the excellency and pre-eminence in all things of Him who revealed the gospel, the apostle takes occasion, from what he had newly taught them concerning the exaltation of Jesus Christ at the right hand of God, to prove unto them, out of the scriptures of the Old Testament, that he is exceedingly advanced and glorious above the angels themselves, whose concurrence in the ministration of the law they boasted in; and to this purpose produceth four signal testimonies, one after another. This is the design of the apostle, which he pursues and makes out unto the end of this chapter; and that we may rightly conceive of his intention, and the meaning of the Holy Ghost in the whole, we shall, before we consider his proposition laid down in this fourth verse, or the ensuing confirmations of it, inquire in general what it is in Christ which he compareth with and preferreth above the angels, and wherein it is that he so exalts him. The comparison entered on between the Lord Christ and angels must be either with respect unto their natures, or unto their dignity, office, power, and glory. If the comparison be of nature with nature, then it must be either in respect of the divine or human nature of Christ. If it should be of the divine nature of Christ with the nature of angels, then it is not a comparison of proportion, as between two natures agreeing in any general kind of being, — as do the nature of a man and a worm, — but a comparison only manifesting a difference and distance without any proportion. So answereth Athanasius, Orat. 2 adv. Arian. But the truth is, the apostle hath no design to prove by arguments and testimonies the excellencies of the divine nature above the angelical. There was no need so to do, nor do his testimonies prove any such thing. Besides, speaking of angels, the other part of the comparison, he treats not of their nature, but their office, work, and employment, with their honorable and glorious condition therein. Whereas, therefore, the apostle produceth sundry testimonies confirming the deity of the Son, he doth it not absolutely to prove the divine nature to be more excellent than the angelical, but only to manifest thereby the glorious condition of him who is partaker of it, and consequently his pre-eminence above angels, or the equity that it should be so. Neither is the comparison between the human nature of Christ and the nature of angels; for that absolutely considered and in itself is inferior to the angelical; whence, in regard of his participation of it, he is said to be made “lower than the angels,” chap. 2. The apostle, then, treats of the person of Christ, God and man, who was appointed and designed of God the Father to be the revealer of the gospel and mediator of the new testament. As such, he is the subject of the ensuing general proposition; as such, he was spoken of in the words immediately foregoing; and concerning him as such are the ensuing testimonies to be interpreted, even those which testify to his divine nature, being produced to demonstrate the excellency of his person, as vested with the offices of the king, priest, and prophet of his church, the great revealer of the will of God in the last days. Hebrews 1:4. — Τοσούτῳκρείττωνγενὸμενοςτῶνἀγγέλων, ὅσῳδιαφορώτερονπαρ᾿αὐτοὺςκεκληρονόμηκενὄνομα.Τοσούτῳκρείττωνγενόμενος Syr. εְ ?δָ ?πָ ?ΰλֻּ ?μֵ ?δּ ιִ ?ψֵ ?α“Et ipse tantum praestantior fuit,” Boderian.; — “And he was so much more excellent.” “At tanto potior factus est,” Tremel.; — “And he is made so much more better.” “At ipse toto excellit;” or, as De Dieu, “At hoc totum excellit;” — “And he wholly excelleth;” or, “in all things he excelleth.” Vulg. “Tanto melior factus angelis.” The translation of κρείττων by “melior” is blamed by Erasmus, Beza, Vatablus, and is generally deserted by the expositors of the Roman church; and it is hard, if not impossible, to find “melior” in any good author used in the sense that κρείττων is here and elsewhere constantly applied unto. Ours render the word “better,” “made better;” to avoid, I believe, a coincidence with that which they express διαφορώτερον by, “more excellent.” Κρείττων is properly “nobilior,” “potentior,” “praestantior,” “excellentior,” — “more powerful,” “able,” “excellent,” as to love, honor, or state and condition; as in that of Homer, Il. A. 80, —Κρεισσωνγὰρβασιλεὺςὅτεχώσεταιἀνδρὶχέρηι. That is, πολλὸνἀρείων, saith Eustathius, “multo potentior,” — “more powerful,” “able to prevail,” or “more excellent.” Γενόμενος, “factus,” “effectus,” — “made,” “was,” “became.” Διαφορώτερον, “differentius” — “ different;” which is sometimes put absolutely for the best things, orthings far better than other things that differ: “make to differ,” to prefer, make better, 1 Corinthians 4:7. Syr. γַ ?ξְ ?ιַ ?ϊַּ ?ψ“excellentius,” — “more excellent.” Διαφέρω is both to differ and excel; but the “differentius” of the Vulgar yields no good sense in this place. Κεκληρονόμηκε, “haereditavit,” “sortitus est,” “jure hereditario obtinuit;” of the importance of which word before. [4] [4] . — The comparison of the Son with angels divides itself into two sections; — the Son is superior to the angels already, in virtue of his eternal existence as the Son of God, Hebrews 1:4-14; in the Son, man also has been exalted above the angels, Hebrews 2:5-18. — Ebrard. Γενόμ, points out that this exaltation is true not only of the Logos in abstracto, but of the whole divine-human subject. — Tholuck. The aorist, “having been made” or “become,” is antithetic to the present ὤν, “being,” in 1 Corinthians 4:3. — Turner. The name “sons of God” is given to angels. But it is a different thing to apply a common name in the plural to a class, from what it is to apply the same as an individual name in the singular to an individual. When Jehovah, in Psalms 2:2; Psalms 2:7, declares his anointed to be his Son whom he has begotten, this is something different from what is said, when the angels as a class are called sons of the Elohim who has created them. — Ebrard. Κρείτ. refers to superiority in rank or dignity. The term “better” suggests the idea of moral excellence, which is not the thought here. — Craik. . — Κρείτ. Exalted above the angels. — Stuart. Greater. — Boothroyd, Conybeare, and Howson. Superior to the angels. — Craik, Γενόμ. Being made. — Diodati. Διαφορ. More distinguished, more singular. — Ebrard. — ED. Hebrews 1:4. — Being in so much preferred [exalted, made eminent] above angels, as he [obtained] inherited a more excellent name than they.There are five things considerable in and for the exposition of these words: — 1. What it is that the apostle asserts in them as his general proposition, namely, that the Son, as the great priest and prophet of the church, was preferred above, and made more glorious and powerful than the angels; and how this was done, and wherein it doth consist. 2. When, he was so preferred above them; which belongs unto the explication and right understanding of the former. 3. The degree of this preference of him above the angels, intimated in the comparison, “Being by so much made more excellent, as he hath,” etc. 4. The proof of the assertion, both absolutely and as to the degree intimated; and this is taken from his name. 5. The way whereby he came to have this name; he obtained it as his lot and portion, or he inherited it.1. He is made “more excellent” than the angels, preferred above them, — that is, say some, declared so to be. “Turn res dicitur fieri, cum incipit patefieri.” Frequently in the Scripture a thing is then said to be made, or to be, when it is manifested so to be. And in this sense the word γίνεσθαι is sometimes used: Romans 3:4, ΓινέσθωὁΘεὸςἀληθὴς, πᾶςδὲἄνθρωποςψεύστης, — “Let God be true, and every man a liar;” that is, manifested and acknowledged so to be. So, James 1:12, Δόκιμοςγενόμενος, — he that is approved in trial, and thereby manifested to be sincere and sound. In this sense the apostle tells us, Romans 1:4, that the Lord Christ was “declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.” The resurrection from the dead did not make him to be the Son of God, but evidently manifested and declared him so to be. According to this interpretation of the words, that which the Holy Ghost intimateth is, that whereas the Lord Christ ministered in an outwardly low condition in this world, whilst he purged our sins, yet by his sitting down at the right hand of God he was revealed, manifested, declared to be more excellent than all the angels in heaven. But I see no reason why we should desert the proper and most usual signification of the words, nothing in the context persuading us so to do. Besides, this suits not the apostle’s design, who doth not prove from the Scripture that the Lord Christ was manifested to be more excellent than the angels, but that really he was preferred and exalted above them. So, then, κρείττωνγενόμενος is as much as “preferred,” “exalted,” actually placed in more power, glory, dignity, than the angels. This John Baptist affirms of him, ᾿Εμπροσθένμουγέγονεν·ὅτιπρῶτόςμουἧν· — “He was preferred before me, because he was before me,” — preferred above him, called to another manner of office than that which John ministered in, made before or above him in dignity, because he was before him in nature and existence. And this is the proper sense of the words: the Lord Jesus Christ, the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, is exalted above, preferred before, made more excellent and glorious than the angels themselves, all or any of them, who ministered unto the Lord in the giving of the law on mount Sinai. Some object unto this interpretation, “That he who is said to be made or set above the angels is supposed to have been lower than they before.” To which I answer, And so he was, not in respect of essence, subsistence, and real dignity, but in respect of the infirmities and sufferings that he was exposed unto in the discharge of his work here on the earth, as the apostle expressly declares, Hebrews 2:9.2. And this gives us light into our second inquiry on these words, namely, when it was that Christ was thus exalted above the angels. (1.) Some say that it was in the time of his incarnation; for then the human nature being taken into personal subsistence with the Son of God, it became more excellent than that of the angels. This sense is fixed on by some of the ancients, who are followed by sundry modern expositors. But we have proved before that it is not of either nature of Christ absolutely or abstractedly that the apostle here speaketh nor of his person but as vested with his office, and discharging of it. And, moreover, the incarnation of Christ was part of his humiliation and exinanition, and is not, therefore, especially intended where his exaltation and glory are expressly spoken of. (2.) Some say that it was at the time of his baptism, when he was anointed with the Spirit for the discharge of his prophetical office, Isaiah 61:1-2. But yet neither can this designation of the time be allowed; and that because the main things wherein he was made lower than the angels, as his temptations, and sufferings, and death itself, did follow his baptism and unction. (3.) It must therefore be the time of his resurrection, ascension, and exaltation at the right hand of God, which ensued thereon, that is designed as the season wherein he was made more excellent than the angels, as evidently appears from the text and context: for, — [1. That was the time, as we have showed before, when he was gloriously vested with that all power in heaven and earth which was of old designed unto him and prepared for him. [2. The order also of the apostle’s discourse leads us to fix on this season: “After he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down,” etc.; “being made so much more excellent;” that is, therein and then he was so made. [3. The testimony in the first place produced by the apostle in the confirmation of his assertion is elsewhere, as we shall see, applied by himself unto his resurrection and the glory that ensued, and consequently they are also in this place intended. [4. This preference of the Lord Christ above the angels is plainly included in that grant of all power made unto him, Matthew 28:18; expounded Ephesians 1:21-22.[5. The testimony used by the apostle in the first place is the word that God spake unto his King, when he set him upon his holy hill of Zion, Psalms 2:6-8; which typically expresseth his glorious installment in his heavenly kingdom.The Lord Christ, then, who in respect of his divine nature was always infinitely and incomparably himself more excellent than all the angels, after his humiliation in the assumption of the human nature, with the sufferings and temptations that he underwent, upon his resurrection was exalted into a condition of glory, power, authority, excellency, and intrusted with power over them, as our apostle here informs us. 3. In this preference and exaltation of the Lord Christ there is a degree intimated: “Being made so much more,” etc. Now our conceptions hereabout, as to this place, are wholly to be regulated by the name given unto him. ‘Look,’saith the apostle, ‘how much the name given unto the Messiah excels the name given unto angels, so much doth he himself excel them in glory, authority, and power; for these names are severally given them of God to signify their state and condition.’What and how great this difference is we shall afterwards see, in the consideration of the instances given of it by the apostle in the verses ensuing. 4. The proof of this assertion which the apostle first fixeth on is taken from the name of Christ, — his name, not given him by man, not assumed by himself, but ascribed unto him by God himself. Neither doth he here by the name of Christ or the name of the angels intend any individual proper names of the one or the other; but such descriptions as are made of them, and titles given unto them by God, as whereby their state and condition may be known. ‘Observe,’saith he, ‘how they are called of God, by what names and titles he owns them, and you may learn the difference between them.’This name he declares in the next verse: God said unto him, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” It is not absolutely his being the Son of God that is intended, but that, by the testimony of the Holy Ghost, God said these words unto him, “Thou art my Son,” and thereby declared his state and condition to be far above that of the angels, to none of whom he ever said any such thing, but speaks of them in a far distinct manner, as we shall see. But hereof in the next verse. Some by this “excellent name” understand his power, and dignity, and glory, called “a name above every name,” Philippians 2:9. But then this can no way prove that which the apostle produceth it for, it being directly the same with that which is asserted, in whose confirmation it is produced.5. The last thing considerable is, how the Lord Christ came by this name, or obtained it. Κεκληρονόμηκε, — he obtained it by inheritance, as his peculiar lot and portion for ever. In what sense he is said to be κληρονόμος, “the heir,” was before declared. As he was made the heir of all, so he inherited a more excellent name than the angels. Now he was made heir of all, in that all things being made and formed by him, the Father committed unto him, as mediator, a peculiar power over all things, to be disposed of by him unto all the ends of his mediation. So also being the natural and eternal Son of God, in and upon the discharge of his work, the Father declared and pronounced that to be his name. See Luke 1:35; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6. His being the Son of God is the proper foundation of his being called so; and his discharge of his office the occasion of its declaration. So he came unto it by right of inheritance, when he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,” Romans 1:4.This, then, is the sum of the apostle’s proposition, and the confirmation of it. A name given by God to that end and purpose doth truly declare the nature, state, and condition of him or them to whom it is given; but unto Christ the mediator there is a name given of God himself, exceedingly more excellent than any that by him is given unto the angels: which undeniably evinceth that he is placed in a state and condition of glory far above them, or preferred before them. I shall only observe one or two things concerning the Hebrews, to whom the apostle wrote, and so put an end to our exposition of this verse. First, then, This discourse of the apostle, proving the pre-eminence of the Messiah above the angels, was very necessary unto the Hebrews, although it was very suitable unto their own principles, and in general acknowledged by them. It is to this day a tradition amongst them that the Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, and Moses, and the ministering angels. Besides, they acknowledged the scriptures of the Old Testament, wherein the apostle shows them that this truth was taught and confirmed. But they were dull and slow in making application of these principles unto the confirmation of their faith in the gospel, as the apostle chargeth them, Hebrews 5:11-12. And they had at that time great speculations about the glory, dignity, and excellency of angels, and were fallen into some kind of worshipping of them. And it may be this curiosity, vanity, and superstition in them was heightened by the heat of the controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees about them; — the one denying their existence and being; the other, whom the body of the people followed, exalting them above measure, and inclining to the worship of them. This the apostle declares, Colossians 2:18. Treating of those Judaizing teachers who then troubled the churches, he chargeth them with fruitless and curious speculations about angels, and the worshipping of them. And of their ministry in the giving of the law they still boasted. It was necessary, therefore, to take them off from this confidence of that privilege, and the superstition that ensued thereon, to instruct them in the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above them all, that so their thoughts might be directed unto him, and their trust placed in him alone. And this exaltation of the Messiah some of their later doctors assert on Daniel 7:9. ηָ ?ζֵ ?δδֲ ?εִ ?ιִ ?ϊςγγִּ ?ιλָ ?ψְ ?ρָ ?εָ ?οψְ ?ξִ ?ιε, — “I beheld until the thrones were set,” “placed,” “exalted,” — as in the original Chaldee, and as all old translations, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Arabic, render the words, however ours read, “until the thrones were cast down,” — affirming that one of those thrones was for the Messiah, before whom all the angels ministered in obedience. Secondly, It may not be amiss to remark, that the Jews have always had a tradition of the glorious name of the Messiah, which even since their utter rejection they retain some obscure remembrance of. The name which they principally magnify is ξθθψεο, “Metatron.” Ben Uzziel, in his Targum on Genesis 5, ascribes this name to Enoch when he was translated: “He ascended into heaven in the word of the Lord, ξθθψεορτψΰψαΰεχψΰωξιδ,” — “and his name was called Metatron the great scribe.”But this opinion of Enoch being Metatron is rejected and confuted in the Talmud. There they tell us that Metatron is ωεδςεμν, “the prince of the world;” or, as Elias calls him in Thisbi, ωψδτπιν, “the prince of God’s presence.” And in the first mention of this name, which is Talmud. Tract. Sanhed. cap. 4. fol. 38, they plainly intimate that they intend an uncreated angel by this expression. And such, indeed, must he be unto whom may be assigned what they ascribe unto Metatron; for as Reuchlin, from the Cabbalists, informs us, they say, ψαιωμξωδξθθψεο, — “The teacher of Moses himself was Metatron.” He it is, saith Elias, that is the angel always appearing in the presence of God, of whom it is said, “My name is in him:” and the Talmudists, that he hath power to blot out the sins of Israel, whence they call him the chancellor of heaven. And Bechai, on Exodus 23, affirms that this name signifies both a lord, a messenger, and a keeper; — a lord, because he ruleth all; a messenger, because he stands always before God to do his will; and a keeper, because he keepeth Israel. I confess the etymology that he gives of this name to that purpose is weak and foolish; as is also that of Elias, who tells us that Metatron is ιεοαμωεο, — in the Greek tongue, “one sent.” But yet it is evident what is intended by all these obscure intimations. The increated Prince of glory, and his exaltation over all, with the excellency of his name, is aimed at. As for the word itself, it is either a mere corruption of the Latin word, “mediator,” such as is usual amongst them; or a gematrical fiction to answer ωγι, “the Almighty,” there being a coincidence in their numeral letters.The doctrine of the preference and pre-eminence of Christ is insisted on by the apostle unto the end of this chapter, and therefore I shall not treat of it until we have gone through all the proofs of it produced; nor then but briefly, having already in part spoken of it, in our consideration of his sovereignty and lordship over all. That which we are peculiarly instructed in by these words is that, — All pre-eminence and exaltation of one above others depends on the supreme counsel and will of God. The instance he gives of him who is exalted over all sufficiently confirms our general rule. He had his “name,” denoting his glory and excellency, by “inheritance,” — a heritage designed for him and given unto him in the counsel, will, and good pleasure of God. He gave him that “name above every name,” Philippians 2:9, and that of his own will and pleasure: “It pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell,” that so “in all things he might have the pre-eminence,” Colossians 1:16-19. He foreordained him unto it from eternity, 1 Peter 1:20; and actually exalted him according to his eternal counsel in the fullness of time, Acts 2:36; Acts 5:31. This prelation, then, of Christ above all depends on the counsel and pleasure of God; and he is herein a pattern of all privilege and preeminence in others. Grace, mercy, and glory, spiritual things and eternal, are those wherein really there is any difference among the sons of men. Now, that any one in these things is preferred before another, it depends merely on the sole good pleasure of God. No man in these things makes himself to differ from another, neither hath he any thing that he hath not received. “God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy.” And this discrimination of all things by the supreme will of God, especially spiritual and eternal, is the spring, fountain, and rule of all that glory which he will manifest and be exalted in unto eternity. The apostle proceedeth to the confirmation of his proposition concerning the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, and of his proof of it from the excellency of the name given unto him; and this he doth by sundry testimonies produced out of the Old Testament, two whereof are conjoined in this verse, as the verses are divided in our Bibles. Hebrews 1:5. — Τίνιγὰρει῏πέποτετῶνἀγγέλων·Υἱόςμουει῏οὺἐγὼσήμερονγεγέννηκάσε;Ει῏πέποτε. Vulg., “dixit aliquando,” — “said he sometime;” for “at any time.” Syr., ξֵ ?οξְ ?ϊεּ ?νΰֲ ?ξַ ?ψΰַ ?μָ ?δָ ?ΰ, “from at any time said God.” “Eloah,” “God,” is supplied needlessly, though better than those who would render ει῏πε impersonally, “was it said at anytime;” for it is express in the psalm from whence the words are taken, ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ, — “The LORD said.” “The LORD said unto me, ιְ ?μִ ?γְ ?ϊִּ ?ικָ αִּ ?πִ ?ιΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δΰֲ ?πִ ?ιδַ ?ιεֹ ?ν,” — “Thou my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” The ellipsis of the verb substantive in the original, which is perpetual, is supplied by the apostle with εἷ, “Thou art my Son.” Further difficulty in the grammatical sense of the words there is not. And here we shall close this verse, or at least consider this testimony by itself. [5] [5] Ποτε,v καὶπάλην. does not serve to strengthen the τίνι, but is independent, signifying ‘at any time,’and thus forms a marked antithesis with πάλιν. This καὶπάλιν is to be extended in the following way: Καὶτίνιτῶνἀγγέλων, ‘To which of the angels has he at any time said, Thou art my Son? And to which has he again said, I will be to him a Father?’This contains clearly the two ideas: God has used such expressions to an angel not even a single time, but to the Son not merely once, but again and again. Γεγέν. There is ascribed to the Messiah a relation of sonship to God such as is never applied, even approximately, to any of the angels, — a relation of such a kind, that the Messiah derives his real being not from David but from God.” — Ebrard “It may fairly be doubted whether there exists any valid evidence in favor of the declarative sense of the passage, and hence we have no alternative but to explain it according to its literal acceptation, as an absolute affirmation of the divine sonship of Christ. That this is the exposition which would most readily occur to the Jews is too evident to require any detailed proof...... Today always is..... So Clement of Alexandria happily remarks, ‘Today is the image of an eternal age.’” — Treffrey on the Sonship, pp. 300-302. — ED. Hebrews 1:5. — Unto which of the angels did he at any time [or, ever] say, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? Two things are considerable in these words : — 1. The manner of the apostle’s producing the testimony which he intended to make use of: “Unto which of the angels said he at any time?”2. The testimony itself: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”In the former three things may be observed: — First, That the testimony which in a matter of faith he insisted on is that of the Scripture. He refers the Jews unto that common principle which was acknowledged between them. Men had not as yet learned in such contests to make that cavilling return which we are now used unto, ‘How do you know those Scriptures to be the word of God?’Nor, indeed, is it suitable unto common honesty for men to question the credit and prostitute the authority of their own most sacred principles, for no other end but to prejudice their adversaries’. But our apostle here confidently sends the Hebrews to the acknowledged rule of their faith and worship, whose authority he knew they would not decline, Isaiah 8:20.Secondly, That the apostle argues negatively from the authority and perfection of the Scripture in things relating to faith and the worship of God. ‘It is nowhere said in the Scripture to angels; therefore they have not the name spoken of, or not in that manner wherein it is ascribed to the Messiah.’This argument, saith an expositor of great name on this place, seems to be weak, and not unlike unto that which the heretics made use of in the like cases; and therefore answers that the apostle argues negatively, not only from the Scripture, but from tradition also. But this answer is far more weak than the argument is pretended to be. The apostle deals expressly in all this chapter from the testimony of Scripture, and to that alone do his words relate, and therein doth he issue the whole controversy he had in hand, knowing that the Jews had many corrupt traditions, expressly contrary to what he undertook to prove; particularly, that the law of Moses was eternally obligatory, against which he directly contends in the whole epistle. An argument, then, taken negatively from the authority of the Scripture in matters of faith, or what relates to the worship of God, is valid and effectual, and here consecrated for ever to the use of the church by the apostle. Thirdly, That the apostle either indeed grants, or else, for argument’s sake, condescends unto the apprehension of the Hebrews, that there is a distinction of degrees and pre-eminence amongst the angels themselves. To confirm, therefore, his general assertion of the dignity and pre-eminence of Christ above them all, he provokes them to instance in any one of them, which either indeed or in their apprehension was promoted above others, to whom such words as these were ever spoken: “To which of the angels said he.” His assertion respects not only the community of them, but any or all of the chief or princes among them. There are ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ινδָ ?ψִ ?ΰωׂ ?πִ ?ιν, Daniel 10:13, “chief princes” among the angels. And of them Michael, the prince of the people of God, is said to be ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ, “one;” that is, not in order, but the chief in dignity, their head and leader. Now, saith the apostle, to which of these, or of the rest of them, were these words spoken? Proceed we now to the testimony itself produced. Three things are required to make it pertinent unto his purpose, and useful unto the end for which he makes mention of it : — First, That He of whom he speaks is peculiarly intended therein.Secondly, That there be in it an assignation of a name unto him made by God himself, which thereon he might claim as his peculiar inheritance.Thirdly, That this name, either absolutely or in its peculiar manner of appropriation unto him, is more excellent than any that was ever given unto angels, as a sign of their dignity, authority, and excellency. And these things, for the clearing of the apostle’s argument, must particularly be insisted on.First, The words produced do peculiarly belong unto him to whom they are applied; that is, it is the Messiah who is prophesied of in the second psalm, from whence they are taken. This with all Christians is put beyond dispute, by the application of it in several places unto him; as Acts 4:25-27; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 5:5. It is certain, also, that the Jews always esteemed this psalm to relate unto the Messiah; they do so to this day. Hence the Targum on the psalm expressly applies it unto him, thus rendering these words: “O beloved! as a son to his father, thou art pure to me as in the day wherein I created thee.” So are the words perverted by the Targumist, not knowing what sense to ascribe unto them; which is frequent with him. But it is manifest that the constant opinion of the ancient Jews was that this psalm principally intended the Messiah, nor did any of them of old dissent. Some of their later masters are otherwise minded, but therein discover their obstinacy and iniquity. Thus Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, in his comment on this psalm, in the Venetian edition of the great Masoretical Bibles, affirms that “whatever is sung in this psalm our masters interpreted of Messiah the king; but,” saith he, “according unto the sound of the words, and for the confutation of the heretics” (that is, Christians), “it is convenient that we expound it of David.” So wickedly corrupt and partial are they now in their interpretations of the Scripture. But these words are left out in the Basle edition of the same notes and comments; by the fraud, it may be, of the Jews employed in that work, so to hide the dishonesty of one of their great masters. But the confession of the judgment of their fathers or predecessors in this matter is therein also extant. And Aben Ezra, though he would apply it unto David, yet speaks doubtfully whether it may not better be ascribed unto the Messiah. But this was not enough for the apostle, that those with whom he dealt acknowledged these words to be spoken concerning the Messiah, unless they were so really, that so his argument might proceed “ex veris” as well as “ex concessis,” — from what was true as upon what was granted. This, then, we must next inquire into. The whole psalm, say some, seems principally, if not only, to intend David. He having taken the hill and tower of Zion, and settled it for the seat of his kingdom, the nations round about tumultuated against him; and some of them, as the Philistines, presently engaged in war against him for his ruin, 2 Samuel 5:17. To declare how vain all their attempts should be, and the certainty of God’s purpose in raising him to the kingdom of Israel, and for his preservation therein against all his adversaries, with the indignation of God against them, the Holy Ghost gave out this psalm for the comfort and establishment of the church in the persuasion of so great a mercy. And this is borrowed of Rashi.But suppose the psalm to have a further respect than unto David and his temporal kingdom, and that it doth point at the Messiah under the type of David, yet then also whatever is spoken in it must firstly and properly be understood of David. So that if the words insisted on by the apostle do prove that the Lord Christ was made more excellent than the angels, they prove the same concerning David also, concerning whom they were spoken in the first place. Ans. 1. There is no cogent reason why we should acknowledge David and his kingdom to be at all intended in this psalm. The apostles, we see, apply it unto the Lord Christ without any mention of David, and that four several times, — twice in the Acts, and twice in this epistle. The Jews acknowledge that it belongs unto the Messiah. Besides, there are sundry things spoken in the psalm that could never truly and properly be applied unto David. Such are the promises, 2 Samuel 5:8-9, and the invitation of all men to put their trust and confidence in him, 2 Samuel 5:12. And we have a rule given us by the Holy Ghost, — That where any thing seems to be spoken of any one to whom it doth not properly belong, there the person is not at all to be understood, but the Lord Christ himself immediately. This rule Peter gives us in his interpretation of the 16th psalm, and his application of it unto the Lord Jesus, Acts 2:29-31. So that there is no necessity to grant that there is any reference in these words to any type at all. But, —2. We grant that David was a type of Christ, and that as he was king of the people of God. Hence he is not only often signally called “The son of David,” but “David” also, Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 37:24-25; Hosea 3:5. And the throne and kingdom promised to David for ever and ever, that it should be as the sun, and established for ever as the moon, Psalms 89:36-37, — that is, whilst the world endures, — had no accomplishment but in the throne and kingdom of his Son, Jesus Christ. Thus also many other things are said of him and his kingdom, which in propriety of speech can no way be applied unto him but as he was a type of Christ, and represented him to the church. We may then grant, as that about which we will not contend, that in this psalm consideration was had of David and his kingdom, but not absolutely, but only as a type of Christ. And hence two things will follow: — (1.) That some things may be spoken in the psalm which no way respect the type at all. For when not the type, but the person or thing signified, is principally aimed at, it is not necessary that every thing spoken thereof should be applicable properly unto the type itself, it being sufficient that there was in the type somewhat that bare a general resemblance unto him or that which was principally intended. So, on the contrary, where the type is principally intended, and an application made to the thing signified only by way of general allusion, there it is not required that all the particulars assigned unto the type should belong unto or be accommodated unto the thing typed out, as we shall see in the next testimony cited by the apostle. Hence, though in general David and his deliverance from trouble, with the establishment of his throne, might be respected in this psalm, as an obscure representation of the kingdom of Christ, yet sundry particulars in it, and among them this mentioned by our apostle, seem to have no respect unto him, but directly and immediately to intend the Messiah. (2.) If it yet be supposed that what is here spoken, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” is also to be applied unto David, yet it is not ascribed unto him personally and absolutely, but merely considered as a type of Christ. What, then, is principally and directly intended in the words is to be sought for in Christ alone, it being sufficient to preserve the nature of the type that there was in David any resemblance or representation of it. Thus, whether David be admitted as a type of Christ in this psalm or no, the purpose of the apostle stands firm, that the words were principally and properly spoken of the Messiah, and unto him. And this is the first thing required in the application of the testimony insisted on. Secondly, It is required that in the testimony produced a signal name be given unto the Messiah, and appropriated unto him, so as that he may inherit it for ever as his own, neither men nor angels having the same interest with him in it. It is not being called by this or that name in common with others that is intended, but such a peculiar assignation of a name unto him as whereby he might for ever be distinguished from all others. Thus many may be beloved of the Lord, and be so termed, but yet Solomon only was peculiarly called ιְ ?γִ ?ιγְ ?ιָ ?δ, “Jedidiah;” and by that name was distinguished from others. In this way it is that the Messiah hath his name assigned unto him. God decreed from eternity that he should be called by that name; he spake unto him and called him by that name: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” He is not called the Son of God upon such a common account as angels and men, — the one by creation, the other by adoption; but God peculiarly and in a way of eminency gives this name unto him.Thirdly, This name must be such as either absolutely, or by reason of its peculiar manner of appropriation unto the Messiah, proves his pre- eminence above the angels. Now, the name designed is The Son of God: “Thou art my Son;” not absolutely, but with that exegetical adjunct of his generation, “This day have I begotten thee.” Chrysostom, Hom. 22, on Genesis 6, positively denies that the angels in Scripture are anywhere called the sons of God. Hence some conjecture that the translation of the LXX. is changed since that time, seeing it is evident that they are so called in the Greek Bibles now extant.However, in the original they are called “the sons of God,” Job 1:6; Job 2:1, Psalms 82:6. Believers are also called “the sons of God,” Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:6; 1 John 3:1; and magistrates “gods,” Psalms 82:1; Psalms 82:6; John 10:34. It doth not therefore appear how the mere assigning of this name to the Messiah doth prove his pre-eminence above the angels, who are also called by it.Ans. Angels may be called the sons of God upon a general account, and by virtue of their participation in some common privilege; as they are by reason of their creation, like Adam, Luke 3 ult., and constant obedience, Job 1. But it was never said unto any angel personally, upon his own account, “Thou art the son of God.” God never said so unto any of them, especially with the reason of the appellation annexed, “This day have I begotten thee.” It is not, then, the general name of a son, or the sons of God, that the apostle instanceth in; but the peculiar assignation of this name unto the Lord Jesus on his own particular account, with the reason of it annexed, “This day have I begotten thee,” which is insisted on. So that here is an especial appropriation of this glorious name unto the Messiah. Again, The appropriation of this name unto him in the manner expressed proves his dignity and pre-eminence above all the angels. For it is evident that God intended thereby to declare his singular honor and glory, giving him a name to denote it, that was never by him assigned unto any mere creature, as his peculiar inheritance; in particular, not unto any of the angels. Not one of them can lay any claim unto it as his peculiar heritage from the Lord. And this is the whole that was incumbent on the apostle to prove by the testimony produced. He manifests him sufficiently to be more excellent than the angels, from the excellency of the name which he inherits, according to his proposition before laid down. There is, indeed, included in this reasoning of the apostle an intimation of a peculiar filiation and sonship of Christ. Had he not been so the Son of God as never any angel or other creature was, he never had been called so in such a way as they are never so called. But this the apostle at present doth not expressly insist upon; only, he intimates it as the foundation of his discourse. To conclude, then, our considerations of this testimony, we shall briefly inquire after the sense of the words themselves, absolutely considered; although, as I have showed, that doth not belong directly unto the present argument of the apostle. Expositors are much divided about the precise intendment of these words, both as they are used in the psalm, and variously applied by the apostles. But yet generally the expositions given of them are pious, and consistent with each other. I shall not insist long upon them, because, as I said, their especial sense belongeth not unto the design and argument of the apostle. That Christ is the natural and eternal Son of God is agreed at this day by all Christians, save the Socinians. And he is called so because he is so. The formal reason why he is so called is one and the same, namely, his eternal Sonship; but occasions of actual ascribing that name unto him there are many. And hence ariseth the difficulty that is found in the words. Some think these words, “This day have I begotten thee,” do contain the formal reason of Christ’s being properly called the Son of God, and so denote his eternal generation. Others think they express only some outward act of God towards the Lord Christ, on the occasion whereof he was declared to be the Son of God, and so called. The former way went Austin, with sundry of the ancients. The διּ ?εֹ ?ν, the “hodie,” or “this day,” here, was the same with them as the “nunc stans,” as they call it, of eternity; and the ιְ ?μιִ ?γְ ?ϊִּ ?ικָ, “I have begotten thee,” denotes, as they say, the proper natural generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the person of the Father unto him. And this doctrine is true, but whether here intended or no is by some greatly questioned.Others, therefore, take the words to express only an occasion of giving this name at a certain season to the Lord Christ, when he was revealed or declared to be the Son of God. And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke 1:35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matthew 3:17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Romans 1:4, and Acts 13:33; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and reconcilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts 13:33.And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his rule and kingdom. Neither, indeed, doth the apostle treat; in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels. The word διּ ?εֹ ?ν, also, constantly in the Scripture denotes some signal time, one day or more. And that expression, “This day have I begotten thee,” following immediately upon that other typical one, “I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion,” seems to be of the same importance, and in like manner to be interpreted. Thus far, then, I choose to embrace the latter interpretation of the words, — namely, that the eternal generation of Christ, on which his filiation or sonship, both name and thing, doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively; and that declaration to be made in his resurrection, and exaltation over all that ensued thereon. But every one is left unto the liberty of his own judgment herein. And this is the first testimony whereby the apostle confirms his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession. For the further confirmation of the same truth, he adds another testimony of the same importance, in the words ensuing : — Hebrews 1:5. — Καὶπάλιν·᾿Εγὼἔσομαιαὐτῷεἰςπατέρα, καὶαὐτὸςἔσταιμοιεἰςυἱόν;Vulg.: “Et rursum, ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium;” — “I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son.” So also the Syriac, μַ ?ΰαָּ ?ΰand μָ ?αְ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “in patrem,” and “in filium;” not “pro patre,” and “pro filio,’as some render the words. Erasmus worse than they: “Ego ero ei loco patris, et ille erit mihi loco filii;” — “Instead of a father,” and “instead of a son,” or, “in the place;” which agrees not with the letter, and corrupts the sense. Beza: “Ego ero ei pater, et ipse erit mihi filius;” who is followed by ours, “And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” Καὶπάλιν, “and again.” That, is, in another place, or “again,” it is said to the Son what is nowhere spoken unto the angels. ῎Εγὼἔσομαι, — μְ ?ΰָ ?αεְ ?δεּ ?ΰιִ ?δְ ?ιֶ ?δΰּ ?μִּ ?ιμְ ?αֵ ?οΰֲ ?πִ ?ιΰֶ ?δִ ?εֶ ?δΰּ ?μεֹ. The prefixed μ doth not denote a substitution or comparison, but the truth of the thing itself. So it is said of Rebekah, εϊְּ ?δִ ?ιΰּ ?μεֹ μְ ?ΰִ ?ωָּׁ ?δ, “she was unto him,” not “for,” or “instead of,” or “in the place of,” but “his wife,” Genesis 24:67. And in the words of the covenant, Jeremiah 31:33, “I will be to them μֵ ?ΰμֹ ?δִ ?ιν, and they shall be to me μְ ?ςָ ?ν not, “I will be unto them instead of God, and they shall be unto me instead of a people;” but, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” And the same is the signification of these words, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” [6] [6] The quotation is from 2 Samuel 7:14. The εἰς is Hebraistic, equivalent to μ. Efforts have been made to explain this passage exclusively either of Solomon or of Christ; but in vain. The context will not allow such a limitation. The “seed” predicted is a royal progeny, — not merely an individual son, but a succession of kings; and as theMessiah is the most distinguished and glorious, whatever of dignity and of honor is asserted or implied in the context is properly attributable to him. — Turner. — ED. Hebrews 1:5. — And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?This is the second testimony produced by the apostle to prove the pre- eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the excellency of the name given unto him. One word, one witness, the testimony being that of God, and not of man, had been sufficient to have evinced the truth of his assertion; but the apostle adds a second here, partly to manifest the importance of the matter he treated of, and partly to stir them up unto a diligent search of the Scripture, where the same truths, especially those that are of most concernment unto us, are scattered up and down in sundry places, as the Holy Ghost had occasion to make mention of them. This is that mine of precious gold which we are continually to dig for and search after, if we intend to grow and to be rich in the knowledge of God in Christ, Proverbs 2:3-4. Expositors do generally perplex themselves and their readers about the application of these words unto the Lord Christ.Cajetan, for this cause, that this testimony is not rightly produced nor applied as it ought, rejects the whole epistle as not written by the apostle, nor of canonical authority. Such instances do even wise and learned men give of their folly and self-fullness every day. The conclusion that he makes must needs be built on these two suppositions: — First, That whatever any man might or could apprehend concerning the right application of this testimony, he himself might and could so do; for otherwise he might have acknowledged his own insufficiency, and have left the solution of the difficulty unto them to whom God should be pleased to reveal it.Secondly, That when men of any generation cannot understand the force and efficacy of the reasonings of the penmen of the Holy Ghost, nor discern the suitableness of the testimonies they make use of unto the things they produce them in the confirmation of, they may lawfully reject any portion of Scripture thereon. The folly and iniquity of which principles or suppositions are manifest. The application of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New depends, as to their authority, on the veracity of him that maketh use of them; and as to their cogency in argument, on the acknowledgment of them on whom they are pressed. Where we find these concurring, as in this place, there remains nothing for us but to endeavor a right understanding of what is in itself infallibly true, and unquestionably cogent unto the ends for which it is used. Indeed, the main difficulty which in this place expositors generally trouble themselves withal ariseth purely from their own mistake. They cannot understand how these words should prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, which they suppose they are produced to confirm, seeing it is from thence that he is exalted above the angels. But the truth is, the words are not designed by the apostle unto any such end. His aim is only to prove that the Lord Christ hath a name assigned unto him more excellent, either in itself or in the manner of its attribution, than any that is given unto the angels, which is the medium of this first argument to prove him, not as the eternal Son of God, nor in respect of his human nature, but as the revealer of the will of God in the gospel, to be preferred above all the angels in heaven, and consequently, in particular, above those whose ministry was used in the giving of the law. Two things, then, are necessary to render this testimony effectual to the purpose for which it is cited by the apostle; — first, That it was originally intended of him to whom he doth apply it; secondly, That there is a name in it assigned unto him more excellent than any ascribed unto the angels. For the first of these, we must not waive the difficulties that interpreters have either found out in it, or cast upon it. The words are taken from 2 Samuel 7:14, and are part of the answer returned from God unto David by Nathan, upon his resolution to build him a house. The whole oracle is as followeth: 2 Samuel 7:11-16, “The LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.” (Or as 1 Chronicles 17:11, “And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired, that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”) “He shall build an house for my name; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” (1 Chronicles 17:12, “He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.”) “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.” (1 Chronicles 17:13, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee.”) “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” (1 Chronicles 17:14, “But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.”)This is the whole divine oracle from whence the apostle takes the testimony under consideration; and the difficulty wherewith it is attended ariseth from hence, that it is not easy to apprehend how any thing at all in these words should be appropriated unto the Lord Christ, seeing Solomon seems in the whole to be directly and only intended. And concerning this difficulty there are three opinions among interpreters: — 1. Some cutting that knot, which they suppose could not otherwise be loosed, affirm that Solomon is not at all intended in these words, but that they are a direct and immediate prophecy of Christ, who was to be the son of David, and to build the spiritual house or temple of God. And for the confirmation of this assertion they produce sundry reasons from the oracle itself; as, —(1.) It is said that God would raise up to David a seed, or son, intimating that he was not as yet born, being foretold to be raised up; whereas Solomon was born at the time of this prophecy.(2.) It is also affirmed that this son or seed should reign and sit upon the throne of David after his decease, and being gathered unto his fathers; whereas Solomon was made king and sat upon the throne whilst David was yet alive, and not entered into rest with his fathers.(3.) The throne of this son is to be established for ever, or as the same promise is expressed, Psalms 89, whilst the sun and moon continue; — the throne of Solomon and his posterity failed within a few generations.(4.) The title there given unto him who is directly prophesied of shows him, as our apostle intimates, to be preferred above all the angels; and none will say that Solomon was so, who, as he was inferior to them in nature and condition, so by sin he greatly provoked the Lord against himself and his posterity.But yet all these observations, though they want not some appearance and probability of reason, come short of proving evidently what they are produced for, as we may briefly manifest; for, — (1.) It doth not appear that Solomon was born at the time of the giving forth of this oracle, if we must suppose that God intimated in it unto David that none of the sons which he then had should succeed him in his kingdom; yea, it is manifest from the story that he was not. Besides, “raising up” doth not denote the birth or nativity of the person intended, but his designation or exaltation to his throne and office, as is the usual meaning of that expression in the Scripture; so that Solomon might be intended, though now born, yea, and grown up, if not yet by the providence of God marked and taken out from amongst his brethren to be king, as afterwards he was. (2.) Although a few days before the death of David, to prevent sedition and division about titles and pretensions to the kingdom, Solomon by his appointment was proclaimed king, or heir to the crown, yet he was not actually vested with the whole power of the kingdom until after his natural decease. Moreover, also, David being then very weak and feeble, and rendered unable for public administration, the short remainder of his days after the inauguration of Solomon needed no observation in the prophecy.The other two remaining reasons must be afterwards spoken unto. And for the present removal of this exposition, I shall only observe, that to affirm Solomon not at all to be intended in this oracle, nor the house or temple which afterwards he built, is to make the whole answer of God by the prophet unto David to be equivocal. For David inquired of Nathan about building a house or material temple unto God. Nathan returns him answer from God that he shall not do so, but that his son should perform that work. This answer David understands of his immediate son and of a material house, and thereupon makes material provision for it and preparation in great abundance, upon the encouragement he received in this answer of God. Now, if neither of these were at all intended in it, — neither his son nor the material temple, — it is evident that he was led into a great mistake, by the ambiguity and equivocation of the word; but we find by the event that he was not, God approving and accepting of his obedience in what he did. It remains, then, that Solomon firstly and immediately is intended in these words. 2. Some, on the other hand, affirm the whole prophecy so to belong unto and so to be fulfilled in Solomon, and in him alone, that there is no direct respect therein unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And the reason for their assertion they take from the words which immediately follow those insisted on by the apostle, namely, “If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men;” which cannot be applied unto Him who did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth. They say, therefore, that the apostle applies these words unto Christ only by way of an allegory. Thus he deals with the law of not muzzling the ox which treadeth out the corn, applying it to the provision of carnal things to be made for the dispensers of the gospel; as he also in another place representeth the two testaments by the story of Sarah and Hagar. That which principally is to be insisted on for the removal of this difficulty, and which will utterly take it out of our way, will fall in with our confirmation of the third interpretation, to be proposed. For the present, I shall only answer, that as the words cited by the apostle do principally concern the person of Christ himself, yet being spoken and given out in form of a covenant, they have respect also unto him as he is the head of the covenant which God makes with all the elect in him. And thus whole mystical Christ, head and members, are referred unto in the prophecy; and therefore David, in his repetition and pleading of this oracle, Psalms 89:30, changeth those words, “If he commit iniquity,” into “If his children forsake my law.” Notwithstanding, then, a supposition of transgression in him concerning whom these words are spoken, the Lord Christ may be intended in them; such failings and transgressions as disannul not the covenant often falling out on their part for whom he undertaketh therein. But I offer this only “in majorem cautelam,” to secure the testimony insisted on unto our apostle’s intention; the difficulty itself will be clearly afterwards assoiled. 3. We say, therefore, with others, that both Solomon and the Lord Christ are intended in this whole oracle; Solomon literally, and nextly as the type; the Lord Christ principally and mystically, as he who was typed, figured, and represented by him. And our sense herein shall be further explained and confirmed in the ensuing considerations: — (1.) That there never was any one type of Christ and his offices that entirely represented him and all that he was to do: for as it was impossible that any one thing or person should do so, because of the perfection of his person and the excellency of his office, which no one thing that might be appointed to prefigure him as a type, because of its limitedness and imperfection, could fully represent; so had any such been found out, that multiplication of types which God in his infinite wisdom was pleased to make use of, for the revelation of him intended in them, had been altogether useless and needless. Wherefore, according as God saw good, and as he had made them meet and fit, so he designed one thing or person to figure out one thing in him, another for another end and purpose. (2.) That no type of Christ was in all things that he was or did a type of him, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be, and wherein he hath revealed him so to have been. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom, he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king or captain, he was not so. The like must be said of Isaac, Melchizedek, Solomon, and all other personal types under the old testament, and much more of other things.(3.) That not all things spoken of him that was a type, even therein wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong unto him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is, because he who was a type of God’s institution might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even then and in those things when and wherein he was a type. Hence somewhat may be spoken of him, as to his moral performance of his duty, that may no way concern the antitype, or Christ prefigured by him. And this wholly removes the difficulty mentioned in the second interpretation of the words, excluding the Lord Christ from being directly in the oracle, upon that expression, “If he commit iniquity;” for these words relating to the moral duty of Solomon in that wherein he was a type of Christ, — namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom, — may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by God’s institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them. (4.) That what is spoken of any type, as it was a type, and in respect of its institution to be such, doth not really and properly belong unto him or that which was the type, but unto him who was represented thereby. For the type itself, it was enough that there was some resemblance in it of that which was principally intended, the things belonging unto the antitype being affirmed of it analogically, on the account of the relation between them by God’s institution. Hence that which follows on such enunciations doth not at all respect or belong to the type, but only to the antitype. Thus, at the sacrifice of expiation, the scape-goat is said to bear and carry away all the sins of the people into a land not inhabited, not really, and in the substance of the matter, but only in an instituted representation; for “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Much less may the things that ensue upon the Lord Christ’s real bearing and taking away of our sins be ascribed to the devoted beast. So is it in this case. The words applied by the apostle to prove the Son to have a more excellent name than the angels, and consequently to be preferred above them, do not at all prove that Solomon, of whom they were spoken merely as he was a type, should be esteemed to be preferred above all angels, seeing he did only represent Him who was so, and had these words spoken unto him, not absolutely, but with respect unto that representation. And this removes the fourth objection made in the behalf of the first interpretation, excluding Solomon from being at all intended in the prophecy; for what was spoken of him as a type required not a full accomplishment in his own person, but only that he should represent him who was principally intended. (5.) That there is a twofold perpetuity mentioned in the Scripture, the one limited and relative, the other absolute; and both these are applied unto the kingdom of David. First, there was a perpetuity promised unto him and his posterity in the kingdom, as of the priesthood to Aaron, — that is, a limited perpetuity, — namely, during the continuance of the typical state and condition of that people; whilst they continued, the rule by right belonged unto the house of David. There was also an absolute perpetuity promised to the kingdom of David, to be made good only in the kingdom and rule of the Messiah. And both these kinds of perpetuity are expressed in the same words, giving their sense according as they are applied. If applied to the successors of David, as his kingdom was a type of that of Christ, they denote the limited perpetuity before mentioned, as that which respected an adjunct of the typical state of that people, that was to be regulated by it and commensurate unto it; but as they are referred to the kingdom of Christ represented in the other, so an absolute perpetuity is expressed in them. And this takes away the third reason for excluding Solomon from being intended in these words, the perpetuity promised being unto him limited and bounded. These considerations being premised, I say, the words insisted on by the apostle, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,” belonged first and nextly unto Solomon, denoting that fatherly love, care, and protection that God would afford unto him in his kingdom, so far forth as Christ was represented by him therein; which requires not that they must absolutely and in all just consequences from them belong unto the person of Solomon. Principally, therefore, they intend Christ himself, expressing that eternal, unchangeable love which the Father bore unto him, grounded on the relation of father and son. The Jews, I confess, of all others, do see least of typicalness in Solomon. But the reason of it is, because that his sin was the occasion of ruining their carnal, earthly glory and wealth; which things alone they lust after. But the thing was doubtless confessed by the church of old, with whom Paul had to do; and therefore we see that the writer of the Books of the Chronicles, written after the return of the people from their captivity, when Solomon’s line was failed, and Zerubbabel of the house of Nathan was governor amongst them, yet records again this promise, as that which looked forward, and was yet to receive its full accomplishment in the Lord Christ. And some of the rabbins themselves tell us that Solomon, because of his sin, had only the name of peace, God stirring up adversaries against him; the thing itself is to be looked for under Messiah Ben David. The allegation of these words by the apostle being thus fully and at large vindicated, I shall now briefly inquire into the sense and meaning of the words themselves. It was before observed, that they are not produced by the apostle to prove the natural sonship of Jesus Christ, nor do they signify it; nor were they urged by him to confirm directly and immediately that he is more excellent than the angels, of whom there is nothing spoken in them, nor in the place from whence they are taken. But the apostle insists on this testimony merely in confirmation of his former argument for the pre-eminence of the Son above angels taken from that more excellent name which he obtained by inheritance; which being the name of the Son of God, he hereby proves that indeed he was so called by God himself. Thus, then, do these words confirm the intention of the apostle; for to which of the angels said God at any time, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?” The words contain a great and signal privilege; they are spoken unto and concerning the Messiah; and neither they nor any thing equivalent unto them were ever spoken of any angel; especially the name of the Son of God, so emphatically, and in way of distinction from all others, was never assigned unto any of them. And this, as hath been already showed, proves an eminency and pre-eminence in him above all that the angels attain unto. All this, I say, follows from the peculiar, signal appropriation of the name of the Son of God unto him, and his especial relation unto God therein expressed. Briefly, we may adjoin the intention of the words as in themselves considered, and so complete the exposition of them. Now, God promiseth in them to be unto the Lord Christ, as exalted into his throne, a father, in love, care, and power, to protect and carry him on in his rule unto the end of the world. And therefore upon his ascension he says that he went unto his God and Father, John 20:17. And he rules in the name and majesty of God, Micah 5:4. This is the importance of the words. They intend not the eternal and natural relation that is between the Father and Son, which neither is nor can be the subject of any promise, but the paternal care of God over Christ in his kingdom, and the dearness of Christ himself unto him.If it be asked on what account God would thus be a father unto Jesus Christ in this peculiar manner, it must be answered that the radical, fundamental cause of it lay in the relation that was between them from his eternal generation; but he manifested himself to be his father, and engaged to deal with him in the love and care of a father, as he had accomplished his work of mediation on the earth and was exalted unto his throne and rule in heaven. And this is the first argument of the apostle, whereby he proves that the Son, as the revealer of the mind and will of God in the gospel, is made more excellent than the angels; whose glory was a refuge to the Jews in their adherence to legal rites and administrations, even because they were given unto them “by the disposition of angels.” According unto our proposed method, we must in our progress draw hence also some instructions for our own use and edification; as, — I. Every thing in the Scripture is instructive. The apostle’s arguing in this place is not so much from the thing spoken, as from the manner wherein it is spoken. Even that also is highly mysterious. So are all the concernments of it. Nothing in it is needless, nothing useless. Men sometimes perplex themselves to find out the suitableness of some testimonies produced out of the Old Testament unto the confirmation of things and doctrines in the New by the penmen of the Holy Ghost, when all the difficulty ariseth from a fond conceit that they can apprehend the length and breadth of the wisdom that is laid up in any one text of Scripture, when the Holy Ghost may have a principal aim at those things which they are not able to dive into. Every letter and tittle of it is teaching, and every thing that relates unto it is instructive in the mind of God. And it must be so, because, — 1. It proceeds from infinite wisdom, which hath put an impress of itself upon it, and filled all its capacity with its blessed effects. In the whole frame, structure, and order of it, in the sense, words, coherence, expression, it is filled with wisdom; which makes the commandment exceeding broad and large, so that there is no absolute comprehension of it in this life. We cannot perfectly trace the footsteps of infinite wisdom, nor find out all the effects and characters of it that it hath left upon the Word. The whole Scripture is full of wisdom, as the sea is of water, which fills and covers all the parts of it. And, — 2. Because it was to be very comprehensive. It was to contain, directly or by consequence, one way or other, the whole revelation of God unto us, and all our duty unto him; both which are marvellous, great, large, and various. Now this could not have been done in so narrow a room, but that every part of it, and all the concernments of it, with its whole order, were to be filled with mysteries and expressions or intimations of the mind and will of God. It could not hence be that any thing superfluous should be put into it, or any thing be in it that should not relate to teaching and instruction.3. It is that which God hath given unto his servants for their continual exercise day and night in this world; and in their inquiry into it he requires of them their utmost diligence and endeavors. This being assigned for their duty, it was convenient unto divine wisdom and goodness to find them blessed and useful work in the whole Scripture to exercise themselves about, that everywhere they might meet with that which might satisfy their inquiry and answer their industry. There shall never be any time or strength lost or misspent that is laid out according to the mind of God in and about his Word. The matter, the words, the order, the contexture of them, the scope, design, and aim of the Holy Ghost in them, all and every one of them, may well take up the utmost of our diligence, — all are divine. Nothing is empty, unfurnished, or unprepared for our spiritual use, advantage, and benefit. Let us then learn hence, —(1.) To admire, and, as one said of old, to adore the fullness of the Scripture, or of the wisdom of God in it. It is all full of divine wisdom, and calls for our reverence in the consideration of it. And indeed a constant awe of the majesty, authority, and holiness of God in his Word, is the only teachable frame. Proud and careless spirits see nothing of heaven or Divinity in the Word; but the humble are made wise in it. (2.) To stir up and exercise our faith and diligence to the utmost in our study and search of the Scripture. It is an endless storehouse, a bottomless treasure of divine truth; gold is in every sand. All the wise men in the world may, every one for himself, learn somewhat out of every word of it, and yet leave enough still behind them for the instruction of all those that shall come after them. The fountains and springs of wisdom in it are endless, and will never be dry. We may have much truth and power out of a word, sometimes enough, but never all that is in it. There will still be enough remaining to exercise and refresh us anew for ever. So that we may attain a true sense, but we can never attain the full sense of any place; we can never exhaust the whole impress of infinite wisdom that is on the Word. And how should this stir us up to be meditating in it day and night! And many the like inferences may hence be taken. Learn also, — II. That it is lawful to draw consequences from Scripture assertions; and such consequences, rightly deduced, are infallibly true and “de fide.” Thus from the name given unto Christ, the apostle deduceth by just consequence his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels. Nothing will rightly follow from truth but what is so also, and that of the same nature with the truth from whence it is derived. So that whatever by just consequence is drawn from the Word of God, is itself also the Word of God, and truth infallible. And to deprive the church of this liberty in the interpretation of the Word, is to deprive it of the chiefest benefit intended by it. This is that on which the whole ordinance of preaching is founded; which makes that which is derived out of the Word to have the power, authority, and efficacy of the Word accompanying it. Thus, though it be the proper work and effect of the Word of God to quicken, regenerate, sanctify and purify the elect, — and the Word primarily and directly is only that which is written in the Scriptures, — yet we find all these effects produced in and by the preaching of the Word, when perhaps not one sentence of the Scripture is verbatim repeated. And the reason hereof is, because whatsoever is directly deduced and delivered according to the mind and appointment of God from the Word is the Word of God, and hath the power, authority, and efficacy of the Word accompanying it. III. The declaration of Christ to be the Son of God is the care and work of the Father. He said it, he recorded it, he revealed it. This, indeed, is to be made known by the preaching of the gospel; but that it shall be done, the Father hath taken the care upon himself. It is the design of the Father in all things to glorify the Son; that all men may honor him even as they honor the Father. This cannot be done without the declaration of that glory which he had with him before the world was; that is, the glory of his eternal sonship. This he will therefore make known and maintain in the world. IV. God the Father is perpetually present with the Lord Christ, in love, care, and power, in the administration of his office as he is mediator, head, and king of the church. He hath taken upon himself to stand by him, to own him, to effect every thing that is needful unto the establishment of his throne, the enlargement of his kingdom, and the ruin and destruction of his enemies. And this he will assuredly do to the end of the world, — 1. Because he hath promised so to do. Innumerable are the promises on record that are made unto Jesus Christ unto this purpose. God hath engaged to hold him in his hand, and to hide him as a polished shaft in his quiver, to give him a throne, a glorious kingdom, an everlasting rule and government, and the like. Now, what he hath promised in love and grace, he will make good with care and power. See Isaiah 49:5-9; Isaiah 50:7-9.2. All these promises have respect unto the obedience of the Lord Christ in the work of mediation; which, being performed by him rightly and to the utmost, gives him a peculiar right unto them, and makes that just and righteous in the performance which was mere sovereign grace in the promise. The condition being absolutely performed on the part of Christ, the promise shall be certainly accomplished on the part of the Father. By this is the covenant of the Redeemer completed, ratified, and established.The condition of it on his part being performed unto the uttermost, there shall be no failure in the promises, Isaiah 53:10-12.3. The Lord Christ makes it his request that he may enjoy the presence and power of his Father with him in his work and the administration of his mediation; and the Father always hears him. Part of his covenant with his Father was like that of Barak (who was a type of him) with Deborah the prophetess, who spake in the name of the Lord, Judges 4:8 : “If thou wilt go with me, I will go,” against all the enemies of the church, Isaiah 50:8-9. And accordingly, upon his engagement to go with him, he requests his presence; and in the assurance of it professeth that he is not alone, but that his Father is with him, John 8:16. To this purpose see his requests, John 17.4. The nature of his work and kingdom requires it. God hath appointed him to reign in the midst of his enemies, and mighty opposition is made on all hands to his whole design, and a very particular act of it. The whole work of Satan, sin, and the world, is both to obstruct in general the progress of his kingdom, and to ruin and destroy every particular subject of it; and this is carried on continually with unspeakable violence and unsearchable stratagems. This makes the presence of the authority and power of the Father necessary to him in his work. This he asserts as a great ground of consolation to his disciples, John 10:28-29. There will be a great plucking, a great contending to take believers out of the hand of Christ, one way or other, to make them come short of eternal life; and though his own power be such as is able to preserve them, yet he lets them know also, for their greater assurance and consolation, that his Father, — who is over all, is greater, more powerful than all, greater than he himself, in the work of mediation, John 14:28, — is also engaged with him in their defense and preservation. So also is he as to the destruction of his adversaries, all opposing power whatever, Psalms 110:5-6. The Lord stands by him, on his right hand, to smite and tread down his enemies, —all that arise against his design, interest, and kingdom. Be they never so many, never so great, he will ruin them, and make them his footstool every one. See Micah 5:4. The apostle proceeds to the confirmation of the same important truth by another testimony, wherein we shall meet with some difficulty, both in the manner of the citation and the importance of the testimony itself. Hebrews 1:6. — ῝Οτανδὲπάλινεἰσαγάγῃτὸνπρωτότοκονει῏ςτὴνσἰκουμένην, λέγει·ΚαὶπροσκυνησάτωσαναὐτῷπάντεςἄγγελοιΘεοῦ. V. L., “Et rum introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae, dicit, Et adorenteum omnes angeli Dei;” omitting πάλιν, “again.” Syr., ϊּ ?εּ ?αγֵּ ?ιοΰַ ?ξַ ?ϊָ ?ιγְּ ?ξַ ?ςֵ ?μ; “Rursum autem rum inducit;” — “And again when he bringeth in.” Εἰςτὴνοἰκουμένην, μְ ?ςָ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ΰ. — “into the world.” Πάλιν, “again,” is omitted in the Arabic, as in the Vulgar Latin.Beza, “Rursum autem cum inducit primogenitum in orbem terrarum, dicit, Et adorent” (Eras., “adorabunt”) “eum omnes angeli Dei;” which is exactly expressed by ours, “And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” There is not much of difficulty in the words themselves. ῝Οτανδὲ, “cum autem,” “quando autem;” — “but when.”Πάλιν, “rursum” “again,” as in the former verse. What sense it is here used in, and what word it is to be joined withal, shall be afterwards declared.Εἰσαγάγῃ, “inducit,” or “inducet,” or “introducit,’— “he bringeth in,” or “leadeth in,” or “shall bring in;” of which difference also afterward. Τὸνπρωτότοκον, “the first-begotten,” “the first-born,” he before whom none is born, nor necessarily after whom any is so. Under the law there was a sacrifice for the πρωτότοκος, “first-begotten;” so called when as yet none were begotten after him, and very uncertain whether ever any should be so of the same womb or no; and doubtless it often fell out that none were so. Εἰςτὴνοἰκουμένην, ϊֵּ ?αֵּ ?μ the habitable world,” or ϊֵ ?αֵ ?μΰֶ ?ιֶ ?ϊΣ, Proverbs 8, the public place of habitation, where the creatures of God do dwell. The word is nowhere used absolutely in Scripture in any sense but for this habitable world. Only, sometimes it hath a restrained sense, denoting the Roman empire, as Luke 2:1, according to the usual language of those days, wherein the people of Rome, or their emperors, were styled “rerum,” and “orbis terrarum domini;” and it sometimes indefinitely denotes any part of the world as habitable, Luke 2:1; Luke 4:5; Luke 21:26; and therefore oftentimes hath ὅλη “the whole,” joined with it, when it is extended universally to the habitable earth.Προσκυνησάτωσαν. Hebrews δִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?δֲ ?εεּ, imperative in Hithpael, from ωָׁ ?ηָ ?δ, “to incline, “to bow down.” The LXX. constantly render that word by προσκυνέω. And προσκυνέω is probably derived from κύω, and thence κυνέω, “osculor,” “to kiss;” which also is sometimes used for “to adore,” or “worship,” as Πάντεςγόνυπεπτηκῶτεςἐμοὶκυνέσντιδεσπότην. That is, says Eustathius, Προσκυνοῦσιμε, ὠςδεσπότην, — “They worship me as their lord;” for being joined with πεπτήκοτες, “bowing,” or “falling down,” it expresseth the whole use and signification of προσκυνέω. How kissing was of old a sign, token, and pledge of worship, especially to bow down and kiss the ground, I have elsewhere declared. And this derivation of the word I prefer far before that which makes it primitively signify “more canum adulari,” as if taken from the crouching of dogs.In the New Testament it is nowhere used but for that religious worship which is due to God alone. And when it is remembered of any that they did προσκυνεῖν or perform the duty and homage denoted by this word unto any but God, it is remembered as their idolatry, Revelation 13:12; Revelation 13:15. And unto this sense was it restrained of old by the Spartans, whodenied that it was ἐννόμῳ, lawful for them ἄνθρωπονπροσκυνέειν, — that is, to fall down to or to adore a man, Herodot. in Polym.And in this sense it is exceedingly restrained from the use and importance of ωָׁ ?ηָ ?δ, yea, and from that of δִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?δֲ ?εָ ?δin Hithpael, though that always signifies a bowing down with respect and reverence; for it is employed to denote civil as well as religious worship. But for several sorts of religious worship, diversified by its objects, the Scripture knows nothing. The word properly denotes to bow down, and when it is referred unto God, it respects the inward reverence and subjection of our minds by a metonymy of the adjunct. See it for civil respect, Genesis 27:29; Genesis 33:6.῎Αγγελοι, ΰֶ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, “elohim,” is rendered “angels” by the LXX., Genesis 31:24 [according to some MSS. only]; Job 38:7; Psalms 8:5; Psalms 97:7; Psalms 138:1; of which interpretation of the word we shall treat in the ensuing exposition. [7] [7] Καὶπροσκ. — “Καὶ here exhibited does not appear in Psalms 97:7. I regard it as an intensive particle here..... One might render the phrase thus: ‘Let all the angels of God indeed worship him,’or ‘even pay him obeisance or adoration.’” It must be spiritual worship, from the nature of the beings commanded to render it. Civil homage can hardly be predicated of angels. — Moses Stuart. Bleek, Tholuck, and Ebrard hold the quotation to be from Deuteronomy 32:43. “With respect to the absence of the words from the Masoretic text, we must, with all our deference to this text, as resting on ancient and strong tradition, never forget that we have in the LXX., particularly in the Pentateuch, an equally ancient recension of the Hebrew text.” — Ebrard. The difficulty in receiving the words as a quotation from Psalms 97:7, lies in the fact that the word is Elohim, “God” or “gods;” it is employed also to denote angels. “It may be sufficient to adduce one striking passage from Psalms 8:5, ‘Thou hast made him a little lower, than the angels;’ literally, than God or gods. But such a literal translation is entirely out of the question, and there can be no reasonable doubt that angels is the true meaning.” The Syriac and Vulgate agree with the LXX. in the use of angels [in Psalms 97]. — Turner. — ED Hebrews 1:6. — And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.This is the second argument used by the apostle to confirm his assertion of the preference of the Son above angels, and is taken from the command of God given unto them to worship him; for without controversy, he who is to be worshipped is greater than they whose duty it is to worship him. In the words we must consider, — 1. The apostle’s preface; 2. His proof. And in the latter we must weigh, —(1.) The sense of it;(2.) The suitableness of it to his present purpose.His preface, or the manner of his producing of this second testimony, is this: ῝Οτανδὲπάλινεἰσαγάγῃ..... λέγει. Which words have been exposed unto variety of interpretations: for if πάλιν be joined with εἰσαγάγῃ, which immediately follows, they are to be rendered, “And when he bringeth in again into the world;” if with λέγει, which follows it after the interposition of sundry other words, then it is to be rendered as by our interpreters, “And again when he bringeth,..... he saith.” Moreover, it is not clear in what sense Christ is called πρωτότοκος, “the first-born,” who is elsewhere termed μονογενὴςπαρὰΠατρὸς, “the only-begotten Son of the Father.”We must also inquire what is the introduction or bringing in here intended, how and when performed; as also what is the world whereinto he was brought. The difficulties about all which must be severally considered. 1. Πάλιν, “again,” may be joined with εἰσαγάγῃ, and then the sense of the words must run as above intimated, — namely, “When he bringeth in again the first-born into the world.” And it is evident that most expositors, both ancient and modern, embrace this sense. So do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, (Ecumenius, Thomas, Lyra, Cajetan, Ribera, Cameron, Gomarus, Estius, a Lapide, our Mede, with many others. But about what this bringing in again, or second bringing in, of the first-born into the world should be, they are greatly divided. The ancients refer it to his incarnation; affirming, somewhat harshly, that he was brought before into the world, when all things were made by him. 2. Others refer it to the resurrection, which was as it were a second bringing of Christ into the world, as David was brought into his kingdom again after he had been expelled by the conspiracy and rebellion of Absalom.3. Others refer it unto his coming forth in the effectual preaching of the gospel after his ascension, whereby he was brought forth in another manner and with another kind of power than that in which he appeared in the days of his flesh.4. Some suppose the personal reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years with his saints is intended in these words, when God will bring him again with glory into the world: of which judgment was Mede, and now many follow him.5. Others again, and they the most, assign the accomplishment of what is here asserted to the general judgment and the second coming of Christ in the glory of the Father, with all the holy angels attending him, to judge the quick and the dead.6. Some of the Socinians refer them unto the triumphant ascension of Christ into heaven after his resurrection, he having, as they fancy, once before been taken into it, there to be instructed in the mind and will of God.Now all these assertions concerning the bringing in of Christ into the world have a truth in them, absolutely considered; but whether any of them be here intended by the apostle, we must inquire by an examination of the common foundation that all their authors proceed upon, with the reasons given for its confirmation. Now, this is that which we observed before, namely, that in the construction of the words, πάλιν, “again,” is to be joined with εἰσαγάγῃ, “he bringeth in;” and so to be rendered, “When he bringeth in again,” (or, “a second time,”) “the first-born:” which must needs point to a second coming of Christ, of one kind or another. And to this purpose they say, — 1. That the trajection of the words in the other sense is hard and difficult, and not to be admitted but upon very cogent reasons. It is to suppose that the apostle by ὅτανδὲπάλιν, “when again,” intends πάλινδὲὅταν, “again when.” And besides, the interposition of the many words between it and λέγει “he saith,” will not admit that they should be conjoined in sense and construction.But this reason is not cogent; for, — (1.) Most of the ancient translations acknowledge this transposition of the words. So the Syriac, reading thus, “And again, when he bringeth in;” so the Vulgar Latin; and the Arabic, omitting the term “again,” as not designing any new thing, but merely denoting a new testimony. And they are followed by Valla, Erasmus, Beza, and the best of modern translators.(2.) Such trajections are not unusual, and that in this place hath a peculiar elegancy; for the word πάλιν, “again,” being used in the head of the testimony foregoing, this transposition adds to the elegancy of the words; and that there was cause for it we shall see afterwards.(3.) The apostle having immediately before used the word πάλιν, “again,” as his note of producing a second testimony, and placing it here in the entrance of a third, it must needs be used equivocally, if the trajection proposed be not allowed.2. They deny that the angels worshipped Christ at his first coming into the world, — that is, that they are recorded so to have done; and therefore it must needs be his second coming that is intended, when he shall come in glory, with all his holy angels openly worshipping him and performing his commands.This reason is especially suited unto the fifth opinion before mentioned, referring the words to the coming of Christ at the general day of judgment, and is unserviceable unto any of the rest. But yet neither is this satisfactory; for the question is, not whether it be anywhere recorded that the angels worshipped Christ at his first entrance into the world, but whether the Lord Christ, upon his incarnation, was not put into that condition wherein it was the duty of all the angels of God to worship him. Now this being at least interpretatively a command of God, and the angels expressly always doing his will, the thing itself is certain, though no particular instances of it be recorded. Besides, the angels’attendance on his birth, proclamation of his nativity, and celebrating the glory of God on that account, seem to have been a performance of that duty which they had received command for. And this is allowed by those of the ancients who suppose that the second bringing of Christ into the world was upon his nativity. 3. They say that this bringing in of the first-begotten into the world denotes a glorious presenting of him in his rule and enjoyment of his inheritance.But, (1.) This proves not that the words must respect the coming of Christ unto judgment, to which end this reason is insisted on; because he was certainly proclaimed with power to be the Son, Lord, and Heir of all, upon his resurrection, and by the first preaching of the gospel And,(2.) No such thing, indeed, can be rightly deduced from the words. The expression signifies no more but an introduction into the world, a real bringing in, without any intimation of the way or manner of it.4. It is argued in the behalf of the same opinion, from the psalm from whence these words are taken, that it is a glorious reign of Christ and his coming unto judgment that are set forth therein, and not his coming and abode in the state of humiliation. And this reason Cameron affirms, to prove undeniably that it is the coming of Christ unto judgment that is intended.But the truth is, the consideration of the scope of the psalm doth quite reject the opinion which is sought to be maintained by it; for, (1.) Hebrews 1:1, Upon the reign of the Lord therein set forth, both Jews and Gentiles, the earth and the multitude of the isles, are called to rejoice therein; that is, to receive, delight in, and be glad of the salvation brought by the Lord Christ unto mankind, — which is not the work of the last day.(2.) Idolaters are deterred from their idolatry, and exhorted to worship him, Hebrews 1:7, — a duty incumbent on them before the day of judgment.(3.) The church is exhorted upon his reign to abstain from sin, and promised deliverance from the wicked and oppressors. All which things, as they are unsuited unto his coming at the day of judgment, so they expressly belong unto the setting up of his kingdom in this world. And hereby it appears, that that opinion which indeed seems with any probability to assert a second coming of Christ into the world to be intended in these words, is inconsistent with the scope of the place from whence the testimony is taken, and consequently the design of the apostle himself. The other conjectures mentioned will easily be removed out of the way. Unto that of the ancients, assigning this bringing in of Christ into the world unto his incarnation, we say it is true; but then that was his first bringing in, and being supposed to be intended in this place, the words can be no otherwise rendered but that πάλιν, “again,” must be esteemed only an intimation of the citation of a new testimony.Neither can the resurrection of the Lord Christ be assigned as the season of the accomplishment of this word, which was not, indeed, a bringing of him into the world, but rather an entrance into his leaving of it; neither did he at his death leave the world utterly, for though his soul was separated from his body, yet his body was not separated from his person, and therein he continued on the earth. The coming of Christ to reign here on earth a thousand years is, if not a groundless opinion, yet so dubious and uncertain as not to be admitted a place in the analogy of faith to regulate our interpretation of Scripture in places that may fairly admit of another application. The figment of the Socinians, that the Lord Christ during the time of his forty days’fast was taken into heaven, — which they lay as a foundation unto their interpretation of this place, — I have elsewhere showed to be irrational, antiscriptural, Mohammedan, and derogatory to the honor of our Lord Jesus, as he is the eternal Son of God. From what hath been spoken, it is evident that the trajection proposed may be allowed, as it is by most of the ancient and modern translations. And so the word πάλιν, “again,” relating unto λέγει, “he saith,” denotes only the introduction of a new proof, and doth not intimate a second bringing in of the Lord Christ. And unto what hath already been spoken I shall only add, that such an intention in these words as hath been pleaded for would be so far from promoting the apostle’s design, that it would greatly weaken and impair it; for the matter he had in hand was to prove the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, not absolutely, but as he was the revealer of the gospel; and if this was not so, and proved to be so by this testimony, whilst he was employed in that work in the world, it is nothing at all to his purpose. Having cleared this difficulty, and showed that no second coming of Christ is intended in this word, but only a new testimony to the same purpose with them foregoing produced, the intention of the apostle in his prefatory expression may be further opened, by considering what that world is whereinto the Father brought the Son, with how and when he did so, and the manner of it. There are two opinions about the world whereinto Christ is said to be brought by the Father. 1. The one is that of the Socinians, asserted as by others of them, so by Schlichtingius in his comment on this place, and by Grotius after them in his annotations. “Οἰκουμένη,” saith Grotius, “est ‘regio illa superna quae ab angelis habitatur,’ut ipse mox scriptor noster ad haec sua verba respiciens dicet, cap. 2:5;” — “It is,” saith he, “that region above which is inhabited by the angels that is intended; and our author declares as much in that respect which he hath to these words, chapter 2:5.” In like manner Schlichtingius: “Per terrain istam, non esse intelligendam hanc quam mortales incolimus, sed coelestem illam quam aliquando immortales effecti incolemus, et res ipsa, et D. auctor sequenti capite Hebrews 1:5, aperte declarat.” That is, by the earth, not the earth but the heaven is to be understood! But, — (1.) This suits not at all with the purpose and design of the apostle, which is plainly to prove that the Lord Christ, then when he spake to us, and revealed the will of God, and in that work, was above the angels; which is not at all proved by showing what befell him after his work was accomplished.(2.) It receives no countenance from that other place, of Hebrews 2:5, whither we are sent by these interpreters; for that the apostle is there treating of a matter quite of another nature, without any respect unto these words, shall be there declared. Neither doth he absolutely there mention οἰκουμένην, “the world,” but with the addition of μέλλουσαν, “to come;” which what it is we shall inquire upon the place. (3.) Οἰκουμένη signifies properly the “habitable earth,” and is never used absolutely in the Scripture but for the habitable world, or men dwelling in it; and causelessly to wrest it unto another signification is not to interpret but to offer violence unto the text.2. By Οἰκουμένη, then, “the world,” or “habitable earth,” with them that dwell therein, and nothing else is intended; for as the word hath no other signification, so the psalmist in the place from whence the ensuing testimony is taken expounds it by “the multitude of isles,” or the nations lying abroad in the wide earth. This is the world designed, even that earth wherein the rational creatures of God converse here below. Into this was the Lord Christ brought by the Father.We are therefore nextly to inquire wherein the Father’s bringing of the Son into this world did consist. We have seen formerly that some have assigned it unto one thing in particular, some to another; some to his incarnation and nativity, some to his resurrection, some to his mission of the Spirit and propagation of his kingdom that ensued. The opinion about his coming to reign in the world a thousand years, as also that of his coming at the general judgment, we have already excluded. Of the others I am apt to think that it is not any one in particular, exclusive of the others, that the apostle intendeth or designeth. That which was intended in the Old Testament in the promises of his coming into the world, is that which is here expressed by the phrase of bringing him in. See Malachi 3:1-2,“The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come..... But who may abide the day of his coming?”Now, it was not any one special act, nor any one particular day that was designed in that and the like promises; but it was the whole work of God in bringing forth the Messiah, by his conception, nativity, unction with the Spirit, resurrection, sending of the Holy Ghost, and preaching of the gospel, which is the subject of those promises. And their accomplishment it is which these words express, “When he bringeth the first-begotten into the world;” that is, after he had kept his church, under the administration of the law given by angels in the hand of Moses the mediator, in the expectation of the coming of the Messiah, when he bringeth him forth unto and carries him on in his work unto the accomplishment of it, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” And herein most of the former senses are comprised. And this interpretation of the words completely answers the intention of the apostle in the citation of the ensuing testimony, namely, to prove that, in the discharge of his work of revealing the will of God, he was such a one as, by reason of the dignity of his person, had all religious worship and honor due unto him from the angels themselves. This sense, also, we are led unto by the psalm whence the ensuing testimony is taken, Psalms 92. The exultation which the first verse of the psalm requires and calls for is not unlike that which was, in the name of the whole creation, expressed at his nativity, Luke 2:14. And the four following verses are an allegorical description of the work that the Lord Christ should perform in and by the preaching of the gospel. See Malachi 3:1-4; Malachi 4:1; Matthew 3:12; Luke 2:17. And hereon ensues that shame and ruin which was brought upon idols and idolaters thereby, Luke 2:7; and the joy of the whole church in the presence of Christ, Luke 2:8; attended with his glorious reign in heaven, as a consequent of the accomplishment of his work, Luke 2:9; which is proposed as a motive unto obedience, and a matter of confidence and rejoicing unto the church. And this is the Father’s bringing of the Son into the world, described by the psalmist and intended by the apostle.It remains that we inquire why and in what sense Christ is here called πρωτότοκος, “primogenitus,” or “the first-born.” The common answer is, “Non quod post ilium alii, sed quod ante illum nullus;” — “Not that any was born after him” (in the same way), “but that none was born before him;” which, as we have showed before, will agree well enough with the use of the word. And this is applied both to the eternal generation of his divine person, and to the conception and nativity of his human nature.But if we suppose that his person and eternal generation may be intended in this expression, we must make πρωτότοκος, or the “firstborn,” to be the same with μονογενής, or “only-begotten;” which may not be allowed: for Christ is absolutely called the “only-begotten of the Father” in his eternal generation, — his essence being infinite, took up the whole nature of divine filiation, so that it is impossible that with respect thereunto there should be any more sons of God, — but πρωτότοκος, or “first-born,” is used in relation unto others; and yet, as I showed before, it doth not require that he who is so should have any other brethren in the same kind of sonship. But because this is by some asserted, namely, that Christ has many brethren in the same kind of sonship whereby he is himself the Son of God, and is on that account called the first-born (which is an assertion greatly derogatory to his glory and honor), I shall in our passage remove it, as a stumbling-block, out of the way. Thus Schlichtingius on the place: “Primogenitum eum nomine Dei Filium appellat, innuens hoc pacto plures Dei esse filios etiam ad Christum respectu habito; scilicet ut ostenderet non ita Christum esse Dei Filium, quin alii etiam eodem filiationis genere contine-antur, quanquam filiationis perfectione et gradu Christo multo inferiores.” And again: “Primogenitus dicitur Christus quod eum Deus ante omnes filios, eos nimirum qui Christi fratres appellantur genuerit; eo scilicet modo quo Dens filios gignere solet; eos autem gignit quos sibi similes efficit; primus est Christus qui Deo ea sanctitate similis fuit, qualem in novo foedere praecipit.” But these things agree neither with the truth, nor with the design of the apostle in this place, nor with the principles of them by whom they are asserted. It is acknowledged that God hath other sons besides Jesus Christ, and that with respect unto him; for in him we are adopted, — the only way whereby any one may attain unto the privilege of sonship: but that we are sons of God with or in the same kind of sonship with Jesus Christ, is, — 1. False. because, —(1.) Christ in his sonship is μονογενής, the “only-begotten” Son of God: and therefore it is impossible that God should have any more sons in the same kind with him; for if he had, certainly the Lord Christ could not be μονογενής, his “only-begotten” Son.(2.) The only way of filiation, the only kind of sonship, that believers share in is that of adoption; in any other kind of sonship they are not partakers. Now, if Christ be the Son of God in this kind, he must of necessity antecedently unto his adoption be a member of another family, — that is, of the family of Satan and the world, as we are by nature, — and from thence be transplanted by adoption into the family of God; which is blasphemy to imagine. So that neither can believers be the sons of God with that kind of sonship which is proper to Christ, he being the only-begotten of the Father; nor can the Lord Christ be the Son of God with the same kind of sonship as believers are, which is only by adoption, and their translation out of one family into another. So that either to exalt believers into the same kind of sonship with Christ, or to depress him into the same rank with them, is wholly inconsistent with the analogy of faith and principles of the gospel. (3.) If this were so, that the Lord Christ and believers are the sons of God by the same kind of sonship, only differing in degrees (which also are imaginary, for the formal reason of the same kind of sonship is not capable of variation by degrees), what great matter is in the condescension mentioned by the apostle, Hebrews 2:11, that “he is not ashamed to call them brethren;” which yet he compares with the condescension of God in being called their God, Hebrews 11:16?2. This conceit, as it is untrue so it is contrary to the design of the apostle; for, to assert the Messiah to be the Son of God in the same way with men, doth not tend at all to prove him more excellent than the angels, but rather leaves us just ground for suspecting their preference above him.3. It is contrary unto other declared principles of the authors of this assertion. They elsewhere affirm that the Lord Christ was the Son of God on many accounts; as first and principally, because he was conceived and born of a virgin by the power of God; now, surely, all believers are not partakers with him in this kind of sonship. Again, they say he is the Son of God because God raised him from the dead, to confirm the doctrine that he had taught; which is not so with believers. Also they say he is the Son of God, and so called, upon the account of his sitting at the right hand of God; which is no less his peculiar privilege than the former. So that this is but an unhappy attempt to lay hold of a word for an advantage, which yields nothing in the issue but trouble and perplexity. Nor can the Lord Christ (which is affirmed in the last place) be called the Son of God and the First-born, because in him was that holiness which is required in the new covenant; for both all believers under the old testament had that holiness and likeness unto God in their degrees, and that holiness consists principally in regeneration, or being born again by the Word and Spirit out of a corrupted estate of death and sin, which the Lord Christ was not capable of. Yea, the truth is, the holiness and image of God in Christ was, in the kind of it, that which was required under the first covenant, — a holiness of perfect innocency and perfect righteousness in obedience. So that this last invention hath no better success than the former. It appeareth, then, that the Lord Christ is not called “the first-begotten,” or the “first-born,” with any such respect unto others as should include him and them in the same kind of filiation. To give, therefore, a direct account of this appellation of Christ, we may observe, that indeed the Lord Christ is never absolutely called the “first- begotten” or “first-born” with respect either to his eternal generation or to the conception and nativity of his human nature. In respect of the former he is called “the Son,” and “the only-begotten Son of God,” but nowhere “the first-born,” or “first-begotten;” and in respect of the latter, indeed, he is called the “first-born son” of the virgin, because she had none before him, but not absolutely “the first-born” or “first-begotten,” which title is here and elsewhere ascribed unto him in the Scripture. It is not, therefore, the thing itself of being the first-born, but the dignity and privilege that attended it, which are designed in this appellation. So Colossians 1:15, he is said to be πρωτότοκοςπάσηςκτίσεως, “the first-born of the creation;” which is no more but that he hath power and authority over all the creatures of God.The word which the apostle intends to express is αְּ ?λεֹ ?ψ, which ofttimes is used in the sense now pleaded for, namely, to denote not the birth in the first place, but the privilege that belonged thereunto. So Psalms 89:27, God is said to make David his αְּ ?λεֹ ?ψ, his “first-born;” which is expounded in the next words, “Higher than the kings of the earth.” So that the Lord Christ being the firstborn is but the same which we have insisted on, of his being heir of all, which was the privilege of the first-born; and this privilege was sometimes transmitted unto others that were not the first-born, although the natural course of their nativity could not be changed, Genesis 21:10; Genesis 49:3-4; Genesis 49:8. The Lord Christ, then, by the appointment of the Father, being intrusted with the whole inheritance of heaven and earth, and authority to dispose of it, that he might give out portions to all the rest of God’s family, is and is called “the firstborn” thereof.There remains now but one word more to be considered for the opening of this introduction of the ensuing testimony, and that is λέγει, “he saith;” that is, ‘God himself saith.’They are his words which shall be produced. Whatever is spoken in the Scripture in his name, it is his speaking; and he continueth to speak it unto this day. He speaks in the Scripture unto the end of the world. This is the foundation of our faith, that which it riseth from, and that which it is resolved into, ‘God speaketh;’and I suppose we need no interposition of church or tradition to give authority or credit unto what he says or speaks. This, then, is the sum of these words of the apostle: ‘Again, in another place, where the Holy Ghost foretells the bringing forth into the world and amongst men him that is the Lord and Heir of all, to undertake his work, and to enter into his kingdom and glory, the Lord speaks to this purpose, Let all the angels of God worship him.’ To manifest this testimony to be apposite unto the confirmation of the apostle’s assertion, three things are required: — 1. That it is the Son who is intended and spoken of in the place from whence the words are taken, and so designed as the person to be worshipped. 2. That they are angels that are spoken unto, and commanded to worship him. 3. That on these suppositions the words prove the pre-eminence of Christ above the angels. For the two former, with them that acknowledge the divine authority of this epistle, it is sufficient in general, to give them satisfaction, to observe that the place is applied unto Christ, and this passage unto the ministering angels, by the same Spirit who first wrote that Scripture. But yet there is room left for our inquiry how these things may be evidenced, whereby the strength of the apostle’s reasonings, with them who were not yet convinced of the infallibility of his assertions, any further than they were confirmed by testimonies out of the Old Testament and the faith of the ancient church of the Hebrews in this matter, may be made to appear; as also a check given to their boldness who, upon pretense of the impropriety of these allegations, have questioned the authority of the whole epistle. 1. Our first inquiry must be whence this testimony is taken. Many of the ancients, as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Euthymius, Procopius, and Anselm, conceived the words to be cited from Deuteronomy 32:43, where they expressly occur in the translation of the LXX., ΕὐφράςθητςοὐρανοὶἄμααὐτοῦκαὶπροσκυνησάτωσαναὐτῷπάντεςἄγγελοιΘεοῖ; — “Rejoice ye heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him.” But there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretensions that the words are not taken from this place of the LXX.: — (1.) Because indeed there are no such words in the original text, nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them; but the whole verse is inserted in the Greek version quite beside the scope of the place. Now, though it may perhaps be safely granted that the apostles, in citing the Scripture of the Old Testament, did sometimes use the words of the Greek translation then in use, yea, though not exact according to the original, whilst the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost was retained in them; yet to cite that from the Scripture as the word and testimony of God which indeed is not therein, nor was ever spoken by God, but by human failure and corruption crept into the Greek version, is not to be imputed unto them. And indeed I no way question but that this addition unto the Greek text in that place was made after the apostle had used this testimony. For it is not unlikely but that some considering of it, and not considering from whence it was taken, because the words occur not absolutely and exactly in the Greek anywhere, inserted it into that place of Moses, amidst other words of an alike sound, and somewhat an alike importance, such as immediately precede and follow the clause inserted. (2.) The Holy Ghost is not treating in that place about the introduction of the first-born into the world, but quite of another matter, as is evident upon the first view of the text: so that this testimony is evidently not taken from this place; nor would nor could the apostle make use of a testimony liable unto such just exceptions,Later expositors generally agree that the words are taken out of Psa 97:7, where the original is rendered by the LXX., Προσκυνήσατεαὐτῷπάντεςἄγγελοιαὐτοῦ: which, with a very small variation in the words, and none at all in the sense, is here expressed by the apostle, “And let all the angels of God worship him.”The psalm hath no title at all in the original; which the Greek version noteth, affirming that it is ἀνεπίγραφοςπαῤ᾿Εβραίοις: but it adds one of its own, namely, ΨαλμόςτῷΛάβιδὅτεἤγῆαὐτοῦκαθίστατο, — “A Psalm of David when his land was restored.” Hence it is referred by some to the time of his return unto Jerusalem, after he had been expelled the kingdom by Absalom; by others, with more probability, to the time of his bringing the ark into the tabernacle from the house of Obed-edom, when the land was quieted before him. And unquestionably in it the kingdom of God was shadowed out under the type of the kingdom of David; which kingdom of God was none other but that of the Messiah. It is evident that this psalm is of the same nature with that which goes before, yea, a part of it, or an appendix unto it. The first words of this take up and carry on what is affirmed in the 10th verse, to close of that; so that both of them are but one continued psalm of praise. Now the title of that psalm, and consequently of this, is ωιψηγω, “A new song,” Psalms 97:1; which psalms, as Rashi confesseth, are to be referred unto the world to come, — that is, the time and kingdom of the Messiah. So Kimchi affirms that this psalm and that following respect the time when the people shall be delivered from the captivity out of all nations; that is, the time of the Messiah. And Rakenati affirms that the last verse of it, “He cometh to judge the earth,” can respect nothing but the coming and reign of the Messiah. Thus they, out of their traditions. Some of the ancients, I confess, charge them with corrupting this psalm in the version of the 10th verse, affirming that the words at one time were, ᾿᾿ΟΚύριοςἐβασίλευσενἀπὸτοῦξύλου, — “The Lord reigned from the tree,” denoting; as they say, the cross. So Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho. And after him the same words are remembered by Tertullian, ad. Judae. cap. 10, ad. Marci. lib. 3; and Augustin. Enarr. in Psalms 95. And though the fraud and corruption pretended be improbable, indeed impossible, nor are the words mentioned by Justin acknowledged by the Targum, or any Greek translator, or Jerome, yet it is evident that all parties granted the Messiah and his kingdom to be intended in the psalm, or there had been no need or color for the one to suspect the other of corruption about it. It is evident, then, that the ancient church of the Jews, whose tradition is herein followed by the modern, acknowledged this psalm to contain a description of the kingdom of God in the Messiah; and on their consent doth the apostle proceed. And the next psalm, which is of the same importance with this, is entitled by the Targumist, ϊωαηϊπαεΰδ, “A prophetical psalm,” namely, of the kingdom and reign of the Messiah.But the matter of the psalm itself makes it manifest that the Holy Ghost treateth in it about God’s bringing in the first-born into the world, and the setting up of his kingdom in him. A kingdom is described wherein God would reign, which should destroy idolatry and false worship; a kingdom wherein the isles of the Gentiles should rejoice, being called to an interest therein; a kingdom that was to be preached, proclaimed, declared, unto the increase of light and holiness in the world, with the manifestation of the glory of God unto the ends of the earth: every part whereof declareth the kingdom of Christ to be intended in the psalm, and consequently that it is a prophecy of the bringing in of the first-begotten into the world. 2. Our second inquiry is, whether the angels be intended in these words. They are, as was before observed, λָּ ?μΰּ ?ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, “omnes dii;” and are so rendered by Jerome, “Adorate eum omnes dii;” and by ours, “Worship him, all ye gods,” The preceding words are, “Confounded be all they that serve graven images” δַ ?ξִּ ?ϊְ ?δַ ?μְ ?μִ ?ιναָּ ?ΰַ ?μִ ?ιμִ ?ιν“that boast themselves in” (or “of”) “idols,” — “vanities, nothings,” as the word signifies; whereon ensues this apostrophe, “Worship him, λָּ ?μΰּ ?ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, all ye gods.” And who they are is our present inquiry.Some, as all the modern Jews, say that it is the gods of the Gentiles, those whom they worship, that are intended; so making ΰַֹֹ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινand ΰַ ?μִ ?ιμִ ?ιν, “gods,” and “vain idols,” to be the same in this place. But, —(1.) It cannot be that the psalmist should exhort the idols of the heathen, some whereof were devils, some dead men, some inanimate parts of the creation, unto a reverential worshipping of God reigning over all. Hence the Targumist, seeing the vanity of that interpretation, perverts the words, and renders them, “Worship before him, all ye nations which serve idols.”(2.) ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, “Elohim,” is so far in this place from being exegetical of ΰַ ?μִ ?ιμִ ?ιν, “gods,” or “vain idols,” that it is put in direct opposition to it, as is evident from the words themselves.(3.) The word Elohim, which most frequently denoteth the true God, doth never alone, and absolutely taken, signify false gods or idols, but only when it is joined with some other word discovering its application, as his god, or their gods, or the gods of this or that people: in which case it is rendered by the LXX. sometimes εἴδωλον, an “idol;” sometimes χειροποίητον, an “idol made with hands;” sometimes βδέλυλμα, an “abomination.” But here it hath no such limitation or restriction.Whereas, therefore, there are some creatures who, by reason of some peculiar excellency and likeness unto God, or subordination unto him in their work, are called gods, it must be those or some of them that are intended in the expression. Now these are either magistrates or angels.(1.) Magistrates are somewhere called elohim, because of the representation they make of God in his power, and their peculiar subordination unto him in their working. The Jews, indeed, contend that no other magistrates but only those of the great Sanhedrin are anywhere called gods; but that concerns not our present inquiry. Some magistrates are so called, but none of them are here intended by the psalmist, there being no occasion administered unto him of any such apostrophe unto them. (2.) Angels also are called elohim: Λεγόμενοιθεοί, 1 Corinthians 8:5. They have the name of god attributed unto them, as we have showed before in some instances. And these alone are they whom the psalmist speaks unto. Having called on the whole creation to rejoice in the bringing forth of the kingdom of God, and pressed his exhortation upon things on the earth, he turns unto the ministering angels, and calls on them to the discharge of their duty unto the King of that kingdom. Hence the Targumist, in the beginning of Psalms 96, which is indeed the beginning of this, expressly mentioneth ΰπβμιξψεξΰ, “his high angels,” joining in his praise and worship, using the Greek word ἄγγελος, for distinction’s sake, as on the same account it often occurs in the Targum.We have thus evinced that the psalm treats about the bringing in of the first-born into the world; as also that they are the ministering angels who are here commanded to worship him. For the command itself, and the nature of it, it consisted in these two things: — (1.) A declaration of the state and condition of the Messiah; which is such as that he is a meet object of religious adoration unto the angels, and attended with peculiar motives unto the discharge of their duty. The former he hath from his divine nature, the latter from his work, with his state and dignity that ensued thereon.(2.) An intimation of the pleasure of God unto the angels. Not that divine worship was absolutely due unto the Son of God, which they knew from the first instant of their creation, but that all honor and glory were due unto him on the account of his work and office as mediator and king of his church. 3. It remaineth only that we show that this testimony thus explained was suitable unto the apostle’s design and purpose, and did prove the assertion in the confirmation whereof it was produced. Now, this is a matter of so full and clear an evidence that it will not at all detain us; for it is impossible that there should be any more clear or full demonstration of this truth, that the Lord Christ hath an unspeakable pre-eminence above the angels, than this, that they are all appointed and commanded by God himself to adore him with divine and religious worship. We may now, therefore, consider what observations the words will afford us for our own instruction. It appears, then, from hence, — I. That the authority of God speaking in the Scripture is that alone which divine faith rests upon and is to be resolved into: “He saith.”It was the begetting of faith in some of the Hebrews, and the increase or establishment of it in others, that the apostle aimed at. That which he proposed to them as the object of their faith, that which they were to believe, was that excellency of the person and kingly authority of the Messiah wherein they had not as yet been instructed. And hereof he endeavors not to beget an opinion in them, but that faith which cannot deceive or be deceived. To this end he proposeth that unto them which they ought to submit unto, and which they may safely rest in. For as faith is an act of religious obedience, it respects the authority of God requiring it; and as it is a religious infallible assent of the mind, it regards the truth and veracity of God as its object. On this alone it rests, “God saith.” And in whatever God speaks in the Scripture, his truth and authority manifest themselves to the satisfaction of faith; and nowhere else doth it find rest. II. That for the begetting, increasing, and strengthening of faith, it is useful to have important fundamental truths confirmed by many testimonies of Scripture: “Again he saith.”Any one word of God is sufficient to establish the most important truth to eternity, so as to hang the salvation of all mankind thereon, neither can any thing impeach or weaken what is so confirmed. No more is required in any case, to make faith necessary on our part as a duty of obedience, and infallible as to the event, but that God hath by any means, by any one word, revealed that which he requires our assent unto. But God dealeth not upon strict terms. Infinite condescension lies at the bottom of all wherein he hath to deal with us. He respects not what the nature of the thing strictly requires, but what is needful unto our infirmity and weakness. Hence he multiplies his commands and promises, and confirms all by his oath, swearing to his truth by himself, to take away all pretense of distrust and unbelief. For this cause he multiplies testimonies to the truths wherein the concernments of his glory and our obedience do lie, as might be manifested by the consideration of instances innumerable. Thus in his name deals the apostle in this place. And this is useful to faith: for, — 1. What, it may be, is obscure in one is cleared in another; and so what doubts and fears remain on the consideration of one testimony are removed by another, whereby the souls of believers are carried on unto a “full assurance.” And therefore, because such is our weakness that there is need hereof in ourselves, such is the goodness of God that there is no want of it in the word.2. Faith discerns hereby the weight that God lays upon its embracing of the truth so testified unto. He knows our concernment in it, and thereon urgeth us with its acceptance. This awakens and excites faith unto attention and consideration, — the eminent means of its growth and increase. It knows that it is not for nothing that the Holy Ghost thus presseth his truth upon it, and attends the more diligently upon his urgency.3. Every testimony hath something single in it, and peculiar unto it. Though many bear witness to the same truth, yet such is the fullness of the Scripture, and such the wisdom of God laid up therein, that every one of them hath also somewhat of its own, somewhat singular, tending to the enlightening and establishment of our minds. This faith makes a discovery of, and so receives peculiar profit and advantage thereby.And this should teach us to abound in the study and search of the Scriptures, that we may thereby come to establishment in the truth. God hath thus left us many testimonies to each important truth; and he hath not done it in vain, — he knows our need of it; and his condescension in so doing, when he might have bound us up to the strictest terms of closing with the least intimation of his will, is for ever to be admired. For us to neglect this great effect and product of the wisdom, grace, and love of God, is unspeakable folly. If we think we need it not, we make ourselves wiser than God; if we think we do, and neglect our duty herein, we are really as unwise as the beasts that perish. Want of this fortifying of faith, by a diligent search after the testimonies given unto the truth proposed unto it to be believed, is the cause that so many every day turn away from it, and therewithal make shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. Let us, then, never think ourselves safe in the knowledge and profession of any truth, but whilst we continue sincerely in the investigation of all the confirmation that God hath given it in his word. The opposition made to every truth is so various, and from so many hands, that not the least contribution of evidence unto it can be neglected with safety. III. The whole creation of God hath a great concernment in God’s bringing forth Christ into the world, and his exaltation in his kingdom.Hence in the psalm from whence these words are taken, all the principal parts of it are called on to triumph and rejoice therein. The earth, and the multitude of the isles, the heaven, and all people, are invited unto this congratulation; neither is any thing excluded but idols and idolaters, whose ruin God intends in the erection of the kingdom of Christ. And this they have ground for, — 1. Because in that work consisted the principal manifestation of the wisdom, power, and goodness of God. The whole creation is concerned in the glory of the Creator. In his exaltation doth their honor, interest, and blessedness consist. For this end were they made, that God might be glorified. The more that is done by any means, the more is their end attained.Hence the very inanimate parts of it are introduced, by a προσωποποιϊvα, rejoicing, exulting, shouting, and clapping their hands, when the glory of God is manifested, — in all which their suitableness and propensity to their proper end is declared; as also, by their being burdened and groaning under such an estate and condition of things as doth any way eclipse the glory of their Maker. Now, in this work of bringing forth the first-born is the glory of God principally and eminently exalted; for the Lord Christ is the “brightness of his glory,” and in him all the treasures of wisdom, grace, and goodness are laid up and hid. Whatever God had any otherwise before parcelled out, of and concerning his glory, by the works of his hands, is all, and altogether, and with an unspeakable addition of beauty and excellency, repeated in Christ.2. The whole creation receiveth a real advancement and honor in the Son’s being made “the first-born of every creature;” that is, the especial heir and lord of them all. Their being brought into a new dependence on the Lord Christ is their honor, and they are exalted by becoming his possession. For after that they had lost their first original dependence on God, and their respect unto him, grounded on his pronouncing of them exceeding good, — that is, such as became his wisdom and power to have made, — they fell under the power of the devil, who became prince of this world by sin. Herein consisted the vanity and debasement of the creature; which it was never willingly or of its own accord subject unto. But God setting up the kingdom of Christ, and making him the first-born, the whole creation hath a right unto a new, glorious lord and master. And however any part of it be violently for a season detained under its old bondage, yet it hath grounds of an “earnest expectation” of a full and total deliverance into liberty, by virtue of this primogeniture of Christ Jesus 3. Angels and men, the inhabitants of heaven and earth, the principal parts of the creation, on whom God hath in an especial manner stamped his own likeness and image, are hereby made partakers of such inestimable benefits as indispensably call for rejoicing in a way of thankfulness and gratitude. This the whole gospel declares, and therefore it needs not our particular improvement in this place.And if this be the duty of the whole creation, it is easy to discern in what a special manner it is incumbent on them that believe, whose benefit, advantage, and glow, were principally intended in this whole work of God. Should they be found wanting in this duty, God might, as of old, call heaven and earth to witness against them. Yea, thankfulness to God for the bringing forth of the first-born into the world is the sum and substance of all that obedience which God requires at the hands of believers. IV. The command of God is the ground and reason of all religious worship. The angels are to worship the Lord Christ, the mediator; and the ground of their so doing is God’s command. He saith, “Worship him, all ye angels.”Now the command of God is twofold: — 1. Formal and vocal, when God gives out a law or precept unto any creature superadded to the law of its creation. Such was the command given out unto our first parents in the garden concerning the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil;” and such were all the laws, precepts, and institutions which he afterwards gave unto his church, with those which to this day continue as the rule and reason of their obedience.2. Real and interpretative, consisting in an impression of the mind and will of God upon the nature of his creatures, with respect unto that obedience which their state, condition, and dependence on him requireth. The very nature of an intellectual creature, made for the glory of God, and placed in a moral dependence upon him and subjection unto him, hath in it the force of a command, as to the worship and service that God requireth at their hands. But this law in man being blotted, weakened, impaired, through sin, God hath in mercy unto us collected, drawn forth, and disposed all the directions and commands of it in vocal formal precepts recorded in his word; whereunto he hath superadded sundry new commands in the institutions of his worship. With angels it is otherwise. The ingrafted law of their creation, requiring of them the worship of God and obedience to his whole will, is kept and preserved entire; so that they have no need to have it repeated and expressed in vocal formal commands. And by virtue of this law were they obliged to constant and everlasting worship of the eternal Son of God, as being created and upheld in a universal dependence upon him. But now when God brings forth his Son into the world, and placeth him in a new condition, of being incarnate, and becoming so the head of his church, there is a new modification, of the worship that is due to him brought in, and a new respect unto things, not considered in the first creation. With reference hereunto God gives a new command unto the angels, for that peculiar kind of worship and honor which is due unto him in that state and condition which he had taken upon himself. This the law of their creation in general directed them unto, but in particular required not of them. It enjoined the worship of the Son of God in every condition, but that condition was not expressed. This God supplies by a new command; that is, such an intimation of his mind and will unto them as answers unto a vocal command given unto men, who by that means only may come to know the will of God. Thus, in one way or other, command is the ground and cause of all worship: for, — 1. All worship is obedience. Obedience respects authority; and authority exerts itself in commands. And if this authority be not the authority of God, the worship performed in obedience unto it is not the worship of God, but of him or them whose commands and authority are the reason and cause of it. It is the authority of God alone that can make any worship to be religious, or the performance of it to be an act of obedience unto him.2. God would never allow that the will and wisdom of any of his creatures should be the rise, rule, or measure of his worship, or any part of it, or any thing that belongs unto it. This honor he hath reserved unto himself, neither will he part with it unto any other. He alone knows what becomes his own greatness and holiness, and what tends to the advancement of his glory. Hence the Scripture abounds with severe interdictions and comminations against them who shall presume to do or appoint any thing in his worship beside or beyond his own institution. 3. All prescriptions of worship are vain, when men have not strength to perform it in a due manner, nor assurance of acceptance when it is performed. Now, both these are and must be from God alone, nor doth he give strength and ability for any thing in his worship but what himself commands, nor doth he promise to accept any thing but what is of his own appointment; so that it is the greatest folly imaginable to undertake any thing in his worship and service but what his appointment gives warrant for.And this should teach us, in all that we have to do in the worship of God, carefully to look after his word of command and institution. Without this all that we do is lost, as being no obedience unto God; yea, it is an open setting up of our own wills and wisdom against him, and that in things of his own especial concernment; which is intolerable boldness and presumption. Let us deal thus with our rulers amongst men, and obey them not according to their laws, but our own fancies, and see whether they will accept our persons? And is the great and holy God less to be regarded? Besides, when we have our inventions, or the commands of other men, as the ground and reason of our doing it, we have nothing but our own or their warranty for its acceptance with God; and how far this will secure us it is easy to judge. We might hence also further observe, — V. That the Mediator of the new covenant is in his own person God blessed for ever, to whom divine or religious worship is due from the angels themselves. As also that, —VI. The Father, upon the account of the work of Christ in the world, and his kingdom that ensued it, gives a new commandment unto the angels to worship him, his glory being greatly concerned therein. And that,-VII. Great is the church’s security and honor, when the head of it is worshipped by all the angels in heaven. As also that,-VIII. It can be no duty of the saints of the new testament to worship angels, who are their fellow-servants in the worship of Jesus Christ. Having in one testimony from the Scripture, expressing the subjection of angels unto the Lord Christ, signally proved his main design, the apostle proceedeth to the further confirmation of it in the same way, and that by balancing single testimonies concerning the nature and offices of the angels with some others concerning the same things in the Lord Christ, of whom he treats. And the first of these, relating unto angels, he lays down in the next verse: — Hebrews 1:7. — Καὶπρὸςμὲντοὺςἀγγέλουςλέγει·᾿Οποιῶντοὺςἀγγέλουςαὑτοῦπςνύματα, καὶτοὺςλειτουργοὺςαὑτοῦπυρὸςφλόγα.There is not much of difficulty in the words. Πρὸςἀγγέλους,” unto the angels.” Syr., ςμξַ ?μָ ?ΰλֵ ?ΰ, “of” (or “concerning”) “the angels.” ΰμis often used for ςμ, and on the contrary, and πρός for περί; so that πρὸςτοὺςἀγγέλους, “to the angels,” is as much as περίτῶνἀγγέλων, “of” (or “concerning”) “the angels:” “But as concerning the angels,” (or, “and of the angels,”) “he saith;” for these words are not spoken unto the angels, as the following words are directly spoken unto the Son. He is the person as well spoken to as spoken of; but so are not the angels in the place from whence this testimony is taken, wherein the Holy Ghost only declareth the providence of God concerning them. Λέγει, “he saith;” that is, God the Father saith, or the Holy Ghost in the Scripture saith, as was before observe.Τοὺςλειτουργούς. Λειτουργός is “minister publicus,” “a public minister,” or agent; from λήϊτος, which is the same with δημόσιος, as Hesychius renders it, “public.” He that is employed in any great and public work is λειτουργός. Hence, of old, magistrates were termed λειτουργοὶΘεῶν, they are by Paul, διάκονοιΘεοῦ, Romans 13:4, “the ministers of God.” And Hebrews 8:2 of this epistle, he calls the Lord Jesus, in respect of his priestly office, τῶνἁγιώνλειτουργόν, “the public minister of holy things;” and himself, in respect of his apostleship, λειτουργὸν᾿ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ, Romans 15:16, “a minister of Jesus Christ.” So the name is on this account equipollent unto that of angels; for as that denoteth the mission of those spirits unto their work, so doth this their employment therein. This testimony is taken from Psalms 104:4, where the words are to the same purpose: ςֹ ?ωֶׂ ?δξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?λָ ?ιεψεּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊξְ ?ωָׁ ?ψְ ?ϊָ ?ιεΰֵ ?ωׁ μֹ ?ηֵ ?θ. The translation now in the Greek is the same with that of the apostle, only for πυρὸςφλόγα, “a flame of fire,” some copies have it πῦρφλέγον, “a flaming fire,” — more express to the original; and the change probably was made in the copies from this place of the apostle. Symmachus, πῦρλάβρον, “a devouring fire.” [8] [8] . — Ποιῶν. κ. τ. λ. “Who maketh his angels that serve him the ministers of his will, as the winds and the lightning are.” The angels are employed simply in a ministerial capacity, while the Son is lord of all. — Stuart. Angels are ministering elements of nature; the Son is everlasting king. Πρός, like μְּ, turned towards; i.e., “in respect of.” — Tholuck. Πρός is to be rendered, not “to,” but “respecting.” The angels are regarded as δυνάμεις of God, through whom God works wonders in the kingdom of nature. — Ebrard. God’s angels are employed by him in the same way as the more ordinary agents of nature, — winds and lightnings. — Turner. Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Grotius, Limborch, Lowth, Campbell, Michaelis, Knapp, and others, translate the Greek words as equivalent to the Hebrew. Luther, Calov, Storr, Tholuck, and others, interpret the Hebrew according to the Greek. The Hebrew, it is alleged, must from the context be rendered, “He makes thewinds his messengers,” etc. To the former view it is justly objected, that the Greek rendering would have been, ῾Οποιῶνἀγγέλουςαὐτοῦτὰπνεύματα. To the latter, that the analogy of the context requires us in the Hebrew psalm to understand winds as the messengers of God, even as light is his garment, the heaven his tent, and the clouds his chariot. Tholuck, Stuart, and Turner hold that the Hebrew psalm leads to the opposite conclusion, from the natural order of the words, from the connection of angels with natural causes, and from the real scope of the context, — “Who maketh the clouds his chariot.” The former, says Storr, like angels and ministers, must be understood literally, and the latter (chariot), like winds and lightnings, figuratively for agents of his will The translation adopted by the New Testament from the Septuagint has the sanction also of the Chaldee and Syriac versions. . — ῾Οποιῶν, κ. τ. λ. Who maketh his angels winds. — Stuart, Craik, Ebrard. Who maketh winds his messengers, and flaming fire his ministers. — Campbell on Gospels, Dissert. 8 part 3 sect. 10. Hebrews 1:7. — But unto [of] the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire, [or, flaming fire.]The apostle here entereth upon his third argument to prove the pre- eminence of the Lord Christ above angels, and that by comparing them together, either as to their natures or as to their employments, according as the one or the other is set forth, declared, and testified unto in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. And this first place which he refers unto angels we shall now explain and vindicate; and in so doing inquire both who they are of whom the psalmist speaks, and what it is that he affirmeth of them. There is a threefold sense given of the words of the psalmist, as they lie in the Hebrew text : — 1. The first is that of the modern Jews, who deny that there is any mention made of angels, affirming the subject that the psalmist treats of to be the winds, with thunder and lightning, which God employs as his messengers and ministers to accomplish his will and pleasure. So he made the winds his messengers when he sent them to raise a storm on Jonah when he fled from his presence; and a flaming fire his minister, when by it he consumed Sodom and Gomorrah. And this opinion makes ψεּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ, which it interprets “winds,” and ΰֵ ?ωׂ μֹ ?δֵ ?θ, “a flaming fire,” to be the subjects of the proposition, of which it is affirmed that God employs them as his messengers and ministers.That this opinion, which is directly contradictory to the authority of the apostle, is so also to the design of the psalmist, sense of the words, consent of the ancient Jews, and so no way to be admitted, shall afterwards be made to appear. 2. Some aver that the winds and meteors are principally intended, but yet so as that God, affirming that he makes the winds his messengers, doth also intimate that it is the work and employment of his angels above to be his messengers also; and that because he maketh use of their ministry to cause those winds and fires whereby he accomplisheth his will. And this they illustrate by the fire and winds caused by them on mount Sinai at the giving of the law. But this interpretation, whatever is pretended to the contrary, doth not really differ from the former, denying angels to be intentionally spoken of, only hooking in a respect unto them, not to seem to contradict the apostle, and therefore will be disproved together with that which went before. 3. Others grant that it is the angels of whom the apostle treats; but as to the interpretation of the words they are of two opinions.Some make “spirits” to be the subject of what is affirmed, and “angels” to be the predicate. In this sense God is said to make those spiritual substances, inhabitants of heaven, his messengers, employing them in his service; and them whose nature is “a flaming fire,” that is the seraphim, to be his ministers, and to accomplish his pleasure. And this way, after Austin, go many expositors, making the term “angels” here merely to denote an employment, and not the persons employed. But as this interpretation also takes off from the efficacy and evidence of the apostle’s argument, so we shall see that there is nothing in the words themselves leading to the embracement of it. It remains, therefore, that it is the angels that are here spoken of; as also that they are intended and designed by that name, which denotes their persons, and not their employment. That angels are primarily intended by the psalmist, contrary to the first opinion, of the modern Jews, and the second mentioned, leaning thereunto, appears, — 1. From the scope and design of the psalmist. For designing to set out the glory of God in his works of creation and providence, after he had declared the framing of all things by his power which come under the name of “heavens,” Psalms 110:2-3, before he proceeds to the creation of the earth, — passing over, with Moses, the creation of angels, or couching it with him under the production of light or of the heavens, as they are called in Job, — he declareth his providence and sovereignty in employing his angels between heaven and earth, as his servants for the accomplishment of his pleasure. Neither doth it at all suit his method or design, in his enumeration of the works of God, to make mention of the winds and tempests, and their use in the earth, before he had mentioned the creation of the earth itself, which follows in the next verse unto this. So that these senses are excluded by the context of the psalm. 2. The consent of the ancient Jews lies against the sentiment of the modern. Both the old translations either made or embraced by them expressly refer the words unto angels. So doth that of the LXX., as is evident from the words; and so doth the Targum, thus rendering the place, ξφμδαΰγςαγΰζβγειρψδεαιοδικְ ψεηΰωξωειϊχιτιοδικְ ΰωΰ; — “Who maketh his messengers” (or “angels”) “swift as spirits, and his ministers strong” (or “powerful”) “as a flaming fire.” The supply of the note of similitude makes it evident that they understood the text of angels, and not winds, and of making angels as spirits, and not of making winds to be angels or messengers, which is inconsistent with their words.3. The word ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?λִ ?ιν doth usually denote the angels themselves, and no reason can be given why it should not do so in this place.Moreover, it appears that that term is the subject of the proposition: for, — 1. The apostle and the LXX. fixing the articles before ἀγγέλους and λειτουργούς, “angels” and “ministers,” do plainly determine the subject spoken of: for although, it may be, some variety may be observed in the use of articles in other places, so that they do not always determine the subject of the proposition, as sometimes confessedly they do, as John 1:1; John 4:24; yet in this place, where in the original all the words are left indefinitely, without any prefix to direct the emphasis unto any one of them, the fixing of them in the translation of the apostle and LXX. must necessarily design the subject of them, or else by the addition of the article they leave the sense much more ambiguous than before, and give occasion to a great mistake in the interpretation of the words. 2. The apostle speaks of angels: “Unto the angels he saith.” And in all other testimonies produced by him, that whereof he treats hath the place of the subject spoken of, and not of that which is attributed unto any thing else. Neither can the words be freed from equivocation, if “angels” in the first place denote the persons of the angels, and in the latter their employment only. 3. The design and scope of the apostle requires this construction of the words; for his intention is, to prove by this testimony that the angels are employed in such works and services, and in such a manner, as that they are no way to be compared to the Son of God, in respect of that office which as mediator he hath undertaken: which the sense and construction contended for alone doth prove.4. The original text requires this sense; for, according to the common use of that language, among words indefinitely used, the first denotes the subject spoken of, which is angels here: ςֹ ?ωֶׂ ?δξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?λָ ?ιεψεּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ, — “making his angels spirits.” And in such propositions ofttimes some note of similitude is to be understood, without which the sense is not complete, and which, as I have showed, the Targum supplieth in this place. From what hath been said, I suppose it is made evident both that the psalmist expressly treats of angels, and that the subject spoken of by the apostle is expressed in that word, and that following, of ministers. Our next inquiry is after what is affirmed concerning these angels and ministers spoken of; and that is, that God makes them “spirits,” and “a flame of fire.” And concerning the meaning of these words there are two opinions: — 1. That the creation of angels is intended in the words; and the nature whereof they were made is expressed in them. He made them spirits, — that is, of a spiritual substance; and his heavenly ministers, quick, powerful, agile, as a flaming fire. Some carry this sense farther, and affirm that two sorts of angels are intimated, one of an aerial substance like the wind, and the other igneal or fiery, denying all pure intelligences, without mixture of matter, as the product of the school of Aristotle. But this seems not to be the intention of the words; nor is the creation of the angels or the substance whereof they consist here expressed: for, — (1.) The analysis of the psalm, formerly touched on, requires the referring of these words to the providence of God in employing the angels, and not to his power in making them. (2.) The apostle in this place hath nothing to do with the essence and nature of the angels, but with their dignity, honor, and employment; on which accounts he preferreth the Lord Christ before them. Wherefore, —2. The providence of God in disposing and employing of angels in his service is intended in these words; and so they may have a double sense: —(1.) That God employeth his angels and heavenly ministers in the production of those winds, ψεּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ, and fire, ΰֵ ?ωׁ μֹ ?δֵ ?θ, thunder and lightning, whereby he executeth many judgments in the world.(2.) A note of similitude may be understood, to complete the sense, which is expressed in the Targum on the psalm: “He maketh” (or “sendeth”) “his angels like the winds, or like a flaming fire,” — maketh them speedy, spiritual, agile, powerful, quickly and effectually accomplishing the work that is appointed unto them.Either way this is the plain intendment of the psalm, — that God useth and employeth his angels in effecting the works of his providence here below, and that they were made to serve the providence of God in that way and manner. ‘This,’saith the apostle, ‘is the testimony which the Holy Ghost gives concerning them, their nature, duty, and work, wherein they serve the providence of God. But now,’saith he, ‘consider what the Scripture saith concerning the Son, how it calls him God, how it ascribes a throne and a kingdom unto him’(testimonies whereof he produceth in the next verses),’ and you will easily discern his pre-eminence above them.’ But before we proceed to the consideration of the ensuing testimonies, we may make some observations on that which we have already passed through; as, — I. Our conceptions of the angels, their nature, office, and work, is to be regulated by the Scripture.The Jews of old had many curious speculations about angels, wherein they greatly pleased and greatly deceived themselves. Wherefore the apostle, in his dealing with them, calls them off from all their foolish imaginations, to attend unto those things which God hath revealed in his word concerning them. This the Holy Ghost saith of them, and therefore this we are to receive and believe, and this alone: for, — 1. This will keep us unto that becoming sobriety in things above us which both the Scripture greatly commends and is exceedingly suited unto right reason. The Scripture minds us μὴὑπερφρονεῖνπαρ᾿ὅδεῖφρονεῖνἀλλὰφρονεῖνεἰςσωφρονεῖν, Romans 12:3, “to keep ourselves within the bounds of modesty, and to be wise to sobriety.” And the rule of that sobriety is given us for ever, Deuteronomy 29:28, μָ ?πֹ ?εּ εּ ?μְ ?αָ ?πֵ ?ιπεּ δπִּ ?ρְ ?ϊָּ ?ψֹ ?ϊμַ ?ιδεֹ ?δΰֶ ?μδֵ ?ιπεּ εְ ?δַ ?πִּ ?βְ ?μֹ ?ϊ; — “Secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but revealed things unto us and to our children.” Divine revelation is the rule and measure of our knowledge in these things, and that bounds and determines our sobriety. And hence the apostle, condemning the curiosity of men on this very subject about angels, makes the nature of their sin to consist in exceeding these bounds by an inquiry into things unrevealed; and the rise of that evil to lie in pride, vanity, and fleshliness; and the tendency of it to be unto false worship, superstition, and idolatry, Colossians 2:18. Neither is there any thing more averse from right reason, nor more condemned by wise men of former times, than a curious humour of prying into those things wherein we are not concerned, and for whose investigation we have no certain, honest, lawful rule or medium. And this evil is increased where God himself hath given bounds to our inquiries, as in this case he hath. 2. This alone will bring us unto any certainty and truth. Whilst men indulge to their own imaginations and fancies, as too many in this matter have been apt to do, it is sad to consider how they have wandered up and down, and with what fond conceits they have deceived themselves and others. The world hath been filled with monstrous opinions and doctrines about angels, their nature, offices, and employments. Some have worshipped them, others pretended I know not what communion and intercourse with them; in all which conceits there hath been little of truth, and nothing at all of certainty. Whereas if men, according to the example of the apostle, would keep themselves to the word of God, as they would know enough in this matter for the discharging of their own duty, so they would have assurance and evidence of truth in their conceptions; without which pretended high and raised notions are but a shadow of a dream, — worse than professed ignorance. II. We may hence observe, that the glory, honor, and exaltation of angels lies in their subserviency to the providence of God. It lies not so much in their nature as in their work and service. The intention of the apostle is to show the glory of angels and their exaltation; which he doth by the induction of this testimony, reporting their serviceableness in the works wherein of God they are employed. God hath endowed the angels with a very excellent nature, — furnished them with many eminenent properties, of wisdom, power, agility, perpetuity: but yet what is glorious and honorable herein consists not merely in their nature itself and its essential properties, all which abide in the horridest and most- to-be-detested part of the whole creation, namely, the devils; but in their conformity and answerableness unto the mind and will of God, — that is, in their moral, not merely natural endowments. These make them amiable, glorious, excellent. Unto this their readiness for and compliance with the will of God, — that God having made them for his service, and employing them in his work, — their discharge of their duty therein with cheerfulness, alacrity, readiness, and ability, is that which renders them truly honorable and glorious. Their readiness and ability to serve the providence of God is their glory; for, — 1. The greatest glory that any creature can be made partaker of, is to serve the will and set forth the praise of its Creator. That is its order and tendency towards its principal end; in which two all true honor consists. It is glorious even in the angels to serve the God of glory. What is there above this for a creature to aspire unto? what that its nature is capable of? Those among the angels who, as it seems, attempted somewhat further, somewhat higher, attained nothing but an endless ruin in shame and misery. Men are ready to fancy strange things about the glory of angels, and do little consider that all the difference in glory that is in any parts of God’s creation lies merely in willingness, ability, and readiness to serve God their Creator. 2. The works wherein God employs them, in a subservience unto his providence, are in an especial manner glorious works. As for the service of angels, as it is intimated unto us in the Scripture, it may be reduced unto two heads; for they are employed either in the communication of protection and blessings to the church, or in the execution of the vengeance and judgments of God against his enemies. Instances to both these purposes may be multiplied, but they are commonly known. Now these are glorious works. God in them eminently exalts his mercy and justice, — the two properties of his nature in the execution whereof he is most eminently exalted: and from these works ariseth all that revenue of glory and praise which God is pleased to reserve to himself from the world: so that it must needs be very honorable to be employed in these works. 3. They perform their duty in their service in a very glorious manner, with great power, wisdom, and uncontrollable efficacy. Thus, one of them slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand of the enemies of God in a night; another set fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from heaven. Of the like power and expedition are they in all their services, in all things to the utmost capacity of creatures answering the will of God. God himself, it is true, sees that in them and their works which keeps them short of absolute purity and perfection, which are his own properties; but as to the capacity of mere creatures, and for their state and condition, there is a perfection in their obedience, and that is their glory.Now, if this be the great glory of angels, and we poor worms of the earth are invited, as we are, unto a participation with them therein, what unspeakable folly will it be in us if we be found negligent in laboring to attain thereunto! Our future glory consists in this, that we shall be made like unto angels; and our way towards it is, to do the will of our Father on earth as it is done by them in heaven. Oh, in how many vanities doth vain man place his glory! Nothing so shameful that one or other hath not gloried in; whilst the true and only glory, of doing the will of God, is neglected by almost all! But we must treat again of these things upon the last verse of this chapter. Having given an account of what the Scripture teacheth and testifieth concerning angels, in the following verses he showeth how much other things, and far more glorious, are spoken to and of the Son, by whom God revealed his will in the gospel. Hebrews 1:8-9. — ΠρὸςδὲτὸνΥἱόν·῾Οθρόνοςσου, ὁΘεὸς, εἰςτὸναἰῶνατοῦαἰῶνος· ?v ῥάβδοςεὐθύτητοςἡῥάβδοςτῆςβασιλείαςσου. ᾿Ηγάπησαςδικαιοσύνην, καιἐμίσησαςἀνομίαν·διὰτοῦτοἔχρισέσεΘεὸς, ὁΘεόςσου, ἔλαιονἀγαλλιάσεωςπαρὰτοὺςμετόχουςσου.MS. T., ῾Ηῥάβδοςεὐθύτητος: and for ἀνομίαν, ἀδικίαν. ΠρὸςδὲτὸνΥἱόν, “But unto the Son.” Syr., ςμαְּ ?ιָ ?ΰγֵ ?ιּ ?οΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ, “but of the Son he saith;” which is necessarily supplied as to the apostle’s design. In the psalm the words are spoken by way of apostrophe to the Son, and they are recited by the apostle as spoken of him; that is, so spoken to him as to contain a description of him and his state or kingdom. ῾῾Οθρόνοςσου, ὁΘεὸς, εἰςτὸναἰῶνατοῦαἰῶνος. Psalms 45:7 isthe place from whence the words are taken, λִּ ?ρְ ?ΰֲ ?κָ ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιּ ?νςεֹ ?μָ ?νεָ ?ςֶ ?ψ. The LXX. render these words as the apostle. Aquila, ῾῾ΟζρόνοςσουΘεὲαἰῶνακαὶἔτι·Θεέ, for ὁΘεός· — “Thy throne, O God, for ever and yet.” Symmachus, ῾ΟθρόνοςσουὁΘεὸςαἰώνιοςκαὶἔτι· — “Thy throne, O God, is everlasting and yet;” and that because it is not said, μְ ?ςεֹ ?μָּ ?ν, but ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, absolutely; ῾ΟΘεός, Θεέ, as in the translation of Aquila. λִּ ?ρֵ ?ΰ is “a kingly throne,” nor is it ever used in Scripture for ξεֹ ?ωָׁ ?α, “a common seat.” Metonymically it is used for power and government, and that frequently. The LXX. almost constantly render it by θρόνος, and θρόνος is ἐλευθέριοςκαθέδρασὺνὑποποδίῳ, Athenae, lib. 5, — “a free open seat with a footstool.” And such a throne is here properly assigned unto the Lord Christ, mention of his footstool being immediately subjoined. So God says of himself, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool;” as the heathen termed heaven, Διὸςθρόνον, “The throne of God.” “Thy throne, O God, ςεֹ ?μָ ?νεָ ?ςֶ ?γ,” — “in seculum et usque;” “in sempiternum et perpetuo;” “in seculum seculorum.” The duration denoted by the conjunction of both these words is mostly an absolute perpetuity, and a certain, uninterrupted continuance, where the subject spoken of admits a limitation. Many of the Greek interpreters render ςֵ ?γby ἔτι, attending to the sound rather than the use and signification of the word; so is “yet” in our language. This we express by, “for ever and ever.” ῾῾Ράβδοςεὐθύτητοςἡῥαβδοςβασιλείαςσου. The variation of ἡῥάβδος in the first place, before mentioned, takes off from the elegancy of the expression, and darkens the sense; for the article prefixed to the last ῥάβδος declares that to be the subject of the propositon.The words of the psalmist are, ωֵׁ ?αֶ ?θξִ ?ιֹ ?ωׂ ?ψωֵ ?αֶ ?θξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊֶ ?κָ. “Shebet,” is “virga,” and “sceptrum,” and in this place is rendered by Aquila σκήπτρον, “a rod,” “a staff,” “a scepter;” always a scepter when referred to rule, as in this place it is called the scepter of the kingdom.A “scepter,” ξִ ?ιֹ ?ωׂ ?ψ, from ιָ ?ωַׁ ?ψ, “rectus fuit,” to be “right,” “straight” “upright,” principally in a moral sense. Εὐθύτητος, “of uprightness.” Εὐθύτης is properly such a rectitude as we call straight, opposed to crooked; and metaphorically only is it used for moral uprightness, that is, equity and righteousness. Syr., ωׁ ?αֶ ?θָ ?ΰτְ ?ωִ ?ιθָ ?ΰ. Boderianus, “sceptrum erectum,” “a scepter lifted up,” or “held upright.” The Paris edition, “sceptrum protensum,” “a scepter stretched out;” and the stretching out of the scepter was a sign and token of mercy, Esther 5:2. Tremellius, “virga recta;” which answers “mischor” in both its acceptations. Erpenius to the same purpose, “sceptrum rectum,” “a right sceptre.”“Thou hast loved righteousness and hated ψֶ ?ωָׁ ?ς,” ἀνομίαν, ἀδικίαν, “iniquity,” “unrighteousness,” “wickedness.” Διὰτοῦτο, ςַ ?μΰּ ?λֵּ ?ο“propterea,” “propter quod,” “quare,” “ideo,” “idcirco,” — “wherefore,” “for which cause.” Some copies of the LXX. and Aquila read ἐπὶτούτῳ, so that διὰτοῦτο seems to have been taken into the LXX. from this rendering of the words by the apostle.῎ΕχρισέσεὁΘεὸς, ὁΘεόςσου, ἔλαιονἀγαλλιάσεως — ξְ ?ωָׁ ?ηֲ ?κָ ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινΰַ ?μֹ ?δֵ ?ικָ ωֶׂ ?ξֶ ?οωָׁ ?ωׁ ?εֵֹ ?ο; — “God, thy God, hath anointed thee·” The words in Greek and Hebrew are those from whence the names of Christ and Messiah are taken, which are of the same importance and signification, — “The anointed one.” And the same by the Targumist; Aquila, ἤλειψε.“Hath anointed thee ἔλαιονἀγαλλιάσεως,” — the instrument in doing of the thing intended, expressed by the accusative case, whereof there are other instances in that language. Of old the LXX. read ἐλαίῳἀγλαϊσμοῦ, “with the oil of delight,” or “ornament;” so that ἔλαιονἀγαλλιάσεως came also into the Greek version from this place of the apostle, and is more proper than the old reading, “the oil of rejoicing,” “joy” or “gladness.”Παρὰτοὺςμετόχουςσου·ξֵ ?ηֲ ?αֵ ?ψֶ ?ικָ, — “before,” or above,” “those that partake with thee,” “thy fellows” or “companions.” So Symmachus, τοὺςἑταίρουςσου. [9] [9] VARIOUS . — Lachmann, on the authority of respectable manuscripts, gives the reading, καὶἡπ῾άζδοςεὐθύτητοςῥάζδος, κ.τ.λ. . — ῾ΟΘεός is the usual voc., and nearly, the only form of it,throughout the Septuagint; e.g., Psalms 3:7; Psalms 4:1; Psalms 5:10; Psalms 7:1, et passim..... Where is God ever said to be the throne of his creatures? and what could be the sense of such an expression? — Stuart. All the ancient versions of the original passage in the Psalms agree in supporting the common construction, so far as their respective idioms permit a positive conclusion. — Pye Smith. The attempt of Gesenius to sustain another translation of the Hebrew, “The throne of God,” that is, “thy divine throne,” is truly surprising; as he must have known, that, in such a case, the second of the two nouns, and not, as here, the first, would have had the suffix by common usage of the language. — Turner . — ΠρὸςδετὸνΨἱόν, But respecting the Son. — Stuart, De Wrette. Concerning. — Boothroyd. — ED. Hebrews 1:8-9. — But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, is for ever; the scepter of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; wherefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.This testimony is produced by the apostle in answer unto that foregoing concerning angels. ‘Those words,’saith he, ‘were spoken by the Holy Ghost of the angels, wherein their office and employment under the providence of God is described. These are spoken by the same Spirit of the Son, or spoken to him, denoting his preexistence unto the prophecies themselves.’ There is little or no difficulty to prove that this testimony belongs properly unto him to whom it is applied by the apostle. The ancient Jews granted it, and the present doctors cannot deny it. One of them says, indeed, εζδδξζξεψπΰξψςμγεγΰεςμδξωιη; — “ This psalm is spoken of David, or the Messiah.” These are the words and this is the opinion of Aben Ezra; who accordingly endeavors to give a double sense of the chief passages in this psalm, — one as applied unto David, another as applied unto the Messiah, which he inclines unto. Jarchi turns it into an allegory, without any tolerable sense throughout his discourse. But though it might respect them both, yet there is no pretense to make David the subject of it, the title and whole contexture of it excluding such an application. The Targum wholly applies the psalm to the Messiah; which is a somewhat better evidence of the conception of the ancient Jews than the private opinion of any later writer can give us. And the title of the psalm in that paraphrase would make it a prophecy given out in the days of Moses for the use of the Sanhedrin; which manifests what account it had of old in their creed concerning the Messiah. Some Christian interpreters have so far assented unto the later rabbins as to grant that Solomon was primarily intended in this psalm, as a type of Christ, and that the whole was an epithalamium or marriage-song, composed upon his nuptials with the daughter of Pharaoh. But there want not important reasons against this opinion: for, — 1. It is not probable that the Holy Ghost should so celebrate that marriage, which as it was antecedently forbidden by God, so it was never consequently blessed by him, she being among the number of those “strange women” which turned his heart from God, and was cursed with barrenness; the first foreign breach that came upon his family and all his magnificence being also from Egypt, where his transgression began.2. There is scarce any thing in the psalm that can with propriety of speech be applied unto Solomon. Two things are especially insisted on in the former part of the psalm, — first, the righteousness of the person spoken of in all his ways and administrations, and then the perpetuity of his kingdom. How the first of these can be attributed unto him whose transgressions and sins were so public and notorious, or the latter to him who reigned but forty years, and then left his kingdom broken and divided to a wicked, foolish son, is hard to conceive.As all, then, grant that the Messiah is principally, so there is no cogent reason to prove that he is not solely, intended in this psalm. I will not contend but that sundry things treated of in it might be obscurely typified in the kingdom and magnificence of Solomon; yet it is certain that most of the things mentioned, and expressions of them, do so immediately and directly belong unto the Lord Christ as that they can in no sense be applied unto the person of Solomon; and such are the words insisted on in this place by our apostle, as will be made evident in the ensuing explication of them. We must, then, in the next place, consider what it is that the apostle intends to prove and confirm by this testimony, whereby we shall discover its suitableness unto his design. Now, this is not, as some have supposed, the deity of Christ; nor doth he make use of that directly in this place, though he doth in the next verse, as a medium to prove his preeminence above the angels, although the testimonies which he produceth do eminently mention his divine nature. But that which he designs to evince is this only, that he whom they saw for a time made “lower than the angels,” Hebrews 2:9, was yet in his whole person, and as he discharged the office committed unto him, so far above them as that he had power to alter and change those institutions which were given out by the ministry of angels. And this he doth undeniably by the testimonies alleged, as they are compared together: for whereas the Scripture testifies concerning angels that they are all servants, and that their chiefest glory consists in the discharge of their duty as servants, unto him a throne, rule, and everlasting dominion, administered with glory, power, righteousness, and equity, are ascribed; whence it is evident that he is exceedingly exalted above them, as is a king on his throne above the servants that attend him and do his pleasure. And this is sufficient to manifest the design of the apostle, as also the evidence of his argument from this testimony. The exposition of the words belongs properly to the place from whence they are taken. But yet, that we may not leave the reader unsatisfied as to any particular difficulty that may seem to occur in them, this exposition shall be here also attended to. The first thing to be attended to in them is the compellation of the person spoken unto, “O God:” “Thy throne, O God.” Some would have Elohim (ὁΘεός) to be a name common to God with others, namely, angels and judges; and in that large acceptation to be here ascribed to the Lord Christ; so that though he be expressly called Elohim, and ὁΘεός, yet that proves him not to be God by nature, but only to be so termed in respect of his office, dignity, and authority. And this is contended for by the Socinians. But this gloss is contrary to the perpetual use of the Scripture; for no one place can be instanced in, where the name Elohim is used absolutely, and restrained unto any one person, wherein it doth not undeniably denote the true and only God. Magistrates are, indeed, said to be elohim in respect of their office, but no one magistrate was ever so called; nor can a man say without blasphemy to any of them, “Thou art Elohim,” or “God.” Moses also is said to be elohim, “a god,” but not absolutely, but “a god to Pharaoh,” and to “Aaron;” that is, in God’s stead, doing and performing in the name of God what he had commanded him. Which places Jarchi produceth in his comment to countenance this sense, but in vain. It is, then, the true God that is spoken unto in this apostrophe, “Elohim,” “O God.” This being granted, Erasmus starts a new interpretation of the whole words, though he seemeth not to approve of his own invention. “ ῾ΟθρόνοςσουὁΘεός. It is uncertain,” saith he, “whether the meaning be, Thy throne, O God,’or ‘God is thy throne for ever.’” In the first way the word is an apostrophe to the Son, in the latter it expresseth the person of the Father. And this interpretation is embraced and improved by Grotius, who, granting that the word Elohim, used absolutely, signifieth as much as, “Elohe elohim,” “the God of gods,” would not allow that it should be spoken of Christ, and therefore renders the words, “God shall be thy seat for ever,” — that is, “shall establish thee in thy throne.” And this evasion is also fixed on by Aben Ezra, from Haggaon, λρζΰκְ ιλιοΰμδιν; —“God shall establish thy throne.” May men be allowed thus to thrust in what words they please into the text, leading to another sense than what itself expresseth, there will not much be left certain in the whole book of God. However, in this present instance, we have light enough to rebuke the boldness of this attempt; for, — 1. The interpretation insisted on is contrary to all old translations, whose language would bear a difference in the word, expressing it in the vocative case, “O God.”2. Contrary to the received sense of Jews and Christians of old, and in especial of the Targum on the psalm, rendering the words, “Thy throne, O God, is in heaven, for ever.”3. Contrary to the contexture and design of the apostle’s discourses, as may appear from the consideration of the preceding enarration of them.4. Leaves no tolerable sense unto the words; neither can they who embrace it declare in what sense God is the throne of Christ.5. Is contrary to the universally constant use of the expression in Scripture; for wherever there is mention of the throne of Christ, somewhat else, and not God, is intended thereby.6. The word supplied by Grotius trom Saadias and Aben Ezra, to induce a sense unto his exposition “shall establish,” makes a new text, or leads the old utterly from the intention of the words; for whereas it cannot be said that God is the throne of Christ, nor was there any need to say that God was for ever and ever, — which two things must take up the whole intendment of the words if God the Father be spoken of, — the adding of, “shall establish,” or confirm, into the text, gives it an arbitrary sense, and such as, by the like suggestion of any other word, as “shall destroy,” may be rendered quite of another importance. It is Christ, then, the Son, that is spoken to and denoted by that name, “Elohim,” “O God,” as being the true God by nature; though what is here affirmed of him be not as God, but as the king of his church and people; as in another place God is said to redeem his church with his own blood. Secondly, We may consider what is assigned unto him, which is his kingdom; and that is described, —1. By the “insignia regalia,” the royal ensigns of it, — namely, his throne and scepter. 2. By its duration, — it is for ever. 3. His manner of administration, — it is with righteousness; his scepter is a scepter of righteousness. 4. His furniture or preparation for this administration, — he loved righteousness and hated iniquity. 5. By an adjunct privilege, — unction with the oil of gladness; Which, 6. Is exemplified by a comparison with others, — it is so with him above his fellows.1. The first “insigne regium” mentioned is his “throne,” whereunto the attribute of perpetuity is annexed, — it is for ever. And this throne denotes the kingdom itself. A throne is the seat of a king in his kingdom, and is frequently used metonymically for the kingdom itself, and that applied unto God and man. See Daniel 7:9; 1 Kings 8:20. Angels, indeed, are called “thrones,” Colossians 1:16; but that is either metaphorically only or else in respect of some especial service allotted unto them; as they are also called “princes,” Daniel 10:13, yet being indeed “servants,”Revelation 22:9, Hebrews 1:14. These are nowhere said to have thrones; the kingdom is not theirs, but the Son’s. And whereas our Lord Jesus Christ promiseth his apostles that they shall at the last day sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel, as it proves their participation with Christ in his kingly power, being made kings unto God, Revelation 1:5-6, and their interest in the kingdom which it is his pleasure to give them, so it proves not absolutely that the kingdom is theirs, but his on whose throne theirs do attend. Neither doth the throne simply denote the kingdom of Christ, or his supreme rule and dominion, but the glory also of his kingdom. Being on his throne, he is in the height of his glory. And thus, because God manifests his glory in heaven, he calls that his throne, as the earth is his footstool, Isaiah 66:1. So that the throne of Christ is his glorious kingdom, elsewhere expressed by his “sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”2. To this throne eternity is attributed. It is ςεֹ ?μָ ?νεָ ?ςֶ ?γ, — “for ever and ever.” So is the throne of Christ said to be in opposition unto the frail, mutable kingdoms of the earth: “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and for ever,” Isaiah 9:7. “His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed,” Daniel 7:14; Micah 4:7; Psalms 62:7; Psalms 145:13. It shall neither decay of itself, nor fall through the opposition of its enemies: for he must reign until all his enemies are made his footstool, 1 Corinthians 15:24-27. Nor is it any impeachment of the perpetuity of the kingdom of Christ, that at the last day he shall deliver it up to God the Father, 1 Corinthians 15:24, seeing that then shall be an end of all rule. It is enough that it continue until all the ends of rule be perfectly accomplished, — that is, until all the enemies of it be subdued, and all the church be saved, and the righteousness, grace, and patience of God be fully glorified; whereof afterwards.3. The second “insigne regium” is his “scepter.” And this, though it sometimes also denotes the kingdom itself, Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17; Isaiah 14:5, Zechariah 10:11; yet here it denotes the actual administration of rule, as is evident from the adjunct of “uprightness” annexed unto it, And thus the scepter denotes both the laws of the kingdom and the efficacy of the government itself. So that which we call a righteous government is here called a “scepter of uprightness”Now, the means whereby Christ carrieth on his kingdom are his Word and Spirit, with a subserviency of power in the works of his providence, to make way for the progress of his word to avenge its contempt. So the gospel is called, “The rod of his strength,” Psalms 110:2. See 2 Corinthians 10:4-6. “He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked,” Isaiah 11:4. And these are attended with the “sword” of his power and providence, Psalms 45:3, Revelation 19:15, or his “rod,” Psalms 2:9, or “sickle,” Revelation 14:18. In these things consists the scepter of Christ’s kingdom.4. Concerning this scepter it is affirmed that it is a “scepter of uprightness.” Εὐθύτης, or ξִ ?ιֹ ?ωׂ ?ψ, denotes either the nature of the scepter, that it is straight and right, or the use of it, that it is lifted up or stretched out, as was showed in the opening of the words. In the first sense it denoteth righteousness, in the latter mercy. According to the first sense, the following words, “Thou hast loved righteousness,” discover the habitual root of his actual righteous administration; according to the latter, there is a progress made in them to a further qualification of the rule of Christ, or of Christ in his rule. But the former sense is rather to be embraced; the latter metaphor being more strained, and founded only in one instance that I remember in the Scripture, and that not taken from among the people of God, but strangers and oppressors, Esther 5:2.The scepter, then, of the kingdom of Christ is a scepter of “righteousness,’’ because all the laws of his gospel are righteous, holy, just, full of benignity and truth, Titus 2:11-12. And all his administrations of grace, mercy, justice, rewards, and punishments, according to the rules, promises, and threats of it, in the conversion, pardon, sanctification, trials, afflictions, chastisements, and preservation of his elect; in his convincing, hardening, and destruction of his enemies; are all righteous, holy, unblamable, and good, Isaiah 11:4-5; Isaiah 32:1, Psalms 145:17, Revelation 15:3-4; Revelation 16:5; and as such will they be gloriously manifested at the last day, 2 Thessalonians 1:10, though in this present world they are reproached and despised. 5. The habitual frame of the heart of Christ in his regal administrations: “He loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity.” This shows the absolute completeness of the righteousness of God’s kingdom, and of his righteousness in his kingdom. The laws of his rule are righteous, and his administrations are righteous; and they all proceed from a habitual love to righteousness and hatred of iniquity in his own person. Among the governments of this world, ofttimes the very laws are tyrannical, unjust, and oppressive; and if the laws are good and equal, yet ofttimes their administration is unjust, partial, and wicked; or when men do abstain from such exorbitancies, yet frequently they do so upon the account of some self-interest and advantage, like Jehu, and not out of a constant, equal, unchangeable love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity. But all these are absolutely complete in the kingdom of Jesus Christ: for whereas the expression, both in the Hebrew and the Greek, seems to regard the time past, “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity,” yet the constant present frame of the heart of Christ in his rule is denoted thereby; for the Greek translation exactly followeth and expresseth the Hebrew. Now, there being no form of verbs in that language expressing the present time, there is nothing more frequent in it than to denote that which is present and abiding by the preterperfect tense, as it doth in this place. 6. The consequence of this righteous rule in Christ is his “anointing with the oil of gladness;” wherein we may consider, —(1.) The author of the privilege conferred on him, — that is, God, his God.(2.) The privilege itself, — unction with the oil of gladness.(3.) The connection of the collation of this privilege with what went before, — “wherefore,” or “for which cause.”(1.) For the author of it, it is said to be God: ὁΘεὸςὁΘεόςσου, — “God, thy God.” Many, both ancient and modern expositors, do suppose that ὁΘεός in the first place, or “God,” is used in the same sense as ὁΘεός in the verse foregoing, and that it ought to be rendered “O God,” and the words to be read, “Therefore, O God, thy God hath anointed thee;” but as no old translation gives countenance to this conception, so that reduplication of the name of God, by an application of it in the second place, as “God, my God,” “God, thy God,” “God, the God of Israel,” being frequent in the Scripture, there is no cogent reason why we should depart in this place from that sense of the expression. The name God in the first place denotes him absolutely who conferred this privilege on the Lord Christ, that is God; and in the second place a reason is intimated of the collation itself, by an appropriation of God to be his God in a peculiar manner. God is said to be the God of the Son upon a threefold account: [1. In respect of his divine nature. As he is his Father, so his God; whence he is said to be “God of God,” as having his nature communicated unto him by virtue of his eternal generation, John 1:14.[2. In respect of his human nature, as he was “made of a woman, made under the law.” So God also was his God, as he is the God of all creatures, Psalms 16:2; Psalms 22:1.[3. In respect of his whole person, God and man, as he was designed by his Father to the work of mediation; in which sense he calls him his God and his Father, John 20:17. And in this last sense is it that God is here said to be his God, that is his God in especial covenant, as he was designed and appointed to be the head and king of his church; for therein did God the Father undertake to be with him, to stand by him, to carry him through with his work, and in the end to crown him with glory. See Isaiah 49:1-12; Isaiah 50:4-9. (2.) For the privilege itself, it is “unction with the oil of gladness.” There may be a double allusion in these words: —[1. To the common use of oil and anointing, which was to exhilarate and make the countenance appear cheerful at feasts and public solemnities, Psalms 104:15; Luke 7:37.[2. To the especial use of it in the unction of kings, priests, and prophets, Exodus 30. That the ceremony was typical is evident from Isaiah 61:1-3; and it denoted the collation of the gift of the Holy Ghost, whereby the person anointed was enabled for the discharge of the office he was called unto. And in this sense there is commonly assigned a threefold unction of Christ: — 1st. At his conception, when his human nature was sanctified by the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:35, and radically endowed with wisdom and grace, which he grew up in; Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52.2dly. At his baptism and entrance into his public ministry, when he was in an especial manner furnished with those gifts of the Spirit which were needful for the discharge of his prophetical office, Matthew 3:16; John 1:32.3dly. At his ascension, when he received of the Father the promise of the Spirit, to pour him forth upon his disciples, Acts 2:33. Now, though I acknowledge the Lord Christ to have been thus anointed, and that the communication of the gifts and graces of the Spirit unto him in fullness is called his unction, yet I cannot grant that any of them are here directly intended. But that which the apostle seems here to express with the psalmist is the glorious exaltation of Jesus Christ, when he was solemnly instated in his kingdom. This is that which is called the making of him “both Lord and Christ,” Acts 2:36; when “God raised him from the dead, and gave him glory,” 1 Peter 1:21. He is called Christ from the unction of the Spirit; and yet here, in his exaltation, he is said in an especial manner to be made Christ, — that is, taken gloriously into the possession of all the offices, and their full administration, whereunto he was anointed and fitted by the communication of the gifts and graces of the Spirit unto him. It is, I say, the joyful, glorious unction of his exaltation, when he was signally made Lord and Christ, and declared to be the anointed one of God, that is here intended. See Philippians 2:9-11. Which also appears, —From the adjunct of this unction, — he is “anointed with the oil of gladness;” which denotes triumph and exaltation, freedom from trouble and distress: whereas, after those antecedent communications of the Spirit unto the Lord Christ, he was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, and exposed to innumerable evils and troubles. (3.) The relation of this privilege granted unto the Lord Christ unto what went before, “He loved righteousness, and hated iniquity,” expressed by ςַ ?μΰּ ?λֵּ ?ο and διὰτοῦτο (the third thing considerable in this last clause of the testimony), doth plainly declare it. The Lord Christ’s love to righteousness and hatred to iniquity proceeded from his unction with the graces and gifts of the Spirit; and yet they are plainly intimated here to go before this anointing with the oil of gladness; which is therefore mentioned as the consequent of his discharge of his office in this world, in like manner as his exaltation everywhere is, Philippians 2:9-11; Romans 14:9. And if this anointing denote the first unction of Christ, then must he be supposed to have the love to righteousness mentioned from elsewhere, as antecedent thereunto; which is not so. Wherefore these words, ςַ ?μΰּ ?λֵּ ?ο and διὰτοῦτο, do declare at least a relation of congruency and conveniency unto an antecedent discharge of office in the Lord Christ, and are of the same importance with διό, Philippians 2:9; and so can respect nothing but his glorious exaltation, which is thus expressed. The last thing considerable in the words is the prerogative of the Lord Christ in this privilege, — he is “anointed above his fellows.” Now, these “fellows,” “companions,” or “associates,” of the Lord Christ, may be considered either generally for all those that partake with him in this unction, which are all believers, who are co-heirs with him, and thereby “heirs of God,” Romans 8:17; or more especially for those who were employed by God in the service, building, and rule of his church, in their subordination unto him, — such as were the prophets of old, and afterwards the apostles, Ephesians 2:20. In respect unto both sorts, the Lord Christ is anointed with the oil of gladness above them; but the former sort are especially intended, concerning whom the apostle gives an especial instance in Moses, chapter 3, affirming the Lord Christ in his work about the church to be made partaker of more glory than he. In a word, he is incomparably exalted above angels and men.And this is the first testimony whereby the apostle confirms his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above angels, in that comparison which he makes between them; which also will afford the ensuing observations : — I. The conferring and comparing of scriptures is an excellent means of coming to an acquaintance with the mind and will of God in them.Thus dealeth the apostle in this place. He compareth what is spoken of angels in one place, and what of the Son in another, and from thence manifesteth what is the mind of God concerning them. This duty lies in the command we have to “search the Scriptures,” John 5:39, ἐρευνᾶτετὰςγραφάς: make a diligent investigation of the mind of God in them,“comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” — what the Spirit hath declared of the mind of God in one place, with what in like manner he hath manifested in another. God, to try our obedience, and to exercise our diligence unto a study in his word day and night, Psalms 1:2, and our continual meditation thereon, 1 Timothy 4:15, (Ταῦταμελέτα, ἐντούτοιςἴσθι,) — “Meditate on these things, be wholly in them,”) hath planted his truths with great variety up and down his word; yea, here one part, and there another of the same truth; which cannot be throughly learned unless we gather them together into one view. For instance, in one place God commands us to circumcise our hearts, and to make unto ourselves new hearts, that we may fear him; which at first consideration seems so to represent it, not only as our duty, but also within our power, as though we had no need of any help from grace for its accomplishment. In another he promiseth absolutely to circumcise our hearts, and to give us new hearts to fear him; as though it were so his work as not to be our concernment to attempt it. But now these several places being spiritually compared together, make it evident that as it is our duty to have new and circumcised hearts, so it is the effectual grace of God that must work and create them in us. And the like may be observed in all the important truths that are of divine revelation. And this, — 1. Discovers the root of almost all the errors and heresies that are in the world. Men whose hearts are not subdued by faith and humility unto the obedience of the truth, lighting on some expressions in the Scripture, that, singly considered, seem to give countenance to some such opinion as they are willing to embrace, without further search they fix it on their minds and imaginations, until it is too late to oppose any thing unto it; for when they are once fixed in their persuasions, those other places of Scripture which they should with humility have compared with that whose seeming sense they cleave unto, and from thence have learned the mind of the Holy Ghost in them all, are considered by them to no other end but only how they may pervert them, and free themselves from the authority of them. This, I say, seems to be the way of the most of them who pertinaciously cleave unto false and foolish opinions. They rashly take up a seeming sense of some particular places, and then obstinately make that sense the rule of interpreting all other scriptures whatever. Thus in our own days we have many who, from the outward sound of these words, John 1:9, “He is the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” having taken up a rash, foolish, and false imagination that Christ is that light which is remaining in all men, and therein their guide and rule, do from thence either wrest the whole Scripture to make it suit and answer that supposal, or else utterly slight and despise it; when, if they had compared it with other scriptures, which clearly explain and declare the mind of God in the things which concern the person and mediation of the Lord Christ, with the nature and works of natural and saving spiritual light, and submitted to the authority and wisdom of God in them, they might have been preserved from their delusion. It shows also, — 2. The danger that there is unto men unskilled and unexercised in the word of truth, when, without the advice, assistance, or direction of others who are able to guide them and instruct their inquiry after the mind of God, they hastily embrace opinions which it may be some one text or other of Scripture doth seemingly give countenance unto. By this means do men run themselves into the fore-mentioned danger every day, especially where any seducing spirit applies himself unto them with swelling words of vanity, boasting of some misunderstood word or other. Thus have we seen multitudes led, by some general expression, in two or three particular places of Scripture, into an opinion about a general redemption of all mankind and every individual thereof; when, if they had been wise, and able to have searched those other scriptures innumerable setting forth the eternal love of God to his elect, his purpose to save them by Jesus Christ, the nature and end of his oblation and ransom, and compared them with others, they would have understood the vanity of their hasty conceptions. 3. From these things it appears what diligence, patience, waiting, wisdom, are required of all men in searching of the Scriptures, who intend to come unto the acknowledgment of the truth thereby. And unto this end, and because of the greatness of our concernment therein, doth the Scripture itself abound with precepts, rules, directions, to enable us unto a right and profitable discharging of our duty. They are too many here to be inserted. I shall only add, that the diligence of heathens will rise up in judgment and condemn the sloth of many that are called Christians in this matter: for whereas they had no certain rule, way, or means to come to the knowledge of the truth, yet they ceased not with indefatigable diligence and industry to inquire after it, and to trace the obscure footsteps of what was left in their own natures or implanted on the works of creation; but many, the most of those unto whom God hath granted the inestimable benefit and privilege of his word, as a sure and infallible guide to lead them into the knowledge of all useful and saving truth, do openly neglect it, not accounting it worthy their searching, study, and diligent examination. How woefully will this rise up in judgment against them at the last day is not difficult to conceive. And how much greater will be their misery who, under various pretences, for their own corrupt ends, do deter, yea, and drive others from the study of it! II. It is the duty of all believers to rejoice in the glory, honor, and dominion of Jesus Christ.The church in the psalm takes by faith a prospect, at a great distance, of his coming and glory, and breaks out thereon in a way of exultation and triumph into these words, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever.” And if this were a matter of such joy unto them, who had only an obscure vision and representation of the glory which many ages after was to follow, 1 Peter 1:11-12, what ought the full accomplishment and manifestation of it to be unto them that believe now in the days of the gospel! This made them of old “rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;” even because they saw and heard the things which kings, wise men, and prophets, desired to see, and saw them not, “God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect,” Hebrews 11:40. For, — 1. Herein God is glorified. The kingdom of Christ is the glory of God; thereby is his name and praise exalted in the world: and therefore upon the erection and setting of it up are all his people so earnestly invited to rejoice and triumph therein, Psalms 94:1-3; Psalms 96:1-4; Psalms 97:1-2, etc. This, I say, is a cause of eternal joy unto all his saints, that God is pleased to glorify himself and all the infinite excellencies of his nature in the kingdom and rule of Jesus Christ. 2. Herein doth the honor and glory of Christ as mediator consist; which is a matter of great rejoicing unto all that love him in sincerity. He tells his disciples, John 14:28, that if they loved him, they would rejoice because he said he went unto the Father. They considered only their own present condition and distress, being filled with sorrow because he had told them of his departure from them. ‘But,’saith he,’where is your love to me? ought you not to have that in your hearts as well as care of yourselves? For your condition I shall take care, and provide for your security; and if you love me, you cannot but rejoice because I go to my Father to receive my kingdom.’That he who loved us, that gave himself for us, that underwent every thing that is reproachful or miserable for our sakes, is now exalted, glorified, enthroned in an everlasting, immovable kingdom, above all his enemies, secure from all opposition, is a matter of inexpressible joy, if we have any love unto him.3. Our own concernment, security, safety, present and future happiness, lies herein. Our all depends upon the kingdom and throne of Christ. He is our king if we are believers; our king, to rule, govern, protect, and save us, — to uphold us against opposition, to supply us with strength, to guide us with counsel, to subdue our enemies, to give us our inheritance and reward: and therefore our principal interest lies in his throne, the glory and stability thereof. Whilst he reigneth we are safe, and in our way to glory. To see by faith this king in his beauty, upon his throne, high and lifted up, and his train filling the temple; to see all power committed unto him, all things given into his hands, and him disposing of all and ruling all things for the advantage of his church; must needs cause them to rejoice whose whole interest and concernment lies therein. 4. The whole world, all the creation of God, are concerned in this kingdom of Christ. Setting aside his cursed enemies in hell, the whole creation is benefited by his rule and dominion; for as some men are made partakers of saving grace and salvation thereby, so the residue of that race, by and with them, do receive unspeakable advantages in the patience and forbearance of God, and the very creature itself is raised as it were into a hope and expectation thereby of deliverance from that state of vanity whereunto now it is subjected, Romans 8:19-21. So that if we are moved with the glory of God, the honor of Jesus Christ, our own only and eternal interest, with the advantage of the whole creation, we have cause to rejoice in this throne and kingdom of the Son.III. It is the divine nature of the Lord Christ that gives eternity, stability, and unchangeableness to his throne and kingdom: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever.” Concerning this, see what hath formerly been delivered about the kingdom of Christ.IV. All the laws, and the whole administration of the kingdom of Christ by his word and Spirit, are equal, righteous, and holy. His scepter is a scepter of righteousness. The world, indeed, likes them not; all things in his rule seem unto it weak, absurd, and foolish, 1 Corinthians 1:20-21. But they are otherwise, the Holy Ghost being judge, and such they appear unto them that do believe: yea, whatever is requisite to make laws and administrations righteous, it doth all concur in those of the Lord Jesus Christ; as, — 1. Authority. A just and full authority for enacting is requisite to make laws righteous. Without this, rules and precepts may be good materially, but they cannot have the formality of law, which depends on the just authority of the legislator, without which nothing can become a righteous law. Now, the Lord Christ is vested with sufficient authority for the enacting of laws and rules of administration in his kingdom. All authority, all power in heaven and earth, is committed unto him, as we have before proved at large. And hence those that will not see the equity of his rule shall be forced at last to bow under the excellency of his authority. And it were to be wished that those who undertake to make laws and constitutions in the kingdom of Christ would look well to their warrant; for it seems that the Lord Christ, unto whom all power is committed, hath not delegated any to the sons of men, but only that whereby they may teach others to do and observe what he hath commanded, Matthew 28:20. If, moreover, they shall command or appoint aught of their own, they may do well to consider by what authority they do so, seeing that is of indispensable necessity unto the righteousness of any law whatever.2. Wisdom is required to the making of righteous laws. This is the eye of authority, without which it can act nothing rightly or equally. Effects of power without wisdom are commonly unjust and tyrannical, always useless and burdensome. The wisdom of lawmakers is that which hath principally given them their renown. So Moses tells the Israelites that all nations would admire them, when they perceived the wisdom of their laws, Deuteronomy 4. Now, the Lord Christ is abundantly furnished with wisdom for this purpose. He is the foundation-stone of the church, that hath seven eyes upon him, Zechariah 3:9, — a perfection of wisdom and understanding in all affairs of it, — being anointed with the Spirit unto that purpose, Isaiah 11:2-5. Yea, “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” Colossians 2:3; it having “pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell,” Colossians 1:19. So that there can be no defect in his laws and administrations on this account. He is wise of heart, and knows perfectly what rules and actings are suited to the glory of God and the condition of the subjects of his kingdom, and what tendeth to their spiritual and eternal advantage. He knows how to order all things unto the great end which in his government he aimeth at. And thence do all his laws and administrations become righteous. And this also well deserves their consideration who take upon them to appoint laws and rules within his dominion, unto his subjects, for the ends of his rule and substance of his worship. Have they wisdom sufficient to enable them so to do? doth the Spirit of the Lord Christ rest upon them, to make them of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord? are they acquainted with the state and condition, the weakness, temptations, graces, of all the people of Christ? If they are not, how know they but that they may command and appoint them things greatly to their disadvantage, when they think to profit them? It seems a great self-assuming, for men to suppose themselves wise enough to give laws to the subjects of Christ in things directly appertaining to his kingdom. 3. They are righteous, because they are easy, gentle, and not burdensome. The righteousness and uprightness here mentioned doth not denote strict, rigid, severe justice, extending itself unto the utmost of what can be required of the subjects to be ruled; but equity mixed with gentleness, tenderness, and condescension: which if it be absent from laws, and they breathe nothing but severity, rigor, and arbitrary impositions, though they may not be absolutely unjust, yet they are grievous and burdensome. Thus Peter calls the law of commandments contained in the ordinances of old, a yoke which neither their fathers nor themselves were able to bear, Acts 15:10; that is, could never obtain rest or peace in the precise, rigid observation required of them. But now for the rule of Christ, he tells us that “his yoke is easy, and his burden light,” Matthew 11:30; and that “his commandments are not grievous,” 1 John 5:3. And this gentleness and easiness of the rule of Christ consisteth in these three things: —(1.) That his commands are all of them reasonable, and suited unto the principles of that natural obedience we owe to God; and so not grievous unto any thing in us but that principle of sin and darkness which is to be destroyed. He hath not multiplied precepts merely arbitrary, and to express his authority, but given us only such as are in themselves good, and suitable unto the principles of reason; as might be evinced by the particular consideration of his institutions. Hence our obedience unto them is called “our reasonable service,” Romans 12:1.(2.) His commands are easy, because all of them are suited to that principle of the new nature or new creature which he worketh in the hearts of all his disciples. It likes them, loves them, delights in them; which makes them easy unto it. The Lord Christ rules, as we said, by his word and Spirit; these go together in the covenant of the Redeemer, Isaiah 59:20-21. And their work is suited and commensurate one to the other. The Spirit creates a new nature fitted for obedience according to the word, and the word gives out laws and precepts suited unto the inclination and disposition of that nature; and in these two consist the scepter and rule of Christ. This suitableness of principle and rule one to the other makes his government easy, upright, and righteous.(3.) His commands are easy, because he continually gives out supplies of his Spirit to make his subjects to yield obedience unto them. This is that which, above all other things, sets a lustre upon his rule. The law was holy, just, and good of old; but whereas it extended not strength unto men to enable them unto obedience, it became unto them altogether useless and unprofitable, as to the end they aimed at in its observation. It is otherwise in the kingdom of Christ. Whatever he requires to have done by his subjects, he gives them strength by his Spirit and grace to perform it; which makes his rule easy, righteous, equal, and altogether lovely. Neither can any of the sons of men pretend to the least share or interest in this privilege. (4.) This rule and administration of Christ’s kingdom is righteous, because useful and profitable. Then are laws good, wholesome, and equal, when they lead unto the benefit and advantage of them that do observe them. Laws about slight and trivial things, or such as men have no benefit or advantage by their observation, are justly esteemed grievous and burdensome. But now, all the laws and whole rule of the Lord Christ are every way useful and advantageous to his subjects. They make them holy, righteous, — such as please God and are useful to mankind. This is their nature, this their tendency. “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report,” they are all ingenerated in the soul by and in the observance of these laws of Christ’s rule. They free the soul from the power of lust, the service of sin, fear of death, hell, and the world, guide it in the truth, make it fruitful amongst mankind, and amiable unto God himself.(5.) Their end manifests them to be righteous. The worth and equity of laws are taken off when low and unworthy ends are proposed unto their observation. But those of the Lord Christ direct unto the highest end, propose and promise the most glorious rewards; so that whatsoever may be done or suffered in an adherence unto them bears no proportion to that exceeding rich and eternal reward which they are attended withal; which renders them highly righteous and glorious. And many other considerations of the like nature may be added. And hence a threefold corollary may be taken: — [1. That our submission to this scepter of the Lord Christ, our obedience to the laws of his kingdom, and the administration thereof, is very righteous, equal, and reasonable. What can be further desired to render it so, or to provoke us unto it? [2. That the condemnation of those that refuse the reign of Christ over them, that will not yield obedience unto his laws, is most just and righteous. On these accounts will their mouths be stopped for ever, when he comes to deal with them who know not God and obey not the gospel. [3. It is our wisdom to content ourselves with the laws of Christ in things that belong unto his kingdom. They alone, as we have seen, have those properties which make our obedience useful or profitable; whatever we do else, in reference unto the same end with them, is needless and fruitless drudging. V. The righteous administrations of the Lord Christ in his government proceed all from his own habitual righteousness and love thereunto. See this declared by the prophet, Isaiah 11:1-9.VI. God is a God in especial covenant with the Lord Christ, as he is the mediator: “God, thy God.” Of this covenant I have treated largely elsewhere, and therefore shall not here insist upon it.VII. The collation of the Spirit on the Lord Christ, and his glorious exaltation, are the peculiar works of God the Father: “God, thy God, hath anointed thee.”It was God the Father who designed and appointed him unto his work, who actually sent him, and set him forth in the fullness of time; and therefore on him was it incumbent both to furnish him unto his work, and to crown him upon its Performance. And herein these several acts, partly eternal, partly temporal, are considerable: — 1. The engagement of the eternal will, wisdom, and counsel of the Father with the Son about his work, Proverbs 8:22-23; Proverbs 8:30-31; Isaiah 53:10-12. 2. His fore-ordination of his coming, by an eternal free act of his will, 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23. 3. His covenant with him to abide by him in the whole course of his work, Isaiah 49:6-9; Isaiah 50:7-9. 4. His promise of him from the foundation of the world, often reiterated and repeated, Genesis 3:15. 5. His actual mission and sending of him in his incarnation, Zechariah 2:8-10. 6. The exerting of his almighty power unto that purpose and effect, Luke 1:35. 7. His giving of him command and commission for his work, John 10:18; John 20:21. 8. Furnishing him with all the gifts and graces of his Spirit, to fit him and enable him unto his work, Isaiah 11:2-3; Isaiah 61:1-3; Matthew 3:16-17; John 1:32-33; Colossians 1:19. 9. Abiding by him in care, love, power, and providence, during the whole course of his obedience and ministry, Isaiah 49:2; Isaiah 49:8. 10. Speaking in him, working by him, and in both bearing witness unto Hebrews 1:1-2; John 5:36. 11. Giving him up unto death, Romans 8:32; Acts 2:23. 12. Raising him from the dead, 1 Peter 1:21; Acts 2:24. 13. Giving all power, authority, and judgment unto him, John 5:22; Matthew 28:18. 14. Exalting of him by his assumption into heaven and glorious session at his right hand, Acts 2:32-33; Philippians 2:9-10. 15. Giving him to be the head over all unto the church, and subjecting all things under his feet, Ephesians 1:20-22. 16. In all things crowning him with eternal glory and honor, John 17:5; Hebrews 2:9.All these, and sundry other particulars of the like nature, are assigned unto the Father as part of his work in reference unto the mediation of the Son; and amongst them his exaltation and unction with the oil of gladness hath an eminent place. And this are we taught, that in this whole work we might see the authority, counsel, and love of the Father, that so our faith and hope through Jesus Christ might be in God, who raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, 1 Peter 1:21.VIII. The Lord Jesus Christ is singular in this unction. This is that which the apostle proves in several instances, and by comparing him with others, who in the most eminent manner were partakers of it. And this we are in the consideration of, as the particulars of it do occur. Neither shall I at present further insist on the ensuing observations, because I will not longer detain the reader from the context, namely, that, — IX. All that serve God in the work of building the church, according to his appointment, are anointed by his Spirit, and shall be rewarded by his power, Daniel 12:3. X. The disciples of Christ, especially those who serve him in his church faithfully, are his companions in all his grace and glory. In the following verses the apostle, by another illustrious testimony, taken out of Psalms 102, confirms his principal assertion, in the words ensuing. Hebrews 1:10-12. — Καί·Σὺκατ᾿ἀρχὰς, Κύριε, τὴνγῆνἐθεμελίωσας, καὶἔργατῶνχειρῶνσουεἰσὶνοἱοὐραςοί. Αὐτοὶἀπολοῦνται, σὺδὲδιαμένεις·καὶπάντεςὡςἱμάτιονπαλαιωθήσονται, καὶὡσεὶπεριβύλαιονἐλίξειςαὐτοὺς, καὶἀλλαγήσονται·σὺδὲὁαὐτὸςει῏, καὶτὰἕτησουσὐκἐκλείψουσι.In the last verse, for ἐλίξεις one copy hath ἀλλάξεις, to answer unto ἀλλαγήσονται· and MS. T., ἐλίξειςαὐτοὺςὡςἱμάτιον.The words are the same in the Greek Bibles as in this place of the apostle, nor is there any footstep of any other old translation of them in the psalm. The Syriac differs little. Καί it renders εְ ?ϊεּ ?α, “and again,” to show that καί is no part of the testimony cited, but serves only to the introduction of another. Hebrews 1:11, for αὐτοὶἀπολοῦνται, “they shall perish,” ςָ ?αְ ?ψִ ?ιοδָ ?πεּ ?ο, “they shall pass away;” alluding to that of 2 Peter 3:10, Οἱοὐρανοὶῥοιζηδὸνπαρελεύσονται, — “The heavens shall pass away with a noise.” Σὺδὲδιαμένεις, “but thou abidest,” “thou continuest;” εָ ?ΰַ ?πְ ?ϊְּ χִ ?ιָ ?νΰַ ?βְ ?ϊְּ ?“et tu stans es,” “et tu stas,” “et tu stabilis es,” — “and thou standest,” “thou art standing,” answering the Hebrew ϊςֲ ?ξֹ ?γ, in the psalm. ῾ελίξειςαὐτούς, “thou shalt roll them up,” ϊְּ ?ςεּ ?� ΰִ ?πεּ ?ο; which words interpreters render variously, though to the same purpose. “Involves,” Boderianus, — “roll them;” “complicabis,” Tremellius, — “fold them;” “duplicabis,” De Dieu, — “double them up.” And it is manifest that the translator reads ἑλίξεις, and not ἀλλάξεις. And I doubt not but the same word was inserted into the translation of the psalm from this place of the apostle. Σὺδὲὁαὐτὸςει῏, — “Thou art the same,” or, “Thou art, I am;” γִּ ?ΰιϊַ ?ιְ ?κָ ΰַ ?πְ ?ϊְּ εַ ?ΰπְ ?ϊְּ ΰֵ ?ΰκְ. Boderianus,” Et tu sicut existens es;” — “And thou art as thou existest.” Tremellius,” Tu autem sicut es, eris;” — “But thou shalt be as thou art.” Properly, “And thou, as thou art, art;” that is, “art the same.” The translation of the apostle in all things material answereth the original in the psalm. Psalm (LXX) 101:25-28, ΣὺΚύριε, “Thou, Lord,” is supplied out of the verse foregoing, “I said, O my God.” μְ ?τָ ?πִ ?ινδָ ?ΰָ ?ΰιֶ ?Σιָ ?ρַ ?γְ ?ϊָּ, “of old,” “before it was;” that is, κατ᾿ἀρχάς, or αְּ ?ιֵ ?ωִׁ ?ιϊ, “in the beginning.” And our translators needed not to have used any difference of expression in the psalm and this place of the apostle, as they do; — there, “of old ;” here, “in the beginning.” “Thou hast founded” (not “laid the foundation of”) “the earth; and the heavens are the works;” — ξςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?δ, “the work,” which the Greek renders “works,” because of their variety, — “of thy hands.” “They shall perish, εְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δϊַ ?ςֲ ?ξֹ ?γ,” “but thou shalt stand,” or “dost abide.” The word used in our translation of the psalm (“endure”) doth ill answer the original, but the margin gives relief. Psalm, “Yea all of them shall wax old like a garment;” here, “And they all shall wax old as doth a garment:” a little variety without difference, and that needless, the Greek text exactly expressing the Hebrew. “And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up;” ϊּ ?ηֲ ?μִ ?ιτֵ ?ν; — “shalt thou change them.” The change of a vesture, whereunto the change of the heavens is compared, being by folding up and laying aside, at least from former use, the apostle instead of ἀλλάξεις, “thou shalt change,” renders the word by ἑλίξεις, “thou shalt fold” (or “roll”) “them up.” εְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δδεּ ?ΰ, “et tu ipse,” καὶσὺὁαὐτός, — “and thou art he.” “And thy years shall have no end,” — “shall not fail;” μֹ ?ΰιִ ?ϊָּ ?ξּ ?εּ, “shall not consume.” [10] [10] VARIOUS . — Griesbach, Knapp, and Stuart, on the strength of MSS. D. E., and a few others, read διαμενεῖς, instead of διαμένεις, the future instead of the present. Tischendorf retains διαμένεις. The Peschito version has it “Thou art permanent.” . — The manifestations of the Deity were made in the person of HIM who, in the fullness of time, became incarnate as the promised Messiah. In the deliverance from Egypt, and the march through the wilderness, he was known as “the angel of the covenant,” and sometimes appeared in a visible form. The blessing for which the author of the psalm prays, is the improvement and deliverance of the chosen people, by that God who had directed providence for that end. But with regard to the Divine Father, the Scriptures assure us that “no one hath seen him, or can see him.” Can we, then, avoid inferring that the object of the afflicted psalmist’s prayers was that same DIVINE PERSON who had allowed himself to be seen in a glorious human form by Abraham, by Jacob, by Moses, etc.? — Pye Smith. . — Διαμ. Thou shalt remain. — Boothroyd, Stewart, Ebrard. Tu permanebis. — Vulgate. Du bestehest. — De Wette. — ED. There is no question but that these words do sufficiently prove the pre- eminence of him of whom they are spoken, incomparably above all creatures whatever. Two things, therefore, are questioned by the enemies of the truth contained in them: — 1. Whether they were originally spoken at all of Christ, which the present Jews deny. 2. Whether they were spoken all of Christ, which is questioned by the Socinians. These inquiries being first satisfied, the words shall be opened, and the force of the apostle’s argument from thence declared.1. That what is spoken in this psalm doth properly respect the Messiah is denied by the present Jews. That it was owned by the ancient Hebrews is sufficiently evident from hence, that the apostle, dealing with them on their own principles, urgeth them with the testimony of it. The psalm also itself gives us light enough into the same instruction. It is partly euctical, partly prophetical; both parts suited unto the condition of the church when the temple was wasted, and Zion lay in the dust during the Babylonish captivity. In the prophetical part there are three things signal: — (1.) The redemption of the people, with the re-edification of the temple, as a type of that spiritual temple and worship which were afterwards to be erected: as Psalms 102:13, “Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion; for the time to favor her, yea, the set time, is come:” and Psalms 102:16, “When the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.”(2.) The calling of the Gentiles to the church and worship of God: Psalms 102:15, “The heathen shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory.” Psalms 102:21-22, “To declare the name of the LORD in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem; when the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD.” (3.) Hereby the creation of a new people, a new world, is brought in: 2 Peter 3:18, “This shall be written for the generation to come” (the world to come): “and the people that shall be created” (the new creation of Jews and Gentiles) “shall praise the LORD.” These are the heads of the prophetical part of the psalm, and they all respect things everywhere peculiarly assigned unto the Son, who was to be incarnate, or the days of the Messiah, which is all one; for, —[1. The redemption and deliverance of the church out of trouble is his proper work. Wherever it is mentioned, it is he who is intended, Psalms 98. So signally, Zechariah 2:8-13, and other places innumerable.[2. The bringing in of the Gentiles is acknowledged by all the Jews to respect the time of the Messiah; it being he who was to be a light unto the Gentiles, and the salvation of God unto the ends of the earth. [3. Also, “the generation to come,” and “people to be created,” the Jews themselves interpret of the ςεμνδαΰ, “world to come,” or the new state of the church under the Messiah. These two last put together, the gathering of the people, and the world to come, created for the praise of God, make it evident that it is the Son whom the psalmist hath respect unto. Grotius in this place affirms that the apostle accommodates unto the Messiah what was spoken of God. And he thinks it a sufficient argument to prove the words were not spoken of the Messiah, because they were spoken of God; whereas they are produced by the apostle to prove his excellency from the properties and works of his divine nature. And he adds, as the sense of the words, as accommodated unto Christ, “‘Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth;’that is, ‘the world was made for thy sake.’” But this interpretation or violent detortion of the words destroys itself; for if they were spoken of God absolutely, and not of the Messiah, to whom they are accommodated, how can it be said that the world was made for his sake, and not by him? Both senses of the words cannot be true. But this is indeed plainly to deny the authority of the apostle. It appeareth, then, that many things in this psalm are spoken directly and immediately of the Son; though it be probable, also, that sundry things in it are affirmed distinctly of the person of the Father. And hence, it may be, are those frequent variations of speech from the second to the third person that occur in this psalm. 2. As to the second inquiry, the Socinians, who grant the divine authority of this epistle, and therefore cannot deny but that these words some way or other belong unto the Lord Christ, yet plainly perceiving that if they are wholly understood of him, there is an end of all their religion (the creation, not of a new world, but of that which was made of old, and which shall perish at the last day, being here ascribed unto him), fix here upon a new and peculiar evasion. “Some words,” they say, “of this testimony belong unto Christ” (so much they will yield to the authority of the apostle), “but not all of them;” whereby they hope to secure their own error. Now, because if this pretense hold not, this testimony is fatal to their persuasion, I hope it will not be unacceptable if in our passage we do consider the distribution they make of the words according to their supposition, and the arguments they produce for the confirmation of their exposition, as they are managed by Crellius and Schlichtingius in their comment on this place. (1.) He says that “this testimony doth so far belong unto Christ, as it pertaineth unto the scope of the writer of the epistle. This scripture,” saith he, “as appears from Zechariah 2:4, is to prove that after Christ sat down at the right hand of God, he was made more excellent than the angels; whereto the affirming that he made heaven and earth doth no way conduce.”Ans. (1.) Suppose that to be the scope of the apostle which is intimated, how doth this author know that it suits not his purpose to show that the Lord Christ is God, by whom heaven and earth were made, seeing it is manifest that himself thought otherwise, or he had not produced this testimony thereof? (2.) The testimony is not unsuited unto the scope pretended; for whereas, in the administration of his office, the Son was apparently for a while made lower than the angels, he may in these words discover the equity of his after exaltation above them, in that in his divine nature and works he was so much more excellent than they.(3.) The true and proper design of the apostle we have before evinced; which is to prove the excellency of the person by whom the gospel was revealed, and his pre-eminence above men and angels; which nothing doth more unquestionably demonstrate than this, that by him the world was created, whence the assignation of a divine nature unto him doth undeniably ensue. (2.) To promote this observation, he adds a large discourse about the use and application of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New; and says that “they are made use of by the writers of it, either because of some agreement and likeness between the things intended in the one and the other, or because of some subordination. In the former way, that which is spoken of the type is applied unto the antitype: and sometimes, for likeness’sake, that which was spoken of one thing is applied unto another; as, Matthew 15:7-8, our Savior applies those words of Isaiah to the present Jews which were spoken of their forefathers.”Ans. (1.) That which is spoken in the first place of an instituted type is also spoken of the antitype, or thing prefigured by it, so far as it is represented by the type, so that one thing teaches another; and thereon the words have a double application, first to the type, ultimately to the antitype. But herein such testimonies as this have no concernment. (2.) The Scripture sometimes makes use of allegories, illustrating one thing by another, as Galatians 4:21-25. Neither hath this any place here.(3.) That what is spoken of one person should, because of some similitude, be affirmed to be spoken of another, and in nothing agree 244 properly unto him, is untrue, and not to be exemplified with any seeming instance. (4.) The words of Isaiah, Isaiah 29:13, which our Savior makes use of, Matthew 15:7-9, were a prophecy of the Jews who then lived, as both our Savior expressly affirms and the context in the prophet doth plainly declare.“Some things,” he adds, “are applied unto others than they are spoken of, because of their subordination to him or them of whom they are spoken. Thus things that are spoken of God are applied unto Christ, because of his subordination to him; and of this,” saith he, “we have an instance in Acts 13:47, where the words spoken of the Lord Christ, Isaiah 49:6, ‘I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth,’are applied unto the apostles because of their subordination unto Christ. And in this case the words have but one sense, and belong primarily unto him of whom they are first spoken, and are secondarily applied unto the other.” Ans. According to this rule there is nothing that ever was spoken of God but it may be spoken of and applied unto any of his creatures, all things being in subordination unto him; at least, it may be so in that wherein they act under him and are in a peculiar subordination to him. And yet neither can such a subordination, according to this man’s opinion, be applied unto Christ, who in the creation of heaven and earth was in no other subordination to God than any other things not yet made or existing. So that this rule, that what is spoken of God is applied unto them who are in subordination unto him, as it is false in itself, so it is no way suited to the present business, Christ being, in this man’s judgment, in no subordination to God when the world was made, being absolutely in all respects in the condition of things that were not. Nor doth the instance given at all prove or illustrate what is pretended. The apostle, in the citing of those words to the Jews, doth not in the least apply them to himself, but only declares the ground of his going to preach the gospel unto the Gentiles; which was, that God had promised to make Him whom he preached to be a light, and to bring salvation unto them also. Wherefore he adds, (3.) what is direct to his pretension, “That all the words, or things signified by them, in any testimony, which are firstly spoken of one, and then are, for some of the causes mentioned” (that is, conveniency, similitude, or subordination), “applied unto another, are not to be looked on as proper to him to whom they are so applied; but so much of them is to be admitted as agrees to the scope of him by whom the testimony is used: as in the testimony produced, Isaiah 49:5, ‘I will be unto him a father, and he shall be to me a son,’the words immediately following are, ‘If he shall offend against me, I will chastise him with the rod of men;’ which words, being spoken of Solomon, can no way be applied unto Christ.” Ans. What is spoken of any type and of Christ jointly is not so spoken for any natural conveniency, similitude, or subordination, but because of God’s institution, appointing the type so to represent and shadow out the Lord Christ, that what he would teach concerning him should be spoken of the type whereby he was represented. Now, no person that was appointed to be a type of him being in all things a type, it is not necessary that whatever was spoken of him was also spoken of Christ, but only what was spoken of him under that formal consideration of an instituted type. This we showed the case to have been with Solomon, of whom the words mentioned were spoken as he bare the person of Christ. Other things are added in the same place, that belonged unto him in his own personally moral capacity; and therefore those things (as that, “If he offend against me”) are not at all mentioned by the apostle, as not being spoken of him as a type. And this plainly overthrows the pretension of our commentator; for if the apostle would not produce the very next words to the testimony by him brought, because they did not belong unto him of whom he spake, it proves undeniably that all those which he doth so urge and produce were properly spoken of him. And I cannot reach the strength of this inference, ‘Because in a place where all that was spoken was not spoken of Christ, the apostle makes use of what was so spoken of him, and omits that which was not; therefore of that which he doth produce in the next place, somewhat does belong to him, and somewhat does not.’If any thing be offered to this purpose, it must be in an instance of a testimony produced, in the words whereof — which are produced, and not in what may follow in the same chapter and psalm — there is that affirmed which doth now no more belong unto Christ than the making of heaven or earth belongeth to this writer; which is the case in hand. Having premised these general considerations, he makes application of them in particular to his interpretation of this testimony used by the apostle. “These words,” saith he, “being first expressly spoken of God, and here by this writer referred unto Christ, we must consider what in them makes to his scope and purpose, what is agreeable to the nature and condition of Christ, who certainly was a man; and such, certainly, is not he which the psalm speaks of about the creation of heaven and earth. And this was well known to them with whom the apostle had to do.” But any one may perceive that these things are spoken gratis, and upon the supposition that Christ was a mere man, and not God by nature, when the words themselves, ascribing a pre-existence to the world and omnipotency unto him, do prove the contrary. What is the scope of the apostle in the whole discourse under consideration hath been showed, as also how directly this whole testimony tends to the proof of what he had proposed. It is true that the words are spoken of him who is God; but no less true, the apostle being judge, that it is the Son of God who is that God. It, is true that he also was man, and nothing is ascribed unto him but what belongs unto him who was man, but not as he was man; and such was the creation of heaven and earth. The opinion of these men is, that whereas two things are mentioned in the words, the creation of the world, which was past, and the dissolution or destruction of it, which was to come, that the latter is assigned unto Christ, but not the former; and for this division of the words, which confessedly is not in the least intimated by the apostle, he gives these reasons: — 1. “All the words of the psalm being manifestly spoken of the high God, and no word in the psalm declaring Christ to be that God, yet of necessity, if these words be applied unto Christ, he must be supposed to be the high God there spoken of. But if this divine writer had taken this for granted, he had been eminently foolish to go about to prove by arguments and testimonies that the Creator does excel all creatures. He should use, in a matter no way doubtful, witnesses no way necessary.”This is the first reason whereby he would prove that the apostle did not apply the words to Christ, though himself says plainly that he does; for his preface to them is, “But to the Son he saith:” or, that if he doth so, he doth it wondrous foolishly; — for such liberty do poor worms take to themselves. That the psalm so speaketh of the high God, that it directly and peculiarly intends Christ the Son of God, hath been in part declared, and shall further afterwards be evinced. And the eulogium in these words given unto him proves him to be so. And though he affirms that it was a foolish thing in the apostle to prove from the works of him that is God that he is above the angels, the most glorious of made creatures, yet God himself most frequently from these his works, his omniscience, omnipresence, and other attributes declared in them, proves his excellency in comparison of idols, which have no existence but in the imagination of men. See Isaiah 41:21, etc. By this testimony, then, the Holy Ghost with infinite wisdom proves that he who was made less for a little while than the angels, in one respect, was absolutely and in his own person infinitely above them, as being the creator of heaven and earth. 2. He adds, “Those Hebrews to whom he wrote were either persuaded that Christ was God, the creator of heaven and earth, or they were not. If they were, what need of all these arguments and testimonies? One word might have despatched this whole controversy, by affirming that Christ was the creator, angels creatures, between whom there could be no comparison, nor any reason to fear that the law given by the administration of angels should be preferred to the gospel, whereof he was the author. If we shall say the latter, that they did not yet believe it, now do we suppose that he takes a great deal of pains to little purpose; for he assumes and takes for granted that that was true which was alone in question. What need he, then, to prove by so many arguments that Christ was more excellent than the angels, and to take that for granted which would have put it out of question, namely, that he was God, who made heaven and earth?” Ans. This dilemma hath as much force against the other testimonies produced in this chapter or elsewhere by the apostle as it hath against this; so that the using of it doth scarce argue that reverence to the holy word of God which is required of us. But the truth is, grant whether of the suppositions you please, nothing of inconveniency as unto the apostle’s argumentation will ensue. Let it be granted that they did believe, and that expressly, Christ to be God, have believers no need to have their faith confirmed by testimonies out of the word that may not so readily occur to themselves? Have they no need to be strengthened in the faith, especially in such points as were in those days greatly opposed, as was this of the eternal glory of the Messiah, concerning which the believing Hebrews had to do with learned and stubborn adversaries continually? And if the apostle might have ended the whole controversy by plainly affirming that he was the creator of all things and the angels creatures, might he not as well have ended the dispute about his pre-eminence above angels with one word, without citing so many testimonies to prove it? But had he then unfolded the mysteries of the Old Testament to the Hebrews, which was his design? Had he manifested that he taught nothing but what was before revealed (though obscurely) to Moses and the prophets; which he aimed to do, thereby to strengthen and confirm in the faith those that did believe, and convince gainsayers? Again, suppose some of them to whom he wrote did not yet expressly believe the deity of Christ, — as the apostles themselves did not for a while believe his resurrection, — could any more convincing way be fixed on to persuade them thereunto, than by minding them of those testimonies of the Old Testament wherein the attributes and works of God are ascribed unto him? Nor was it now in question whether Christ were God or no, but whether he were more excellent than the angels that gave the law; and what more effectual course could be taken to put an end to that inquiry than by proving that he made the heaven and earth, — that is, producing a testimony wherein the creation of all things is assigned unto him, — is beyond the wisdom of man to invent. 3. He adds, “That Christ might be spoken of in this place either in respect of his human nature or of his divine. If of the former, to what end should he make mention of the creation of heaven and earth? Christ as man, and as made above the angels, made not heaven and earth. If as God, how could he be said to be made above the angels ?” But the answer is easy. Christ is said to be made above and more excellent than the angels, neither absolutely as God, nor absolutely as man, but as he was God-man, the mediator between God and man; in which respect, as mediator, for the discharge of one part of his office, he was a little while made lower than they; and so the creation of heaven and earth does demonstrate the dignity of his person, and the equity of his being made more excellent than the angels in his office. And this fully removes his following exception, that the remembering of his deity could be no argument to prove that the humanity was exalted above the angels; for it is not an argument of the exaltation of his humanity, but the demonstration of the excellency of his person, that the apostle hath in hand. 4. He allegeth, “That it is contrary to the perpetual use of the Scripture, to affirm absolutely of Christ that he created any thing. When any creation is ascribed unto him, it is still applied to him as the immediate cause, and is said to be made by him or in him; he is nowhere said absolutely to create. And if he created the world, why did not Moses as plainly attribute that unto him as the writers of the New Testament do the new creation ?” Ans. Were it affirmed in this place only that Christ made all things, yet the words being plain and evident, and the thing itself agreeable to the Scripture in other places, and not repugnant to any testimony therein contained, there is no pretense, for them who truly reverence the wisdom and authority of the Holy Ghost in the word, to deny the words to be spoken properly and directly; nor, if we may take that course, will there be any thing left sacred and ὐκίνητον in the Scripture. Besides, we have showed already the vanity of that distinction, of God’s making things by Christ, as though it denoted any subordination in causality; nor will the Socinians themselves admit of any such thing, but confute that notion in the Arians. But this is not the only place wherein it is affirmed that Christ made all things that are in the heaven and the earth. John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, Colossians 1:3 of this chapter, with sundry other places, affirm the same. For what they exact of Moses, did we not believe that God knew what revelation of himself became that dark dispensation better than they, we might consider it. But yet there are even in Moses himself, and his expositors the prophets, many more testimonies of the creation of the world by the Word, that is the Son of God; which have elsewhere been opened and vindicated. 5. He concludes, “That the order and method of the apostle’s procedure doth evince that this creation of heaven and earth is not attributed unto him. For we see that he proves the excellency of Christ above angels from his name, — that he is by the way of eminency called the Son of God; and then he proceeds to his adoration by angels; and in the third place he goes on to the kingly honor and throne of Christ; after which he produceth the testimony we insist upon; and then adds the end of that kingdom which Christ now administereth in the earth. To what end in this discourse should he mention the creation of heaven and earth, when, if that be omitted, all the series of the discourse agrees and hangs well together? For having declared the kingdom of Christ, with the continuance of his throne for ever, he asserts an eminent effect of the kingdom in the abolition of heaven and earth, and then the end of that kingdom itself.” But this analysis of the apostle’s discourse agreeth not to the mind of the apostle or his design in the place, nor to the principles of the men that formed it, nor is indeed any thing but vain words, to persuade us that the apostle did not say that which he did say, and which is written for our instruction. It is not, first, agreeable to their own principles; for it placeth the naming of Christ the Son of God, and his adoration by the angels, as antecedent to his being raised to his kingly throne; both which, especially the latter, they constantly make consequent unto it and effects of it. Nor is it at all agreeable to the apostle’s design, which is not to prove by these testimonies directly that Christ was exalted above angels, but to show the dignity and excellency of his person who was so exalted, and how reasonable it is that it should be so; which is eminently proved by the testimony under consideration. For the proof of this excellency, the apostle produceth those testimonies that are given unto him in the Old Testament, and that as to his name, his honor and glory, and his works in this place. Neither is there any reason of ascribing the destruction of heaven and earth unto the kingly power of Christ, excluding his divine power in their creation: for the abolition of the world (if such it is to be), or the change of it, is no less an effect of infinite power than the creation of it; nor doth it directly appertain to the kingdom of Christ, but by accident, as do other works of the providence of God. These exceptions, then, being removed, before we proceed to the interpretation of the words, we shall see what evidence may be added unto what we have already offered, from the psalm, to evince and prove that this whole testimony doth belong unto him; which, were there no other (as there are very many) testimonies to this purpose, were abundantly sufficient to determine this controversy. 1. We have the authority of the apostle for it, ascribing it unto him. The word “and,” in the beginning of Col 1:10, relates confessedly unto, “But unto the Son he saith,” Colossians 1:8 : as if he had said, “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; and to the Son he said, Thou, O God, in the beginning hast founded the earth.”2. Again, the whole testimony speaks of the same person, there being no color of thrusting another person into the text not intended in the beginning; so that if any part of what is spoken do belong to Christ, the whole of necessity must do so. To suppose that in this sentence, “Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth,..... and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up,” one person is understood in the former place, another in the latter, no such thing being intimated by the psalmist or the apostle, is to suppose what we please, that we may attain what we have a mind unto. One person is here certainly and only spoken unto. If this be the Father, the words concern not Christ at all, and the apostle was deceived in his allegation of them; if the Son, the whole is spoken of him, as the apostle affirms. 3. Nor can any reason be assigned why the latter words should be attributed to Christ, and not the former. They say it is because God by him shall destroy the world, which is the thing in the last words spoken of. But where is it written that God shall destroy the world by Christ? If they say in this place, I say then Christ is spoken to and of in this place; and if so, he is spoken of in the first words, “And thou, Lord,” or not at all. Besides, to whom do these closing words belong, “But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail?” If these words are spoken of Christ, it is evident that all the foregoing must be so also; for his enduring the same, and the not failing of his years, — that is, his eternity, — is opposed to the creation and temporary duration of the world. If they say that they belong unto the Father primarily, but are attributed unto Christ, as that of changing or abolishing the world, because the Father doth it by him, I desire to know what is the meaning of these words, ‘Thou art the same by Christ, and thy years fail not by Christ ?’Is not the Father eternal but in the man Christ Jesus? If they say that they belong not at all to Christ, then this is the sum of what they say: ‘The beginning of the words, and the close of them, if spoken of Christ, would prove his infinite power, eternity, and divine nature. One passage there is in the words which we suppose will not do so, therefore we will grant that that passage concerneth him, but not the beginning nor end of the testimony, though spoken undeniably of the same person;’— which whether it becomes men professing a reverence for the word of God is left to themselves to judge. Besides, should we grant all these suggestions to be true, the apostle by his citing of this testimony would prove nothing at all to his purpose, no, not any thing toward that which they affirm him to aim at, namely, that he was made more excellent than the angels; for how out of these words shall any such matter be made to appear? They say, in that by him God will fold up the heavens as a vesture. But, first, no such thing is mentioned or intimated. He who made them is said to fold them. And if they say that from other places it may be made to appear that it shall be done by Christ, then as this place must be laid aside as of no use to the apostle, so indeed there is nothing ascribed to Christ but what the angels shall have a share in, and that probably the most principal, namely, in folding up the creation as a garment; which is a work that servants are employed in, and not the King or Lord himself. Indeed, he that shall without prejudice consider the apostle’s discourse will find little need of arguments to manifest whom he applies this testimony unto. He calls him Κύριος in the beginning, using that word which perpetually in the New Testament denotes the Lord Christ, as plainly expounding the text so far as to declare of whom it speaks. Nor doth this testimony ascribe any thing to him but what in general he had before affirmed of him, namely, that by him the worlds were made. Nor was it ever heard of, that any man in his right wits should cite a testimony to confirm his purpose, containing words that were never spoken of him to whom he applies them; nor is there scarce any thing in them that can tolerably be applied unto him, and the most of it would declare him to be that which he is not at all: so that the words as used to his purpose must needs be both false and ambiguous. Who, then, can but believe, on this testimony of the apostle, that Christ the Lord made heaven and earth? And if the apostle intended not to assert it, what is there in the text or near it as a buoy to warn men from running on a shelf, there where so fair a harbor appears unto them? From all that hath been said, it is evident that this whole testimony belongs to Christ, and is by the apostle asserted so to do. Proceed we now to the interpretation of the words. The person spoken of and spoken unto in them is the Lord: ΣὺΚύριε, “Thou, Lord.” The words are not in the psalm in this verse, but what is spoken is referred unto ΰֵ ?μִ ?ι, “my God:” “I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days;” comforting himself, under the consideration of the frailty and misery of his life, with the thought and faith of the eternity and power of Christ. For be our lives never so frail, yet as to life eternal, because he liveth we shall live also, and he is of power to raise us up at the last day, John 14:19; 1 Corinthians 15:20; and that is the ground of all our consolation against the brevity and misery of our lives, Whereby it also further appears that it is the Lord Christ whom the psalmist addresses himself unto; for from the absolute consideration of the omnipotency and eternity of God no consolation can be drawn. And, indeed, the people of the Jews having openly affirmed that they could not deal immediately with God but by a mediator, — which God eminently approved in them, wishing that such an heart would always abide in them, Deuteronomy 5:25-29, — so as he suffered them not to approach his typical presence between the cherubim but by a typical mediator, their high priest, so also were they instructed in their real approach unto God, that it was not to be made immediately to the Father but by the Son, whom in particular the apostle declares the psalmist in this place to intend. Concerning this person, or the “Lord,” he affirms two things, or attributes two things unto him. 1. The creation of heaven and earth; 2. The abolition or change of them.From that attribution he proceeds to a comparison between him and the most glorious of his creatures, and that as to duration or eternity; frailty and change in and of himself, one of the creatures, being that which in particular he addresseth himself to the Lord about. The time or season of the creation is first intimated: Κατ᾿ἀρχάς, for ἐνἀρχῇ, — that is, αְּ ?ψֵ ?ωִׁ ?ιϊ, “in the beginning,” or as the word is here, μְ ?τָ ?πִ ?ιν, “of old,” before they were or existed: ‘They had their being and beginning from thee: of old they were not; but in thy season thou gavest existence or being unto them. “Thou hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands,”’ Hebrews 1:10.Two things are observable in this expression of the creation of all things: — 1. The distribution made of them into heaven and earth being distinctly mentioned. In the consideration of the works of God, to admire his greatness, power, and wisdom in them, or to set forth his praise for them, it is usual in the Scripture to distribute them into parts, the more to fix the contemplation of the mind upon them, and to excite it unto faith, admiration, and praise. So dealeth the psalmist with the works of God’s providence in bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt, Psalms 136. He takes, as it were, that whole curious work into its several pieces, and subjoins that inference of praise to every one of them, “For his mercy endureth for ever.” And so he dealeth with the works of creation, Psalms 19, and in sundry other places. 2. What is peculiar in the expressions with respect unto each of them.(1.) Of the earth it is said he founded it, because of its stability and unmovableness; which is the language of the Scripture, — he set it fast, he established it, that it should not be moved for ever. It may be, also, the whole fabric of heaven and earth is compared to an edifice or building, whereof the earth, as the lowest and most depressed part, is looked on as the foundation of the whole; but the stability, unmovableness, and firmness of it, is that which the word expresseth, and which is most properly intended. (2.) Of the heavens, that they are the works of his hands; alluding to the curious frame and garnishing of them with all their host of glorious lights wherewith they are adorned. The ωִׁ ?τְ ?ψָ ?δ, Job 26:13, the beautifulness, adorning, or garnishing of the heavens, in the curious, glorious forming and fashioning of them, is that which, in a way of distinction, the psalmist aims to express in these words, “The heavens are the work of thy hands,” —that which thy hands, thy power, with infinite wisdom, hath framed, so as to set off and give lustre and beauty to the whole fabric, as a master workman doth the upper and more noble parts of his building. This is the first thing assigned to the Lord in this testimony of his glory. The second is in the change or abolition of them. Most suppose that the heavens and the earth at the last day shall only be changed, altered, or renewed, as to their quality and beauty; some, that they shall be utterly destroyed, consumed, and abolished. The discussing of that doubt belongs not directly to the interpretation or exposition of this place, neither sense of the words conducing particularly to the apostle’s purpose and design in reciting this testimony. It is enough to his argument that the work which was of old in the creation of the world, and that which shall be in the mutation or abolition of it, — which is no less an effect of infinite power than the former, — are ascribed unto the Lord Christ. Whatever the work be, he compares it to a garment no more to be used, or at least not to be used in the same kind wherein it was before; and the work itself to the folding up or rolling up of such a garment, — intimating the greatness of him by whom this work shall be performed, and the facility of the work unto him. The whole creation is as a garment, wherein he shows his power clothed unto men; whence in particular he is said to clothe himself with light as with a garment. And in it is the hiding of his power. Hid it is, as a man is hid with a garment; not that he should not be seen at all, but that he should not be seen perfectly and as he is. It shows the man, and he is known by it; but also it hides him, that he is not perfectly or fully seen. So are the works of creation unto God. He so far makes them his garment or clothing as in them to give out some instances of his power and wisdom; but he is also hid in them, in that by them no creature can come to the full and perfect knowledge of him. Now, when this work shall cease, and God shall unclothe or unveil all his glory to his saints, and they shall know him perfectly, see him as he is, so far as a created nature is capable of that comprehension, then will he lay them aside and fold them up, at least as to that use, as easily as a man lays aside a garment that he will wear or use no more. This lies in the metaphor. On this assertion he insinuates a comparison between this glorious fabric of heaven and earth and him that made them, as to durableness and stability, which is the thing he treats about; complaining of his own misery or mortality. For the heavens and the earth, he declares that they are in themselves of a flux and perishing nature; ηֵ ?ξָּ ?δ, αὐτοί, “isti,” — “they shall perish.” The word immediately relates to the heavens, but by the figure zeugma comprehends and takes in the earth also: “The earth and the heavens shall perish.” This fading nature of the fabric of heaven and earth, with all things contained in them, he sets forth, first, by their future end, — “They shall perish;” secondly, their tendency unto that end, — “They wax old as a garment.” By their perishing the most understand their perishing as to their present condition and use, in that alteration or change that shall be made on them; others, their utter abolition. And to say the truth, it were very hard to suppose that an alteration only, and that to the better, a change into a more glorious condition, should be thus expressed, ιֹ ?ΰαֵ ?γεּ; that word, as the Greek also, being always used in the worst sense, for a perishing by a total destruction. Their tendency unto this condition is their “waxing old as a garment.” Two things may be denoted in this expression: — 1. The gradual decay of the heavens and earth, waxing old, worse, and decaying in their worth and use;2. A near approximation or drawing nigh to their end and period. In this sense, the apostle in this epistle affirms that the dispensation of the covenant which established the Judaical worship and ceremonies did wax old and decay, Hebrews 8:13. Not that it had lost any thing of its first vigor, power, and efficacy, before its abolition. The strict observation of all the institutions of it by our Savior himself manifests its power and obligation to have continued in its full force: and this was typified by the continuance of Moses in his full strength and vigor until the very day of his death. But he says it was old and decayed, when it was ἐγγὺςἀφανισμοῦ, “near to a disappearance,” to its end, period, and to an utter uselessness, as then it was, even as all things that naturally tend to an end do it by age and decays And in this, not the former sense, are the heavens and earth said to wax old, because of their tendency to that period which, either in themselves or as to their use, they shall receive; which is sufficient to manifest them to be of a changeable, perishing nature. And it may be that it shall be with these heavens and earth at the last day as it was with the heavens and earth of Judaical institutions (for so are they frequently called, especially when their dissolution or abolition is spoken of) in the day of God’s creating the new heavens and earth in the gospel, according to his promise; for though the use of them and their power of obliging to their observation were taken away and abolished, yet are they kept in the world as abiding monuments of the goodness and wisdom of God in teaching his church of old. So may it be with the heavens and earth of the old creation. Though they shall be laid aside at the last day from their use as a garment to clothe and teach the power and wisdom of God to men, yet may they be preserved as eternal monuments of them. In opposition hereunto it is said of Christ that “he abideth,” “he is the same,” and “his years fail not.” One and the same thing is intended in all these expressions, even his eternal and absolutely immutable existence. Eternity is not amiss called a “nunc stans,” a present existence, wherein or whereunto nothing is past or future, it being always wholly present in and to itself. This is expressed in that ΰϊָּ ?δϊַ ?ςֲ ?ξγ, — “Thou standest, abidest, endurest, alterest not, changest not,” The same is also expressed in the next words, δεּ ?ΰΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, ὁαὐτὸςει῏, — “thou art he,” or “art the same;” or, as the Syriac hath it, “the same that thou art.” There is an allusion in these words unto, if not an expression of, that name of God, “I am;” that is, who is of himself, in himself, always absolutely and unchangeably the same. And this ΰϊָּ ?δδεּ ?ΰ, “tu ipse,” the Hebrews reckon as a distinct name of God. Indeed, ΰϊָּ ?δδεּ ?ΰιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ, ὁὤν, αὐτὸςει῏, all the same name of God, expressing his eternal and immutable self-subsistence. The last expression also, though metaphorical, is of the same importance: “Thy years fail not.” He who is the same eternally properly hath no years, which are a measure of transient time, denoting its duration, beginning, and ending. This is the measure of the world and all things contained therein. Their continuance is reckoned by years. To show the eternal subsistence of God in opposition to the frailty of the world, and all things created therein, it is said, his years fail not; that is, theirs do, and come to an end, — of his being and existence there is none. How the apostle proves his intendment by this testimony hath been declared in the opening of the words, and the force of it unto his purpose lies open to all. We may now divert unto those doctrinal observations which the words offer unto us; as, — I. All the properties of God, considered in the person of the Son, the head of the church, are suited to give relief, consolation, and supportment unto believers in all their distresses.This truth presents itself unto us from the use of the words in the psalm, and their connection in the design of the psalmist. Under the consideration of his own mortality and frailty, he relieves himself with thoughts of the omnipotency and eternity of Christ, and takes arguments from thence to plead for relief. And this may a little further be unfolded for our use in the ensuing observations : — 1. The properties of God are those whereby God makes known himself to us, and declares both what he is and what we shall find him to be in all that we have to deal with him: he is infinitely holy, just, wise, good, powerful, etc. And by our apprehension of these things are we led to that acquaintance with the nature of God which in this life we may attain, Exodus 34:5-7.2. God oftentimes declares and proposeth these properties of his nature unto us for our supportment, consolation, and relief, in our troubles, distresses, and endeavors after peace and rest to our souls, Isaiah 40:27-31. 3. That since the entrance of sin, these properties of God, absolutely considered, will not yield that relief and satisfaction unto the souls of men which they would have done, and did, whilst man continued obedient unto God according to the law of his creation. Hence Adam upon his sin knew nothing that should encourage him to expect any help, pity, or relief from him; and therefore fled from his presence, and hid himself. The righteousness, holiness, purity, and power of God, all infinite, eternal, unchangeable, considered absolutely, are no way suited to the advantage of sinners in any condition, Romans 1:32; Habakkuk 1:12-13.4. These properties of the divine nature are in every person of the Trinity entirely; so that each person is so infinitely holy, just, wise, good, and powerful, because each person is equally partaker of the whole divine nature and being. 5. The person of the Word, or the eternal Son of God, may be considered either absolutely as such, or as designed in the counsel, wisdom, and will of the Father, by and with his own will and consent, unto the work of mediation between God and man, Proverbs 8:22-31. And in him as such it is that the properties of the nature of God are suited to yield relief unto believers in every condition; for, —(1.) It was the design of God, in the appointment of his Son to be mediator, to retrieve the communion between himself and his creature that was lost by sin. Now, man was so created at first as that every thing in God was suited to be a reward unto him, and in all things to give him satisfaction. This being wholly lost by sin, and the whole representation of God to man becoming full of dread and terror, all gracious intercourse, in a way of special love on the part of God, and spiritual, willing obedience on the part of man, was intercepted and cut off. God designing again to take sinners into a communion of love and obedience with himself, it must be by representing unto them his blessed properties as suited to their encouragement, satisfaction, and reward. And this he doth in the person of his Son, as designed to be our mediator, Hebrews 1:2-3; for, —(2.) The Son is designed to be our mediator and the head of his church in a way of covenant, wherein there is an engagement for the exerting of all the divine properties of the nature of God for the good and advantage of them for whom he hath undertaken, and whom he designed to bring again into favor and communion with God. Hence believers do no more consider the properties of God in the person of the Son absolutely, but as engaged in a way of covenant for their good, and as proposed unto them for an everlasting, satisfactory reward. This is the ground of his calling upon them so often to behold, see, and consider him, and thereby to be refreshed. They consider his power, as he is mighty to save; his eternity, as he is an everlasting reward; his righteousness, as faithful to justify them; all his properties, as engaged in covenant for their good and advantage. Whatever he is in himself, that he will be to them in a way of mercy. Thus do the holy properties of the divine nature become a means of supportment unto us, as considered in the person of the Son of God. And this is, — [1. A great encouragement unto believing. The Lord Christ, as the Wisdom of God inviting sinners to come unto him, and to be made partakers of him, lays down all his divine excellencies as a motive thereunto, Proverbs 8:14-15, etc.; for on the account of them he assures us that we may find rest, satisfaction, and an abundant reward in him. And the like invitation doth he give to poor sinners: Isaiah 45:22, “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” They may justly expect salvation in him who is God, and in whom all divine attributes are proposed to their benefit, as they find who come unto him, Isaiah 45:24-25. The consideration hereof prevents all the fears and answers all the doubts of them that look up unto him.[2. An instruction how to consider the properties of God by faith for our advantage; that is, as engaged in the person of the Son of God for our good. Absolutely considered they may fill us with dread and terror, as they did them of old who concluded, when they thought they had seen God or heard his voice, that they should die. Considered as his properties who is our Redeemer, they are always relieving and comforting, Isaiah 54:4-5.II. The whole old creation, even the most glorious parts of it, hastening unto its period, at least of our present interest in it and use of it, calls upon us not to fix our hearts on the small perishing shares which we have therein, especially since we have Him who is omnipotent and eternal for our inheritance. The figure or fashion of this world, the apostle tells us, is passing away, — that lovely appearance which it hath at present unto us; it is hastening unto its period; it is a fading, dying thing, that can yield us no true satisfaction. III. The Lord Christ, the mediator, the head and spouse of the church, is infinitely exalted above all creatures whatever, in that he is God over all, omnipotent and eternal.IV. The whole world, the heavens and earth, being made by the Lord Christ, and being to be dissolved by him, is wholly at his disposal; to be ordered for the good of them that do believe. And therefore, —V. There is no just cause of fear unto believers from any thing in heaven or earth, seeing they are all of the making and at the disposal of Jesus Christ.VI. Whatever our changes may be, inward or outward, yet Christ changing not, our eternal condition is secured, and relief provided against all present troubles and miseries. The immutability and eternity of Christ are the spring of our consolation and security in every condition. The sum of all is, that, — VII. Such is the frailty of the nature of man, and such the perishing condition of all created things, that none can ever obtain the least stable consolation but what ariseth from an interest in the omnipotency, sovereignty, and eternity of the Lord Christ.This, I say, is that which the words insisted on, as they are used in the psalm, do instruct us in; and this therefore we may a little further improve. This is that which we are instructed in by the ministry of John Baptist: Isaiah 40:6-8, the voice cried,“All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: the grass withereth, the flower fadeth; because the Spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”All is grass, fading grass. Though it bloom and appear goodly for a little season, yet there is no continuance, no consistency in it. Every wind that passeth over it causeth it to wither. This is the best of flesh, of all that in and by ourselves we are, we do, we enjoy, or hope for. The “crown of the pride of man” and his “glorious beauty” is but “a fading flower,” Isaiah 28:1. What joy, what peace, what rest, can be taken in things that are dying away in our hands, that perish before every breath of wind that passeth over them? Where, then, shall this poor creature, so frail in itself, in its actings, in its enjoyments, seek for rest, consolation, and satisfaction? In this alone, that the Word of the Lord abides for ever, — in the eternally abiding Word of God; that is, the Lord Christ as preached in the gospel. So Peter applies these words, 1 Peter 1:25. By an interest in him alone, his eternity and unchangeableness, may relief be obtained against the consideration of this perishing, dying state and condition of all things. Thus the psalmist tells us that “verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity,” Psalms 39:5; and thence takes the conclusion now insisted on, Psalms 39:7, “And now, Lord,” — ‘seeing it is thus, seeing this is the condition of mankind, what is thence to be looked after? what is to be expected? Nothing at all, not the least of use or comfort.’ “What wait I for? my hope is in thee;” — ‘from thee alone, as a God eternal, pardoning and saving, do I look for relief.’ Man, indeed, in this condition seeks oftentimes for satisfaction from himself, — from what he is, and doth, and enjoys, and what he shall leave after him; comforting himself against his own frailty with an eternity that he fancieth to himself in his posterity, and their enjoyment of his goods and inheritance. So the psalmist tells us, Psalms 49:11,“Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling-places to all generations: they call their lands after their own names.”They see, indeed, that all men die, wise men and fools, Psalms 49:10, and cannot but from thence observe their own frailty. Wherefore they are resolved to make provision against it; they will perpetuate their posterity and their inheritance. This they make use of to relieve them in their inmost imaginations. But what censure doth the Holy Ghost pass upon this contrivance, Psalms 49:12? “Nevertheless,” saith he, notwithstanding all these imaginations, “man being in honor abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish:” which he further proves, Psalms 49:17-20, showing fully that he himself is no way concerned in the imaginary perpetuity of his possessions; which, as they are all of them perishing things, so himself dies and fades away whilst he is in the contemplation of their endurance. And the truth proposed may be further evidenced by the ensuing considerations: — 1. Man was made for eternity. He was not called out of nothing to return unto it again. When he once is, he is for ever; not as to his present state, that is frail and changeable, but as to his existence in one condition or other. God made him for his eternal glory, and gave him therefore a subsistence without end. Had he been created to continue a day, a month, a year, a thousand years, things commensurate unto that space of time might have afforded him satisfaction; but he is made for ever. 2. He is sensible of his condition. Many, indeed, endeavor to cast off the thoughts of it. They would fain hope that they shall be no longer than they are here. In that case they could find enough, as they suppose, to satisfy them in the things that are like themselves. But this will not be.They find a witness in themselves to the contrary; somewhat that assures them of an after reckoning, and that the things which now they do will be called over in another world. Besides, the conviction of the word, with them that enjoy it, puts the matter out of question. They cannot evade the testimony it gives unto their eternal subsistence. 3. Hence men are exposed to double trouble and perplexity: — First, That whereas their eternal subsistence, as to the enjoyment of good or bad, depends upon their present life, that is frail, fading, perishing. They are here now; but when a few days are come and gone, they must go to the place from whence they shall not return. They find their subsistence divided into two very unequal parts, a few days and eternity, and the latter to be regulated by the former. This fills them with anxiety, and makes them sometimes weary of life, sometimes hate it, almost always solicitous about it, and to bewail the frailty of it. Secondly, That no perishing thing will afford them relief or supportment in this condition, how should it? They and these are parting every moment, and that for eternity. There is no comfort in a perpetual taking leave of things that are beloved. Such is the life of man as unto all earthly enjoyments. It is but a parting with what a man hath; and the longer a man is about it, the more trouble he hath with it. The things of this creation will not continue our lives here, because of our frailty; they will not accompany us unto eternity, because of their own frailty. We change, and they change; we are vanity, and they are no better. 4. An interest in the omnipotency, sovereignty, and eternity of the Lord Christ will yield a soul relief and satisfaction in this condition. There is that in them which is suited to relieve us under our present frailty, and to give satisfaction unto our future eternity; for, —(1.) What we have not in ourselves, by an interest in Christ we have in another. In him we have stability and unchangeableness; for what he is in himself, he is unto us and for us. All our concernments are wrapped up and secured in him. He is ours: and though we in our own persons change, yet he changeth not, nor our interest in him, — which is our life, our all. Though we die, yet he dieth not; and because he liveth, we shall live also. Though all other things perish and pass away that we here make use of, yet he abideth a blessed and satisfying portion unto a believing soul: for as we are his, so all his is ours; only laid up in him and kept for us in him. So that under all disconsolations that may befall us from our own frailty and misery, and the perishing condition of outward things, we have sweet relief tendered us in this, that we have all good things treasured up for us in him. And faith knows how to make use of all that is in Christ, to the comfort and supportment of the soul. (2.) When our frailty and changeableness have had their utmost effect upon us, when they have done their worst upon us, they only bring us to the full enjoyment of what the Lord Christ is unto us, — that is, an exceeding great reward, and a full satisfaction unto eternity. Then shall we live for ever in that which we now live upon, being present with him, beholding his glory, and made partakers of it. So that both here and hereafter there is relief, comfort, and satisfaction for believers, laid up in the excellencies of the person of Jesus Christ. And this should teach us, — [1. The misery of those who have no interest in him, and have therefore nothing to relieve themselves against the evils of any condition. All their hopes are in this life, and from the enjoyments of it. When these are once past, they will be eternally and in all things miserable, — miserable beyond our expression or their apprehension. And what is this life? “A vapor, that appeareth for a little while.” What are the enjoyments of this life? Dying, perishing things; and unto them, fuel to lust, and so to hell. Suppose they live twenty, thirty, forty, sixty years, yet every day they fear, or ought to fear, that it will be their last. Some die oft every day from the first to the last of the utmost extent of the life of man: so that every day may be the last to any one; and whose then will be all their treasures of earthly things? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The next verse contains the last testimony produced by the apostle for the confirmation of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above angels, in the words ensuing: — Hebrews 1:13. — Πρὸςτὶναδὲτῶνἀγγέλωνεἴρηκέποτε·Κάθουἐκδεξιῶνμου, ἕωςἃνθῶτοὺςἐχθροὺςσουὑποπόδιοντῶνποδῶνσου· ?There is no difference about the reading of these words. As they are here expressed by the apostle so are they in the translation of the LXX., and the original text is exactly rendered by them. Hebrews 1:13. — But unto which of the angels said he at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make [put, place] thine enemies thy footstool [the footstool of thy feet]?The usefulness of this testimony for the confirmation of the dignity and authority of the Messiah is evident by the frequent quotation of it in the New Testament: as by our Savior himself, Matthew 22:44; by Peter, Acts 2:34-35; and twice by our apostle, in this place and 1 Corinthians 15:25. As the words are here used, we may consider the introduction the testimony, and the testimony itself. The introduction of the testimony is by way of interrogation: “Unto which of the angels said he at any time?” And herein three things may be observed: — 1. That in the interrogation a vehement negation is included: ‘He said not at any time to any angels;’he never spake words or the like concerning them; there is no testimony unto that purpose recorded in the whole Book of God. The way of expression puts an emphasis upon the denial. And the speaking here relates unto what is spoken in the Scripture; which is the only means of our knowledge and rule of our faith in these things.2. That he makes application of this testimony to every angel in heaven severally considered; for whereas he had before sufficiently proved the pre- eminence of the Messiah above the angels in general, to obviate their thoughts about the especial honor and dignity of any one or more angels, or angels in a singular manner, such indeed they conceived, he applies the present testimony to every one of them singly and individually considered: “Unto which of the angels said he at any time?” 3. A tacit application of this testimony unto the Son, or Messiah: ‘Unto the angels he said not, but unto the Son he said, Sit thou on my right hand.’ That the testimony itself doth clearly prove the intendment of the apostle, provided the words were originally spoken of him or to him unto whom they are applied, is beyond all exceptions; for they contain an eulogium of him of whom they are spoken, and an assignation of honor and glory to him, beyond whatever was or can be ascribed unto any angel whatever. It remains, therefore, that this be first proved, and then the importance of the testimony is self-explained. 1. For those that believe the gospel, the authority of the Lord Christ and his apostles applying this testimony unto him is sufficient for their conviction. By our Savior, as was observed, it is applied unto the Messiah in thesi, Matthew 22:42-44. And had not this been generally acknowledged by the scribes and Pharisees, and whole church of the Jews, as it had not been to his purpose to have mentioned it, so they had not been reduced unto that conviction and shame by it as they were. The apostles apply it unto the true Messiah in hypothesi; and herein doth our faith rest. 2. But a considerable part of the controversy which we have with the Jews relating much unto this 110th psalm, we must yet further clear the application of it unto the Messiah from their exceptions.Of the Targum or Chaldee paraphrase there are two copies, — one printed in Arias’Bible, the other in the Basle edition by Buxtorf. The title of the psalm in both of them is, ςμιγγεγϊωαηϊΰ, — “A song by the hand of David,” and the beginning of it is thus rendered by the former of them: “The Lord said by his Word that he would give me the kingdom, because I studied the doctrine of the law of his right hand. Wait thou until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” By the other thus: “The Lord said by his Word that he would appoint me the lord of all Israel. But he said unto me again, Stay, for Saul, who is of the tribe of Benjamin, until he die, for a kingdom will not admit of a companion; and after that I will make thine enemies thy footstool.” Besides what appears from other considerations, it is hence sufficiently evident that this Targum was made after the Jews began to be exercised in the controversy with Christians, and had learned to corrupt by their glosses all the testimonies given in the Old Testament unto the Lord Christ, especially such as they found to be made use of in the New. Their corrupting of the sense of the Holy Ghost in this place by a pretended translation is openly malicious, against evident light and conviction. The psalm they own from the title to be written by David; but they would have him also to be the subject of it, to be spoken of in it. And therefore these words, “The LORD said unto my Lord,” they translate, “The Lord said unto me:” which assertion is contrary to the text and false in itself; for whoever was the penman of the psalm, he speaks of another person; — “The LORD said unto my Lord;” say they, “The Lord said unto me.” And thereunto are annexed those imaginations about studying the law and waiting for the death of Saul, which in no case belong to the text or matter in hand. Others, therefore, to avoid this rock, affirm that the psalm speaks of David, but was not composed by him, being the work of some other who calls him lord. So David Kimchi on the place. And this he endeavors to prove from the inscription of the psalm. μְ ?γָ ?εִ ?γξִ ?ζְ ?ξεֹ ?ψ: that is, saith he, “A psalm spoken to David;” for it denotes the third, and not the second case or variation of nouns.But this is contrary to the use of that prefix throughout the whole Book of Psalms; and if this observation might be allowed, all psalms with this title, μְ ?γָ ?εִ ?γ, “le David,” which are the greatest part of those composed by him, must be adjudged from him, contrary to the received sense and consent of Jews and Christians. But fully to manifest the folly of this pretense, and that the author of it contradicted his own light out of hatred unto the gospel, there are sundry psalms with this title, μְ ?γָ ?εִ ?γ, “le David,” which are expressly affirmed to be composed and sung by him unto the Lord; as Psalms 18, whose title is, “To the chief musician, μְ ?ςֶ ?αֶ ?γιְ ?δָֹ ?εημְ ?γָ ?εִ ?γ,” (where the prefix is repeated) — “to David, the servant of the LORD, who spake unto the LORD the words of this song.” So directly do the modern rabbins contradict their own light, out of hatred unto the gospel.Evident, then, it is that David is not treated of in this psalm, in that he, being the penman of it, calleth him his Lord concerning whom he treats. Besides, to omit other instances of a like cogency, how or when did God swear unto David that he should be a priest, and that for ever, after the order of Melchizedek? The Jews knew well enough that David had nothing to do with the priesthood. So that David had no concernment in this psalm, but only as he was the penman of it. He was not herein so much as a type of the Messiah, but speaks of him as his Lord. Wherefore others of them, as Jarchi, and Lipman, and Nizzachon, affirm that it is Abraham who is spoken of in this psalm; of whom the one says it was composed by Melchizedek; the other, by his servant, Eliezer of Damascus. But the fondness of these presumptuous figments is evident. Melchizedek, on all accounts, was greater than Abraham, above him in degree, dignity, and office, as being a king and priest of the most high God; and therefore blessed him, and received tithes of him, and on no account could call him his lord. Eliezer did so, being his servant; but how could he ascribe unto him the sitting at the right hand of God? how the sending forth the rod of his power from Zion? how being a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek? or, indeed, any one thing mentioned in the psalm? These things deserve not to be insisted on, but only to manifest the woeful pretences of the present Judaical infidelity. It appears from the Dialogue of Justin Martyr with Trypho, that some of them of old applied this psalm to Hezekiah. But not one word in it can rationally be conceived to respect him; especially that which is spoken about the priesthood utterly excludes him, seeing his great-grandfather, a man of more power than himself, was smitten with leprosy, and lost the administration of his kingdom, for one single attempt to invade that office, 2 Chronicles 26. It remains, then, that this psalm was written concerning the Messiah and him alone, for no other subject of it can be assigned. And this use in our passage we may make of the Targum, that whereas these words, “The Lord said,” do not intend a word spoken, but the stable purpose or decree of God, as Psalms 2:7, its author hath rendered them ΰξψιιιαξιξψδ, — “The Lord said in” (or “by”) “his Word;” that is his Wisdom, his Son,with whom and to whom he speaks, and concerning whom his decree and purpose is here declared.It remaineth only that we consider the objections of the Jews against our application of this psalm unto the Messiah. And these are summed up by Kimchi in his exposition of the text. “The heretics,” saith he, “expound this psalm of Jesus. And in the first verse they say the Father and Son are designed. And they read ‘Adonai’with kamets under Nun; in which use the true God is signified by that name. And verse the third, in ςξκְ they read khirik under Ain; so making it signify ‘with thee.’And what is there said of the ‘beauty of holiness,’they ascribe unto that which is from the womb. But in all copies that are found, from the rising of the sun to the going down of it, khirik is with Nun in ‘Adonai,’and pathakh with Ain in ‘Hammeka.’And Gerolmus [Jerome] erred in his translation. And for the error, if the Father and Son be the Godhead, how doth one stand in need of the other? and how can he say unto him, ‘Thou art a priest?’He is a priest who offers sacrifice, but God doth not.” Of the like nature are the rest of his exceptions unto the end of his notes on that psalm. To this Lipman adds a bitter, blasphemous discourse about the application of these words, “from the womb,” Psalms 2:3, unto the womb of the blessed Virgin. Ans. Our cause is not at all concerned in these mistakes, whether of Jews or Christians. For the Jews, their chief enmity lies against the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and therefore, whatever testimony is produced concerning him, they presently imagine that it is for the proof of his divine nature. This lies at the bottom of these exceptions of Kimchi. Hence he conceives that our argument from this place lies in the word ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι, and the pointing it with kamets, “Adonai,” so making it to be the proper name of God; when we acknowledge that it is Adoni, pointed with khirik, and signifies, “my Lord.” So it is rendered by the evangelist, Matthew 22:44; so by the LXX.; and by Jerome, “Domino meo.” And the argument of our Savior lies not in the word ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι; but that he being the son of David was also then the lord of David, which he could no otherwise be but upon the account of his divine nature.In the words reflected on by Kimchi it is confessed that there have been mistakes amongst translators and expositors. These words, ςξְּ ?κָ πְ ?γָ ?αֹ ?ϊ, are rendered by the LXX. Μετὰσοῦἡἀρχή· and by the Vulgar from them, “Tecum principium,” — “With thee is the beginning;” which hath misled many expositors. But Kimchi knew that Jerome had translated them, “Populi tui duces spontanei,” — “Thy people shall be willing leaders;” giving both the significations of πְ ?γָ ?αֹ ?ϊ, though one would suffice, “Thy people are” (or “shall be”) “willing.” But this pertains not to the cause under consideration. In like manner have these other words been misrendered by the same translation, ξֵ ?ψֶ ?ηֶ ?νξִ ?ωְׁ ?ηָ ?ψμְ ?κָ θַ ?μιַ ?μְ ?γֻ ?ϊֶ ?κָ. ᾿Εκγαστρὸςπρὸ῾εωσφόρονἐγέννησάσε, say the LXX.; and the Vulgar, “Ex utero ante luciferum genui te,” — “ From the womb before the morning star have I begotten thee:” which gave occasion to many uncouth expositions in Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Austin, and others, But the words are rightly rendered, “The dew of thy birth is from the womb of the morning,” and express the rise and flourishing of the kingdom of the Messiah. These things prove, indeed, that it is dangerous to interpret the Scripture without heedful attending unto the original text; but that the Messiah is not intended in this psalm they prove not.For what they further object, on our supposition of the divine nature of Christ, “That there was no need that God should promise God his assistance,” it is but an open effect of their ignorance or malice. Assistance is not promised the Messiah as God, but as made man for our sakes. And so as a priest did he offer that sacrifice without an interest wherein both they and we must eternally perish. To conclude this discourse, we have many of their own masters concurring with us in the assignation of this psalm unto the Messiah; and to that purpose they freely express themselves when their minds are taken off from the consideration of the difference that they have with Christians. Thus the author of ρτψΰαχϊψελμ, in his signs of the coming of the Messiah. “Armillus shall stir up all the world,” saith he, “to war against the Messiah, μξμηξδΰμΰΰεξψμιωαμιξιπιιΰζδχαδΰιπεξφψιπε;” —“whom the holy God shall not compel to war, but shall only say unto him, ‘Sit thou at my right hand;’” referring unto this place. So Saadias Gaon on Daniel 7:13 : φγχπελγλϊεαπΰνιμΰγπιωαμιξιπιεδεξωιη; —“This is Messiah our righteousness, as it is written, ‘The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.’” They affirm the same in Midrash Tehillim; on Psalms 18:35 : ιδεδμΰγπιωαμιξιπιψιεγοΰξψμςϊιγμαΰδχαδξεωιαξμκְ ξωιημιξιπεωλπΰν; — “Rabbi Joden said, In the world to come, the holy, blessed God shall cause Messiah the king to sit on his right hand; as it is written, ‘The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.’” And to the same purpose are the words of R. Moses Haddarshan in Bereshith Rabba on Genesis 18:1 : αωνψμειτϊηεϊϊομιξβοιωςκְ ειξιπκְ δρςγπιμςϊιγμαΰδχαδξεωιαμξμκְ ψαψλιδιδεδμΰγπιωαμιξιπιεΰαψδνιωαςμωξΰμεετπιΰαψδναοαπκְ ςμιξιπιεΰπιςμιξιπκְ δειεςπεϊκְ ϊψαπεξλρτϊεΰεξψαοαπιιωαςμδιξιοεΰπιιωαςμδωξΰμδχαδξτιρεεΰεξψμεδξωιημιξιπεωλιπΰν; —“Rabbi Berechia, in the name of Rabbi Levi, opened that which is spoken, ‘Thou shalt give me the shield of thy salvation, and thy right hand shall sustain me,’Psalms 18:35. In the world to come, the holy, blessed God shall cause Messiah the king to sit on his right hand; as it is written, ‘The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.’And Abraham shall sit at his left hand. And the face of Abraham shall be pale, and he shall say, ‘The son of my son sits on the right hand, and I on the left.’But God shall appease him, and say unto him, ‘The son of thy son sits at my right hand, but I am at thy right hand;’as it is written, ‘Thy loving-kindness shall increase me.’” And so on Psalms 17 : Rabbi Joden in the name of R. Chijah, μαΰδχαδξεωιαμξμκְ δξωιημιξιπεωπΰξψπενιδιδμΰγεπιμςϊιγ, — “In the world to come the holy blessed God shall place Messiah the king at his right hand, as it is said, ‘The LORD said unto my Lord.’” Thus, setting aside the mixture of their follies and impieties, wherein we are not concerned, we have a sufficient suffrage from the Jews themselves unto our assignation of this prophetical psalm to the Messiah; which is enough to stop the mouths of their modern gainsayers, who are not able to assign any other person unto whom it should belong. Having, then, removed their objections, we may return unto the interpretation of the words. The matter intended in the first part of these words, or sitting at the right hand of God, hath been somewhat spoken unto already, and I shall add but little in the further expiration of it in this place. Some things controverted on these words we may well omit the consideration of; as whether were the more honorable place of old, the right hand or the left Besides, they have been sufficiently spoken unto already on Psalms 17:3. For whereas there is no mention made anywhere of sitting at the left hand of God, as was observed, there is no comparison to be feigned between the one and the other. Besides, the pretense of the left hand to have been the most honorable place of old is most vain, insisted on by some who had a desire to vent new observations on old matters to little purpose. And Bellarmine shows what good leisure he had in managing of controversies, when he spent more time and labor in answering an objection against the pope’s supremacy, from Peter’s being placed in old seals on the left hand of Paul, than on many texts of Scripture plainly overthrowing his pretensions. Neither shall we consider their claim unto this testimony, who, understanding the human nature of Christ to be only intended and spoken to, affirm that its sitting at the right hand of God consists in a real communication of all divine properties and attributes unto that nature; a pretense very remote from the apostle’s design and importance of the words, For the introductory preface of this testimony, “Unto which of the angels said he at any time?” we have already considered it. In the testimony itself we must consider, — 1. The person speaking, “The LORD.”2. The person spoken unto, “my Lord.”3. The nature and manner of this speaking, “said.”4. The thing spoken, “Sit on my right hand.”5. The end hereof as to work and operation, “make thine enemies thy footstool.”6. The limitation of it as unto duration, “until.”1. The person speaking is the LORD, “The LORD said.” In the Greek, both the person speaking and the person spoken unto are expressed by the same name, Κύριος, “Lord;” only the person spoken unto is not absolutely called so, but with relation to the psalmist, κυρίῳμου, “to my lord.” David calls him his lord, Matthew 22:45. But in the Hebrew they have different denominations. The person speaking is Jehovah, πְ ?ΰֻ ?νιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ, — that is, God the Father; for though the name be often used where the Son is distinctly spoken of, and sometimes in the same place each of them is mentioned by that name, as Genesis 19:25, Zechariah 2:8-9, because of their equal participation of the same divine nature, signified thereby, yet where Jehovah speaketh unto the Son or of him, as here, it is the person of the Father that is distinctly denoted thereby, according as was showed at the entrance of this epistle. 2. The person spoken unto is the Son, ΰֲ ?γεֹ ?ο, “the Lord,” David’s Lord; in what respect we must now inquire. The Lord Christ, the Son, in respect of his divine nature, is of the same essence, power, and glory, with the Father, John 10:30. Absolutely, therefore, and naturally, in that respect he is capable of no subordination to the Father or exaltation by him, but what depends on and flows from his eternal generation, John 5:26. By dispensation he humbled himself, and emptied himself of this glory, Philippians 2:7-8; not by a real parting with it, but by the assumption of human nature into personal union with himself, being made flesh, John 1:14; wherein his eternal glory was clouded for a season, John 17:5, and his person humbled to the discharge of those acts of his mediation which were to be performed in the human nature, Philippians 2:9-10. This person of Christ is here spoken unto, not in respect of his divine nature only, which is not capable of exaltation or glory by the way of free gift or donation; nor in respect of his human nature only, which is not the king and head of the church; but with respect unto his whole person, wherein the divine nature, exerting its power and glory with the will and understanding of the human nature, is the principle of those theandrical acts whereby Christ ruleth over all in the kingdom given him of his Father, Revelation 1:17-18. As he was God, he was David’s Lord, but not his son; as he was man, he was David’s son, and so absolutely could not be his Lord; in his person, as he was God and man, he was his Lord and his son, — which is the intention of our Savior’s question, Matthew 22:45.3. For the nature and manner of this speaking, when and how God said it, four things seem to be intended in it: —(1.) The eternal decree of God concerning the exaltation of the Son incarnate. So David calls this word the “decree,” the statute or eternal appointment of God, Psalms 2:7. This is λόγοςἐνδιάθετος, the internal and eternal word, or speaking of the mind, will, and counsel of God, referred unto by Peter, 1 Peter 1:20. God said this in the eternal purpose of his will, to and concerning his Son.(2.) The covenant and compact that was between the Father and Son about and concerning the work of mediation is expressed also in this saying. That there was such a covenant, and the nature of it, I have elsewhere declared. See Proverbs 8:30-31; Isaiah 53:10-12; Zechariah 6:12-13; John 17:4-6. In this covenant God said unto him, “Sit thou at my right hand;” which he also pleaded in and upon the discharge of his work, Isaiah 50:8-9; John 17:4-5.(3.) There is also in it the declaration of this decree and covenant in the prophecies and promises given out concerning their accomplishment and execution from the foundation of the world, Luke 1:70; 1 Peter 1:11, Genesis 3:15. He said it “by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began.” And in this sense David only recounts the prophecies and promises that went before, Luke 24:25-27. And all these are comprised in this speaking here mentioned, — thus “the LORD said unto him;” and all these were past when recorded by David.(4.) But he yet looks forward, by the Spirit of prophecy, unto the actual accomplishment of them all, when, upon the resurrection of Christ, and the fulfilling of his work of humiliation, God actually invested him with the promised glory, (which is the fourth thing intended in the expression,)Acts 2:33; Acts 2:36; Acts 5:31; 1 Peter 1:20-21. All these four things center in a new revelation now made to David by the Spirit of prophecy. This he here declares as the stable purpose, covenant, and promise of God the Father, revealed unto him: “The LORD said.” And this also gives us an account of the manner of this expression, as to its imperative enunciation, “Sit thou.” It hath in it the force of a promise that he should do so, as it respected the decree, covenant, and declaration thereof from the foundation of the world. God, engaging his faithfulness and power for the effecting of it in its appointed season, speaks concerning it as a thing instantly to be done. And as those words respect the glorious accomplishment of the thing itself, so they denote the acquiescence of God in the work of Christ, and his authority in his glorious exaltation. 4. The thing spoken about, is Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God. Wherein that consists hath been declared on 1 Peter 1:3. In brief, it is the exaltation of Christ unto the glorious administration of the kingdom granted unto him, with honor, security, and power; or as in one word our apostle calls it, his reigning, 1 Corinthians 15:25; concerning which we have treated already at large.And herein we shall acquiesce, and not trouble ourselves with the needless curiosity and speculation of some about these words. Such is that of Maldonate on Matthew 16, before remarked on Matthew 16:3. Saith he, “Cum Filius dicitur sedere ad dextram Patris, denotatur comparatio virtutis Filii et Patris, et potentia Filii major dicitur ratione functionis officii et administrationis ecclesiae. Paterque videtur fecisse Filium quodammodo se superiorem, et donasse illi nomen etiam supra ipsum Dei nomen, quod omnes Christiani tacite significant, cum audito nomine Jesu detegunt caput, audito autem nomine Dei, non item;” — than which nothing could be more presumptuously nor foolishly spoken; for there is not in the words the least intimation of any comparison between the power of the Father and the Son, but only the Father’s exaltation of the Son unto power and glory expressed. But, as was said, these things have been already considered. 5. There is in the words the end aimed at in this sitting down at the right hand of God; and that is, the making of his enemies the footstool of his feet. This is that which is promised unto him in the state and condition whereunto he is exalted. For the opening of these words we must inquire, — (1.) Who are these enemies of Christ;(2.) How they are to be made his footstool;(3.) By whom.(1.) For the first, we have showed that it is the glorious exaltation of Christ in his kingdom that is here spoken of; and therefore the enemies intended must be the enemies of his kingdom, or enemies unto him in his kingdom, — that is, as he sits on his throne carrying on the work designed and ends of it. Now, the kingdom of Christ may be considered two ways ; — first, In respect of the internal, spiritual power and efficacy of it in the hearts of his subjects; secondly, With respect unto the outward, glorious administration of it in the world. And in both these respects it hath enemies in abundance, all and every one whereof must be made his footstool. We shall consider them apart. The kingdom, rule, or reigning of Christ in the first sense, is the authority and power which he puts forth for the conversion, sanctification, and salvation of his elect. As he is their king, he quickens them by his Spirit, sanctifies them by his grace, preserves them by his faithfulness, raiseth them from the dead at the last day by his power, and gloriously rewardeth them unto eternity in his righteousness. In this work the Lord Christ hath many enemies; as the law, sin, Satan, the world, death, the grave, and hell. All these are enemies to the work and kingdom of Christ, and consequently to his person, as having undertaken that work. [1. The law is an enemy unto Christ in his kingdom, not absolutely, but by accident, and by reason of the consequents that attend it where his subjects are obnoxious unto it. It slays them, Romans 7:9-11, which is the work of an enemy; is against them and contrary unto them, Colossians 2:14; and contributes strength to their other adversaries, 1 Corinthians 15:56; which discovers the nature of an enemy.[2. Sin is universally and in its whole nature an enemy unto Christ, Romans 8:7. Sinners and enemies are the same, Romans 5:8; Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21. It is that which makes special, direct, and immediate opposition to the quickening, sanctifying, and saving of his people, Romans 7:21; Romans 7:23; James 1:14-15; 1 Peter 2:11.[3. Satan is the sworn enemy of Christ, the adversary that openly, constantly, avowedly opposeth him in his throne, Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 6:12; 1 Peter 5:8. And he exerts his enmity by temptations, 1 Corinthians 7:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; accusations, Revelation 12:10; persecutions, Revelation 2:10; — all which are the works of an enemy.[4. The world is also a professed enemy of the kingdom of Christ, John 15:18. In the things of it, the men of it, the rule of it, it sets itself against the work of the Lord Christ on his throne. The things of it, as under the curse and subject to vanity, are suited to alienate the hearts of men from Christ, and so act an enmity against him, James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 1 Timothy 6:9-10; Matthew 13:22. The men of the world act the same part, Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:9. By examples, by temptations, by reproaches, by persecutions, by allurements, they make it their business to oppose the kingdom of Christ. But to that end, [that all things may be under his feet], is the rule of it for the most part directed or overruled, 1 Corinthians 15:24-25.[5. Death is also an enemy; so it is expressly called, 1 Corinthians 15:26. It designs the execution of the first curse against all believers, and therein contributes aid and assistance unto all other adversaries; giving up itself to the service of Satan, and therefore said to be in his power, Hebrews 2:14 of this epistle; and it borrows a sting from sin, 1 Corinthians 15:56, to make itself the more terrible and sharp. [6. The grave is an adversary also. It fights against the faith of the subjects of Christ by reducing their mortality unto corruption, and holding fast the dead until they are powerfully rescued from the jaws of it. [7. Lastly, hell is that enemy in a subordination whereunto all these others do act. They all aim to bring men into hell; which is an eternal enemy where it prevails. This attends the workings and successes of those other adversaries, to consume and destroy, if it were possible, the whole inheritance of Christ, Revelation 6:8. All these are enemies to Christ in his work and kingdom, with every thing that contributes aid or assistance unto them, every thing that they make use of in the pursuit of their enmity against him.Now, all these enemies, as far as they oppose the spiritual, internal carrying on of the work of Christ, must be made the footstool of his feet. The expression is metaphorical, and is to be interpreted and applied variously, according to the nature and condition of the enemies with whom he hath to do. The allusion in general is taken from what was done by Joshua, his type, towards the enemies of his people, Joshua 10:24. To show the ruin of their power, and his absolute prevalency against them, he caused the people to set their feet upon their necks. See 2 Samuel 22:39; Psalms 8:6. To have his enemies, then, brought under his feet, is to have an absolute, complete conquest over them; and their being made his footstool implies their perpetual and unchangeable duration in that condition, under the weight of whatever burden he shall be pleased to lay upon them.(2.) This being that which is to be done, we may consider how it is accomplished. Now, this whole work of conquest and prevalency over all his enemies is done, — [1. Meritoriously; [2. Exemplarily; [3. Efficiently. [1. Meritoriously. By his death and blood-shedding he hath procured the sentence of condemnation in the cause depending between him and them to be pronounced against them; so that they shall have no more right to exert their enmity against him or his. He hath given them all their death’s wounds, and leaves them to die at his pleasure. 1st. So hath he prevailed against the law, Galatians 3:13; Colossians 2:14; Romans 7:6. He hath removed that strength which it gave to sin, 1 Corinthians 15:55-56; so that it hath no right to disquiet or condemn any of his subjects for the future. And, 2dly. Against sin, Romans 8:2-3, so that it should not reign in nor condemn his anymore. And, 3dly. Satan also, Hebrews 2:14-15, as to all pretense of liberty or right unto any part of his cursed work. And, 4thly. So likewise the world, John 16:33; Galatians 1:4. And against, 5thly. Death, Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15:55-56; with, 6thly. The grave; and, 7thly. Hell, or the wrath to come, 1 Thessalonians 1:10. They are all meritoriously conquered in his death and resurrection. And all this hath he done for his church.[2. Exemplarily. All these adversaries peculiarly exercised their enmity against and tried their strength and power upon his own person. The law brought its curse upon him, Galatians 3:13; sin its guilt, 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:2-3; Satan put forth all his power against him, Colossians 2:15; as also did the world, in all sorts of things and persons, in all kinds of oppositions and persecutions; death also he tasted of, Hebrews 2:9; and lay in the grave, descending into the lower parts of the earth, Ephesians 4:9; and he was not unassaulted by the pains of hell when he bare our iniquities, Isaiah 53:4-6; Isaiah 53:10. Now all of them did he absolutely conquer in his own person: for he satisfied the law, removed the curse, and took it away, Romans 8:3; made an end of sin, Daniel 9:24; destroyed the devil, Hebrews 2:14, and triumphed over him, Colossians 2:15; subdued the world, John 16:33; conquered death, Acts 2:24, and the grave, Acts 2:27, and hell also. And in his own person hath he set an example of what shall be done in and for the whole church.[3. It is done efficiently in, by, and for his whole church; and this in three instances: — 1st. Initially, in their union with himself. When and as he unites any of them unto himself, he begins the conquest of all enemies in them and for them, giving them a right to the complete, total, and final victory over them all.2dly. Gradually he carries them on in their several seasons towards perfection, treading down their enemies by degrees under them. And3dly. Perfectly at the last day, when, having freed them from the law and sin, trodden down Satan, prevailed against the world, recovered them from death, rescued them from the grave, and delivered them from hell, he shall be himself perfectly victorious in them, and they made completely sharers in his victory; wherein the making of all his enemies his footstool consisteth.Secondly, The kingdom of Christ respects his administration of it visibly in this world, in the profession and obedience of his subjects unto him; and this also, with the opposition made unto it, is respected in this expression. God the Father, in the exaltation of Jesus Christ, hath given unto him all nations for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession, Psalms 2:8. Upon this grant a twofold right ensued: —[1. A right to call, gather, and erect his church, in any nation, in any part of the world, and to give unto it his laws and ordinances of worship, to be owned and observed by them in a visible and peaceable manner, Matthew 28:18-20.[2. A right, power, and authority to dispose of and order all nations and persons for the good, benefit, and advantage of his kingdom. In pursuit of this grant and right, erecting his church, and therein his visible kingdom, in the world, great opposition is made unto him by all sorts of persons, stirred, excited, and instigated thereunto by Satan. And as this enmity was first acted against himself in his own person, Psalms 2:1-3, so it hath continued against him in his church in all ages and places, and will do so unto the end of the world. The world understands not his right, hates his government, and would not have him to reign. Hence hath been all that rage which hath been executed upon the professors of his name. Kings, rulers, potentates, counsellors, the multitude, have set themselves against him. They are and have been, many of them, his enemies. Great havoc and destruction have they made of his subjects all the world over, and continue to do so in most places unto this very day. Especially, in these later ages, after other means failed him, Satan hath stirred up a fierce, cruel, subtle adversary unto him, whom he hath foretold his disciples of under the name of antichrist, the beast, and false prophet. After the ruin of many others, this enemy by various subtleties and pretences hath drawn the world into a new combination against him, and is at this day become the greatest and most pernicious adversary that he hath in this world. Now, the aim and design of all these is to dethrone him, by the ruin of his kingdom which he hath set up in the world. And this in every age they have hoped to accomplish, and continue to do so unto this day, but in vain; for as hitherto his kingdom and interest in the world have been maintained against all their enmity and opposition, themselves been frustrated and brought to destruction one after another, so by virtue of this promise he shall reign in security and glory until all their heads be broken, their strength ruined, their opposition finished, and themselves brought under his feet unto all eternity, as our apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 15:24-25. And this may suffice to declare the meaning of these words. (3.) We are to consider by whom these enemies of Christ shall be made thus his footstool. ‘I will make them,’saith God the Father unto him. And this expression wanteth not its difficulty; for is it not the work of Christ himself to subdue and conquer his enemies? is it not said that he shall do so? So doing is he described in the Revelation with glory and power, Revelation 19:11-16, from Isaiah 63:1-6. Whom should this work more become or belong unto than him who was persecuted and oppressed by them? And doth it not directly belong unto his kingly power? Whence is it, then, that he is here described as one resting in glory and security at his Father’s right hand, whilst he subdues his enemies?Ans. There is no doubt but that the work of subduing the enemies of the mediation and kingdom of Christ is immediately wrought by himself. All prophecies of him, all promises made unto him, the nature of his office, do all require that so it should be; and so the apostle directly expresseth it, 1 Corinthians 15:26. But yet there are sundry reasons why that work which is immediately wrought by the Son may by the way of eminency be ascribed unto the Father, as we see this to be.[1. Power and authority to subdue and conquer all his enemies is given unto the Lord Christ by the Father in the way of reward; and it is therefore said to be his work, because the authority for it is from him. See Isaiah 53:12; John 5:27; Philippians 2:9; Romans 14:9. This power then, I say, of subduing all his enemies being granted unto the Lord Christ in the love of the Father, as a reward of the travail of his soul which he underwent in his work on the earth, is ascribed unto the Father as his. And this expression signifies no more but that as God hath given him authority for it, so he will abide by him in it until it be accomplished; and on this account he takes it on himself as his own.[2. The work of subduing enemies is a work of power and authority. Now, in the economy of the holy Trinity, among the works that outwardly are of God, those of power and authority are peculiarly ascribed unto the Father; as those of wisdom, or wisdom in the works of God, are unto the Son, who is the eternal Wisdom of the Father. And on this account the same works are ascribed unto the Father and the Son. Not as though the Father did them first, or only used the Son as an immediate instrumental cause of them, but that he worketh by him as his own eternal and essential Wisdom, John 5:17; John 5:19. But there is also more in it, as the Son is considered as mediator, God and man; for so he receives and holds his especial kingdom by grant from his Father, and therefore the works of it may be said to be his.6. The last thing remaining for the exposition of these words, is the consideration of the appearing limitation of this administration of the kingdom of Christ, in his sitting at the right hand of God: ςγ, “Until I make thine enemies,” etc. “until:” First, it is confessed, and may be proved by instances, that those particles thus used are sometimes exclusive of all things to the contrary before the time designed in them, but not assertive of any such thing afterwards. In this sense no limitation of the duration of the kingdom of Christ is here intimated, but only his secure and glorious reign unto the accomplishment of his work in the subduing of his enemies is asserted. The only time of danger is whilst there is opposition; but this saith God, ‘I will carry it through unto the end.’And this sense is embraced by many, to secure thereby the promises that are made unto the Lord Christ of the perpetuity of his kingdom. So Isaiah 9:7,“Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.”His “kingdom shall never be destroyed,” but “shall stand for ever,” Daniel 2:44; it is an “everlasting kingdom,” Daniel 7:27.Others suppose that this perpetuity of the kingdom of Christ is not absolutely exclusive of all limitation, but that these two things only are intimated in those prophecies and promises: — (1.) That his kingdom shall not be like the kingdoms of the earth, obnoxious to change and mutation, by intestine divisions, or outward force, or secret decay; by which means all the kingdoms of the earth have been ruined and brought to nought. In opposition hereunto, the kingdom of Christ is asserted to be perpetual, as that which no opposition shall ever prevail against, no means ever impair; which yet hinders not but that a day may be prefixed for its end. (2.) The continuance of it unto the total, full accomplishment of all that is to be performed in it or by it, in the eternal salvation of all his subjects and final destruction of all his enemies, is in these and the like places foretold; but yet when that work is done, that kingdom and rule of his may have an end.And in this sense the term of limitation here expressed seems to be expounded by the apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:24, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father;” for although these words may admit of another interpretation, — namely, that he shall give up an account unto the Father of the accomplishment of the whole work committed unto him as king of his church, which he may do and not cease from holding the same kingdom still, — yet as they are further interpreted by the Son’s coming into a new subjection unto the Father, “that God may be all in all,” as 1 Corinthians 15:28, they seem to imply directly the ceasing of his kingdom. Though this matter be not indeed without its difficulty, yet the different opinions about it seem capable of a fair reconciliation, which we shall attempt in the ensuing proposals: — (1.) The Lord Christ, as the Son of God, shall unto all eternity continue in the essential and natural dominion, over all creatures, and they in their dependence upon him and subjection unto him. He can no more divest himself of that dominion and kingdom than he can cease to be God. Suppose the being of any creatures, and that subjection unto him which is the rise of this kingdom is natural and indispensable.(2.) As to the economical kingdom of Christ over the church, and all things in order unto the protection and salvation thereof, the immediate ends of it will cease. All his saints being saved, all his sons brought unto glory, all his enemies subdued, the end of that rule, which consisted in the guidance and preservation of the one, and in the restraint and ruin of the other, must necessarily cease.(3.) The Lord Christ shall not so leave his kingdom at the last day as that the Father should take upon himself the administration of it. Upon the giving up of his kingdom, whatever it be, the apostle doth not say the Father shall rule, or reign, as though he should exercise the same dominion, but that “God shall be all in all;” that is, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, without the use or intervention of such ways or means as were in use before, during the full continuance of the dispensatory kingdom of Christ, shall fill and satisfy all his saints, support and dispose of the remanent creation. (4.) This ceasing of the kingdom of Christ is no way derogatory unto his glory or the perpetuity of his kingdom, no more than his ceasing to intercede for his people is to that perpetuity of his priesthood which he hath by oath confirmed unto him. His prophetical office also seems to cease, when he shall teach his people no more by his word and Spirit.(5.) In three respects the kingdom of Christ may be said to abide unto eternity: —[1. In that all his saints and angels shall eternally adore and worship him, on the account of the glory which he hath received as the king and head of the church, and be filled with joy in beholding of him, John 17:22; John 17:24. [2. In that all the saints shall abide in their state of union unto God through him as their head, God communicating of his fullness to them through him; which will be his eternal glory when all his enemies shall be his footstool. [3. In that, as the righteous judge of all, he shall to all eternity continue the punishment of his adversaries. And this is the last testimony insisted on by the apostle to prove the pre- eminence of Christ above angels, and consequently above all that were used or employed of old in the disposition and administration of the law; which was the thing he had undertaken to make good. And therefore, in the close of this chapter, having denied that any of these things are spoken concerning angels, he shuts up all with a description of their nature and office, such as was then known and received among the Jews; before the consideration whereof, we must draw out, from what hath been insisted on, some observations for our own instruction, which are these that follow: — I. The authority of God the Father, in the exaltation of Jesus Christ as the head and mediator of the church, is greatly to be regarded by believers. He says unto him, “Sit thou at my right hand.” Much of the consolation and security of the church depend on this consideration.II. The exaltation of Christ is the great pledge of the acceptation of the work of mediation performed in the behalf of the church. ‘Now,’saith God, ‘sit thou at my right hand;’— ‘the work is done wherein my soul is well pleased.’III. Christ hath many enemies unto his kingdom; saith God, ‘I will deal with all of them.’IV. The kingdom and rule of Christ is perpetual and abiding, notwithstanding all the opposition that is made against it. His enemies rage, indeed, as though they would pull him out of his throne, but altogether in vain; he hath the faithfulness and power, the word and right hand of God, for the security of his kingdom.V. The end whereunto the Lord Jesus Christ will assuredly bring all his enemies, let them bluster whilst they please, shall be unto them miserable and shameful, to the saints joyful, to himself victorious and triumphant. It is the administration of the kingdom of Christ in the world that this truth principally respects. Great is the enmity of this world against it; great the opposition that is and hath always been made unto it. But this will be the assured issue of it, — ruin to the enemies, joy to the saints, glory to Christ. This is that which is typed unto us in the prophecy of Gog. That prophecy is a recapitulation of all the enmity that is acted in the world against the interest of Christ. What his counsel is the prophet declares: Ezekiel 38:11, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates.” They look upon the church of Christ as a feeble people, that hath no visible power or defense, and therefore easy to be destroyed; this encourageth them to their work. Who or what can deliver them out of their hand? With this resolution they come up on the breadth of the earth, and compass the camp of the saints, and the beloved city, Revelation 20:9. They go about their work with glory and terror, as if they would do it in a day. So they have done in all ages; so they continue to do to this day. And what is the issue? The city, which they look on as an unwalled town, no way defensible or tenable, is not yet taken by them, nor ever shall be; but there they fall before it, one after another, and their bones lie under the walls of the city they oppose. They fall upon the mountains of Israel, and leave a stink behind them, the shame and reproach of their names unto eternity. Sometimes, they seem to have prevailed, and to have done their work; but still the issue is that they die, or are destroyed and go down to the pit, and come under the feet of Christ, leaving the city untaken. Disappointment, shame, and everlasting punishment, is their portion. And they find at last by experience that this “feeble folk,” whom they so despise, are wise, and have their habitation in a rock. This pledge we have already of the truth proposed, that all who have formerly risen up in enmity to the kingdom of Christ are dead, gone, perished under his feet, and have left their work undone, as far from accomplishment as the first day they undertook it. The same shall be the lot of those that are, and those that follow, to the end of the world. And when they have all done their utmost, then shall the end be; then shall all their misery be completed, the joy of the saints filled, and the glory of Christ exalted. For the enemies themselves, what can be more shameful unto them, than to be so stupid as not to learn from the experience of so many hundreds of years to give over a work wherein never any prospered? more miserable, than to engage in that design wherein they must necessarily fail and be ruined? more woeful, than to work out their own eternal destruction under the wrath of Christ, in a business wherein they had no success? And what profit is it if for the present they grow a little rich with the gain of oppression, if there be a worm in it that will devour both it and them? what advantage if they drink a little precious blood and find sweetness in it, if it make them sick, and swell, and die? The beloved city still abides, and their misery shall never end. For the saints, what more joyful thing can there be, than for them to take a view of these things, to look backward and see all the Nimrods of the earth, that have opposed the kingdom of Christ, lying in shame and misery, with their necks under the footstool of his feet? There they may see Pharaoh lying, and Nebuchadnezzar, Nero, Domitian, Diocletian, with all their multitudes, and all that have walked in their steps, “brought down to the sides of the pit,” in shame and eternal misery, for their opposition to the kingdom of Christ. There are they fallen and perished “all of them, who laid their swords under their heads, and caused terror in the land of the living.” And the like prospect may they take of what is to come. They may by faith see Babylon fallen, the whole conspiracy that is in the world against them and their Lord disappointed, and all his enemies that shall arise, even to the consummation of all things, brought to ruin. How may they triumph in a glorious prospect of this certain and unavoidable issue of the opposition that is made to the kingdom of their Redeemer! And this must be the issue of these things; for, — 1. God hath promised unto the Lord Christ from the foundation of the world that so it should be. It was part of his eternal covenant and compact with him, as hath been declared. And after the first promise of breaking the serpent’s head, and prevailing therein against the enmity of his seed, no season of the church passed wherein the promises of the same success and issue were not renewed; and hereunto do the writings of Moses, the Psalms, and the prophets bear witness. And hereof it was that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied so expressly unto the old world before the flood, Jude 1:14-15. Other prophecies and promises to the same purpose occur everywhere in the Scripture. And this God also in several ages, for the greater pledge of his veracity, typed out: as in the victory of Abraham over the four kings, representing the great monarchies of the world, wherein he had a pledge that he should be heir of the world in his Seed; in the conquest of Canaan, the seat and inheritance of the church, by Joshua; in the successes and victories of David; and by many signal instances given in the visible ruin of the most potent opposers of his interest in the world. And it cannot be that this word of God should be of none effect. 2. The Lord Christ expects this issue and event of all things, and shall not be frustrated in his expectation. Having received the engagement and faithful promise of his Father, he rests in the foresight of its accomplishment. And hence it is that he bears all the affronts that are put upon him, all the opposition that is made unto him and his kingdom, with patience, long-suffering, and forbearance. When we consider the injuries, reproaches, oppressions, persecutions, blasphemies, that he is exposed unto, in his ways, his servants, his Spirit, and worship, we are ready to admire at his patience (as we ought to do) that he breaks not forth against his enemies as a consuming fire. But he knows the time and season that is allotted for the execution of vengeance upon them, and nothing of their pride, rage, boasting, or triumphing against him, shall ever provoke him to anticipate their ruin; so secure he is of their destruction in the appointed season, and so certain of their day that is coming.3. He is himself furnished with authority and power for the accomplishment of this work, when and how he pleaseth. He hath not only assurance of the Father’s concurrence, but is himself also thoroughly armed and furnished with power to destroy all his enemies, even in a moment. And he will not fail to put forth his power in the appointed season; he will “bruise them all with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Though all his enemies should at once combine themselves against him, should the world receive the utmost contribution of craft, subtlety, and strength, that hell is able to afford unto it, what is it all to stand before the incomprehensible power of Jesus Christ? See Revelation 6:16.4. His glory and honor requires that it should be so. This is a thing that he is very tender in. God hath raised him up, and given him glory and honor, and care must be taken that it be not lost or impaired. Now, if his enemies should go free, if they could by any means subduct themselves from under his power, or be delivered from his wrath, where would be his glory, where his honor? Here they reproach him, blaspheme him, despise him, persecute him. Shall they escape and go free? shall they always prosper? What then would he do to his great name? The glory of Christ indispensably requires that there be a season, a day, appointed for the eternal ruin of all his stubborn adversaries. 5. His saints pray that it may be so; and that both upon his account and their own: — Upon his, that his glory, which is dearer to them than their lives, may be vindicated and exalted; their own, that their miseries may be ended, that the blood of their fellow-servants may be avenged, that the whole church may be delivered, and all promises fulfilled. Now, he will not disappoint their prayers nor frustrate their expectations in any thing, much less in those that are of so great importance. He will avenge his elect; he will avenge them speedily.6. His enemies deserve it unto the utmost; so that as well his justice, as his glory, and interest, and people, is concerned in their destruction. In the most of them their rage against him is notorious, and visible to the eyes of men and angels; in all of them there is a cruel, old, lasting enmity and hatred, which he will lay open and discover at the last day, so that all shall see the righteousness of his judgments against them. God hath given him a kingdom, appointed him to reign; they declare that he shall not do so, and endeavor their utmost to keep him from his throne, and that with scorn, spite, and malice. So that whilst God is righteous, and the scepter of Christ’s kingdom a scepter of righteousness, themselves call aloud for their own destruction.The uses of this truth, in the comfort of the disciples of Christ against all fears, despondencies, and other effects of unbelief, with the terror of wicked men, are obvious and exposed unto all. The apostle having proved the pre-eminence of the Son, as mediator of the new testament, above all the angels, from those attributions of honor and glory that are made unto him in the Scriptures, the like whereunto are nowhere made forgiven unto angels, that he may not appear to argue merely negatively, from what is not said concerning them, adds in this last verse such a description of their nature and office, or work and employment, as shows that indeed no such thing can be rightly spoken or affirmed concerning them as he hath before manifested to be spoken and recorded concerning the Son. Hebrews 1:14. — Οὐχὶπάντεςεἰσὶλειτουργικὰπςέματα, εἰςδιακονίανἀποστελλόμεναδιὰτοὺςμέλλονταςκληρονομεῖνσωτηρίαν;There is no difference in the reading, nor much about the translation of these words. [11] [11] — Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to execute His service, for the sake of those who shall inherit salvation? — Conybeare and Howson. — ED.Hebrews 1:14. — Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to minister to [unto a ministry for] them that shall inherit salvation?This was the common received doctrine of the church concerning angels, suitable unto the Scripture and to the purpose of the apostle, as manifesting their disinterest in the glory before ascribed unto the Son. Sundry things are here expressed concerning angels, which we must briefly pass through the consideration of; as, — 1. Their nature. They are πνεόματαλειτουργικά, ψεּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ, “ruchoth,” “spirits,” — spiritual subsistences; not qualities, or natural faculties, as the Sadducees imagined, and which, by a homonymy of the name, Maimonides, More Nebuch. part. 2. cap. 3., admits also to be angels, but falsely, and without authority from Scripture or reason. This is their nature, this the Hebrews acknowledged so to be; they are created spirits, not to be compared with or equalled unto Him that made and created all things. 2. Their office. They are πςεόματαλειτουργικά, “ministering spirits.” So are they termed, Psalms 103:21 “Praise the LORD, all his hosts,” ξְ ?ωָׁ ?ψְ ?ϊָ ?ιεLXX., λειτουργοίαὐτοῦ, “his ministers doing his will.” Hence in general the Jews call them ξωψϊιν, “ministers;” and among other titles assign this unto God, that he is ιεφψξωψϊιν, “the Creator of ministering spirits or angels.” And expressly in the Talmud they are called ξμΰλιγωιψεϊΰ; and more frequently by the rabbins in the Hebrew dialect, ξμΰλιηωψϊ, “angels of ministry;” above whom that the Messiah was to be, we have formerly showed from themselves.Now, what kind of office or ministry it is that is ascribed unto them, the word itself doth in part declare, ωֵׁ ?ψֵ ?ϊis to minister principally about holy things; nor is it above once applied unto any other ministry. And such a ministry it signifies as is performed with honor and ease; and is opposed unto ςֲ ?αֹ ?γ, which is to minister with labor and burden. So the ministry of the Levites in bearing the burden of the tabernacle is called ςֲ ?αεֹ ?γָ ?δ, “a ministry with labor;” while the more easy and honorable employment, which was attended to by them who, by reason of their age, were exempted from bearing of burdens, is called ωֵׁ ?ψֵ ?ϊ, Numbers 8:11, Deuteronomy 18:7. Such is the ministry of angels. It is in and about holy things, and unto themselves honorable and easy. And this ωֵׁ ?ψֵ ?ϊ, is rendered Λειτουγρία, which expresseth sometimes such a general ministry as compriseth the whole service and worship of the church: Acts 13:2, ΛειτουργούντωναὐτῶνΚυρίῳ, — “As they ministered unto the Lord;” that is, attended unto the performance of all the duties of the church.This, then, in general is the office of the angels: they are δωψϊξμΰλι, or ψηεϊ, πςεύματαλειτουργικά, — “ ministering spirits,” that wait on God in and about his holy services for the good of the church; which also in the like manner ministereth unto God in its own state and condition. And hence it is that the church and they do make up one family, Ephesians 3:15; and they are all fellow-servants in the same family with them that keep the testimony of Jesus, Revelation 19:10.And this some of the later Jews have retained the tradition of; whence is that of Maimonides, More Nebuch. part, 2. cap. 6., which he citeth out of the Talmud: ξςμδΰιοδχαδςεωδγαψςγωπξμψατξμιΰωμ; — “The holy, blessed God doth nothing unless he consult with hissuperior family.” Only, not knowing the rise of the word τξμιΰ, nor what it should signify, he tells us, τξμιΰδεΰδξηβδαμωιοιεεο, “that in the Greek tongue it signifies a host;” whereas it is purely the Latin “familia,” without the least alteration. And the description of this superior part of the family of God is given us, Daniel 7:10, “Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” In which words Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory, and Aquinas, with sundry of the schoolmen, have coined a distinction of angels, into “ministrantes,” those that minister unto God, and “assistentes,” those that stand before him; whereas the whole intendment of the expression is, that all the angels stood ministering before him, as John declares the matter, Revelation 5:11. And therefore the apostle expressly here affirms that they are “all ministering spirits,” cutting off one member of their distinction. Neither is there more intended in the ministry of that upper part of the family of God than is expressed concerning the lower part of it of old: Deuteronomy 18:5, God chose the priests and the Levites μςֲ ?ξγֹ μְ ?ωָׁ ?ψֵ ?ϊ, ” — “ to stand and to minister in the name of the LORD.” The same persons were both “assistentes” and “ministrantes;” they stood to minister before the Lord. Now, because of this standing and ministering of angels, — that is, their waiting on God in a readiness to do his will, — they may be said in some sense to be the throne of God, from whence he executeth justice and judgment: for as he is called ιωֵׁ ?αδַ ?λְּ ?ψֻ ?εαִ ?ιν, Psalms 80:2, “He that dwelleth between the cherubim,” as also Psalms 99:1; so the Jews say that the thrones mentioned Daniel 7 were ωψινδςμιεπιν, “the higher princes” or “angels,” as Abarbanel on the place. This, then, is their office, — they are “all ministering spirits.” 3. Their execution of their office in their actual employment is here also expressed. They are “ministering spirits, εἰςδιακονίανἀποστελλόμενα,” — “sent out unto a ministry.” “Sent out,” — that is, they are daily so, continually so, the word denoting the present time, which is always. They stand before the presence of God, and are continually sent out by him, sometimes some, sometimes others, — always those that are sufficient for his work.Now, as we observed before that λειτουργία denotes the whole family service of God, which in general is ascribed unto these children and servants of his in the upper part thereof, they being πςεύματαλειτουργικά, “ministering spirits ;” so here the execution of their work is expressed by two words, which comprise the whole ministry of the church, ἀποστολή and διακονία, — “apostleship” and “laboring ministry;” and therein the harmony is still preserved that is between both parts of the family of God. And as in the service of the church, the ministers thereof do not minister unto men, but unto the Lord for and in the behalf of men, Acts 13:2; so is it with these spirits also, — they are sent out to minister for the good of men, but it is the Lord unto whom they minister; his ministers they are, not ours, Psalms 103:21, though in their ministry, belonging unto the same family with believers, they are their fellow- servants: as all the servants of a king, though otherwise greatly differenced, agree in this, that they are all servants unto the same person. And these two words express both their honor, that they are immediately sent out from the presence of God, they are his apostles, as also their obedience and diligence, they undertake διακονίαν, a “ministry,” to be discharged with care and due observance of him by whom they are sent.4. There is expressed the restriction of their ministry unto the especial object of their work and employment. It is “for them that shall be heirs of salvation.” Διὰτοὺςμέλλονταςκληρονομεῖνσωτηρίαν, — “for them,” for their sakes, for their good, in their behalf, “who shall inherit salvation.” Heirs they are at present, and hereafter shall inherit, or actually obtain salvation, by virtue of their heirship; that is, elect believers. Yet the apostle speaketh not of them as elect, nor yet absolutely as believers, but as heirs; which they obtain by the privilege of adoption This gives them heirship and an interest in the family of God. And the ministry of the superior part of the family in behalf of the lower respects them as such; that is, as adopted, as children, as heirs, as co-heirs with Christ, Romans 8:16-17. This privilege, I say, amongst others innumerable and inexpressible, we have by our adoption, that being admitted into the family of God, those blessed angels whose special ministry respects that family, have us under their constant care. It is true, that the ministry of angels is not always absolutely restrained unto the church or family of God; they are employed also in the government of the world. So the angel that was sent unto Daniel affirms, “that in the first year of Darius he stood to confirm and strengthen him,” Daniel 11:1; that is, to assist him in the wielding of his new-gotten empire: as also Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20-21, he declares how he acted in opposition to the prince of Persia, and stirred up the prince of Grecia; that is, how he should do so in the appointed time. And so also, doubtless, are they employed about other affairs in the world, from whence much good redounds unto many who yet belong not unto the family of God. But yet two things we may here observe: — First, That though this ministry of theirs was not immediately, yet it was ultimately for the church. For their sake were those mighty empires first raised, and afterwards razed to the ground. And this is that which they consider in their ministry. See Zechariah 1:8-12. And thence it appears that the prince of the kingdom of Persia, who withstood the angel, was not any angel of God, but the king of Persia himself, who labored to obstruct the work committed unto him. Secondly, That the apostle treats in this place of that immediate respect which the ministry of the angels had unto the church, because in that regard alone he carries on his comparison between them and the Son, that only being unto his purpose in hand. But it may be objected that this their ministry will not clearly evince their inferiority and subordination unto Christ, seeing he himself also was sent, and that for the good of them who shall inherit salvation, and is thence called “The apostle of our profession.” But the differences between him and them in their being sent are so great and manifest, that his superiority unto them and pre-eminence above them is not in the least thereby impeached. He was sent by his own voluntary previous choice and condescension; they are so in pursuit of the state and condition of their creation. He was sent to minister in the “form of a servant” only for a short season, in the days of his flesh; they continue to be so from the beginning to the end of the world. He was sent unto that great and mighty work of mediation which none was worthy to undertake, none able to go through withal but himself alone, the only begotten Son of God; they are sent about the ordinary concernments of the saints: he as the Son; they as servants: he as the author of the whole work of redemption and salvation of the church; they as subordinate assistants in the particular promotion of it. The general agreement, then, of his and their being sent for the good of the church, hath so many and so great differences, in the manner, causes, and ends of it, that it no way takes off from the evidence of their subordination and subjection unto him. And with this demonstration the apostle closeth the argument he hath so long insisted on. Of the nature of this ministry of angels for the good of them that shall inherit salvation, because it belongs not directly unto the present design of the apostle, and would, in the full consideration of it, cause a long diversion from the work in hand, I shall not treat, although it be a matter singularly deserving our meditation. For the present it may suffice us to observe, that in the government and protection of his saints here below, both as to the dispensation of grace and providence, God is pleased to make use of the ministry of angels, wherein much of their honor and our safety do consist. For a close of the whole, we may only observe the way and manner whereby the apostle proposeth this doctrine of the ministry of angels unto the Hebrews. “Are they not?” saith he. He speaks of it as a matter well known unto them, and acknowledged by them. Their nature, their dignity, and their office, were declared in the Old Testament. Thence were they instructed, that as to their nature they were spirits; in dignity, thrones, principalities, and powers; in office, ministers unto God, sent out for the good of his church. And therefore these things the apostle in sundry places takes for granted, as those that were already known and received in the church of God, Romans 8:38; Ephesians 1:20-21; Colossians 1:16. This doctrine, then, I say, was propagated from the Jews unto the Christians. And from them also came forth much of that curiosity and superstition about angels which afterwards infected the minds of many in the Christian church; for after they were forsaken of God, and began to give up themselves unto vain speculations, there was not any thing wherein the vanity of their minds did more early manifest itself than in their imaginations about angels, — wherein they exercise themselves unto this day. For, to omit their monstrous figments about the original of devils, — most of whom they affirm, to have been begotten by Adam on Lilith, before God formed Eve, and many to have issued from Adam and Eve severally whilst they lived separate an hundred and fifty years after the death of Abel, — as later follies, it is certain that some of them began to vent curiosities about angels in the apostle’s time, Colossians 2:18, and to express their fancies about their names, orders, degrees, and employments. And this they continue yet to do; although they peremptorily deny that they are to be invocated, or prayed unto, — wherein they are outdone by others. Names they have invented for them innumerable, and those many of them uncouth and insignificant. Orders also, or degrees, they assign unto them; some four, some five, some seven, some nine, some thirteen, according as it hath seemed good unto this or that great master among them. From them the pseudo Dionysius, about the fourth or fifth century after Christ, took the occasion and rise of his operose figment about the celestial hierarchy; though he mixed their inventions with many Peripatetical and Pythagorean notions, Aristotle proportioned the number of the intelligences unto the spheres of the heavens; more he granted not. The Pythagoreans and Platonics asserted all things here below to be influenced by the planets in their orbs, the inferior receiving a communication of virtue from the higher, and imparting it unto them beneath. So they interpreted the exsection of Saturn by Jupiter, as that of Coelum by Saturn, to be the interception of their procreative influence, that it should not immediately be communicated unto things below but by them. Out of all these fancies did Dionysius raise his hierarchy. From the Jews he took the disposition of his angels into orders of superiority and rule; from Aristotle their number, placing an order instead of a single intelligence, to answer what is taught in the Scripture concerning their multitude; and from the Pythagorean Platonics the communication of light, knowledge, and illumination from God, by the highest to the lowest series or order, and from them to men on earth. And on this foundation, such as it is, are built the discourses of many commentators on this place, in their inquiries whether angels of the superior orders are sent forth to minister for the good of believers; which is denied by many, though by some later expositors, as Estius, Ribera, Tena, a Lapide, granted and proved, not without much ado. So hard is it sometimes for men to cast down scarecrows of their own setting up. It remaineth only that we close our whole discourses on this chapter with some observations for our own use and instruction from this last verse; as, — I. The highest honor of the most glorious spirits in heaven is to minister unto the Lord in the service whereunto he appoints them.This is the office, this the work of angels; and this is their honor and glory. For what greater honor can a creature be made partaker of, than to be employed in the service of his Creator? what greater glory, than to stand in the presence and to do the will of the King of heaven? If it be an honor on earth to stand before princes, dying, perishing men, and that unto them in nature and kind equal unto those before whom they stand, what is it for them who by nature are at an infinite distance from the glory of God, to stand before Him who lives for ever and ever? And surely it will be unconceivably woeful unto poor souls at the last day, to find how they despised in this world a share and interest in that service which is, and ever was, the glory and honor of angels, II. Such is the love and care of God towards his saints laboring here below, that he sends the most glorious attendants on his throne to minister unto him in taking care of them. He who gave his only-begotten Son for them will not spare to send his holy angels unto them. Heaven and earth shall be witnesses of his care of them, and the value that he puts upon them. Now, this being a matter of so great importance as it is unto the church’s consolation, and the doctrine directly taught in the text, we may a little further inquire into it, in answer unto these two questions: — First, Wherefore is God pleased to use the ministry of angels in the dispensation of his care and good-will unto the church, the heirs of salvation, seeing he can by an almighty facility exert all the effects of it by his own immediate power? Secondly, Unto what especial ends and purposes doth God make use of the ministry of angels for the good of them that believe?For the FIRST of these, the principal account of it is to be resolved into his own sovereign will, wisdom, and pleasure. Thus are we always to live in a holy admiration of him, whenever we consider any of his works or ways, Romans 11:33. Herein are we to rest, and to put a stop unto all our inquiries. So it pleased him, Matthew 11:26; and he giveth no account of his matters, Job 33:12-13. This we are to acquiesce in as the great reason of all God’s dispensations and ways, even his own infinite wisdom and sovereign pleasure. He alone knows what becomes his own goodness and greatness, and of creatures not one, but as he is pleased to reveal it. For can we find out the Almighty unto perfection? can we by searching find out God? Job 11:7. How shall poor, limited, finite creatures come to know what beseems the infinite Holy One to do, any otherwise but as himself declareth that he hath done it? And then we know the work is holy and wise, and such as becometh infinite perfection, because he hath done it. Herein, then, we principally rest, as to the meetness and condecency of the ministry of angels, — God hath appointed it. Whereunto we may add those other reasons which the Scripture suggests unto us, as, — 1. God doth it for the preserving and manifestation of the glorious order of his kingdom. God is pleased to rule his creation as a supreme Lord and King. Hence there is so often mention made in the Scripture that he is the King, the only Potentate, the Lord of lords and King of kings; as also of his throne, his kingdom, dominion, reign, and government. And God doth this, that he might thereby give an understanding of his sovereignty unto his creatures, and make way thereby for the manifestation of his glory. Now, unto a kingdom there are three things essential, rule, obedience, and order. In this kingdom, the sovereign rule is in the hand of God alone; the kingdom or monarchy is his. Obedience is the work and duty of the whole creation, every thing according to its nature, capacity, and condition. The glory of both these lies in order. Hereof there are two parts: — first, That which respects the being of the creatures in their dependence on God; secondly, That which respects their operation in obedience unto him God hath in infinite wisdom endowed the works of his hands with such various natures, whereon their uses do depend, as that they are placed thereby in several ranks, series, and orders, in a useful subserviency unto one another, so far as they are advantaged thereby in their common and absolute subjection to himself. This is the order of their being. The order of their operation is such as they are fitted for by their natures, and whereby they set out the glory of this kingdom of God. Thus he takes the angels, being fitted thereunto by that place which they hold in the order of nature and being, unto the next and immediate attendance upon the throne of his kingdom. There they wait upon him, to receive and execute his commands in all the affairs of his kingdom. So are they everywhere described in the Scripture, Psalms 68, , 103; Daniel 7; Revelation 5; Isaiah 6, and elsewhere. And by this ministry of angels doth God intimate unto us the glory and order of his kingdom, his glorious and fiery throne being attended with millions of these mighty angels, ready to accomplish his will. And whereas God hath erected “imperium in imperio,” “a kingdom in a kingdom,” like the wheels within the wheels in Ezekiel’s vision, namely, the economical, dispensatory kingdom of Christ in his oecumenical kingdom over the whole creation, and hath annexed thereunto the principal manifestation of his glory, rule, and dominion, those blessed ministers do principally attend the affairs thereof. And thus, though God can govern and dispose of all things “solo nutu,” by the almighty, immediate emanations of his own power, yet, for the manifestation of the glory of his kingdom, especially of that rule which is committed unto the Lord Christ, he useth the ministry of his creatures, in that order which his infinite wisdom had disposed them unto at their first creation. 2. God is pleased to do this to exercise the obedience of the angels themselves; and that upon a threefold account: — First, To keep, preserve, and rule them fitly to their state and condition. Being creatures, they have a natural and necessary dependence on God their creator; and being intellectual creatures, they have a moral dependence on him, according to a law and rule, with reference unto the utmost end whereunto they were created. This requires their constant obedience unto the will of God, without which they leave and forsake the law of their creation and condition, and also deviate from the end for which they were made. Wherefore, to exercise them unto and in this their obedience, God makes use of their ministry and service in his government of the church. And this they shall continue to do unto the end of the world, when, the course of their obedience being accomplished, they shall be everlastingly satiated with the contemplation of God’s infinite excellencies, and enjoyment of him as their reward. Secondly, That in them he might give an example of ready obedience unto the church. These angels of God, being in their nature excellent, and great in power, always ready, watchful, and free from all diversions or avocations, eminent in light and holiness, as always beholding the face of God, and filled with his grace, are proposed unto us, in their obedience and readiness to do the will of God, as an example and pattern which we are to imitate unto our utmost, though we are never able perfectly to express. And thence are we directed by our Savior to pray that we may do the will of God on earth as it is done by them in heaven.Thirdly, That they themselves may be made partakers of this singular honor and glory, to serve the most high God in his most glorious work, the preservation and salvation of his church; for that this is their honor was before declared.3. God employeth them in an especial manner in this ministry, for the good of them that are heirs of salvation, to manifest unto them the greatness and glory of the work of the gathering, preserving, and redemption of his church, with the value that he puts upon all the fruits of the death and concernments of the mediation of his Son Jesus Christ: for as of themselves they desire to look particularly into these things, which in general appear so glorious unto them, 1 Peter 1:12, that their delight in the wisdom and love of God may be more and more increased; so by God’s dealings with his church, in whose behalf they are employed, they learn therein “the manifold wisdom of God,” and riches of his grace, Ephesians 3:10. And thus in all their employment about the saints, wherein they are sent out to minister for their good, they learn much of the wisdom and love of God; and are thereby excited to honor, applaud, glorify, and praise him. Somewhat of this they shall see in the least and meanest work toward any believer that is committed unto them. And they eternally rejoice in the overflowings of the love and grace of God, taking care of all the concernments of the poorest and meanest of his servants. 4. This is done that God may in an especial manner give glory and honor unto Jesus Christ thereby. This is his will, “that all men should honor the Son, as they honor the Father,” John 5:23. He hath therefore raised him up, and given him honor and glory, and in particular exalted him far above the angels, putting them in subjection unto him, as their head, prince, ruler, and governor, Ephesians 1:20-22. Neither is it a show of glory, or a titular kingdom and dominion, that he hath given to Jesus Christ, but a real and absolute sovereignty, wherein all things subject unto him are at his absolute disposal; and therefore must the angels themselves be at his service in the affairs of his kingdom; and so they acknowledge themselves to be, and the fellow-servants of them that keep his testimony, Revelation 19:10. Now, the heart and love of Jesus Christ is greatly set upon that part of his church or people which are laboring with sin, affliction, and persecution here below, Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 4:15. It is, then, greatly for his honor and glory (which in all things the Father aimeth at, Colossians 1:18-19) that the glorious angels should be employed for the good and in the behalf of all his poor laboring saints. This honor is done to Jesus Christ in heaven, when all the attendants of the throne of God do see the care that is taken about the meanest that believe in him.5. The love, and care, and condescension of God unto his saints are hereby manifested unto the saints themselves. God employeth the angels for their good, that they may know how he careth for them, and be comforted thereby, Psalms 90:11. The saints of God have mean and low thoughts of themselves, — as it becomes them to have. They know and confess that they are less than all the mercies of God, and unworthy that he should have any regard of them. Such thoughts as these their mean terrene condition, and their manifold sins and failings, do fill them withal. Of the glorious angels their thoughts and apprehensions are high and honorable. Their nature, their state and condition, their power and greatness, their holiness, and enjoyment of the presence of God, do all present them unto their minds under a notion of much excellency and glory. Hence some weak, superstitious, and curious minds, have been drawn to adore them with religious worship and adoration. The saints know sufficiently the folly hereof. But yet, when they consider that God is pleased to use, employ, and send out these glorious spirits, to take care of them, to do them good, to watch over them and round about them, to keep them from evil, this fills them as with a holy admiration of the infinite love and condescension of God towards them, so also of the excellency of the mediation of the Lord Christ, who hath brought them into this condition of favor; from both which much spiritual comfort and rejoicing in the Lord do arise. And for this end also doth God choose to do that mediately, by the ministry of angels, which otherwise, by an inconceivable facility, he could do by his own immediate power. 6. A blessed intercourse, society, communion, and fellowship is maintained and kept up between the several parts of the family of God, — that of angels above, and this of believers below. It hath been formerly declared how the angels in heaven and all elect believers were reduced into one family, when God reconciled the things in heaven and earth unto himself, and brought them all into subjection unto and dependence upon one common head, Christ Jesus, Ephesians 1:10. From hence are angels and men reduced into one family, the family in heaven and earth; the angels by transition, men by adoption. Now it is the will of God, that, for the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ, the immediate head of this family, there should be an intercourse and a helpful communion between the several parts of it; for to this end are we brought into the society of the “innumerable company of angels,” Hebrews 12:22. Now, because our goodness, our usefulness, our helpfulness, are confined and limited unto the “saints that are on the earth,” Psalms 16:2-3, not extending itself unto God, or any of his holy ones above, we cannot help, assist, counsel, nor advise the angels; nor do they in any thing stand in need of our aid or assistance. And since the communication of our minds unto them, by way of religious subjection, adoration, faith, trust, affiance, is absolutely forbidden unto us, it remaineth that this fellowship and society must be maintained by the aid, help, and assistance which they are able to afford unto us, and which we stand in need of. And on this account doth God employ them about the affairs and concernments of believers, that so a becoming fellowship may be kept up in the family of Christ, and a usefulness between the several parts thereof. 7. God makes use of the ministry of angels in the service of the church to reproach, awe, restrain, and torment the devil. It is a continual reproach cast upon Satan, when he sees those unto whom he is like in nature, and with whom he was some time a companion in glory, willingly, cheerfully, triumphantly obeying the will of God in the service of Christ; having by his wickedness cast out himself from the same honorable employment, and mancipated himself to the vilest services that any part of the creation of God is cast down unto. The whole work of the angels is a continual reproach unto Satan for his sin and folly. It cries unto him, ‘This might have been thy work, this might have been thy condition;’the gnawing of which consideration is no small part of his torment and present restless vexation. They also put an awe upon him in all his attempts. He knows well their power, their authority, their commission, and that it is not for him to contend with them. With one word they can at any time defeat him: “The Lord rebuke thee, Satan; the Lord rebuke thee.” And he knows not where he may meet with them in his attempts. And this keeps him in continual awe and perpetual uncertainty of success in all that he undertakes or goes about. And hereby God also in many things frustrates his endeavors, restrains his power, and disappoints his malice. It is inconceivable what havoc he would make of the lives, and liberties, and estates of the saints, did not these watchers from the Holy One disappoint him. And all these things add to his torment. Much of his present punishment consists in the endless workings of wrath, envy, malice, blood-thirstiness, and rage. Now, as these, wherever they are found but in the least degree, are tormenting passions, so where they are all in their height, rage, and fury, and are not by any considerable vent abated or slacked, what can be worse in hell itself but only the immediate wrath of God? But thus it is with Satan from this ministry of angels. He sees the church and every member of it, all whom he seeks to devour, encamped about, protected, and defended by this heavenly host, so that he cannot in any measure have his will of them; nay, that he cannot touch the soul of any one of them, nor cause a hair of the head of any one of them to perish. This fills him with self-devouring rage, envy, and wrath. And thus doth God by this way accomplish his judgment upon him. And these are some of the reasons which the Scripture intimates unto us why the Lord is pleased thus to make use of the ministry of angels; which may suffice for an answer to the first question before proposed. The SECOND is, Unto what ends and purposes doth God make use of the ministry of angels for the good of them that do believe?The thing itself we suppose in both these questions. It is so directly asserted in the words of the apostle, and so many instances are given of it elsewhere in the Scripture, that it needs not any especial confirmation. It will also be further declared in our enumeration of the ends and purposes of it ensuing; as, — 1. In general, God doth it to communicate by them the effects of his care and love unto the church by Jesus Christ. This God represented unto Jacob in the vision that he gave him of the ladder which stood upon the earth, and whose top reached unto heaven, Genesis 28:12-13; for although the Jews say somewhat to the purpose when they affirm this ladder to have denoted the dependence of all things here below on them above, under the rule of the providence of God, yet they say not all that was signified thereby. Our Savior tells us, John 1:51, that hereafter his disciples should see “heaven open, and angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man,” — plainly alluding unto this vision of Jacob: for these words ἐπὶτὸνΥἱὸντοῦἀνθρώπου, “upon the Son of man,” cannot denote merely the object of angelical ministration, that they should be exercised in their work about his person; but also that by him, by means of his mediation, the angels ascend and descend in the work of ministering unto the saints. It is true, the great instance of their ministry was given in and about the person of Christ, as head of the church. They declared his conception and nativity, Matthew 1:20-21; Luke 1:35; Luke 2:10-14; — they ministered unto him after his temptation, Matthew 4:11; — they strengthened him in his agony, Luke 22:43; — they were witnesses of his resurrection and ascension, Luke 24:4, Acts 1:10-11. But by him and on his account they perform the offices of their mission towards others also, even all the heirs of salvation, but this still upon the account of Christ. They ascend and descend on his mediation, sent by his authority, aiming at his glory, doing his work, carrying on his interest, as in the following particulars will appear: for, —1. They are sent in an extraordinary manner to make revelations of the will of God, about things tending unto the obedience and spiritual advantage of them that do believe. Hereof we have many instances in the Old Testament, especially in God’s dealing with the patriarchs before the giving of the law. For although the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God himself, did often appear unto them, — as to Abraham, Genesis 18:1-2, with Genesis 19:24; and unto Jacob, Genesis 32:24, whom he calls δξַּ ?μְ ?ΰַ ?κְ δַ ?πּ ?ΰֵֹ ?μ, Genesis 48:16; — yet God also made frequent use of created angels in the revelation and discovery of his mind and will unto them, as is evident from many passages in their story. That he used their ministration in the giving of the law we have before abundantly showed, the Holy Ghost declaring and affirming it, Psalms 68:17-18; Acts 7:53. The like also he continued to do in the visions of them granted unto the prophets that ensued unto the end of that dispensation, especially unto Ezekiel and Zechariah. So also the same was done under the New Testament, as, to omit others, we have an especial instance, Revelation 1:1. How far God is pleased to continue this ministration of angels unto this day is hard to determine: for as many have pretended unto revelations by angels, which have been mere delusions of Satan or imaginations of their own brains, so to say that God doth not or may not send his angels unto any of his saints, to communicate his mind unto them as to some particulars of their own duty, according unto his word, or to foreshow unto them somewhat of his own approaching work, seems, in my judgment, unwarrantably to limit the Holy One of Israel. Howbeit such things in particular are to be duly weighed with sobriety and reverence. 2. God by them suggests good motions unto the minds of his saints. As the devil sets himself on work to tempt them unto evil, by suggestions suited unto the principle of sin within them, so God employs his holy angels to provoke them to that which is good, by suggesting that unto them which is suitable unto the principle of spiritual life and grace that is in them And as it is difficult to discover the suggestions of Satan in most cases from the workings of our own minds and our unbelief in them; partly because of their connaturalness one to the other, and partly because his impressions are not sensible, nor produce any effects but as they mix themselves with our own darkness and lusts: so it is no less difficult distinctly to take notice of these angelical motions, upon the like account on the other hand; for being suitable unto the inclinations of that principle of grace which is in the hearts of believers, and producing no effect but by them, they are hardly discerned. So that we may have the benefit of many angelical suggestions of good things which we ourselves take no notice of. And if it be inquired how these good motions from angels are or may be distinguished from the motions of the Holy Ghost, and his actings in believers, I answer, that they are differenced sundry ways; as, — (1.) These angelical motions are “ab extra,” from without. Angels have no inbeing in us, no residence in our souls, but work upon us as an external principle; whereas the Holy Spirit abideth with us, and dwelleth in us, and works “ab intra,” from within the very principles of our souls and minds Whence it follows,(2.) That these angelical motions consist in occasional impressions on the mind, fancy, and imagination, by advantages taken from outward objects and present disposition of the mind, rendering it meet to receive such impressions, and so disposing it to affect the heart, the will, and the affections; whereas the Holy Ghost closeth in his operations with all the faculties of the soul, really and immediately exciting every one of them to gracious actings, according to their nature and quality. Whence also it appears,(3.) That angelical motions communicate no strength, power, or ability unto men to act, do, or perform the good which they guide and direct unto; only, they provoke and stir up men to act and exert the strength which they have in the duties that they are minded of; but the Holy Ghost in his motions doth really communicate spiritual grace, strength, and power unto the faculties of the soul, enabling them unto a right performance of the duties proposed unto them. And, (4.) Whereas angelical impressions are transient, and abide not at all in themselves, but only in the effects which the mind warned and excited by them doth produce, there is a constant, abiding, effectual work of the Holy Ghost in the hearts of believers, enabling them to will and to do according unto his good pleasure. And this is a second part of the ministry of angels in particular, the benefit whereof we are oftener made partakers of than perhaps we are aware. And these motions, which are an effect of their ministry, the Sadducees of old took to be angels, denying all spiritual subsistences from whom they should proceed.3. God sends forth his angels unto this ministry for the good of believers, to preserve them from many dangers and ruinous casualties that would otherwise befall them. Much of the design of Psalms 91 is to acquaint us therewithal; for though the charge of angels is expressed only in Psalms 91:11-12, yet as the expression there, of keeping us in all our ways, that we stumble not, is comprehensive of all the dangers which we are or may be exposed unto, so this same work of theirs respects all the evils and casualties enumerated in the beginning of the psalm. And to this purpose also is it said that the angel of the Lord encampeth about them that fear him, as they did about Elisha of old, — namely, to preserve them from the dangers that they are exposed unto. Nor is this impeached by the observation of the evils, troubles, calamities, and miseries that befall the people of God; for God hath not given his angels a commission to act “ad ultimum virium,” to the utmost of their strength, “viis et modis,” for the preservation of his, but only to act according to his especial good pleasure; and this they always do. Now, it is the will of God that his saints should be exercised with various troubles and calamities, for the trial of their faith and obedience. But yet, in the ordering and management of these calamitous accidents or troubles, they have no less benefit by the ministry of angels than they have in respect of those from which they are preserved by them; for inasmuch as they also are designed and ordered for their good, their exposing to them in their seasons, supportment under them during their continuance, and deliverance from them in the appointed time thereof, are all signal mercies which they receive by the ministry of angels. 4. By this ministry of angels doth God in particular preserve us from the sudden and violent incursions of Satan. Satan in the Scripture is called a serpent, from his subtlety and lying in wait to do mischief; and a lion, from his rage, and fury, and spoiling from his lurking-places. And as the one or the other he continually seeks the harm, mischief, and ruin of the whole man; not only of our souls, in sin and desert of punishment, but of our bodies, in our lives, health, and welfare. Hence we find so many in the Gospel troubled with bodily infirmities from the assaults and impressions of Satan. And what he prevails to do against any one, that he is continually attempting against all the whole seed of Abraham. Hereunto also belong all those hurtful terrors, affrightments, and surprisals, which he endeavoreth by himself and his agents to cast upon us. Had he his liberty, he would make our whole lives to be filled with disappointments, horrors, vain fears, and perplexities, if he could proceed no further. Now in all these designs it is more than probable that he is prevented by the ministry of angels. We find, in the 1st of Job, that in all the devil’s walks in the earth for the executing of his malice, the angels still observe him, and are ready to answer him when he comes with his accusations against the saints into the presence of the Lord. And hereon depends the safety and security of our lives, without which Satan would by all means continually attempt to fill them with terrors, vexations, losses, and troubles. Not one of us should escape him any better than Job did, when God for a season suspended his protection over his relations, possessions, and enjoyments. 5. They are in their ministry appointed to be witnesses of the obedience, sufferings, and worship of the disciples of Christ, that they may give testimony unto them before God, and in the great assembly of the last day; so glorifying God for the grace bestowed upon them and the assistance afforded unto them. Thus Paul tells us that the apostles in their preaching and sufferings were made “a spectacle unto angels,” 1 Corinthians 4:9. The holy angels of God looked on, rejoicing to behold how gloriously they acquitted themselves in the work and ministry committed unto them. And to this end doth he charge Timothy before “the elect angels” to look unto and discharge aright the work of an evangelist, 1 Timothy 5:21, because they were appointed of God to be witnesses of his faithfulness and diligence therein. And it is not improbable but he hath respect unto the presence of angels in the assemblies of the saints for the worship of God, where he enjoins modesty and sobriety unto women in them on their account, 1 Corinthians 11:10. And from that particular instance a general rule may be drawn for the observation of comeliness and order in all our assemblies, — namely, from the presence of these holy witnesses at all our solemn worship; for church-assemblies are the court, the dwelling- place, the throne of Jesus Christ, and therefore in them he is in an especial manner attended by these glorious ministers of his presence. And therefore, although a holy regard unto God and our Lord Jesus Christ himself be the first and principal motive unto a right and holy acquitment of ourselves in all our obedience, sufferings, and worship, yet in subordination thereunto we may have also respect unto the angels, as those who are employed by him to be witnesses of our ways and carriage, — such a respect, I mean, as may administer occasion unto them to glorify God in Christ on our behalf, that so all the honor may finally redound unto him alone. 6. God useth the ministry of angels to avenge his elect of their enemies and persecutors, to render unto them a recompense and vengeance even in this world, in the due and appointed season. Thus by an angel he destroyed the army of Sennacherib, when he intended and threatened the destruction of Jerusalem; and by an angel he smote Herod, in the midst of his pride and persecution, Acts 12. And this ministry of theirs is in an especial manner pointed unto in several places of the Revelation, where the judgments of God are foretold to be executed on the persecutors of the world. And this work they wait for in a holy admiration of the patience of God towards many a provoking generation, and are in a continual readiness to discharge it unto the uttermost when they shall receive their commission so to do, Daniel 7. 7. They carry the souls departed into Abraham’s bosom, Luke 16:22.8. Lastly, The ministry of angels respects the general resurrection and day of judgment. The Lord Christ is everywhere described coming to judgment at the last day attended with all his holy and glorious angels, Matthew 24:31; Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8; Jude 1:14-15. And great shall be their work towards the elect in that day, when the Lord Christ “shall be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe;” for although the work of the resurrection, like that of the creation, is to be effect by the immediate operation of almighty power, without the interveniency of any secondary, finite agents, limited in their power and operation, yet many things preparatory thereunto and consequent thereon shall be committed unto the ministry of angels. By them are the signs and tokens of it to be proclaimed unto the world; to them is the sounding of the last trumpet and general summons given out unto all flesh to appear before Jesus Christ committed, with all the glorious solemnity of the judgment itself. And as they bear and accompany the departing souls of the saints into the receptacles of their rest in heaven, so doubtless also shall they accompany them in their joyful return unto their beloved old habitations, By them also will the Lord Christ gather them together from all parts wherein their redeemed bodies have been reduced into dust; and so also at length by them bring all the heirs of salvation triumphantly into the full possession of their inheritance. And thus much may suffice to have spoken about the ministry of angels, here mentioned by the apostle; by all which it further appears how neither in their nature nor their office they are any way to be compared with the Son of God in his ministry towards the church. Some deductions also, for our special use and instruction, may here be added from what hath been spoken; as, — 1. That we ought to be very careful to use sobriety in our speculations and meditations about this matter. Herein doth the caution of the apostle take place in an especial manner, that we should be wise unto sobriety, Romans 12:3, and not to think ourselves wise above that which is written. This some neglecting of old, and endeavoring to intrude themselves into the things which they had not seen, Colossians 2:18, — that is, boasting of the knowledge and acquaintance with angels, which they had no ground for nor any safe instruction in, — fell into pride, curiosity, superstition, and idolatry, as the apostle in that place declareth. And almost in all ages of the church men have failed on this account. The curiosity of the Jews we did in some measure before manifest. To them in their imaginations succeeded the Gnostics, whose portentous aeons and genealogies of inferior deities, recounted by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and others of the ancients, were nothing but wicked and foolish imaginations about angels. Unto them succeeded those about the beginning of the fourth century, who flatly worshipped angels, and had conventicles, or private meetings, for that purpose, who are expressly condemned in the 35th canon of the council of Laodicea, anno 364, in these words: ῝ΟτιοὐδεῖΧριστιανοὺςἐγκαταλείπειντὴνἐκκλησίαντοῦΘεοῦ, καὶἀπιέναι, καὶἀγγέλουςὀςομάζεινκαὶσυνάξειςποιεῖν, ἅπερἀπαγορεύεται·εἴτιςου῏νεὐρεθῇταύτῃτῇκεκρυμμένῃεἰδωλολατρείᾳσχολάζωνἔστωἀςάθεμα·ὅτιἐγκατέλιπετὸνΚύριονἠμῶν᾿ΙησοῦνΚριστὸντὸνΨἱόντοῦΘεοῦκαὶεἰδωλολατρίᾳπροσῆλθον· ?wherein they plainly adjudge that practice to be idolatry and apostasy from Jesus Christ. After these, about the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, he vented his curious speculations about their hierarchy, orders, and operations, who personated Dionysius the Areopagite; of whom we spake before. From them all did that sink of idolatry, superstition, and heresies, the church of Rome, derive her present speculations, adoration, worship, and invocation of angels. But as these things are all of them without, beside, and against the word in general, so they are in particular expressly prejudged and condemned by the apostle, in the place to the Colossians before mentioned. And of such kind of needless, useless, unprofitable, dangerous speculations we are to beware; and many of them I could in particular recite, but that I would not teach them unto any by condemning them before all. But yet, — 2. Danger should not deter us from duty. Because some have miscarried in this matter, we ought not therefore wholly to neglect it, there being so great a concernment of the glory of God and our own good enwrapped therein. Had others erred or wandered indeed, because they had neither way to walk in nor guide to attend unto, it had been sufficient to restrain us from attempting any thing in this matter; but whereas it is evident that they wilfully neglected the way, or pressed farther than the paths of it led them, and despised their guide, following their own imagination instead thereof, shall others be discouraged in their duty, whereas they may avoid their miscarriages? Wary, indeed, this may and ought to make us in our inquiries, but not neglective of our duties. We have the word of God for our way and guide. If we go not besides it, if we go not beyond it, we are as safe when we treat of angels as if we treated of worms. We have seen in part of what signal use their ministry is as unto our good, and the glory of Jesus Christ. And it is pride to the height, not to inquire after what may be known, because there are many things that we may not know nor comprehend. If that take place, it will debar us from all search into the mysteries of the gospel; for upon our utmost attainment we know but in part. God’s revelation is the object of our knowledge. So far as that is made and given, so far we may inquire and learn. Besides, it is the height of ingratitude, not to search after what may be known of this great privilege and mercy whereof we are made partakers in the ministry of angels. God hath neither appointed nor revealed it for nothing; he expects a revenue of praise and glory for it; but how can we bless him for it when we know nothing of it? This ministry of angels, then, is that which, with sobriety, we are in a way of duty to inquire into. 3. Let us on this account glorify God and be thankful. Great is the privilege, manifold are the blessings and benefits, that we are made partakers of by this ministry of angels Some of them have been before recounted. What shall we render for them? and to whom? Shall we go and bow ourselves down to the angels themselves, and pay our homage of obedience unto them? They all cry out with one accord, “See you do it not; we are your fellow-servants.” What shall we do then? Why, say they, “Worship God.” Glorify and praise him who is the God of all angels, who sends them, who employs them, unto whom they minister in all that they do for us. Let us bless God, I say, for the ministry of angels. Moreover, these words afford us other instructions, which I shall only name, and put a close unto our discourses on this chapter; as, — III. The Socratical fancy of one single guardian angel attending every one, as it is, if admitted, a real impeachment of the consolation of believers, so a great inducement unto superstition and idolatry. The further evidencing of this truth I remit unto what hath been already delivered about the ministry of angels in general. IV. Believers obtain heaven by inheritance and free gift of their Father, and not by any merit of their own. Heirs among men claim their inheritance “jure nascendi,” because they are born unto it, not because they deserve it better than others. Believers look for theirs “jure adoptionis,” by right of adoption, whereby they become sons, heirs of God, and co-heirs with Jesus Christ. IN this second chapter the apostle declares his design, and what his especial aim was with respect unto them to whom he wrote. It was not merely their instruction, or the information of their minds and judgments that he intended; though that also was in his eye, and necessary unto his principal purpose. They had, by their instability and fainting in trials, administered occasion unto him of other discourse. Besides, he foresaw that they had great difficulties and temptations to contend withal, and was jealous lest they should miscarry under them, as he also was over other professors, 2 Corinthians 11:2-3. His principal end, therefore, in this whole epistle, (as hath been declared,) was to prevail with the Hebrews unto steadfastness in the faith of the gospel, and diligence in attendance unto all those ways and means whereby they might be established. The foundation of his exhortations unto this purpose he lays in the incomparable excellency of the Author of the gospel. Hence just and cogent inferences unto constancy in the profession of his doctrine and obedience unto him, both absolutely and in respect of the competition set up against it by Mosaical institutions, do naturally flow.And these considerations doth the apostle divide into several parts, interposing, in great wisdom, between the handling of them, those exhortations which pressed towards his especial end, before mentioned. And this course he proceeds in for several reasons; for,- First, He minds them and us in general, that in handling of the doctrines of the gospel concerning the person and offices of Jesus Christ, we should not satisfy ourselves in a bare notional speculation of them, but endeavor to get our hearts excited by them unto faith, love, obedience, and steadfastness in our profession. This doth he immediately apply them unto. Instances unto this purpose doth he give us in this chapter, upon his foregoing declaration of the excellencies of Christ and the glory of his kingdom, that so his hearers might not be barren and unfruitful in the knowledge of him. Secondly, As to the Hebrews in particular, he had, as it were, so overwhelmed them with that flood of divine testimonies which he had poured out in the beginning of his epistle, and that heavenly, glorious declaration which he had made of the person of the Messiah, that he thought it needful to give them time to consider what was the tendency of that sublime discourse, and what was their especial concernment therein. Thirdly, The apostle interposeth his exhortation in this place, as to be an application of what was before delivered, so to lead them on thereby unto the consideration of arguments of another nature (though of the same use and tendency), taken from the sacerdotal or priestly office of Christ, and the works or effects thereof. And herein doth a great part of the apostolical wisdom, in the various intertexture of doctrines and exhortations, in this epistle consist, that as every exhortation flows naturally from the doctrine that doth precede it, so always the principal matter of it leads directly unto some other doctrinal argument, which he intends nextly to insist upon. And this we shall see evidenced in the transition that he makes from the exhortation laid down in the beginning of this chapter, unto the sacerdotal office of Christ, Hebrews 2:6-9. The first verses, then, of this chapter are purely parenetical or hortatory, with a mixture of some considerations serving to make the exhortation weighty and cogent. The first verse contains the exhortation itself intended by the apostle, those following the especial enforcements of it. Hebrews 2:1. — Διὰτοῦτοδεῖπερισσοτέρωνἡμᾶςπροσέχειντοῖςἀκουσθεῖσι, μήποτεπαραῤῥυῶμεν.Περισσοτέρως, “abundantius,” V. L., Arias, “more abundantly;” “eo amplius,” Beza, “so much the more;” γּ ?ιְ ?ϊִ ?ιψָ ?ΰִ ?ιϊ, Syr., “magis,” “the rather;” “ut magis,” “ut abundantius,” — “as the rather,” “as more abundantly;” “summa attentione,” Arab., “with all attention.” The word denotes somewhat more than ordinary in the act it relates unto, or the persona to whom it is applied. And diligence being especially required in attention unto any thing, or in those that attend, which extends itself unto the whole deportment of the mind in that work (if that be respected herein, which we shall consider), it may be not unmeetly rendered “more diligently,” directly; “more abundantly.” ῝Προσέχειν, “observare,” V. L., “to observe,” — improperly; “adhibere,” Ar. M.: a word of an imperfect sense, unless supplied with our minds, or understandings, or diligence, — “ adhibere animum,” “adhibere diligentiam;” but immediately affecting the object, as “adhibere auditis,” it gives no perfect sense. “Attendere,” Beza, “to attend unto,” “to give heed;” πֶ ?δָ ?ζֵ ?ΰζְ ?δִ ?ιψִ ?ιο, “simus cauti, attenti,” Syr., “that we be wary,” or “heedful.” Προσέχω is usually in other authors, when it refers to persons, “ausculto,” or “obtempero,” to hearken, attend, and give heed to any one with an observant or obedient mind. And sometimes it signifies to hope, or place trust or confidence in him that is attended unto. It is also used for to assent, to agree, or subscribe unto what is spoken by another. In the New Testament it is principally used in two senses: —1. To beware, or look to ourselves, as to things or persons that might hurt us; and then it is attended with ἀπό or ἐπί, as Matthew 7:15; Matthew 10:17; Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Luke 12:1; — or so to beware as to look diligently unto our own concernments absolutely, Luke 17:3, Matthew 6:1; Acts 20:28.2. To attend with diligence and submission of mind unto the words of another, or unto any business that we are employed in, Acts 8:6, 1 Timothy 1:4; 1 Timothy 4:1; 1 Timothy 4:13; Titus 1:14. So it is said of the Samaritans, that they much heeded Simon Magus: Προσεῖχοναὐτῷτάντες, Acts 8:10. And it is the same word whereby the reverential obedience of that people unto the preaching of Philip is expressed, Acts 8:6. An attendance, then, with a mind ready for obedience is that which the word imports. Τοῖςἀκουσθεῖσι, “auditis,” “to the things heard;” αְּ ?ξֵ ?γֵ ?νγַּ ?ωְּׁ ?ξַ ?ςַ ?ο, Syr., “in eo quod audivimus,” “in that which we have heard,” — to the things heard, that is by us, who are required to attend unto them.Παραῤῥυῶμεν. This word is nowhere else used in the New Testament. In other authors it is as much as “praeterfluo,” “to run by.” So Xenoph. Cyropaed., lib. iv., Πιεῖνἀπὸτοῦπαραῤῥέοντοςποτμοῦ, — “ to drink of the river running by.” “Pereffiuamus,” V. L., “ne forte pereffiuamus,” “lest perhaps we should run out.” Μήτοτε, “ne forte,” “lest perhaps,” improperly; it respects times and seasons, — “lest at any time;” γְּ ?μָ ?ΰπֶ ?τֵ ?μ, “ne forte cadamus,” “decidamus,” “lest we fall,” “fall down,” that is, “perish.” So is the word also interpreted by Chrysostom, Μήποτεπαραῤῥῶμεν, τουτέστιμήἀπολώμεθα, μήἐκπέσωμεν, — “ that we perish not,” “that we fall not.” And he confirms this sense from that saying in the Proverbs 3:21, Τἰὲμὴπαραὀῥυῇς, “My Son, fall not.” So he interprets the word. In the original it is, ΰΰμΰּ ?ιָ ?μֻ ?ιεּ, “Let them not depart,” the word respecting not the person spoken unto, but the things spoken of. Nor do the LXX. in any other place render μεζby παραῤῥέω, but by ἐκλείπω, as in the next chapter, Proverbs 3:21, and words of the like signification, “to decline,” “draw back,” “give over,” by negligence or weariness. Other ancient translations read, “ne decidamus ab honestate,” “that we fall not from honesty,” and, “et nequaquam rejicias,” “and by no means to reject.” What sense of the word is most proper to the place we shall afterwards consider. [1] [1] VARIOUS . — Tischendorf reads παραρυῶμεν, on the authority of A B D J; which, says Ebrard, is nothing more than an Alexandrine orthography. . — Παραρ. Stuart remarks, that two senses have been attached to the word: — 1. To full, stumble, or perish. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, and others, render, the clause, “So that we may not stumble,” or “fall.” And, 2. To suffer to flow from the mind; in proof of which he quotes from Clem. Alex. Paedagog., 3. p, 246, and he shows that Proverbs 3:21 really bears the samemeaning, “Do not pass by, but keep my counsel.” The translation therefore, which he proposes for this verse is, “Lest we should slight them. Παραρ. Allow them to flow past us;’i.e., ‘allow them to pass by our ears without being listened to.’Erasmus Schmid. Bos, in like manner. Any place which a river flows past is said παραῤῥυεῖσθαι. Metaphorically, any thing is said in general παραῤῥυεῖσθαι, which is passed by and omitted through carelessness.” — Wolfius. — ED. Hebrews 2:1. — Therefore [for this cause] the more abundantly ought we to attend [or, give heed] to the things heard [by us], lest at any time we should flow out [or, pass away].Διὰτοῦτο, “for this cause;” as much as διό, “therefore,” “wherefore.” There is in the words an illation from the precedent discourse, and the whole verse is a hortatory conclusion from thence. From the proposition that he hath made of the glory and excellency of the Author of the gospel he draws this inference, “Therefore ought we,” — for the reasons and causes insisted on. And thus the word ταραῤῥυῶμεν, “flow out,” expresseth their losing by any ways or means the doctrine of the gospel wherein they had been instructed, and the benefits thereof. Seeing the gospel hath. such a blessed Author, we ought to take care that we forfeit not our interest in it. But if we take παραῤῥυῶμεν in the sense chosen by Chrysostom, to express the fall and perishing of them that attend not as they ought unto the word (which interpretation is favored by the Syriac translation), then the word, “therefore,” “for this cause,” respects the commination or threatening included therein. As if the apostle had said,‘Therefore ought you to attend;’that is, ‘Look to it that you do attend, lest you fall and perish.’I rather embrace the former sense, both because the interpretation of the word used by Chrysostom is strained, as also because the apostle doth evidently in these words enter upon an exhortation unto obedience, upon his former discourse about the person of Christ; nor without an especial regard thereunto had he laid any foundation for such a threatening unto disobedience as is pretended to be in the words; of which yet further afterwards. Δεῖἡμᾶς, “Ought we,” — the persons unto whom he makes the application of his doctrine, and directs his exhortation. Some think that Paul joins himself here with all the Hebrews upon the account of cognation and country, as being himself also a Hebrew, Philippians 3:5, and therefore affectionately respecting them, Romans 9:3; but the expression is to be regulated by the words that follow, ‘All we, who have heard the gospel preached, and made profession thereof.’And the apostle joins himself with them, not that there was any danger on his part lest he should not constantly obey the word, or [as if he] were of them whose wavering and instability gave occasion to this caution; but,1. To manifest that the duty which he exhorts them unto is of general concernment unto all to whom the gospel is preached, — so that he lays no singular burden on them; and,2. That he might not as yet discover unto them any jealousy of their inconstancy, or that he had entertained any severe thoughts concerning them, — apprehensions whereof are apt to render exhortations suspected, the minds of men being ready enough to disregard that which they are persuaded unto, if they suspect that undeserved blame lies at the bottom of the exhortation. The like condescension hereunto, upon the like account, we may see in Peter, 1 Peter 4:3.These are the persons spoken unto. That which is spoken to them consists in an exhortation unto a duty, and an especial enforcement of it. The exhortation and duty in the first words, — “The more abundantly to attend unto the things heard ;” and the enforcement in the close of them, “Lest at any time we should flow out.” In the exhortation is expressed an especial circumstance of it, the duty itself, and the manner of its performance. The first is included in that word,” more abundantly;” which may refer either unto the causes of the attendance required, or unto the manner of its performance. In the words as they lie in the text, Διὰτοῦτοπερισσοτέρωςδεῖἡμαςπροσέχειν, the word περισσοτέρως, “more abundantly,” is joined unto διὰτοῦτο, “therefore,” “for this cause,” and seems immediately to respect it, and so to intimate the excellent and abundant reason that we have to attend unto the gospel. But if we transpose the words, and read them as if they lay thus, Δεῖἡμᾶςπερισσοτέρως, then the word περισσοτέρως, “more abundantly,” respects the following word προσέχειν, “to attend unto,” and so expresseth somewhat of the manner of the performance of the duty proposed. And so our translators report the sense, “We ought to give the more diligent heed,” or “give heed the more diligently.” The reader may embrace whether sense he judgeth most agreeable to the scope of the place. The former construction of the word, expressing the necessity of our attention to be intimated from the cogency of the reasons thereof before insisted on, is not without its probability. And this the meaning of the word agrees unto, whether we take it absolutely (for so, as Chrysostom observes, it may be taken, though of itself it be of another form) or comparatively, in which form it is. Take it absolutely, and the apostle informs them that they have abundant cause to attend unto the things spoken or heard, because of him that spake them; for concerning him alone came that voice from the excellent glory, “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” So also in the other sense, the apostle is not comparing the manner of their attending unto the doctrine of the law (which certainly they ought to have done with all diligence) and their attendance unto the gospel, but shows the reasons which they had to attend unto the one and the other, as the following verses clearly manifest. This, then, may be that which the apostle intimates in this word, namely, that they had more abundant cause and a more excellent reason for their attending unto the doctrine of the gospel than they had unto that of the law, on this account, that he by whom the gospel was immediately preached unto us was the Son of God himself. But the other application of the word is more commonly received, wherein it intends the duty enjoined. In reference unto the duty exhorted unto, there is expressed the object of it, “the things heard.” Thus the apostle chooseth to express the doctrine of the gospel, with respect unto the way and manner whereby it was communicated unto them, namely, by preaching; for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing is of the word preached,” Romans 10:14-15; Romans 10:17.And herein doth he magnify the great ordinance of preaching, as everywhere else he maketh it the great means of begetting faith in men. The Lord Christ himself first preached the gospel, Acts 1:1, and Acts 1:3 of this chapter. Concerning him it was said from heaven, “Hear him,” Matthew 17:5, as he who revealed the Father from his own bosom, John 1:18. From him the gospel came to be the word heard. When he had finished the course of his personal ministry, he mitred the same work unto others, sending them as the Father sent him. They also preached the gospel, and called it “the word;” that is, that which they preached. See 2 Corinthians 1:18. So in the Old Testament it is called ωְׁ ?ξֻ ?ςָ ?δ, Isaiah 53:1, “auditus,” “a hearing,” or that which was heard, being preached. So that the apostle insists on and commends unto them not only the things themselves wherein they had been instructed, but also the way whereby they were communicated unto them, namely, by the great ordinance of preaching, as he further declares, Isaiah 53:3. This as the means of their believing, as the ground of their profession, they were diligently to remember, consider, and attend unto.The duty itself directed unto, and the manner of its performance, are expressed in the word προσέχειν, to “attend,” or “give heed.” What kind of attendance is denoted by this word was in part before declared. An attendance it is with reverence, assent, and readiness to obey. So Acts 16:14, “God opened the heart of Lydia, προσέχειντοῖςλαλουμένοις,” — “to attend unto the things that were spoken;” not to give them the hearing only; there was no need of the opening of her heart for the mere attention of her ear; but she attended with readiness, humility, and resolution to obey the word. The effect of which attention is expressed by the apostle, Romans 6:17. To attend, then, unto the word preached, is to consider the author of it, the matter of it, the weight and concernment of it, the ends of it, with faith, subjection of spirit, and constancy, as we shall with our apostle more at large afterwards explain. The duty exhorted unto being laid down, a motive or enforcement unto it is subjoined, taken from the danger that would ensue from the neglect thereof. And this is either from the sin or punishment that would attend it, according unto the various interpretations of the word παραῤῥυῶμεν, “flow out,” or” fall,” before mentioned. If it signify to “fall” or “perish,” then the punishment of the neglect of this duty is intimated. We shall perish as water that is poured on the earth. Thereunto is the frail life of man compared, 2 Samuel 14:14. This sense of the word is embraced by few expositors, yet hath it great countenance given unto it by the ensuing discourse, 2 Samuel 14:2-3, and for that reason it is not unworthy our consideration. For the design of the apostle in those verses is to prove that they shall deservedly and assuredly perish who should neglect the gospel. And the following particles, εἰγάρ, “and if,” in 2 Samuel 14:2, may seem to relate unto what was before spoken, and so to yield a reason why the unbelievers should so perish as he had intimated; which, unless it be expressed in this word, the apostle had not before at all spoken unto. And in this sense the caution here given is, that we should attend unto the word of the gospel, lest by our neglect thereof we bring upon ourselves inevitable ruin, and perish as water that is spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But the truth is, that the word ποτέ prefixed will not be well reconciled unto this sense and interpretation, unless we should suppose it to be redundant and insignificative, and so μήποτεπαραῤῥυῶμεν, “lest at any time we should flow out,” should be the same with μήπαραῤῥυῶμεν, absolutely, “that we fall not.” But there is no just reason to render that word so useless. Allow it, therefore, to be significative, and it may have a double sense, —1. To denote an uncertain time, “quando,” “aliquando,” “at any time;”2. A conditional event, “forte,” “ne forte,” “lest it should happen.”In neither of these senses will it allow the words to be expounded of the punishment that shall befall unbelievers, which is most certain both as to the time and the event. Neither doth the apostle in the next verses threaten them that neglect the gospel, that at some time or other they may perish, but lets them know that their destruction is certain, and that from the Lord. It is, then, our sinful losing of the word and the benefits thereof which the apostle intendeth. And in the next verses he doth not proceed to prove what he had asserted in this verse, but goes on to other arguments to the same purpose, taken from the unquestionable event of our neglect of the word, and losing the benefits thereof. The especial reason, therefore, why the apostle thus expresseth our losing of the doctrine of the gospel by want of diligent attendance unto it, is to be inquired after. Generally the expression is looked on as an allusion unto leaking vessels, which suffer the water that is poured into them one way to run out many: as he speaks in the “Comedian” who denied that he could keep secret some things if they were communicated unto him: “Plenus rimarum sum, huc atque illuc effluo;” — “I am full of chinks, and flow out on every side.” And the word relates unto the persons, not to the things, because it contains a crime. It is our duty to retain the word which we have heard; and therefore it is not said that the word flows out, but that we as it were pour it out. And this crime is denoted by the addition of παρά to ῥυεῖν: for as the simple verb denotes the passing away of any thing as water, whether it deserve to be retained or no, so the compound doth the losing of that perversely which we ought to have retained. But we may yet inquire a little further into the reason and nature of the allegory. The word or doctrine of the Scripture is compared to showers and rain: Deuteronomy 32:2,“My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass.”Hence the same word, ξεֹ ?ψֶ ?δ, signifies “a teacher” and “rain:” so that translators do often doubt of its special sense, as Psalms 84:7, αְּ ?ψָ ?λεֹ ?ϊιַ ?ςְ ?ξֶ ?δξεֹ ?ψֶ ?η, — “The rain filleth the pools,” as in our translation; others, as Jerome and Arias Montanus, render them, “Benedictionibus operietur docens,” — “The teacher shall be covered with blessings;” both the words being ambiguous. So also Isaiah 30:20, ξεֹ ?ψֶ ?ικָ, which we translate “thy teachers,” is by others rendered “thy showers,” or “rain.” So these words, Joe 2:23, ΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?δξּ ?εֹ ?ψֶ ?δμִ ?φְ ?γָ ?χָ ?δλִּ ?ιΰּ ?πָ ?ϊַ ?ομָ ?λֶ ?ν, which our translators render in the text, “He hath given you the former rain moderately,” in the margin they render, “a teacher of righteousness.” And the like ambiguity is in other places. And there is an elegant metaphor in the word; for as the drops of rain falling on the each do water it and make it fruitful, whilst it takes no notice of it, so doth the doctrine of the word insensibly make fruitful unto God the souls of men upon whom it doth descend. And in respect unto the word of the gospel it is that the Lord Christ is said to come down as the showers on the mown grass, Psalms 72. So the apostle calls the preaching of the gospel unto men the watering of them, 1 Corinthians 3:6-7; and he compares them unto whom it is preached unto the earth that drinketh in the rain, Hebrews 6:7. In pursuit of this metaphor it is that, men are said to pour out the word preached unto them, when by their negligence they lose all the benefits thereof. So when our Savior had compared the same word unto seed, he sets out men’s falling from it by all the ways and means whereby seed cast into the earth may be lost or become unprofitable, Matthew 13. And as he shows that there are various ways and means whereby the seed that is sown may be lost and perish, so there are many times and seasons, ways and means, wherein and whereby we may lose and pour out the water or rain of the word which we have received. And these the apostle regards in that expression, “lest at any time.” We are now entered on the practical part of the epistle, and that which is of great importance unto all professors at all times, especially unto such as are, by the good providence of God, called into the condition wherein the Hebrews were when Paul thus treated with them; that is, a condition of temptation, affliction, and persecution. And we shall therefore the more distinctly consider the useful truths that are exhibited unto us in these words, which are these that follow: — I. Diligent attendance unto the word of the gospel is indispensably necessary unto perseverance in the profession of it. Such a profession I mean as is acceptable unto God, or will be useful unto our own souls. The profession of most of the world is a mere not-renunciation of the gospel in words, whilst in their hearts and lives they deny the power of it every day. A saving profession is that which expresseth the efficacy of the word unto salvation, Romans 10:10. This will never be the effect of a lifeless attendance unto the word. And therefore we shall first consider what is required unto the giving heed to the gospel, here commended unto us. And there are in it (amongst others) the things that follow: —1. A due valuation of the grace tendered in it, and of the word itself on that account. Προσέχειν denotes such an attendance unto any thing as proceeds from an estimation and valuation of it answerable unto its worth. If we have not such thoughts of the gospel, we can never attend unto it as we ought. And if we consider it not as that wherein our chief concernment lies, we consider it not at all as we ought. The field wherein is the hid treasure is so to be heeded as to be valued above all other possessions whatsoever, Matthew 13:44. They who esteemed not the marriage-feast of the King above all avocations and worldly occasions, were shut out as unworthy, Matthew 22:7-8. If the gospel be not more unto us than all the world besides, we shall never continue in a useful profession of it. Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, wives and children, must all be despised in comparison of it and in competition with it. When men hear the word as that which puts itself upon them, attendance unto which they cannot decline without present or future inconveniences, without considering that all the concernments of their souls lie bound up in it, they will easily be won utterly to neglect it. According as our esteem and valuation of it is, so is our heeding of it and attendance unto it, and no otherwise. Hearkening unto the word as unto a song of him that hath a pleasant voice, which may please or satisfy for the present, is that which profits not men, and which God abhors, Ezekiel 33:32. If the ministration of the gospel be not looked on as that which is full of glory, it will never be attended unto. This the apostle presseth, 2 Corinthians 3:8-9. Constant high thoughts, then, of the necessity, worth, glory, and excellency of the gospel, as on other accounts, so especially of the author of it, and the grace dispensed in it, is the first step in that diligent heeding of it which is required of us. Want of this was that which ruined many of the Hebrews to whom the apostle wrote. And without it we shall never keep our faith firm unto the end. 2. Diligent study of it, and searching into the mind of God in it, that so we may grow wise in the mysteries thereof, is another part of this duty. The gospel is “the wisdom of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:24. In it are laid up all the stores and treasures of that wisdom of God which ever any of the sons of men shall come to an acquaintance with in this world, Colossians 2:2-3. And this wisdom is to be, sought for as silver, and to be searched after as hid treasures, Proverbs 2:4; that is, with pains and diligence, like unto that of those who are employed in that inquiry. Men with indefatigable pains and danger pierce into the bowels of the earth, in the search of those hid treasures that are wrapped up in the vast womb of it. Silver and treasures are not gathered by every lazy passenger on the surface of the earth. They must dig, seek, and search, who intend to be made partakers of them; and they do so accordingly. And so must we do for these treasures of heavenly wisdom. The mystery of the grace of the gospel is great and deep, such as the angels desire to bow down and look into, 1 Peter 1:12; which the prophets of old, notwithstanding the advantage of their own especial revelations, inquired diligently after, 1 Peter 1:10-11 : whereas now, if any pretend, though falsely, to a revelation, they have immediately done with the word, as that which, by the deceit of their imaginations, they think beneath them, when indeed it is only distant from them, and is really above them; as if a man should stand on tiptoe on a molehill, and despise the sun appearing newly above the horizon as one beneath him. Diligent, sedulous searching into the word belongs unto this heeding of it, Psalms 1:2; or a laboring by all appointed means to become acquainted with it, wise in the mystery of it, and skilled in its doctrine. Without this, no man will hold fast his profession. Nor doth any man neglect the gospel but he that knows it not, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. This is the great principle of apostasy in the world: — men have owned the gospel, but never knew what it was; and therefore leave the profession of it foolishly, as they took it up lightly. Studying of the word is the security of our faith. 3. Mixing the word with faith is required in this attention. See Hebrews 4:2. As good not hear as not believe. Believing is the end of hearing, Romans 10:10-11; and therefore Lydia’s faith is called her attention, Acts 16:14. This is the life of heeding the word, without which all ether exercise about it is but a dead carcass. To hear and not believe, is in the spiritual life what to see meat and not to eat is in the natural; it will please the fancy, but will never nourish the soul. Faith alone realizeth the things spoken unto the heart, and gives them subsistence in it, Hebrews 11:1; without which, as to us, they flow up and down in loose and uncertain notions. This, then, is the principal part of our duty in heeding the things spoken; for it gives entrance to them into the soul, without which they are poured upon it as water upon a stick that is fully dry.4. Laboring to express the word received, in a conformity of heart and life unto it, is another part of this attention. This is the next proper end of our hearing. And to do a thing appointed unto an end without aiming at that end, is no better than the not doing it at all, in some cases much worse. The apostle says of the Romans, that they were cast into the mould of the doctrine of the gospel, Romans 6:17. It left upon their hearts an impression of its own likeness, or produced in them the express image of that holiness, purity, and wisdom which it revealeth. This is to behold with open face the glory of the Lord in a glass, and to be changed into the same image, 2 Corinthians 3:18; that is, the image of the Lord Christ, manifested unto us and reflected upon us by and in the glass of the gospel. When the heart of the hearer is quickened, enlivened, spirited with gospel truths, and by them is moulded and fashioned into their likeness, and expresseth that likeness in its fruits, or a conversation becoming the gospel, then is the word attended unto in a right manner. This will secure the word a station in our hearts, and give it a permanent abode in us, This is the indwelling of the word, whereof there are many degrees, and we ought to aim that it should be plentiful5. Watchfulness against all opposition that is made either against the truth or power of the word in us belongs also unto this duty. And as these oppositions are many, so ought this watchfulness to be great and diligent. And these things have we added for the further explication of the duty that is pressed on us by the apostle, the necessity whereof, for the preservation of the truth in our hearts and minds, will further appear in the ensuing observation. II. There are sundry times and seasons wherein, and several ways and means whereby, men are in danger to lose the word that they have heard, if they attend not diligently unto its preservation. Μήποτε, “at any time,” or “by any way or means.” This our Savior teacheth us at large in the parable of the seed, which was retained but in one sort of ground of those four whereinto it was cast, Matthew 13; and this the experience of all times and ages confirmeth. Yea, few there are at any time who keep the word heard as they ought.1. We may briefly name the seasons wherein and the ways whereby the hearts and minds of men are made as leaking vessels, to pour out and lose the word that they have heard.(1.) Some lose it in a time of peace and prosperity. That is a season which slays the foolish. Jeshurun waxes fat and kicks. According to men’s pastures they are filled, and forget the Lord. They feed their lusts high, until they loathe the word. Quails often make a lean soul. A prosperous outward estate hath ruined many a conviction from the word; yea, and weakened faith and obedience in many of the saints themselves. The warmth of prosperity breeds swarms of apostates, as the heat of the sun doth insects in the spring.(2.) Some lose it in a time of persecution. “When persecution ariseth,” saith our Savior, “they fall away.” Many go on apace in profession until they come to see the cross; this sight puts them to a stand, and then turns them quite out of the way. They thought not of it, and do not like it” We know what havoc this hath made amongst professors in all ages; and commonly where it destroys the bodies of ten, it destroys the souls of a hundred. This is the season wherein stars fall from the firmament; in reference whereunto innumerable are the precepts for watchfulness, wisdom, patience, enduring, that are given us in the gospel.(3.) Some lose it in a time of trial by temptation. It pleaseth God, in his wisdom and grace, to suffer sometimes an “hour of temptation” to come forth upon the world, and upon the church in the world, for their trial, Revelation 3:10. And he doth it that his own thereby may be made conformable unto their head, Jesus Christ, who had his especial hour of temptation. Now, in such a season temptation worketh variously, according as men are exposed unto it, or as God seeth meet that they should be tried by it. Every thing that such days abound withal shall have in it the force of a temptation. And the usual effect of this work is, that it brings professors into a slumber, Matthew 25:5. In this state many utterly lose the word. They have been cast into a negligent slumber by the secret power and efficacy of temptation; and when they awake and look about them, the whole power of the word is lost and departed from them. With reference unto these and the like seasons it is that the apostle gives us this caution, to “take heed lest at any time the word which we have heard do slip out.”2. The ways and means also whereby this wretched effect is produced are various, yea, innumerable. Some of them only I shall mention, whereunto the rest may be reduced; as,(1.) Love of this present world. This made Demas a leaking vessel, 2 Timothy 4:10, and chokes one fourth part of the seed of the parable, Matthew 13. Many might have been rich in grace, had they not made it their end and business to be rich in this world, 1 Timothy 6:9. But this is too well known, as well as too little regarded.(2.) Love of sin. A secret lust cherished in the heart will make it “plenum rimarum,” “full of chinks,” that it will never retain the showers of the word; and it will assuredly open them as fast as convictions stop them.(3.) False doctrines, errors, heresies, false worship, superstition, and idolatries, will do the same. I place these things together, as those which work in the same kind upon the curiosity, vanity, and darkness of the minds of men. These break the vessel, and at once pour out all the benefits of the word that ever were received. And many the like instances might be given.And this gives us the reason of the necessity of that heeding of the word which we before insisted on. Without it, at one time or other, by one means or other, we shall lose all the design of the word upon our souls. That alone will preserve us, and carry us through the course and difficulties of our profession. The duty mentioned, then, is of no less concernment unto us than our souls, for without it we shall perish. Let us not deceive ourselves; a slothful, negligent hearing of the word will bring no man to life. The commands we have to “watch, pray, strive, labor, and fight,” are not in vain. The warnings given us of the opposition that is made to our faith, by indwelling sin, Satan, and the world, are not left on record for nothing; no more are the sad examples which we have of many, who beginning a good profession have utterly turned aside to sin and folly. All these things, I say, teach us the necessity of the duty which the apostle enjoineth, and which we have explained. III. The word heard is not lost without the great sin as well as the inevitable ruin of the souls of men. Lost it is when it is not mixed with faith, when we receive it not in good and honest hearts, when the end of it is not accomplished in us and towards us. And this befalls us not without our sin, and woeful neglect of duty. The word of its own nature is apt to abide, to incorporate itself with us, and to take root; but we cast it out, we pour it forth from us. And they have a woeful account to make on whose souls the guilt thereof shall be found at the last day.IV. It is in the nature of the word of the gospel to water barren hearts, and to make them fruitful unto God. Hence, as was showed, is it compared to water, dew, and rain; which is the foundation of the metaphorical expression here used. Where this word comes, it makes“the parched ground a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water,” Isaiah 35:7.These are the waters of the sanctuary, that heal the barren places of the earth, and make them fruitful, Ezekiel 47; the river that maketh glad the city of God, Psalms 46:4; that river of living water that comes forth from the throne of God, Revelation 22:1. And the places and persons which are not healed or benefited by these waters are left to barrenness and burning for evermore, Ezekiel 47:11; Hebrews 6:8. With the dew hereof doth God water his church every moment, Isaiah 27:3; and then doth it “grow as a lily, and cast forth its roots as Lebanon,” Hosea 14:5-7. Abundant fruitfulness unto God follows a gracious receiving of this dew from him. Blessed are they who have this dew distilling on them every morning, who are watered as the garden of God, as a land that God careth for. V. The consideration of the revelation of the gospel by the Son of God is a powerful motive unto that diligent attendance unto it which we have before described. This is the inference that the apostle makes from the proposition that he had made of the excellency of the Son of God: “Therefore.” And this is that which in the greatest part of the ensuing chapter he doth pursue. This is that which God declares that he might so justly expect and look for, namely, that when he sent his Son to the vineyard, he should be regarded and attended unto. And this is most reasonable upon many accounts: — 1. Because of the authority wherewith he spake the word. Others spake and delivered their message as servants; he as the Lord over his own house, Hebrews 3:6. The Father himself gave him all his authority for the revealing of his mind, and therefore proclaimed from heaven that if any one would have any thing to do with God, they were to “hear him,” Matthew 17:5; 2 Peter 1:17. The whole authority of God was with him; for him did God the Father seal, or he put the stamp of all his authority upon him; and he spake accordingly, Matthew 7:29. And therefore he spake both in his own name and the name of his Father: so that this authority sprung partly from the dignity of his person, — for being God and man, though he spake on the earth, yet he who was the Son of man was in heaven still, John 3:13, and therefore is said to speak from heaven, Hebrews 12:25, and coming from heaven was still above all, John 3:31, having power and authority over all, — and partly from the commission that he had from his Father, which, as we said before, gave all authority into his hand, John 5:27. Being then in himself the Son of God, and being peculiarly designed to reveal the mind and will of the Father (which the prophet calls his “standing and feeding in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God,” Micah 5:4), all the authority of God over the souls and consciences of men is exerted in this revelation of the gospel by him. It cannot, then, be neglected without the contempt of all the authority of God. And this will be a sore aggravation of the sin of unbelievers and apostates at the last day. If we attend not unto the word on this account, we shall suffer for it. He that despiseth the word despiseth him; and he that despiseth him despiseth him also who sent him. 2. Because of the love that is in it. There is in it the love of the Father in sending the Son, for the revealing of himself and his mind unto the children of men. There is also in it the love of the Son himself, condescending to teach and instruct the sons of men, who by their own fault were cast into error and darkness, Greater love could not God nor his eternal Son manifest unto us, than that he should undertake in his own person to become our instructor. See 1 John 5:20. He that shall consider the brutish stupidity and blindness of the generality of mankind in the things of God, the miserable fluctuating and endless uncertainties of the more inquiring part of them, and withal the greatness of their concernment in being brought unto the knowledge of the truth, cannot but in some measure see the greatness of this love of Christ in revealing unto us the whole counsel of God. Hence his words and speech are said to be “gracious,” Luke 4:22; and “grace to be poured into his lips,” Psalms 45:2. And this is no small motive unto our attention unto the word. 3. The fullness of the revelation itself by him made unto us is of the same importance. He came not to declare a part or parcel, but the whole will of God, — all that we are to know, all that we are to do, all that we are to believe. “In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” Colossians 2:3. He opened all the dark sentences of the will of God, hidden from the foundation of the world.There is in his doctrine all wisdom, all knowledge, as all light is in the sun, and all water in the sea, there being nothing of the one or the other in any other thing but by a communication from them. Now, if every word of God be excellent, if every part and parcel of it delivered by any of his servants of old was to be attended unto on the penalty of extermination out of the number of his people, how much more will our condition be miserable, as now are our blindness and obstinacy, if we have not a heart to attend unto this full revelation of himself and his will! 4. Because it is final. “Last of all he sent his Son,” and hath “spoken unto us by him.” Never more in this world will he speak with that kind of speaking. No new, no further revelation of God is to be expected in this world, but what is made by Jesus Christ. To this we must attend, or we are lost for ever.VI. The true and only way of honoring the Lord “Christ as the Son of God, is by diligent attendance and obedience unto his word. The apostle having evidenced his glory as the Son of God, makes this his only inference from it. So doth he himself. “If ye love me,” saith he, “keep my commandments.” Where there is no obedience unto the word, there is neither faith in nor love unto Jesus Christ. But this whole argument the apostle further pursues in the following verses: — In these three verses the apostle follows on his exhortation, laid down in that foregoing, and giveth many peculiar enforcements unto a due compliance with it, as we shall see in our exposition of them. Hebrews 2:2. — Εἰγὰρὁδι᾿ἀγγέλωνλαληθεὶςλόγοςἐγένετοβέβαιος, καὶπᾶσαπαράβασιςκαὶπαρακοὴἔλαβενἔνδικονμισθαποδοσίαν·Εἰγάρ, “si enim,’ “etenim,”” and if,” “for if.” ῾῾Ολόγοςλαληθεὶς, “sermo dictus;” ξֶ ?μְּ ?ϊָ ?ΰγֵּ ?ΰϊְ ?ξֵ ?μַ ?μֵ ?ϊSyr., “sermo qui dictus est,” or “pronuntiatus,” “the word which was spoken or pronounced” — properly, as we shall see. Δι᾿ἀγγέλων, Syr., αְּ ?ιַ ?γξַ ?μָ ?ΰλֵ ?ΰ“by the hand of angels;” a Hebraism for their ministry. “The word pronounced by the ministry of angels.” The Arabic refers these words to the testimonies before insisted on about angels, and renders them, “If that which is spoken concerning the angels be approved,” or confirmed to be true; that is, περὶἀγγέλων, not δι᾿ἀγγέλων. ᾿Εγένετοβέβαιος, “factus est firmas,” At., V. L., “was made firm” or “stable,” became sure;” “fuit firmus,” Eras., Beza, “was firm ;” or, as ours, “steadfast;” ΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ιְ ?ιַ ?ϊ Syr., “confirmatus fuit,” “was confirmed or established.” Καὶπᾶσαπαράβασιςκαὶπαρακοή, “et omnis prevaricatio et inobedientia,” V. L., Ar., “prevarication and disobedience;” Rhem., “omnisque transgressio et contumacia;” Beza, “every transgression and stubborn disobedience;” the Syriac, a little otherwise, εְ ?λֻ ?μγְּ ?ωַׁ ?ξְ ?ςָ ?δּ εַ ?ςֲ ?αַ ?ιςֲ ?μַ ?ιְ ?δַ ?“and every one that heard it and transgressed it,” — with peculiar respect, as it should seem, to παρακοή, which includes a disobedience to that which is heard. ῎Ελαβενἕνδικονυισθαποδοσίαν, “accepit justam mercedis retributionem,” V. L., Bez.; “retulit, praemii,” Eras., — all to the same purpose, “received a just recompence,” “reward,”” a just compensation;” Syr., “received a retribution in righteousness.”Hebrews 2:2. — For if the word spoken [pronounced] by angels was sure [steadfast], and every transgression and [stubborn] disobedience received a just [meet, equal] retribution [or, recompence of reward];Hebrews 2:3. — Πῶςἡμεῖςἐκφευξόμεθατηλικαύτηςἀμελήσαντεςσωτηρίας; ἥτιςἀρχήνλαβοῦσαλαλεῖσθαιδιὰτοῦΚυρίου, ὑπὸτῶνἀκουσάντωνεἰςἠμᾶςἐβεβαιώθη,῾᾿Αμελήσαντες, “si neglexerimus,” V. L., Eras., Beza, “if we neglect;” ΰִ ?οπֶ ?αְ ?ρֵ ?ΰ, Syr., “si contemnamus,” “if we despise,” “ if we care not about” “if we take no care of.” Τηλικαύτηςσωτηρίας, “tantam salutem,’” so great salvation;” the Syriac a little otherwise, ΰִ ?ιμֵ ?ιογְּ ?δָ ?πεּ ?οΰִ ?πεּ ϊַ ?ιַּ ?ιοςμ, “super ea ipsa quae sunt vitae,” “those things which are our life;” or, as others render the words, “eos sermones qui vivi sunt,” “those words which are living.” The former translation, taking the pronoun in the neuter gender, and ηַ ?ιַּ ?ιοsubstantively, with respect unto the effects of the gospel, most suits the place. ῝Ητιςἀρχὴνλαβοῦσαλαλεῖσθαι, “quae cum primum enarrari coepit,” Eras., Bez., “which when it was begun to be declared;” and so the Syriac, “which began to be declared,” which was first, at first spoken, declared pronounced. Hebrews 2:3. — How shall we escape [fly or avoid], if we neglect [not taking care about] so great salvation, which began to be [was first of all] spoken [declared] by the Lord, and was confirmed [assured, established] unto us by them that heard [it of him],Hebrews 2:4. — ΣυνεπιμαρτυροῦντοςτοῦΘεοῦσημείσοιςτεκαὶτέρασι, καὶποικίλαιςδυνάμεσι, καὶΠνεύματοςἀγίουμερισμοῖς, κατὰτὴναὐτοῦθέλησιν.Συνεπιμαρτυροῦντος, “contestante Deo,” V. L.; “attestante Deo,” Eras.; “testimonium illis praebente Deo,” Beza; — “God withal testifying, attesting it, giving testimony unto them.” It is doubtful whether it be the word itself or the preachers of it that God is said to give testimony unto. Syr., λּ ?ψρָ ?δֵ ?ψςֲ ?μַ ?ιְ ?δεּ ?οΰַ ?μָ ?δָ ?ΰ, “when God had testified unto them.” Arab., “whose truth was also proved unto us, besides the testimony of God with wonders;” separating between God’s testimony to the word and the signs and wonders that accompanied it. Τέρασι, “prodigiis,” “portentis,” “miraculis.”Hebrews 2:4. — God bearing witness with signs and wonders [prodigies], and divers [various] mighty works [powers], and distributions [divisions] of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? The design of the apostle in these three verses is to confirm and enforce the inference and exhortation laid down in the first, as that which arose from the discourses of the foyer chapter. The way he proceeds in for this end, is by interposing, after his usual manner in this epistle, subservient motives, arguments, and considerations, tending directly to his principal end, and connatural unto the subject treated on. Thus the main argument wherewith he presseth his preceding exhortation unto attendance and obedience unto the word is taken “ab incommodo,” or “ab eventu pernicioso,” — from the pernicious end and event of their disobedience thereunto. The chief proof of this is taken from another argument, “a minori;” and that is, the confessed event of disobedience unto the law, Hebrews 2:2. To confirm and strengthen which reasoning, he gives us a summary comparison of the law and the gospel; whence it might appear, that if a disregard unto the law was attended with a sure and sore revenge, much more must and would the neglect of the gospel be so. And this comparison on the part of the gospel is expressed, 1. In the nature of it, — it is “great salvation;”2. The author of it, — it was “spoken by the Lord;”3. The manner of its tradition, — being “confirmed unto us by them that heard him,”and the testimony given to it and them, by “signs and wonders, and distributions of the Holy Ghost:” from all which he infers his proof of the pernicious event of disobedience unto it or disregard of it. This is the sum of the apostle’s reasoning, which we shall further open as the words present it unto us in the text. The first thing we meet with in the words is his subservient argument “a minori,” Hebrews 2:2, wherein three things occur : — 1. The description that he gives us of the law, which he compares the gospel withal, — it was “the word spoken by angels.”2. An adjunct of it, which ensued upon its being spoken by them, — it was “firm” or “steadfast.” 3. The event of disobedience unto it, — “every transgression” of it “and stubborn disobedience received a just recompence of reward.” How from hence he confirms his assertion of the pernicious consequence of neglecting the gospel, we shall see afterwards. The first thing in the words is the description of the law, by that periphrasis, ῾Ολόγοςδι᾿ἀγγέλωνλαληθείς, “The word spoken” (or “pronounced”) by “angels.” Λόγος is a word very variously used in the New Testament. The special senses of it we shall not need in this place to insist upon. It is here taken for a system of doctrine; and, by the addition of λαληθείς, as published, preached, or declared. Thus the gospel, from the principal subject-matter of it, is called, ὁλόγοςὁτοῦσταυροῦ, 1 Corinthians 1:18, — the word, the doctrine, the preaching concerning the cross, or Christ crucified. So ὁλόγος here, “the word,” is the doctrine of the law; that is, the law itself spoken, declared, published, promulgated. Δι᾿ἀγγέλων, “by angels;” that is, by the ministry of angels. It is not the νομοθέτης, he from whom the law was given, that the apostle intends; but the ministerial publishers of it, by whom it was given. The law was given from God, but it was given by angels, in the way and manner to be considered.Two things we may observe in this periphrasis of the law: — 1. That the apostle principally intends that part of the Mosaical dispensation which was given on mount Sinai; and which, as such, was the covenant between God and that people, as unto the privilege of the promised land.2. That he fixes on this description of it rather than any other, or merely to have expressed it by the law, —(1.) Because the ministry of angels, in the giving of the law by Moses, was that by which all the prodigious effects wherewith it was attended (which kept the people in such a durable reverence unto it) were wrought, This, therefore, he mentions, that he might appear not to undervalue it, but to speak of it with reference unto that excellency of its administration which the Hebrews even boasted in.(2.) Because having newly insisted on a comparison between Christ and the angels, his argument is much strengthened when it shall be considered that while the law was the word spoken by the angels, the gospel was delivered by the Son, so far exalted above them. But the manner how this was done must be a little further inquired into. That the law was given by the ministry of angels the Jews always confessed, yea, and boasted. So saith Josephus, one much ancienter than any of their rabbins extant: ᾿Αρχαιολ lib, v., ᾿᾿Ημῶντὰκάλλιστατῶνδογμάτων, καὶτὰὁσιώτατατῶνἐντοῖςνόμοις, δι᾿ἀγγέλωνπαράτῷΘεῷμαθόντων· — “We learned the most excellent and most holy constitutions of the law from God by angels.” The same was generally acknowledged by them of old. This Stephen, treating with them, takes for granted, Acts 7:53, “Who received the law by the disposition of angels.” And our apostle affirms the same, Galatians 3:19, “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” A word of the same original and sense is used in both places, though by ours variously rendered: διαταγή, διαταγείς. This, then, is certain. But the manner of it is yet to be considered.1. First, then, nothing is more unquestionable than that the law was given from God himself. He was the author of it. This the whole Scripture declares and proclaims. And it was the impious abomination of the Valentinians and Marcionites of old to abscribe the original of it unto any other author.2. He who spake in the name of God on mount Sinai was no other than God himself, the second person of the Trinity, Psalms 68:17-19. Him Stephen calls “the angel,” Acts 7:30; Acts 7:38; even the angel of the covenant, the Lord whom the people sought, Malachi 3:1-2. Some would have it be a created angel, delegated unto that work, who thereon took on him the presence and name of God, as if he himself had spoken. But this is wholly contrary to the nature of ministerial work. Never did ambassador speak his own name, as if he were the king himself whose person he doth represent. The apostle tells us that the preachers of the gospel were God’s ambassadors, and that God by them doth persuade men to be reconciled in Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:20. But yet if any on that account should take on him to personate God, and to speak of himself as God, he would be highly blasphemous. Nor can this be imagineded in this place, where not only he that speaks, speaks the name of God, (“I am the LORD thy God,”) but also elsewhere it is frequently affirmed that Jehovah himself did give that law; which is made unto the people an argument unto obedience. And the things done on Sinai are always ascribed unto God himself. 3. It remains, then, to consider how, notwithstanding this, the law is said to be “the word spoken by angels.” It is nowhere affirmed that the law was given by angels, but that the people received it “by the disposition of angels,” and that it was “ordained by angels;” and here, “spoken by them.” From hence it is evident that not the original authoritative giving of the law, but the ministerial ordering of things in its promulgation, is that which is ascribed to angels. They raised the fire and smoke; they shook and rent the rocks; they framed the sound of the trumpet; they effected the articulate voices which conveyed the words of the law to the ears of the people, and therein proclaimed and published the law; whereby it became “the word spoken by angles.” Grotius on this place contends that it was a created angel who represented the person of God on mount Sinai; and in the confirmation of his conjecture, after he had made use of the imagination before rejected, he adds, “that if the law had been given out by God in his own person” (as he speaks), “then, upon that account, it would have been preferred above the gospel.” But as the apostle grants, in the first words of this epistle, that the law no less than the gospel was primitively and originally from God, so we say not that God gave the law immediately, without the ministry of angels; but the comparison which the apostle is pursuing respects not the first author of law and gospel, but the principal ministerial publishers of them, who of the one were angels, of the other the Son himself. And in these words lies the spring of the apostle’s argument, as is manifest in those interrogatory particles, ει᾿γάρ, “for if;” — ‘For if the law that was published unto our fathers by angels was so vindicated against the disobedient, how much more shall the neglect of the gospel be avenged?’Secondly, He affirms concerning this word thus published, that it was βέβαιος, “firm,” or “steadfast;” that is, it became an assured covenant between God and the people. That peace which is firm and well grounded is called εἰρήνηβεβαία, “a firm, unalterable peace;” and τὸβέβαιον, is public security. The law’s becoming βέβαιος, then, “firm, sure, steadfast,”consists in its being ratified to be the covenant between God and that people as to their typical inheritance: Deuteronomy 5:2, “The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.” And therefore in the greater transgressions of the law, the people were said to forsake, to break, to profane, to transgress the covenant of God, Leviticus 26:15; Deuteronomy 17:2, Hosea 6:7; Joshua 7:11; 2 Kings 18:12; 1 Kings 19:14; Jeremiah 22:9; Malachi 2:10. And the law thus published by angels became a steadfast covenant between God and the people, by their mutual stipulation thereon, Exodus 20:19; Joshua 24:21-22; Joshua 24:24. Being thus firm and ratified, obedience unto it became necessary and reasonable; for hence, — Thirdly, The event of disobedience unto this word is expressed: “Every transgression and every stubborn disobedience received a meet retribution.” Sundry things must be a little inquired into for the right understanding of these words, — as,1. The difference between παράβασις and παρακοή. And the first is properly any transgression, which the Hebrews call τֶּ ?ωַ ?ς; the latter includes a refusal so to attend as to obey, — contumacy, stubbornness, rebellion, ρψִ ?ι. And so the latter word may be exegetical of the former, — such transgressions the apostle speaks of as were accompanied with contumacy and stubbornness, — or they may both intend the same things under diverse respects.2. How may this be extended to every sin and transgression, seeing it is certain that some sins under the law were not punished, but expiated by atonement?Ans. (1.) Every sin was contrary τῷλόγῳ “to the doctrine of the law,” its commands and precepts.(2.) Punishment was assigned unto every sin, though not executed on every sinner. And so the word ἔλαζεν denotes not the actual infliction of punishment; but the constitution of it in the sanction of the law.(3.) Sacrifices for atonement manifested punishments to have been due, though the sinner was relieved against them. But,(4.) The sins especially intended by the apostle were such as were directly against the law as it was a covenant between God and the people, for which there was no provision made of any atonement or compensation; but the covenant being broken by them, the sinners were to die without mercy, and to be exterminated by the hand of God or man. And therefore the sins against the gospel, which are opposed unto those, are not any transgressions that professors may be guilty of, but final apostasy or unbelief, which renders the doctrine of it altogether unprofitable unto men. 3. Εςδικοςμισθαποδοσία is a recompence just and equal, proportionable unto the crime according to the judgment of God, — that which answers δικαιώματιτοῦΘεοῦ, that “judgment of God,” which is, “that they which commit sin are worthy of death,” Romans 1:32. And there were two things in the sentence of the law against transgressors: —(1.) The temporal punishment of cutting off from the land of the living, which respected that dispensation of the law which the Israelites were subjected unto. But the several sorts of punishment that were among the Jews under the law have been declared in our Prolegomena; to discover the nature whereof, let the reader consult the 21st Exercitation. And,(2.) Eternal punishment, which was figured thereby, due unto all transgressors of the law, as it is a rule of obedience unto God from all mankind, Jews and Gentiles. Now, it is the first of these which the apostle directly and primarily intendeth; because he is comparing the law in the dispensation of it on Horeb unto the Jews, with all its sanctions, unto the present dispensation of the gospel; and from the penalties wherewith the breach of it, as such, among that people, was then attended, argues unto the “sorer punishment” that must needs ensue upon the neglect of the dispensation of the gospel, as he himself expounds, Hebrews 10:28-29. For otherwise the penalty assigned unto the transgression of the moral law as a ride is the very same, in the nature and kind of it, with that which belongs unto despisers of the gospel, even death eternal.4. Chrysostom observes some impropriety in the use of the word μισθαποδοσία, because it rather denotes a reward for a good work than a punishment for an evil one. But the word is indifferent, ἐκτῶνμέσων, and denotes only a recompence suitable unto that whereunto it is applied. So is ἀντιμισθία, used by our apostle, Romans 1:27, excellently expressed by Solomon, Proverbs 1:31, “Sinners shall eat of the fruit of their own ways, and be filled with their own devices.” Such rewards we have recorded, Numbers 15:32-34; 2 Samuel 6:6-7; 1 Kings 13:4, 2 Kings 2:23-24; 2 Chronicles 32:20-21.This the apostle lays down as a thing well known unto the Hebrews, namely, that the law, which was delivered unto them by angels, received such a sanction from God, after it was established as the covenant between him and the people, that the transgression of it, so as to disannul the terms and conditions of it, had, by divine constitution, the punishment of death temporal, or excision, appointed unto it. And this in the next words he proceeds to improve unto his purpose by the way of an argument “a minori ad majus:” “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation,” etc. There is an antithesis expressed in one branch, as we observed before, between the law and the gospel, namely, that the law was the word spoken by angels, the gospel being revealed by the Lord himself. But there are also other differences intimated between them, though expressed only on the part of the gospel; as that it is, in its nature and effects, “great salvation;” that is, not absolutely only, but comparatively unto the benefit exhibited to their forefathers by the law, as given on mount Horeb. The confirmation also of the gospel by the testimony of God is tacitly opposed unto the confirmation of the law by the like witness. And from all these considerations doth the apostle enforce his argument, proving the punishment that shall befall gospel neglecters. In the words, as was in part before observed, there occur: — 1. The subject-matter spoken of, — “so great salvation.”2. A further description of it;(1.) From its principal author, — it “began to be spoken by the Lord;” (2.) From the manner of its propagation, — it “was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;(3.) From its confirmation by the testimony of God; — which,(4.) Is exemplified by a distribution into,[1. Signs;[2. Wonders;[3. Mighty works; and [4. Various gifts of the Holy Ghost. Whereof there is, 3. A neglect supposed, — “ if we neglect.” And, 4. Punishment thereof intimated; wherein,(1.) The punishment itself, and,(2.) The manner of its expression, “How shall we escape,” are to be considered. All which are to be severally explained.1. The subject-matter treated of is expressed in these words, “So great salvation.” And it is the gospel which is intended in that expression, as is evident from the preceding verse; for that which is there called “the word which we have heard,” is here called “great salvation:” as also from the following words, where it is said to be declared by the Lord, and further propagated by them that heard him. And the gospel is called “salvation” by a metonymy of the effect for the cause: for it is the grace of God bringing salvation, Titus 2:11; the word that is able to save us; the doctrine, the discovery, the instrumentally-efficient cause of salvation, Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:20-21. And this salvation the apostle calls great upon many accounts, which we shall afterwards unfold. And calling it, “so great salvation,” he refers them unto the doctrine of it, wherein they had been instructed, and whereby the excellency of the salvation which it brings is declared.Now, though the apostle might have expressed the gospel by “The word which was declared unto us by the Lord,” as he had done the law by “The word spoken by angels;” yet to strengthen his argument, or motive unto obedience, which he insists upon, he chose to give a brief description of it from its principal effect; it is “great salvation.” The law, by reason of sin, proved the ministry of death and condemnation, 2 Corinthians 3:9; yet, being fully published only by angels, obedience was indispensably required unto it; — and shall not the gospel, the ministry of life, and great salvation, be attended unto? 2. He further describes the gospel,(1.) From its principal author or revealer. It “began to be spoken by the Lord,” ἀρχὴν The words may have a twofold sense; for ἀρχήν may denote either “principium temporis,” “the beginning of time;” or “principium operis, the beginning of the work” In the first way, it asserts that the Lord himself was the first preacher of the gospel, before he sent or employed his apostles and disciples in the same work; in the latter, that he only began the work, leaving the perfecting and finishing of it unto those who were chosen and enabled by him unto that end. And this latter sense is also true; for he finished not the whole declaration of the gospel in his own person, teaching “viva voce,” but committed the work unto his apostles, Matthew 10:27. But their teaching from him being expressed in the next words, I take the words in the first sense, referring unto what he had delivered, Hebrews 1:1-2, of God’s speaking in these last days in the person of the Son. Now, the gospel hath had a threefold beginning of its declaration: — First, In prediction, by promises and types; and so it began to be declared from the foundation of the world, Luke 1:70-71. Secondly, In an immediate preparation; and so it began to be declared in and by the ministry of John the Baptist, Mark 1:1-2. Thirdly, In its open, clear, actual, full revelation; so this work was begun by the Lord himself, and carried on to perfection by those who were appointed and enabled by him thereunto, John 1:17-18. Thus was it by him declared, in his own person, as the law was by angels.And herein lies the stress of the apostle’s reasonings with reference unto what he had before discoursed concerning the Son and angels, and his pre- eminence above them. The great reason why the Hebrews so pertinaciously adhered unto the doctrine of the law, was the glorious publication of it. It was “the word spoken by angels;” they received it “by the disposition of angels.” ‘If,’saith the apostle, ‘that were a sufficient cause why the law should be attended unto, and that the neglect of it should be so sorely avenged as it was, though in itself but the ministry of death and condemnation, then consider what is your duty in reference unto the gospel, which as it was in itself a word of life and great salvation, so it was spoken, declared, and delivered by the Lord himself, whom we have manifested to be so exceedingly exalted above all angels whatever.’ He further describes the gospel, (2.) From the way and means of its conveyance unto us. It was “confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” And herein also he prevents an objection that might arise in the minds of the Hebrews, inasmuch as they, at least the greatest part of them, were not acquainted with the personal ministry of the Lord; they heard not the word spoken by him. For hereunto the apostle replies, that though they themselves heard him not, yet the same word which he preached was not only declared, but “confirmed unto them by those that heard him.” And herein he doth not intend all of them who at any time heard him teaching, but those whom in an especial manner he made choice of to employ them in that work, namely, the apostles. So that this expression, “Those that heard him,” is a periphrasis of the apostle’s, from that great privilege of hearing immediately all things that our Lord taught in his own person; for neither did the church of the Jews hear the law as it was pronounced on Horeb by angels, but had it confirmed unto them by the ways and means of God’s appointment And he doth not say merely that the word was taught or preached unto us by them; but ἐβεβαιώθη, — it was “confirmed,” made firm and steadfast, being delivered infallibly unto us by the ministry of the apostles, There was a divine βεβαίωσις, “firmness,” certainty, and infallibility in the apostolical declaration of the gospel, like that which was in the writings of the prophets; which Peter, comparing with miracles, calls βεβαιότερονλόγον, “a more firm, steadfast, or sure word.” And this infallible certainty of their word was from their divine inspiration.Sundry holy and learned men from this expression, “Confirmed unto us,” — wherein they say the writer of this epistle placeth himself among the number of those who heard not the word from the Lord himself, but only from the apostles, — conclude that Paul cannot be the penman thereof, who in sundry places denieth that he received the gospel by instruction from men, but by immediate revelation from God. Now, because this is the only pretense which hath any appearance of reason for the adjudging the writing of this epistle from him, I shall briefly show the invalidity of it. And (1.) It is certain that this term, “us,” comprises and casts the whole under the condition of the generality or major part, and cannot receive a particular distribution unto all individuals; for this epistle being written before the destruction of the temple, as we have demonstrated, it is impossible to apprehend but that some were then living at Jerusalem who attended unto the ministry of the Lord himself in the days of his flesh, and among them was James himself, one of the apostles, as before we have made it probable: so that nothing can hence be concluded to every individual, as though none of them might have heard the Lord himself.(2.) The apostle hath evidently a respect unto the foundation of the church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem by the preaching of the apostles, immediately after the pouring out of the Holy Ghost upon them, Acts 2:1-5; which, as he was not himself concerned in, so he was to mind it unto them as the beginning of their faith and profession.(3.) Paul himself did not hear the Lord Christ teaching personally on the earth when he began to reveal the great salvation.(4.) Nor doth he say that those of whom he speaks were originally instructed by the hearers of Christ, but only that by them the word was confirmed unto them; and so it was unto Paul himself, Galatians 2:1-2. But,(5.) Yet it is apparent that the apostle useth an ἀνακοίνωσιν, placing himself among those unto whom he wrote, though not personally concerned in every particular spoken, — a thing so usual with him that there is scarce any of his epistles wherein sundry instances of it are not to be found. See 1 Corinthians 10:8-9; 1 Thessalonians 4:17. The like is done by Peter, 1 Peter 4:3. Having therefore, in this place, to take off all suspicion of jealousy in his exhortation to the Hebrews unto integrity and constancy in their profession, entered on his discourse in this chapter in the same way of expression, “Therefore ought we,” as there was no need, so there was no place for the change of the persons, so as to say “you” instead of “us.” So that on many accounts there is no ground for this objection. He further yet describes the gospel (3.) By the divine attestation given unto it, which also adds to the force of his argument and exhortation: ΣυνεπιμαρτυροῖντοςτοῦΘεοῦ. The word is of a double composition, denoting a concurring testimony of God, a testimony given unto or together with the testimony and witness of the apostles. Of what nature this testimony was, and wherein it consisted, the next words declare, “By signs and wonders, and mighty works, and distributions of the Holy Ghost;” all which agree in the general nature of works supernatural, and in the especial end of attesting to the truth of the gospel, being wrought according to the promise of Christ, Mark 16:17-18, by the ministry of the apostles, Acts 5:12, and in especial by that of Paul himself, Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12. But as to their especial differences, they are here cast under four heads: —The first are σημεῖα, ΰεֹ ?ϊֹ ?ϊ, “signs;” that is, miraculous works, wrought to signify the presence of God by his power with them that wrought them, for the approbation and confirmation of the doctrine which they taught. The second are τέρατα, ξֹ ?τְ ?ϊִ ?ιν, “prodigies,” “wonders,” works beyond the power of nature, above the energy of natural causes; wrought to fill men with wonder and admiration, stirring men up unto a diligent attention to the doctrine accompanied with them: for whereas they surprise men by discovering τὸθεῖον, “a present divine power,” they dispose the mind to an embracing of what is confirmed by them. Thirdly, δυνάμεις, δβְּ ?αεּ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ, “mighty works,” wherein evidently a mighty power, the power of God, is exerted in their operation. And fourthly, Πνεύματοςἀγίουμερισμοί; ξυπεֹ ?ϊδָ ?ψεּ ?ηַ δַ ?χָּ ?γεֹ ?ω, “gifts of the Holy Ghost,” enumerated 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:8; χαρίσματα, “free gifts,” freely bestowed, called μερισμοί, “divisions,” or “distributions,” for the reason at large declared by the apostle, 1 Corinthians 12:7-11. All which are intimated in the following words, Κατὰτὴναὐτουθέλησιν. It is indifferent whether we read αὐτοῦ or αὐτοῦ, and refer it to the will of God, or of the Holy Ghost himself, his own will, which the apostle guides unto, 1 Corinthians 12:11. As we said before, all these agree in the same general nature and kind of miraculous operations, the variety of expressions whereby they are set forth relating only unto some different respects of them, taken from their especial ends and effects. The same works were, in different respects, signs, wonders, mighty works, and gifts of the Holy Ghost; but being effectual unto several ends, they received these various denominations. In these works consisted the divine attestation of the doctrine of the apostles, God in and by them giving testimony from heaven, by the ministration of his almighty power, unto the things which were taught, and his approbation of the persons that taught them in their work. And this was of especial consideration in dealing with the Hebrews; for the delivery of the law and the ministry of Moses having been accompanied with many signs and prodigies, they made great inquiry after signs for the confirmation of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 1:22; which though our Lord Jesus Christ neither in his own person nor by his apostles would grant unto them, in theft time and manner, to satisfy their wicked and carnal curiosity, yet in his own way and season he gave them forth for their conviction, or to leave them inexcusable, John 10:38.3. The gospel being of this nature, thus taught, thus delivered, thus confirmed, there is a neglect of it supposed, Hebrews 2:3, “If we neglect,” ἀμελήσαντες. The conditional is included in the manner of the expression, “If we neglect,” “if we regard not,” “if we do not take due care about it.” The word intimateth an omission of all those duties which are necessary for our retaining the word preached unto our profit, and that to such a degree as utterly to reject it; for it answers unto those transgressions of and that stubborn disobedience unto the law, which disannulled it as a covenant, and were punished with excision or cutting off. “If we neglect,” — that is, if we continue not in a diligent observation of all those duties which are indispensably necessary unto a holy, useful, profitable profession of the gospel 4. There is a punishment intimated upon this sinful neglect of the gospel: “How shall we escape,” — “flee from,” or “avoid?” wherein both the punishment itself and the manner of its expression are to be considered. For the punishment itself, the apostle doth not expressly mention it; it must therefore be taken from the words going before. “How shall we escape;” that is ἔνδικονμισθαποδοσίαν, “a just retribution,” “a meet recompence of reward?” The breach of the law had so; a punishment suitable unto the demerit of the crime was by God assigned unto it, and inflicted on them that were guilty. So is there unto the neglect of the gospel, even a punishment justly deserved by so great a crime; so much greater and more sore than that designed unto the contempt of the law, by how much the gospel, upon the account of its nature, effects, author, and confirmation, was more excellent than the law: χειρὼντιμωρία, “a sorer punishment,” as our apostle calls it, Hebrews 10:29; as much exceeding it as eternal destruction under the curse and wrath of God exceeds all temporal punishments whatever. What this punishment is, see Matthew 16:26; Matthew 25:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:9. The manner of ascertaining the punishment intimated is by an interrogation, “How shall we escape?” wherein three things are intended: —(1.) A denial of any ways or means for escape or deliverance. There is none that can deliver us, no way whereby we may escape. See 1 Peter 4:17-18. And, (2.) The certainty of the punishment itself. It will as to the event assuredly befall us. And,(3.) The inexpressible greatness of this unavoidable evil: “How shall we escape?” We shall not, there is no way for it, nor ability to bear what we are liable unto, Matthew 23:33; 1 Peter 4:18.This is the scope of the apostle in these verses, this the importance of the several things contained in them. His main design and intendment is, to prevail with the Hebrews unto a diligent attendance unto the gospel that was preached unto them; which he urgeth by an argument taken from the danger, yea certain ruin, that will undoubtedly ensue on the neglect of it; whose certainty; unavoidableness, greatness, and righteousness, he manifests by the consideration of the punishment assigned unto the transgression of the law, which the gospel on many accounts doth excel. The observations for our own instruction which these verses offer unto us are these that follow: — I. Motives unto a due valuation of the gospel and perseverance in the profession of it, taken from the penalties annexed unto the neglect of it, are evangelical, and of singular use in the preaching of the word: “How shall we escape, if we neglect?” This consideration is here managed by the apostle, and that when he had newly set forth the glory of Christ, and the greatness of the salvation tendered in the gospel, in the most persuading and attractive manner. Some would fancy that all comminations and threatenings do belong unto the law, as though Jesus Christ had left himself and his gospel to be securely despised by profane and impenitent sinners; but as they will find the contrary to their eternal ruin, so it is the will of Christ that we should let them know it, and thereby warn others to take heed of their sins and their plagues. Now, these motives from comminations and threatenings I call evangelical, — 1. Because they are recorded in the gospel. There we are taught them, and by it commanded to make use of them, Matthew 10:28; Matthew 24:50-51, Mark 16:16, John 3:36, 2 Corinthians 2:15-16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, and in other places innumerable. And to this end are they recorded, that they may be preached and declared as part of the gospel. And if the dispensers of the word insist not on them, they deal deceitfully with the souls of men, and detain from the counsel of God. And as such persons will find themselves to have a weak and an enervous ministry here, so also that they will have a sad account of their partiality in the word to give hereafter. Let not men think themselves more evangelical than the author of the gospel, more skilled in the mystery of the conversion and edification of the souls of men than the apostles; — in a word, more wise than God himself; which they must do if they neglect this part of his ordinance. 2. Because they become the gospel. It is meet the gospel should be armed with threatenings as well as attended with promises; and that, —(1.) On the part of Christ himself, the author of it. However the world persecuted and despised him whilst he was on the earth, and he “threatened not,” 1 Peter 2:23, on his own account, — however they continued to contemn and blaspheme his ways and salvation, — yet he lets them know that he is armed with power to revenge their disobedience.And it belongs unto his honor to have it declared unto them. A scepter in a kingdom without a sword, a crown without a rod of iron, will quickly be trampled on. Both are therefore given into the hand of Christ, that the glory and honor of his dominion may be known, Psalms 2:9-12.(2.) They become the gospel on the part of sinners, yea, of all to whom the gospel is preached. And these are of two sorts: —[1. Unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates, impenitent neglecters of the great salvation declared in it. It is meet on this account that the dispensation of the gospel be attended with threatenings and comminations of punishment; and that, — 1st. To keep them here in awe and fear, that they may not boldly and openly break out in contempt of Christ. These are his arrows that are sharp in the hearts of his adversaries, whereby he awes them, galls them, and in the midst of all their pride makes them to tremble sometimes at their future condition. Christ never suffers them to be so secure but that his terrors in these threatenings visit them ever and anon. And hereby also doth he keep them within some bounds, bridles their rage, and overpowers many of them unto some usefulness in the world, with many other blessed ends not now to be insisted on. 2dly. That they may be left inexcusable, and the Lord Christ be justified in his proceedings against them at the last day. If they should be surprised with “fiery indignation” and “everlasting burnings” at the last day, how might they plead that if they had been warned of these things they would have endeavored to flee from “the wrath to come;” and how apt might they be to repine against his justice in the amazing greatness of their destruction! But now, by taking order to have the penalty of their disobedience in the threatenings of the gospel declared unto them, they are left without excuse, and himself is glorified in taking vengeance. He hath told them beforehand plainly what they are to look for, Hebrews 10:26-27. [2. They are so on the part of believers themselves. Even they stand in need to be minded of “the terror of the Lord,” and what a fearful thing it is to “fall into the hands of the living God,” and that even “our God is a consuming fire.” And this, — 1st. To keep up in their hearts a constant reverence of the majesty of Jesus Christ, with whom they have to do. The threatening sanction of the gospel bespeaks the greatness, holiness, and terror of its author, and insinuates into the hearts of believers thoughts becoming them. It lets them know that he will be “sanctified in all that draw nigh unto him;” and so calls upon them for a due reverential preparation for the performance of his worship, and unto all the duties wherein they walk before him, Hebrews 12:28-29. This influenceth them also unto a diligent attendance unto every particular duty incumbent on them, as the apostle declares, 2 Corinthians 5:11. 2dly. They tend unto their consolation and supportment under all their afflictions and sufferings for the gospel. This relieves their hearts in all their sorrows, when they consider the sore vengeance that the Lord Jesus Christ will one day take on all his stubborn adversaries, who know not God, nor will obey the gospel, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; for the Lord Jesus is no less faithful in his threatenings than in his promises, and no less able to inflict the one than to accomplish the other. And he is “glorious” unto them therein: Isaiah 63:11-13.3dly. They give them constant matter of praise and thankfulness, when they see in them, as in a glass that will neither flatter nor causelessly terrify, a representation of that wrath which they are delivered from by Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 : for in this way every threatening of the gospel proclaims the grace of Christ unto their souls; and when they hear them explained in all their terror, they can rejoice in the hope of the glory that shall be revealed. And, —4thly. They are needful unto them to ingenerate that fear which may give cheek unto the remainder of their lusts and corruptions, with that security and negligence in attending to the gospel which by their means is apt to grow upon them. To this purpose is the punishment of despisers and backsliders here made use of and urged by our apostle. The hearts of believers are like gardens, wherein there are not only flowers, but weeds also; and as the former must be watered and cherished, so the latter must be curbed and nipped. If nothing but dews and showers of promises should fall upon the heart, though they seem to tend to the cherishing of their graces, yet the weeds of corruption will be apt to grow up with them, and in the end to choke them, unless they are nipped and blasted by the severity of threatenings. And although their persons, in the use of means, shall be secured from falling under the final execution of comminations, yet they know there is an infallible connection signified in them between sin and destruction, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and that they must avoid the one if they would escape the other.5thly. Hence they have in a readiness wherewith to balance temptations, especially such as accompany sufferings for Christ and the gospel. Great reasonings are apt to rise in the hearts of believers themselves in such a season, and they are biassed by their infirmities to attend unto them. Liberty would be spared, life would be spared; it is hard to suffer and to die. How many have been betrayed by their fears at such a season to forsake the Lord Christ and the gospel! But now in these gospel threatenings we have that in a readiness which we may oppose unto all these reasonings and the efficacy of them. Are we afraid of a man that shall die? have we not much more reason to be afraid of the living God? Shall we, to avoid the anger of a worm, cast ourselves into his wrath who is a consuming fire? Shall we, to avoid a little momentary trouble, to preserve a perishing life, which a sickness may take away the next day, run ourselves into eternal ruin? Man threatens me if I forsake not the gospel; but God threatens if I do. Man threatens death temporal, which yet it may be he shall not have power to inflict; God threatens death eternal, which no backslider in heart shall avoid. On these and the like accounts are comminations useful unto believers themselves. (3.) These declarations of eternal punishment unto gospel neglecters do become the gospel with respect unto them that are the preachers and dispensers of it, that their message be not slighted nor their persons despised. God would have even them to have in a readiness wherewith to revenge the disobedience of men, 2 Corinthians 10:6; not with carnal weapons, killing and destroying the bodies of men, but by such a denunciation of the vengeance that will ensue on their disobedience as shall undoubtedly take hold upon them, and end in their everlasting ruin. Thus are they armed for the warfare wherein by the Lord Christ they are engaged, that no man may be encouraged to despise them or contend with them. They are authorized to denounce the eternal wrath of God against disobedient sinners; and whomsoever they bind under the sentence of it on earth, they are bound in heaven unto the judgment of the great day. On these grounds it is we say that the threatenings and denunciations of future punishment unto all sorts of persons are becoming the gospel; and therefore the using of them as motives unto the ends for which they are designed is evangelical And this will further appear if we shall yet consider, — 1. That threatenings of future penalties on the disobedient are far more clear and express in the gospel than in the law. The curse, indeed, was threatened and denounced under the law, and a pledge and instance of its execution were given in the temporal punishments that were inflicted on the transgressors of it; but in the gospel the nature of this curse is explained, and what it consisteth in is made manifest. For as eternal life was only obscurely promised in the Old Testament, though promised, so death eternal under the curse and wrath of God was only obscurely threatened therein, though threatened. And therefore as life and immortality were brought to light by the gospel, so death and hell, the punishment of sin under the wrath of God, are more fully declared therein. The nature of the judgment to come, the duration of the penalties to be inflicted on unbelievers, with such intimations of the nature and kind of them as our understandings are able to receive, are fully and frequently insisted on in the New Testament, whereas they are very obscurely only gathered out of the writings of the Old.2. The punishment threatened in the gospel is, as unto degrees, greater and more sore than that which was annexed to the mere transgression of the first covenant. Hence the apostle calls it “death unto death,” 2 Corinthians 2:16, by reason of the sore aggravation which the first sentence of death will receive from the wrath due unto the contempt of the gospel. Separation from God under eternal punishment was unquestionably due to the sin of Adam; and so, consequently, unto every transgression against the first covenant, Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12; Romans 5:17. But yet this hinders not but that the same penalty, for the nature and kind of it, may receive many and great aggravations, upon men’s sinning against that great remedy provided against the first guilt and prevarication; which it also doth, as shall further afterwards be declared. And this ought they to be well acquainted withal who are called unto the dispensation of the gospel. A fond conceit hath befallen some, that all denunciations of future wrath, even unto unbelievers, is legal, which therefore it doth not become the preachers of the gospel to insist upon: so would men make themselves wiser than Jesus Christ and all his apostles, yea, they would disarm the Lord Christ, and expose him to the contempt of his vilest enemies. There is also, we see, a great use in these evangelical threatenings. unto believers themselves. And they have been observed to have had an effectual ministry, both unto conversion and edification, who have been made wise and dexterous in managing gospel comminations towards the consciences of their hearers. And those also that hear the word may hence learn their duty, when such threatenings are handled and opened unto them. II. All punishments annexed unto the transgression either of the law or gospel are effects of God’s vindictive justice, and consequently just and equal: “A meet recompence of reward.”What it is the apostle doth not declare; but he doth that it is just and equal, which depends on the justice of God appointing and designing of it. Foolish men have always had tumultuating thoughts about the judgments of God. Some have disputed with him about the equity and equality of his ways in judgments temporal, Ezekiel 18, and some about those that shall be eternal. Hence was the vain imagination of them of old who dreamed that an end should be put, after some season, unto the punishment of devils and wicked men; so turning hell into a kind of purgatory. Others have disputed, in our days, that there shall be no hell at all, but a mere annihilation of ungodly men at the last day. These things being so expressly contrary to the Scripture, can have no other rise but the corrupt minds and affections of men, not conceiving the reasons of God’s judgments, nor acquiescing in his sovereignty. That which they seem principally to have stumbled at, is the assignation of a punishment infinite as to its duration, as well as in its nature extended unto the utmost capacity of the subject, unto a fault temporary, finite, and transient. Now, that we may justify God herein, and the more clearly discern that the punishment inflicted finally on sin is but “a meet recompence of reward,” we must consider, — 1. That God’s justice constituting, and in the end inflicting, the reward of sin, is essential unto him. “Is God unjust?” saith the apostle, ὁἐπιφέρωντὴνὀργήν, Romans 3:5. ᾿Οργή, “anger,” or “wrath,” is not that from whence punishment proceedeth, but punishment itself. God inflicteth wrath, anger, or vengeance. And therefore when we read of the anger or wrath of God against sin or sinners, as Romans 1:18, the expression is metonymical, the cause being designed by the effect. The true fountain and cause of the punishment of sin is the justice of God, which is an essential property of his nature, natural unto him, and inseparable from any of his works. And this absolutely is the same with his holiness, or the infinite purity of his nature. So that God doth not assign the punishment of sin arbitrarily, as though he might do so or otherwise without any impeachment of his glory; but his justice and his holiness indispensably require that it should be punished, even as it is indispensably necessary that God in all things should be just and holy. “The holy God will do no iniquity;” the Judge of all the earth will do right, and will by no means acquit the guilty. This is δικαίωματοῦΘεοῦ, “the judgment of God,” that which his justice requireth, “that they which commit sin are worthy of death,” Romans 1:32. And God cannot but do that which it is just that he should do. See 2 Thessalonians 1:6. We have no more reason, then, to quarrel with the punishment of sin than we have to repine that God is holy and just, — that is, that he is God; for the one naturally and necessarily followeth upon the other. Now, there is no principle of a more uncontrollable and sovereign truth written in the hearts of all men than this, that what the nature of God, or any of his essential properties, require to be, is holy, meet, equal, just, and good.2. That this righteousness or justice of God is in the exercise of it inseparably accompanied with infinite wisdom. These things are not diverse in God, but are distinguished with respect unto the various manners of his actings, and the variety of the objects which he acteth towards, and so denote a different habitude of the divine nature, not diverse things in God. They are therefore inseparable in all the works of God. Now, from this infinite wisdom of God, which his righteousness in the constitution of the punishment of sin is eternally accompanied withal, two things ensue: —(1.) That he alone knoweth what is the true desert and demerit of sin, and but from his declaration of creatures not any. And how shall we judge of what we know nothing of but from him, but only by what he doth? We see amongst men that the guilt of crimes is aggravated according to the dignity of the persons against whom they are committed. Now, no creature knowing him perfectly against whom all sin is committed, none can truly and perfectly know what is the desert and demerit of sin but by his revelation who is perfectly known unto himself. And what a madness is it to judge otherwise of what we do no otherwise understand! Shall we make ourselves judges of what sin against God doth deserve? — let us first by searching find out the Almighty unto perfection, and then we may know of ourselves what it is to sin against him. Besides, we know not what is the opposition that is made by sin unto the holiness, the nature, the very being of God. As we cannot know him perfectly against whom we sin, so we know not perfectly what we do when we sin. It is the least part of the malignity and poison that is in sin which we are able to discern. We see not the depth of that malicious respect which it hath unto God; and are we capable to judge aright of what is its demerit? But all these things are open and naked before that infinite wisdom of God which accompanieth his righteousness in all his works. He knows himself, against whom sin is; he knows the condition of the sinner; he knows what contrariety and opposition there is in sin unto himself, — in a word, what it is for a finite, limited, dependent creature, to subduct itself from under the government and oppose itself unto the authority and being of the holy Creator, Ruler, and Governor of all things; — all [this he knows] absolutely and perfectly, and so alone knows what sin deserves. (2.) From this infinite wisdom is the proportioning of the several degrees in the punishment that shall be inflicted on sin: for although his righteousness requires that the final punishment of all sin should be an eternal separation of the sinner from the enjoyment of him, and that in a state of wrath and misery, yet by his wisdom he hath constituted degrees of that wrath, according unto the variety of provocations that are found among sinners. And by nothing else could this be done. What else is able to look through the inconceivable variety of aggravating circumstances, which is required hereunto? For the most part, we know not what is so; and when we know any thing of its being, we know nothing almost of the true nature of its demerit. And this is another thing from whence we may learn that divine punishment of sin is always “a meet recompence of reward.” 3. In the final punishment of sin, there is no mixture of mercy, — nothing to alleviate or to take off from the uttermost of its desert. This world is the time and place for mercy. Here God causeth his sun to shine and his rain to fall on the worst of men, filling their hearts with food and gladness. Here he endures them with much patience and forbearance, doing them good in unspeakable variety, and to many of them making a daily tender of that mercy which might make them blessed to eternity. But the season of these things is past in the day of recompence. Sinners shall then hear nothing but, “Go, ye cursed.” They shall not have the least effect of mercy showed unto them unto all eternity. They shall then “have judgment without mercy who showed no mercy.” The grace, goodness, love, and mercy of God, shall be glorified unto the utmost in his elect, without the least mixture of allay from his displeasure; and so shall his wrath, severity, and vindictive justice, in them that perish, without any temperature of pity or compassion. He shall rain upon them “snares, fire, and brimstone;” this shall be their portion for ever. Wonder not, then, at the greatness or duration of that punishment which shall exhaust the whole wrath of God, without the least mitigation. (1.) And this will discover unto us the nature of sin, especially of unbelief and neglect of the gospel Men are apt now to have slight thoughts of these things; but when they shall find them revenged with the whole wrath of God, they will change their minds. What a folly, what a madness is it, to make light of Christ, unto which an eternity of punishment is but “a meet recompence of reward!” It is good, then, to learn the nature of sin from the threatenings of God, rather than from the common presumptions that pass among secure, perishing sinners. Consider what the righteousness, what the holiness, what the wisdom of God hath determined to be due unto sin, and then make a judgment of the nature of it, that you be not overtaken with a woeful surprisal when all means of relief are gone and past. As also know that, —(2.) This world alone is the time and place wherein you are to look and seek for mercy. Cries will do nothing at the last day, not obtain the least drop of water to cool the tongue in its torment. Some men, doubtless, have secret reserves that things will not go at the last day as by others they are made to believe. They hope to meet with better quarter than is talked of, — that God will not be inexorable, as is pretended. Were not these their inward thoughts, it were not possible they should so neglect the season of grace as they do. But, alas, how will they be deceived! God indeed is gracious, merciful, and full of compassion; but this world is the time wherein he will exercise them. They will be for ever shut up towards unbelievers at the last day. This is the acceptable time, this is the day of salvation. If this be despised, if this be neglected, expect no more to hear of mercy unto eternity. III. Every concernment of the law and gospel, both as to their nature and promulgation, is to be weighed and considered by believers, to beget in their hearts a right and due valuation of them. To this end are they here so distinctly proposed; as of the law, that it was “spoken by angels;” and of the gospel, that it is “great salvation,” the word “spoken by the Lord,” and confirmed with signs and miracles: all which the apostle would have us to weigh and distinctly consider. Our interest lies in them, and our good is intended by them. And to stir up our attention unto them, we may observe, — 1. That God doth nothing in vain, nor speaks any thing in vain, especially in the things of his law and gospel, wherein the great concernments of his own glory and the souls of men are enwrapped. And therefore our Savior lets us know that there is a worth in the least apex and iota of the word, and that it must have its accomplishment. An end it hath, and that end shall be fulfilled. The Jews have a foolish curiosity in reckoning all the letters of the Scripture, and casting up how often every one doth occur. But yet this curiosity of theirs, vain and needless as it is, will condemn our negligence, if we omit a diligent inquiry into all the things and circumstances of it that are of real importance. God hath a holy and wise end in all that he doth. As nothing can be added unto his word or work, so nothing can be taken from it; it is every way perfect. And this in general is enough to quicken us unto a diligent search into all the circumstances and adjuncts both of law and gospel, and of the way and manner whereby he was pleased to communicate them unto us. 2. There is in all the concernments of the law and gospel a mixture of divine wisdom and grace. From this fountain they all proceed, and the living waters of it run through them all. The times, the seasons, the authors, the instruments, the manner of their delivery, were all ordered by the “manifold wisdom of God;” which especially appears in the dispensation of the gospel, Ephesians 3:9-10. The apostle placeth not the wisdom of God only in the mystery of the gospel, but also in the season of its promulgation. “It was hid,” saith he, “in God,” Ephesians 3:9, — that is, in the “purpose” of God, Ephesians 3:11, — “from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest,” Colossians 1:26. And herein doth the manifold wisdom of God appear. Were we able to look into the depth of any circumstance that concerns the institutions of God, we should see it full of wisdom and grace; and the neglect of a due consideration thereof hath God sometimes severely revenged, Leviticus 10:1-2.3. There is in them all a gracious condescension unto our weakness. God knows that we stand in need of an especial mark to be set on every one of them. Such is our weakness, our slowness to believe, that we have need that the word should be unto us “line upon line, and precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little.” As God told Moses, Exodus 4:8, that if the children of Israel would not believe on the first sign they would on the second, so it is with us; one consideration of the law or the gospel oftentimes proves ineffectual, when another overpowers the heart unto obedience. And therefore hath God thus graciously condescended unto our weakness in proposing unto us the several considerations mentioned of his law and gospel, that by some of them we may be laid hold upon and bowed unto his mind and will in them. Accordingly, — 4. They have had their various influences and successes on the souls of men. Some have been wrought upon by one consideration, some by another. In some the holiness of the law, in others the manner of its administration, has been effectual. Some have fixed their hearts principally on the grace of the gospel; some on the person of its author. And the same persons, at several times, have had help and assistance from these several considerations of the one and the other. So that in these things God doth nothing in vain. Nothing is in vain towards believers. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The apostle in these verses proceeds in the pursuit of his former design. From the doctrine of the first chapter, he presseth the exhortation at the beginning of this, which we have passed through. The foundation of that exhortation was the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ, the author of the gospel, above the angels by whom the law was spoken and delivered. This he now further confirms, and that by an instance suited to his present purpose, and not as yet by him insisted on. And he doth it the rather because, by the testimonies wherewith he proves his assertion, he is led to the consideration of other concernments of the mediation of Christ, which he thought meet to declare unto these Hebrews also. And this method he is constant unto throughout this whole epistle. In the midst of his reasonings and testimonies for the explanation or confirmation of what he delivers dogmatically, he lays hold on some occasion or other to press his exhortations unto faith, obedience, with constancy and perseverance in the profession of the gospel. And in the arguments which he interweaveth, and testimonies which he produceth for the enforcement of his exhortations, something still offers itself, which accordingly he lays hold upon, leading him to some further explication of the doctrine which he had in hand; so insensibly passing from one thing unto another, that he might at the same time inform the minds and work upon the affections of them with whom he dealt. All which will appear in our ensuing exposition of these verses. Hebrews 2:5. — Οὐγὰρἀγγέλοιςὑπέταξετὴνοἰκουμένηντὴνμέλλουσαν, περὶἧςλαλοῦμεν·῾Υπέταξε, “subjecit,” “in ordinem coegit,” “put into subjection,” “brought into order, under rule.” Τὴνοἰκουμένηντὴνμέλλουσαν, Vul., “orbem terrae futurum,” “the habitable earth to come;” Arias, “habitatam futuram,” to the same purpose, improperly; Syr., ςָ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ΰγַּ ?ςֲ ?ϊִ ?ιγ, “mundum,” or “seculum futurum,” “the world” (or “age”) “to come;” Beza, “mundum illum futurum,” “that world to come.” And indeed the repetition of the article, with the words following, “concerning which we speak,” requires that it be so expressed, “That world to come,” or “the world that is to come.” Οἰκουμένη, Hebrew, ϊֵּ ?αֵ ?μ. So most commonly expressed by the LXX.; as sometimes, though seldom, by γῆ, “the earth;” and sometimes by τὰὑπὸοὐρανῶν, “the things under the heavens.” The apostle useth this word from Psalms 8, where it denotes a mixture of inhabitants, there described. Περὶἧςλαλοῦμεν, that is, διαλεγόμεθα, “concerning which we treat,” “about which we reason.” The Vulgar Latin adds “Deus” to the text: “Deus non subjecit,”” God hath not put in subjection;” needlessly, as is acknowledged. “De quo Christo,” saith the interlinear gloss; but Περὶἧςis not “of Christ.” Hebrews 2:5. — For unto the angels hath he not made subject that world to come whereof we speak [concerning which we treat].Hebrews 2:6. — Διεμαρτύρατοδέπουτὶςλέγων·Τίἐστινἄνθρωπος, ὅτιμιμνήσκῃαὐτοῦ; ἥυἱὸςἀνθρώπου, ὃτιἐπισκέπτῃαὐτόν;Syr., ΰֶ ?μָּ ?ΰΰֵ ?ικְ γְּ ?ξַ ?ρְ ?δֵ ?γλְּ ?ϊָ ?αָ ?ΰεָ ?ΰξַ ?ψ, “But as the Scripture witnesseth and saith;” needlessly limiting what was spoken indefinitely by the apostle, the words themselves declaring who spake them and where. Πού, Vul., “in quodam loco,” “in a certain place ;” Beza, “alicubi,” “somewhere,” that is, Psalms 8:5. Τίἐστινἄνθρσπος; ξָ ?δΰּ ?ΰַ ?πεֹ ?ωׁ, “quid homo mortalis?” — βροτός, βροτὸςἀνήρ, “frail, mortal man,” or “the son of man.” αֶ ?οΰָ ?γָ ?ν, “filius hominis terreni;” γηγενής, “e terra editus,’— “man of the earth,” or “an earthy man.Hebrews 2:6. — But one [a certain man] testified [hath witnessed], in a certain place [somewhere, that is, in the Scripture, from whence he is arguing], saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?Hebrews 2:7. — ᾿Ηλάττωσαςαὐτὸνβραχύτιπαρ᾿ἀγγέλους·δόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφάνωσαςαὐτόν, καὶκατέστησαςαὐτὸνἐπὶτὰἔργατῶνχειρῶνσου, πάνταὑπέταξαςὐποκάτωτῶνποδῶναὐτοῦ.The latter words, which are commonly placed at the beginning of the eighth verse, I have added unto this seventh, the sense and Hebrew text so requiring it. ᾿Ηλάττωσαςαὐτόν. So the apostle renders ϊְּ ?ηַ ?ρְּ ?ψֵ ?δεּ ?in the psalmist, and that properly. Vul., “minuisti;” which is not “thou hast made less,” but “thou hast lessened,” which hath another sense than that here intended. Syr, ΰֲ ?ξֶ ?λְ ?ϊִ ?ιδָ ?ι, “depressiti,” “thou hast depressed,” or “made him less,” or “lower than he was.” Beza, “fecisti eum inferiorem,” “thou hast made him lower;” and so ours. Rhemists, “thou didst minish him a little less;” obscurely. ᾿Ελαττόω is “imminuo,” “diminuo,” “to make less,” “to take from,” as to state and condition. So in Isocrates, ἐλαττοῦντὴνπόλιν is to lessen the dignity, state, and condition of the people; as in Latin, “capitis diminutio” is lessening of state or dignity, as by loss of liberty. For when one was made a captive by the enemy he lost his dignity, until he recovered it “jure postliminii;” so Regulus is termed by the poet, “capitis minor,” when a prisoner to the Carthaginians: or by change of family, as when Clodius, a patrician, was adopted by a plebeian: or by banishment. All such are ἠλαττοῦμενοι, lessened in state or dignity. ηָ ?ρֵ ?ψ, the word used by the psalmist, hath the same signification; and though it be variously rendered by the LXX., yet they never much depart from its native signification. ᾿Ελαττονέω, “to minish,” “make less,” “take from;” ἐλαττόω, the same; ἐνδεής, “to become indigent;” ἐνδέομαι, “to be in want;” ἐπιδέομαι, προσδέομαι, all to the same purpose; στερίσκω, “to deprive;” ὑστερέω, “to want,” “to be indigent,” “to come short;” and στερέω, and κενὸνποιέω, “to make empty ;” that is, κενόω, the word used Philippians 2:7. I observe this various rendering of the word by the LXX. only to show that it doth constantly denote a diminution of state and condition, with an addition of indigency; which will give us light into the interpretation of the p]ace. Βραχύ, “breve quiddam;” Vul., “paulo minus;” Syr., χμִ ?ιμ, “paululum,” “a little,” or “paulisper,” “a little while.” ξְ ?ςַ ?θis frequently by the LXX. rendered μικρόν, “parvum,” “paululum,” — “a little,” intending quantity; sometimes ὀλίγον, which they refer to number, “a few;” and sometimes βραχύ, and then it constantly respects time, “a little while.” So that βραχύτι is as much as ἐπὶβραχεῖ, that is χρόνῳ; as in that saying, ῾Οβίοςβραχὺς, ἡτέχνημακρά , — “Life is short,” that is, of short continuance. Whether a little in degree or a short time be here intended we shall afterwards inquire.Παρ᾿ἀγγέλους, Syr. ξֵ ?οξַ ?μָ ?ΰλֵ ?ΰ, “prae angelis,” “more than angels,” “above the angels,” “more destitute than the angels;” Hebrew, ξֵ ?ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, “the angels of God.” So all old translations render the words. And to render it “a Deo”, in the psalm, is needless, groundless, contradictory to the apostle. Δόξῃκαὶτιμῇἐστεφάνωσαςαὐτόν, “gloria et honore coronasti eum,” “with glory and honor hast thou crowned him;” Syr., ϊֶ ?ωְׁ ?αּ ?εּ ?ηְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰεַ ?ΰιְ ?χָ ?ψָ ?ΰρִ ?ιναְ ?ιιּ ?ωֵׁ ?δ, “glory and honor hast thou placed on his head;” Heb. εְ ?λָ ?αεֹ ?ψεְ ?δָ ?γָ ?ψϊְּ ?ςַ ?θְּ ?ιֵ ?δεּ ?“thou hast crowned him” (or “adorned his head”) “with glory and beauty,” or “honor.” The first word denotes the weight and worth, the latter the beauty and splendor of this crown. Καὶκατέστησαςαὐτόνἐπί, “thou hast set him over;” that is, appointed him to be in authority, as Pharaoh set Joseph over the land of Egypt. Syr., εΰωְׁ ?μַ ?θְ ?ϊָ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι, “authoritatem,” “potestatem ei tribuisti; “thou hast given him power,” or “authority;” made him sultan, or lord. Heb., ϊּ ?ξְ ?ωִׁ ?ιμֵ ?δεּ, “made him lord,” or “ruler,” as Genesis 1:18. So καθίΣτημιἐπί is used, Acts 6, Luke 12. ῾Υπέταξαςὑποκάτωτῶνποδῶναὐτοῦ, “hast put” “put down,” “subjected all things under his feet.” The words all of them emphatically denote subjection and depression, and as thus conjoined, the most absolute subjection that can be apprehended.Hebrews 2:7. — Thou madest him lower for a little while than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him [gave him authority] over the works of thy hands: all things hast thou put in subjection under his feet.Hebrews 2:8. — ᾿Ενγὰρτῷὑποτάξαιαὐτῷτὰπάντα, οὐδένἀφῆκενἀνυπότακτον·νῦνοὔπωὁρῶμεναὐτῷτὰπάνταὑποτεταγμένα.Hebrews 2:8. — For in that he made all things subject unto him, he hath left nothing not put in subjection; but now we see not all things made subject unto him.Hebrews 2:9. — Τὸνδὲβραχύτιπαρ᾿ἀγγέλουςἠλαττωμένονβλέπομεν῾Ιησοῦν, διὰτὸπάθηματοῦθανάτουδόξῆκαὶτιμῇἐστεφανωμένον, ὅτωςχάριτιΘεοῦὑπέρπαντὸςγεύσηταιθανάτου. The words of this ἀπόΔοσις have most of them been considered in the πρόθεσις, and they must have the same sense in both places, or the reasoning of the apostle would be equivocal. For χάριτιΘεοῦ, some old copies read, χωρὶςΘεοῦ, “besides God,” “God excepted.” The Syriac copies also vary. Some read, “For God himself by his grace tasted death.” Others, “For he, God excepted, tasted death;” which came from χωρὶςΘεοῦ, and shows that variety to be ancient. Hence some have imagined it to be a corruption of the Nestorians, who, dividing the person of Christ, would not grant that God might be said to die, contrary to Acts 20:28. ΧάριτιΘεοῦ, is “gratia,” “beneficentia,” “beneficio Dei,” “by the grace,” “goodness,” “good-will of God,” expressing the first spring and moving cause of the sufferings of Christ. Γεύσηταιζαςάτου, “should taste of death;” an Hebraism for to die, intimating withal the truth, reality, and kind of his death, which was bitter, and which was called his “cup.” ῾῾Ψπὲρπαντός, in the masculine, not neuter gender, for ὑπὲρπάντων, by an enallage of number, that is, υἱῶν, of whom he treats; all and every one of the children unto whom he was a captain of salvation. [2][2] VARIOUS . — The clause, Κατέστησας usque σου, Acts 20:7, is omitted by Griesbach, Scholz, and Tischendorf. Knapp, Lachmann, and Hahn enclose it within brackets, as doubtful. . — Βραχύ. “For a little while.” — Valckenaer, De Wette, Conybeare and Howson, Ebrard. “A little” (in respect of degree). — Stuart, Scholefield, Olshausen, Turner. — ED. Hebrews 2:9. — But we see Jesus crowned with glory and honor, who for the suffering of death was a little while made lower than the angels, that he by the grace of God might taste of death for all.Hebrews 2:5. — The first words of the fifth verse, οὐγάρ, “for,” declare that the apostle is in the pursuit of his former argument. Γάρ “for,” doth not always intimate the introduction of a reason in the confirmation of what is past, but sometimes a progression unto somewhat else in the like kind with that which precedeth, and so hath not respect unto any especial words or sayings going before, but unto the whole matter in hand, especially that which doth ensue; as “nam” also is used in Latin: “Nam quis tejuvenum confidentissime, nostras jussit adire domos.” A new argument, therefore, to the same purpose with that before is intimated by this particle, “for.” The whole verse contains an assertion laid down in a negative proposition, the assumption of the apostle’s argument, or the proof of it, supposed in a prosyllogism, consisting in the ensuing testimony, with his explication of it. And it is to this purpose: ‘The world to come is not made subject unto angels; but it was made subject to Jesus: and therefore he is exalted above them.’This he proves from the testimony of the psalmist, to this purpose, ‘All things were made subject to man, who for a little while was made lower than the angels; but this man was Jesus.’And this assumption he proves from the event: — First, On the part of man absolutely considered: ‘We see that all things are not made subject unto him;’therefore he cannot be intended.Secondly, On the part of Jesus. ‘All things in the event agree unto him; first, he was made for a little while lower than the angels,’ (which he shows the reason of, and thence takes occasion to discourse of his death and sufferings, according to the method before declared;) ‘and then he was crowned with glory and dignity, all things being made subject unto him; — from all which it appears, that it is he, and not angels, unto whom the world to come is put in subjection.’This is the series of the apostle’s discourse, wherein are many things difficult and “hard to be understood,” which must be particularly considered. The first verse, as was said, lays down the principal assertion in negative proposition: “The world to come is not made subject unto angels.” One proof hereof is included in the words themselves; for that expression, “He hath not put in subjection,” is the same with our apostle as, ‘It is nowhere written or recorded in the Scripture,’‘There is no testimony of it,’‘God is nowhere said to have done it.’ See Hebrews 1:5, with the exposition of it. And these negative arguments from the authority of the Old Testament he esteemed in this matter cogent and sufficient. In the proposition itself, 1. The subject of it, “The world to come;” with 2. Its limitation, “Whereof we treat;” and 3. The predicate, negatively expressed, “Is not put in subjection to angels,” are to be considered.The subject of the proposition is, “The world to come” (ςεμνδαΰ the new heavens and new earth (οἰκουμένη), which God promised to create, Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22; which refers unto ιξιδξωιη, “the days of the Messiah.” The later Jews sometimes call it ςεμνςϊιγ, “the future world,” though usually by that expression they intend the world of future bliss. But the world here intended is no other but the promised state of the church under the gospel. This, with the worship of God therein, with especial relation unto the Messiah, the author and mediator of it, administering its heavenly things before the throne of grace, thereby rendering it spiritual and heavenly, and diverse from the state of the worship of the old testament, which was worldly and carnal, was “the world to come” that the Jews looked for, and which in this place is intended by the apostle. This we must further confirm, as the foundation of the ensuing exposition. That this then, is the intendment of the apostle appeareth, — First, From the limitation annexed, περὶἧςλαλοῦμεν, “concerning which we treat.” This is the world whereof he treats with the Hebrews in this epistle, namely, the gospel state of the church, the worship whereof he had in the words immediately foregoing pressed them unto the observation of; and not only so, but described it also by that state wherein the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were given and enjoyed. And the mention of them in the words directly preceding is that description of the world to come which the apostle in these words refers unto, “concerning which we speak.” And the tradition of this new world, or the restoration of all things under the Messiah, was one of the principal reports of truth received among the Jews, which the apostle presseth them withal.Some suppose that λαλοῦμεν, “we speak,” is put for ἐλαλήσαμεν, “we have spoken,” and would have it refer unto Hebrews 1:6. But what the apostle there intendeth by “the world” we have sufficiently evinced and declared. The “world” there, by a usual synecdoche, is put for the habitable earth, the τὰἴδια, which the Son of God made and came unto, John 1:11. Here, a certain state and condition of things in the world, about which he treated with the Hebrews, is intended. Besides, they who would thus change the word (Grotius, Crellius, Schlichtingius), by the world, Hebrews 1:6, understand heaven itself, the state of glory, which is not here insisted on by the apostle; for, — Secondly, He treats of that which was already done, in the crowning of Jesus with glory and honor, as the words following do manifest. This crowning of him was upon his ascension, as we have before proved at large. Then was not the state of glory made subject unto him, because it was not then nor is yet in being. And, therefore, they who turn “we speak” into “we have before spoken,” are forced also to pervert the following words, and to interpret, “He hath made all things subject unto him,” “He hath purposed or decreed so to do;” both without cause or reason. The world whereof the apostle treats was immediately made subject to Jesus, — that is, the church of the new testament, — when God anointed him king upon his holy hill of Zion; and therefore in the psalm is there mention made of those other parts of the creation, to be joined in this subjection, that have no relation unto heaven. Thirdly, The apostle doth not treat directly anywhere in this epistle concerning heaven, or the world of the blessed to come. He frequently mentions heaven, not absolutely, indeed, but as it belongs unto the gospel world, as being the place of the constant residence of the high priest of the church, and wherein also the worship of it is through faith celebrated.Fourthly, The apostle in these words insists on the antithesis which he pursueth in his whole discourse between the Judaical and evangelical church-state; for whatever power angels might have in and over things formerly, this world to come, saith he, is not made subject unto them. Now, it is not heaven and glory that he opposeth to the Judaical church-state and worship, but that of the gospel, as we shall find in the progress of the epistle; which is therefore necessarily here intended. Fifthly, If by “the world to come,” the eternal, blessed state of glory be designed, to begin at or after the general judgment, then here is a promise that that blessed estate shall “de nove” be put in subjection to Jesus Christ as mediator; but this is directly contrary unto what is elsewhere revealed by the same apostle, concerning the transactions between the Father and the Son as mediator at that day, 1 Corinthians 15:28 :“And when all shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all;”— which words, if they do not absolutely assert the ceasing of the kingdom of the mediator, but only the order of all things unto eternity in their subjection unto God by Christ, yet they are plainly exclusive of the grant of a new power or authority unto him, or of a new making subject of all things unto him. Add unto all this, that the apostle proves the subjection of this world unto the Lord Christ, and not unto angels, by a testimony expressing directly the present things of this world, antecedent unto the day of judgment, From what hath been discoursed, we conclude that “the world to come,” here expressed, is the state and worship of the church under the Messiah, called so by the apostle, according to the usual appellation which then it had obtained among the Jews, and allowed by him until the Mosaical church-state was utterly removed. And he afterwards declares how this comprised heaven itself also, because of the residence of our high priest in the holiest not made with hands, and the continual admission of the worshippers unto the throne of grace. This is the subject of the apostle’s proposition, that concerning which he treats. Concerning this world the apostle first declares negatively, that it is not made subject unto angels. The subjecting of this world to come unto any, is such a disposal of it as that he or they unto whom it is put in subjection should, as the lord of it, erect, institute, or set it up, rule and dispose of it being erected, and judge and reward it in the end of its course and time. This is denied concerning angels, and the denial proved tacitly, — because no such thing is testified in the Scripture. And herein the apostle either preventeth an objection that might arise from the power of the angels in and over the church of old, as some think, or rather proceeds in his design of exalting the Lord Jesus above them, and thereby prefers the worship of the gospel before that prescribed by the law of Moses: for he seems to grant that the old church and worship were in a sort made subject unto angels; this of the world to come being solely and immediately in his power who in all things was to have the pre-eminence. And this will further appear if we consider the instances before mentioned wherein the subjection of this world to come unto any doth consist. First, It was not put in subjection unto angels in its erection or institution. That work was not committed unto them, as the apostle declares in the entrance of this epistle. They did not reveal the will of God concerning it, nor were intrusted with authority to erect it. Some of them, indeed, were employed in messages about its preparatory work, but they were not employed either to reveal the mysteries of it, wherewith they were unacquainted, nor authoritatively in the name of God to erect it. For the wisdom of God in the nature and mystery of this work, they knew not but by the effects in the work itself, Ephesians 3:9-10, which they looked and inquired into, to learn and admire, 1 Peter 1:12; and therefore could not be intrusted with authority for its revelation, and the building of the church thereon. But things were otherwise of old. The law, which was the foundation of the Judaical church-state, was given “by the disposition of angels, Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19; and our apostle here calls it “the word spoken by angels.” They were therefore intrusted by God to give the law and the ordinances of it unto the people in his name and authority; which being the foundation of the Mosaical church-state, it was so far put in subjection unto them.Secondly, It is not put in subjection unto angels as to the rule and disposal of it being erected. Their office in this world is a ministry, Hebrews 1:14, not a rule or dominion. Rule in or over the church they have none, but are brought into a co-ordination of service with them that have the testimony of Jesus, Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:9; being equally with us subjected unto him, in whom they and we are gathered into one head, Ephesians 1:10. And from their ministerial presence in the congregations of believers doth our apostle press women unto modesty and sobriety in their habit and deportment, 1 Corinthians 11:10. And the church of old had an apprehension of this truth, of the presence of an angel or angels in their assemblies, but so as to preside in them. Hence is that caution relating to the worship of God, Ecclesiastes 5:5-6 :“Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?”By vowing and not paying, a man brought upon his flesh, that is, himself and his posterity, a guilt not to be taken away with excuses of haste or precipitation made unto the angel presiding in their worship, to take an account of its due performance. It is true, the absolute sovereign power over the church of old was in the Son of God alone; but an especial, immediate power over it was committed unto angels. And hence was the name of ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, “god,” “judge,” “mighty one,” communicated unto them, namely, from their authority over the church; that name expressing the authority of God when unto him ascribed. And because of this, their acting in the name and representing the authority of God, the saints of old had an apprehension that upon their seeing of an angel they should die, from that saying of God, that none should see his face and live, Exodus 33:20. So Manoah expressly, Judges 13:22. He knew that it was an angel which appeared unto him, and yet says to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, — an angel vested with the authority of God. And hence it is not unlikely but that there might be a respect or worship due unto the angels under the old testament, which themselves declare not to be meet for them under the new, Revelation 19; not that they are degraded from any excellency or privilege which before they enjoyed, but that the worshippers under the new testament, through their relation unto Christ, and the exaltation of their nature in his person, are delivered from that underage estate, wherein they differed not from servants, Galatians 4:1, and are advanced into an equality of liberty with the angels themselves, Hebrews 12:22-24, Ephesians 1:10; Ephesians 3:14-15; as amongst men there may be a respect due from an inferior to a superior, which may cease when he is advanced into the same condition with the other, though the superior be not at all abased. And to this day the Jews contend that angels are to be adored with some kind of adoration, though they expressly deny that they are to be invocated or prayed unto. Furthermore, about their power and authority in the disposal of the outward concernments of the church of old, much more might be declared from the visions of Zechariah and Daniel, with their works in the two great typical deliverances of it from Egypt and Babylon. But we must not here insist on particulars.Thirdly, As to the power of judging and rewarding at the last day, it is openly manifest that God hath not put this world to come in subjection unto angels, but unto Jesus alone.This, then, is the main proposition that the apostle proceeds upon in his present argument. The most glorious effect of the wisdom, power, and grace of God, and that wherein all our spiritual concernments here are enwrapped, consists in that blessed church-state, with the eternal consequences of it, which, having been promised from the foundation of the world, was now to be erected in the days of the Messiah. ‘That you may,’saith he, ‘no more cleave unto your old institutions, because given out unto you by angels, nor hanker after such works of wonder and terror as attended their disposition of the law in the wilderness, consider that this world, so long expected and desired, this blessed estate, is not on any account made subject unto angels, or committed unto their disposal, the honor thereof being entirely reserved for another.’ Having thus fixed the true and proper sense of this verse, we may stop here a little, to consult the observations that it offers for our own instruction. Many things in particular might be hence educed, but I shall insist on one only, which is comprehensive of the design of the apostle, and it is, — That this is the great privilege of the church of the gospel, that, in the things of the worship of God, it is made subject unto and immediately depends upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and not on any other, angels or men. That this is the privilege thereof, and that it is a great and blessed privilege, will appear both in our consideration of what it is and wherein it doth consist. And, among many other things, these ensuing are contained therein: — 1. That the Lord Christ is our head. So it was promised of old that “their king should pass before them, and the LORD on the head of them,” Micah 2:13. He shall be their king, head, and ruler. God hath now gathered all things, all the things of his church, into a head in Christ, Ephesians 1:10. They were all scattered and disordered by sin, but are now all re-collected and brought into order under one head. Him hath he “given to be head over all things to the church,” Ephesians 1:22. The whole sovereignty over all the whole creation, that is committed unto him, is only for this end, that he may be the more perfect and glorious head to the church. He is that head on which the whole body hath its orderly and regular dependence, Ephesians 4:15-16; “The head of the body, the church,” Colossians 1:18; “The head of every man,” that is, of every believer, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23. And this is everywhere proposed both as our great honor and our great advantage. To be united unto him, subjected unto him as our head, gives us both honor and safety. What greater honor can we have, than to be freemen of that corporation whereof he is the head, than to be subjects of his kingdom? what greater safety, than to be united unto him inseparably who is in glory invested with all power and authority over the whole creation of God, every thing that may do us good or evil ? 2. That he is our only head. The church is so put in subjection unto the Lord Christ as not to be subject unto any other. It is true, the members of the church, as men on the earth, have other relations, in respect whereof they are or may be subject one to another, — children unto parents, servants unto masters, people unto rulers; but as they are members of the church, they are subject unto Christ, and none other. If any other were or might be a head unto them, they must be angels or men. As for angels, we have it here plainly testified that the church is not made subject in any thing unto them. And amongst men, the apostles of all others might seem to lay the justest claim to this privilege and honor; but they openly disclaim any pretense thereunto. So doth Paul, 2 Corinthians 1:24, “We have no dominion,” rule, lordship, headship, “over your faith,” — any thing that concerns your obedience to God, and your worship; “but are helpers of your joy.” And again saith he, “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord,” the only Lord; “and ourselves your servants for Jesus’sake,” 2 Corinthians 4:5. And Peter, as it should seem, foreseeing that some who should come after would pretend unto such pre-eminence, warns the elders that they should not think themselves “lords over God’s heritage,” 1 Peter 5:3. And this they did in pursuit of the instructions and charge which their Lord and Master gave them, Matthew 20:25-27, where he warns them that they should neither think of dignity nor dominion over the church, but apply themselves with all humility unto the service of it; for which he elsewhere adds his reason, namely, that all his disciples have one Lord and Master, and no more, John 13:13, Matthew 23:8; Matthew 23:10. And it is a woeful confusion that the Papists run themselves into in this matter; for, first, they put the whole church into subjection unto a man, whom they call the Pope, the common father and master of Christians, the head of the church and then subject both him and it unto angels, in the adoration and invocation of them, — the greatest subjection possible; when the Scripture assigneth one only head of the church expressly, even the Lord Jesus, and fully declares that it is not put in subjection unto angels at all. But to pass them by, the Lord Christ is not only thus the only head in general unto the whole church, but also unto every individual believer in the church: “The head of every man is Christ,” 1 Corinthians 11:8. He is so to every believer respectively and severally; and that in both those senses wherein he is a head, — that is, according to the natural and metaphorical use of the word. For, —(1.) He is the only head of vital influence to the whole church and every member thereof. As from the natural head all influences of life, for subsistence, motion, acting, guidance, and direction, are communicated unto the whole body and to every member thereof; so from the Lord Christ alone, as he is the spiritually vital head of the church, in whom are the springs of life and all quickening grace, there are communicated unto the whole church, and every believer therein, both the first quickening vital principle of life itself and all succeeding supplies and influences of grace, for the enlivening, strengthening, acting, guiding, and directing of them. This himself declares, by comparing the relation of all believers unto him unto that of branches unto the vine, John 15:2; John 15:4; which have no life but by virtue of their union unto the vine, nor sap for fruitfulness but what is derived therefrom; which he teacheth expressly, John 15:5, “Without me,” saith he, “ye can do nothing.” And this the apostle lively sets out unto us in the similitude of the natural body, Colossians 2:19. And this placing of all fullness in the Lord Christ, as the head of the church, that thence the whole and every member of it might derive needful supplies to themselves, is fully taught us in the gospel. Hence the church is called “the fullness of Christ,” Ephesians 1:23; or that whereunto Christ communicates of his all-fullness of grace, until it come unto the measure or degree of growth and perfection which he hath graciously assigned unto it. And none, I suppose, will contend but that the Lord Christ is the alone and only head of the church in this sense. It hath not a spiritual dependence on any other for grace. There is, indeed, I know not what monster lies in the opinion of them who take upon themselves to confer grace upon others, by virtue of such things as they do unto them or for them; but this we do not now consider. If any man think he may have grace from any but Christ alone, be they angels or men, let him turn himself unto them, but withal know assuredly that he “forsakes the fountain of living waters” for “broken cisterns,’’which will yield him no relief. (2.) He is the only head of rule and government unto the whole church, and every member thereof. This rule or government of the church concerneth all that obedience which it yields unto God in his worship. And unto a head herein it is required that he give perfect rules and laws for all things necessarily belonging thereunto, and take care that they be observed. And here a great contest ariseth in the world. The Papists, in behalf of their pope and others under him, contend to be sharers with the Lord Christ in this his headship; and fain they would persuade us that he himself hath appointed that so it should be. The Scripture tells us that he was faithful in the whole house of God, as was Moses, and that as a lord over his own house, to erect, rule, and establish it. And himself, when he gives commission unto his apostles, bids them to teach men to do and observe all that he had commanded them; and accordingly they tell us that they delivered unto us what they received from the Lord, and command us not to be wise above what is written. But I know not how it is come to pass that these men think that the Lord Christ is not a complete head in this matter, that he hath not instituted all rules and laws that are needful and convenient for the right discharge of the worship of God and obedience of the church therein; at least., that somewhat may be added unto what he hath appointed, that may be much to the advantage of the church. And this they take to be their work, by virtue of I know not what unsealed warrant, unwritten commission. But to add any thing in the worship of God unto the laws of the church, is to exercise authority over it, dominion over its faith, and to pretend that this world to come, this blessed gospel church-state, is put in subjection unto them, although it be not so to angels; — a vain and proud pretense, as at the last day it will appear. But you will say, ‘Christ gives his laws only unto his whole church, and not to individual believers, who receive them from the church; and so he is not an immediate head unto every one in particular.’I answer, that the Lord Christ commits his laws unto the church’s ministry to teach them unto believers; but his own authority immediately affects the soul and conscience of every believer. He that subjects himself aright unto them doth it not upon the authority of the church, by whom they are taught and declared, but upon the authority of Christ, by whom they are given and enacted.3. It appears from hence that as he is our only head, so he is our immediate head. We have our immediate dependence upon him, and our immediate access unto him. He hath, indeed, appointed means for the communicating of his grace unto us, and for the exercising of his rule and authority over us. Such are all his ordinances, with the offices and officers that he hath appointed in his church; the first whereof he requires us to be constant in the use of, the latter he requires our obedience and submission unto. But these belong only unto the way of our dependence, and hinder not but that our dependence is immediate on himself, he being the immediate object of our faith and love. The soul of a believer rests not in any of these things, but only makes use of them to confirm his faith in subjection unto Christ: for all these things are ours, they are appointed for our use, and we are Christ’s, as he is God’s, 1 Corinthians 3:21-23. And so have we our immediate access unto him, — and not, as some foolishly imagine, by saints and angels, — and by him to God, even to the throne of grace.4. This privilege is greatly augmented, in that the church being made subject unto Christ alone, and cast into a dependence upon him, he will assuredly take care of all its concernments, seeing unto him only doth it betake itself. The church made it of old part of her plea that she was as one fatherless, Hosea 14:3; that is, every way helpless, that had none to relieve or succor her. And the Lord Christ giveth this as a reason why he stirreth up himself unto the assistance of his people, because there was no man that appeared for their help, no intercessor to interpose for them, Isaiah 59:16. Now, God having placed the church in this condition, as to be ofttimes altogether orphans in this world, to have none to give them the least countenance or assistance; and the church itself choosing this condition, to renounce all hopes and expectations from any else beside, betaking itself unto the power, grace, and faithfulness of the Lord Christ alone; it cannot but as it were be a great obligation upon him to take care of it, and to provide for it at all times. They are members of his body, and he alone is their head; they are subjects of his kingdom, and he alone is their king; they are children and servants in his family, and he alone is their father, lord, and master; and can he forget them, can he disregard them? Had they been committed to the care of men, it may be some of them would have fought and contended for them, though their faithfulness is always to be suspected, and their strength is a thing of nought; had they been put into subjection unto angels, they would have watched for their good, though their wisdom and ability be both finite and limited, so that they could never have secured their safety: and shall not the Lord Jesus Christ, now they are made his special care, as his power and faithfulness are infinitely above those of any mere creature, excel them also in care and watchfulness for our good? And all these things do sufficiently set out the greatness of that privilege of the church which we insist upon. And there are two things that make this liberty and exaltation of the church necessary and reasonable : — 1. That God having exalted our nature, in the person of his Son, into a condition of honor and glory, so as to be worshipped and adored by all the angels of heaven, it was not meet or convenient that it should in our persons, when united unto Christ as our head, be made subject unto them. God would not allow, that whereas there is the strictest union between the head and the members, there should be such an interposition between them as that the angels should depend on their head, and the members should depend on angels; which indeed would utterly destroy the union and immediate intercourse that is and ought to be between them.2. God is pleased by Jesus Christ to take us into a holy communion with himself, without any other medium or means of communication but only that of our nature, personally and inseparably united unto his own nature in his Son. And this also our subjection unto angels is inconsistent withal. This order of dependence the apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 3:22-23, “All things are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” As there is no interposition between God and Christ, no more is there between Christ and us, and in and by him alone do we relate unto God himself. And this should teach us, — (1.) The equity and necessity of our universal obedience unto God in Christ. He hath freed us from subjection unto men and angels, that we might serve him and live unto him. He hath taken us to be his peculiar ones, his lot and portion, from whom he expects all his revenue of glory out of this world. And he hath left us no pretense, no excuse, for the neglect of any duties of obedience that he requireth of us. We cannot plead that we had other work to do, other lords and masters to serve; he hath set us free from them all, that we might be his. If a king take a servant into his family, and thereby free and discharge him from being liable unto any other duty or service whatever, may he not justly expect that such a one will be diligent in the observation of all his commands, especially considering also the honor and advantage that he hath by being taken near unto his person, and employed in his affairs? And shall not God much more expect the like from us, considering how exceedingly the privilege we have by this relation unto him surpasseth all that men can attain by the favor of earthly princes? And if we will choose other lords of our own to serve, if we are so regardless of ourselves as that we will serve our lusts and the world, when God hath had such respect unto us as that he would not suffer us to be subject unto the angels of heaven, how inexcusable shall we be in our sin and folly? ‘You shall be for me,’saith God, ‘and not for any other whatever.’And are we not miserable if we like not this agreement? (2.) For the manner of our obedience, how ought we to endeavour that it be performed with all holiness and reverence! Moses makes this his great argument with the people for holiness in all their worship and services, — because no people had God so nigh unto them as they had. And yet that nearness which he insisted on was but that of his institutions, and some visible pledges and representations therein of his presence among them. How much more cogent must the consideration of this real and spiritual nearness which God hath taken us unto himself in by Jesus needs be to the same purpose! All that we do, we do it immediately unto this holy God; not only under his eye and in his presence, but in an especial and immediate relation unto him by Jesus Christ, Hebrews 2:6. — The apostle hath showed that the world to come, which the Judaical church looked for, was not made subject unto angels, no mention of any such thing being made in the Scripture. That which he assumes to make good his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Jesus above the angels, is, that unto him it was put in subjection. And this he doth not expressly affirm in words of his own, but insinuateth in a testimony out of the Scripture, which he citeth and urgeth unto that purpose. And in this way he proceedeth for these two ends: — 1. To evidence that what he taught was suitable unto the faith of the church of old, and contained in the oracles committed unto it; which was his especial way of dealing with these Hebrews.2. That he might from the words of that testimony take occasion to obviate a great objection against the dignity of Christ and mysteries of the gospel, taken from his humiliation and death, and thereby make way to a further explication of many other parts or acts of his mediation.Many difficulties there are in the words and expressions of these verses, and more in the apostle’s application of the testimony by him produced unto the person and end by him intended; all which, God assisting, we shall endeavor to remove. And to that end shall consider, — 1. The way and manner of his introducing this testimony, which is peculiar;2. The testimony itself produced, with an explication of the meaning and importance of the words in the place from whence it is taken; 3. The application of it unto the apostle’s purpose, both as to the person intended and as to the especial end aimed at; 4. Further unfold what the apostle adds about the death and sufferings of Christ, as included in this testimony, though not intended as to the first use and design of it; and,5. Vindicate the apostle’s application of this testimony, with our explication of it accordingly, from the objections that some have made against it, All which we shall pass through as they present themselves unto us in the text itself.1. The manner of his citing this testimony is somewhat peculiar, “One testified in a certain place,” neither person nor place being specified; as though he had intended τְ ?μֹ ?πִ ?ιΰַ ?μְ ?ξεֹ ?πִ ?ι, a certain person whom he would not name. But the reason of it is plain; both person and place were sufficiently known to them to whom he wrote. And the Syriac translation changeth the expression in the text into, “But as the Scripture witnesseth and saith,” without cause. The Hebrews were not ignorant whose words they were which he made use of, nor where they were recorded. The “one” there mentioned is David, and the “certain place” is the eighth psalm; whereof much need not to be added. A psalm it is ϊְּ ?δִ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ϊψεֹ ?ξְ ?ξεֹ ?ϊΰֵ ?μ, “of the high praises of God;” and such psalms do mostly, if not all of them, respect the Messiah and his kingdom, as the Jews themselves acknowledge. For the time of the composure of this psalm, they have a conjecture which is not altogether improbable, namely, that it was in the night, whilst he kept his father’s sheep. Hence, in his contemplation of the works of God, he insists on the moon and stars, then gloriously presenting themselves unto him; not mentioning the sun, which appeared not. So also, in the distribution that he makes of the things here below that, amongst others, are made subject unto man, he fixeth in the first place on φֹ ?πֶ ?δ, flocks of “sheep,” which were then peculiarly under his care. So should all the works of God, and those especially about which we are conversant in our particular callings, excite us to the admiration of his glory and praise of his name; and none are usually more void of holy thoughts of God than those who set themselves in no way acceptable unto him. This is the place from whence this testimony is taken, whose especial author the apostle omitteth, both because it was sufficiently known, and makes no difference at all whoever was the penman of this or that portion of Scripture seeing it was all equally given by inspiration from God, whereon alone the authority of it doth depend. 2. The testimony itself is contained in the words following, Hebrews 2:6-7, “What is man,” etc. Before we enter into a particular explication of the words, and of the apostle’s application of them, we may observe that there are two things in general that lie plain and clear before us; as, —First, That all things whatsoever are said to be put in subjection unto man, — that is, unto human nature, in one or more persons, — in opposition unto angels, or angelical nature. To express the former is the plain design and purpose of the psalmist, as we shall see. And whereas there is no such testimony anywhere concerning angels, it is evident that the meaning of the word is, ‘Unto man, and not unto angels;’which the apostle intimates in that adversative δέ, “but:” ‘But of man it is said, not of angels.’ Secondly, That this privilege, was never absolutely or universally made good in or unto the nature of man, but in or with respect unto the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. This the apostle calls us to the consideration of previously unto his application of this testimony in a peculiar manner unto Jesus: Hebrews 2:8, “We see not all things,” etc. Now, there is not any thing absolutely necessary to make good the apostle’s reasoning but what is comprised in these two general assertions, which lie evident in the text, and are acknowledged by all. We shall therefore distinctly consider the testimony itself. The whole of it consists in a contemplation of the infinite love and condescension of God towards man: which is set out,(1.) In the manner of the expression;(2.) In and by the words of the expression;(3.) In the act of the mind and will of God wherein that condescension and grace consisted; and,(4.) In the effects thereof, in his dispensation towards him.(1.) In the manner of the expression, “What is man!” by way of admiration; yea, he cries out with a kind of astonishment. The immediate occasion hereof is omitted by the apostle, as not pertinent unto his purpose; but it is evident in the psalm. David having exercised his thoughts in the contemplation of the greatness, power, wisdom, and glory of God, manifesting themselves in his mighty works, especially the beauty, order, majesty, and usefulness of the heavens, and those glorious bodies which in them present themselves to all the world, falls thereon into this admiration, that this great and infinitely wise God, who by the word of his mouth gave being and existence unto all those things, and thereby made his own excellencies conspicuous to all the world, should condescend unto that care and regard of man which on this occasion his thoughts fixed themselves upon. “What is man!” saith he. And this is, or should be, the great use of all our contemplations of the works of God, namely, that considering his wisdom and power in them, we should learn to admire his love and grace in setting his heart upon us, who are every way so unworthy, seeing he might for ever satisfy himself in those other appearingly more glorious products of his power and Godhead. (2.) He further expresseth his admiration at this condescension of God in the words that he useth, intimating the low and mean estate of man in his own nature: ξָ ?δΰּ ?ΰַ ?πεֹ ?ωׁ; — ‘What is poor, miserable, mortal man, obnoxious to grief, sorrow, anxiety, pain, trouble, and death?’Τίἔστινἄνθρωπος; but the Greeks have no name for man fully expressing that here used by the psalmist. βροτός cometh nearest it, but is not used in the Scripture. He adds, εּ ?αֶ ?οΰּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, — “and the son of man,” of one made of the earth. This name the apostle alludes to, yea expresseth, 1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Corinthians 15:47 : “The first man Adam..... is ἐκγῆςχοϊκός — “of the earth, earthy.” So was it recorded of old, Genesis 2:7, “The LORD God formed ξִ ?οΰּ ?δָ ?ΰֲ ?γָ ?ξָ ?δδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?νςָ ?τָ ?ψ,” — “that man Adam, which was the father of all, of the dust of the ground;” and so again, Genesis 3:19. Poor man, made of the dust of the ground! When the Scripture would express man with reference unto any thing of worth or excellency in him, it calls him ΰִ ?ιωׁ; and αְּ ?πֵ ?ΰּ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ are “sons of men” in place, power, and esteem. So these words are distinguished, Psalms 62:10, where we translate αְּ ?πֵ ?ιΰּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, “sons of Adam,” “men of low degree;” and αְּ ?πֵ ?ιΰιωׁ ?“sons of Ish,” “men of high degree.” Now the psalmist useth this expression to heighten his admiration at the grace and condescension of God. And as the person of the first Adam cannot be here especially intended, — for although he made himself ΰַ ?εֹ ?ω, a miserable man, and subject unto death, yet was he not αֶּ ?οΰּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, “the son of man,” of any man, for he was of God, Luke 3 ult., — so there is nothing in the words but may properly be ascribed unto the nature of man in the person of the Messiah. For as he was called, in an especial manner, αֵּ ?οΰּ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, “The son of man;” so was he made ΰַ ?εֹ ?ωׁ, “a man subject to sorrow,” and acquainted above all men with grief and trouble, and was born on purpose to die.Hence, in the contemplation of his own miserable condition, wherein unto the dolorous, afflicting passions of human nature which he had in himself, outward oppositions and reproaches were superadded, he cries out concerning himself, εְ ?ΰָ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ιϊεֹ ?μַ ?ςַ ?ϊεְ ?μֹ ?ΰΰּ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ, Psalms 22:7, “I am a worm, and not ΰִ ?ιֹ ?ω,” — “a man of any consideration in the world;” ΰַ ?πεֹ ?ω at best.(3.) He expresseth this condescension of God in the affections and acting of his mind towards man: λִּ ?ιϊִ ?ζְ ?λְּ ?ψֶ ?πּ ?εּ, — “ That thou rememberest him,” or, “art mindful of him.” ῞Οτιμιμνήσκῃαὐτοῦ, — “That thou shouldest be mindful of him.” To remember in the Scripture, when ascribed unto God, always intends some act of his mind and purpose of his will, and that either for good or evil towards them that are remembered, in a signal manner. So also is remembrance itself used. On this account God is said sometimes to remember us for good, and sometimes to remember our sins no more. So that it denotes the affection of the mind of God towards any creature for good or evil, attended with the purpose of his will to act towards them accordingly. In the first way it is here used, and so also by Job, Job 7:17, ξָ ?δΰּ ?ΰַ ?πεֹ ?ωׂ ?λִּ ?ιϊְ ?βַ ?γְּ ?μֶ ?αּ ?εּ εְ ?λּ ?ιΰּ ?ϊָ ?ωִׁ ?ιϊΰֵ ?μָ ?ιεμִ ?αֶּ ?κָ, — “What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him?” that is, remember him, or be mindful of him; ‘set thine heart upon him for good.’The frame of the heart and mind of God towards the nature of man in the person of Jesus Christ, in reference unto all the good that he did in it and by it, is intended in this expression. The whole counsel and purpose of God concerning the salvation of mankind, in and by the humiliation, exaltation, and whole mediation of “the man Christ Jesus,” is couched herein.(4.) There are in this condescension the effects of this act of God’s mind and will in remembering of man; and they are expressed,[1. under one general head; and, [2. in particular instances of them. [1. The general effect of God’s remembering man, is that he “visiteth him;” as the same word is used in Job, in the place before mentioned. τָּ ?χַ ?ψ, though variously used, yet it constantly denotes the acting of a superior towards an inferior; and though it be often otherwise used, yet commonly it expresseth the acting of God towards his people for good. And in especial is this term of visiting used to express the acting of God in doing of us good by sending of Jesus Christ to take our nature on him: Luke 1:68, “He hath visited and redeemed his people;” and to the same purpose, Luke 1:78, “The day-spring from on high hath visited us:” both relating to the acting of God towards us in the person of his Son incarnate. So Luke 7:16. This term, therefore, of visiting, doth not precisely design God’s acting in the exaltation of him visited, but such an ordering of things towards him as is attended with great care, grace, and love. So was the nature of man in the heart of God to do good unto it, in and by the person of Jesus Christ, and so he acted towards it, or visited it. This is that which was the ground of the psalmist’s admiration, and which will be so in all believers unto eternity. It was not the outward state and condition of mankind in the world, which, since the entrance of sin, is sad and deplorable, that excites this admiration in the psalmist, but his mind is intent upon the mystery of the grace, wisdom, and love of God in the person of the Messiah. Hebrews 2:7. — [2. The especial instances wherein this visitation of God expressed itself are contained in Hebrews 2:7, and therein referred unto two heads: 1st. Man’s depression and humiliation; 2dly. His exaltation and glory.1st. The first is expressed in these words, “Thou hast made him lower for a little while than the angels.” This was a part of God’s visitation; and though not that which was immediately intended by the apostle, yet that whereof he intends to make great use in his progress. That these words intend not the exaltation of the nature of mere man, as if they should intimate, that such is his dignity he is made but a little less than angels, and how destructive that sense is unto the apostle’s intention and application of the words, we shall afterwards declare. Three things are here expressed: — (1st.) The act of God, in making of him low, or lessening of him; (2dly.) The measure of that depression, “than the angels;” (3dly.) His duration in that state and condition, “a little while.”(1st.) ηָ ?ρֵ ?γ, the word used by the psalmist is rendered by the apostle ἐλαττόω, and that properly. They both signify a diminution of state and condition, a depression of any one from what he before enjoyed. And this in the first place belongs unto God’s visitation. And the acting of the will of Christ in this matter, suitably unto the will of the Father, is expressed by words of the same importance: ᾿Εκένωσενἑαυτόν, “He emptied himself;” and Εταπείνωσενἑατόν, “He humbled himself,” Philippians 2:7-8 : denoting a voluntary depression from the glory of a former state and condition. In this humiliation of Christ in our nature, how much of that care and ἐπισκοπής, inspection and visitation of God, was contained, is known. (2dly.) The measure of this humiliation and depression is expressed in reference unto angels, with whom he is now compared by the apostle, — he was made less than the angels. This the Hebrews had seen and knew, and might from his humiliation raise an objection against what the apostle asserted about his preference above them. Wherefore he acknowledgeth that he was made less than they, shows that it was foretold that so he should be, and in his following discourse gives the reasons why it was so to be. And he speaks not of the humiliation of Christ absolutely, which was far greater than here it is expressed by him, as he afterwards declares, but only with respect unto angels, with whom he compares him; and it is therefore sufficient to his purpose at present to show that he was made lower than they: ξֵ ?ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινπαρ᾿ἀγγέλους. Jerome renders the words in the psalm, “a Deo,” “than God;” and Faber Stapulensis had a long contest with Erasmus to prove that they should be so rendered in this place; which is plainly to contradict the apostle, and to accuse him of corrupting the word of God. Besides, the sense contended for by him and others is absurd and foolish, namely, that the human nature of Christ was made little less than God, and humbled that it might be so, when it was infinitely less than the divine nature, as being created. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The apostle in the verses foregoing made mention of that which, of all other things, the Jews generally were most offended at, and which was of the greatest importance to be believed, namely, the sufferings of the Messiah, wherein a great part of the discharge of his sacerdotal office, whereunto he here makes a transition, did consist. This his own disciples were slow in the belief of, Matthew 16:21-22; Matthew 17:22-23; Luke 24:25-26, and the Jews generally stumbled at. They thought it strange that the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of his people, and Captain of their salvation, concerning whom so great and glorious things were promised and foretold, should be brought into a low despised condition, and therein to suffer and die. Hence they cried unto him on the cross, “If thou be the Christ, come down and save thyself;” intimating that by his suffering he was assuredly proved not to be so, for why any one should suffer that could deliver himself they saw no reason. Besides, they had inveterate prejudices about the salvation promised by the Messiah, and the way whereby it was to be wrought, arising from their love and over-valuation of temporal or carnal things, with their contempt of things spiritual and eternal. They expected a deliverance outward, glorious, and kingly, in this world, and that to be wrought with arms, power, and a mighty hand. And what should they expect from a Messiah that suffered and died? Wherefore the apostle, having asserted the sufferings of Christ, saw it necessary to proceed unto a full confirmation of it, with a declaration of the reasons, causes, and ends of it; partly to evert that false persuasion which prevailed amongst them about the nature of the salvation to be wrought by Christ; partly to show that nothing would thence ensue derogatory unto what he had before delivered about his pre-eminence above angels; but principally to instruct them in the sacerdotal office of the Messiah, the redemption which he wrought, and the means whereby he accomplished it, — which was the great business that he had designed to treat with them about. [As] for the salvation itself, he declares that it was not to be of the same kind with that which they had of old, when they were brought out of Egypt and settled in the land of Canaan under the conduct of Joshua, but spiritual and heavenly, in a deliverance from sin, Satan, death, and hell, with a manuduction into life and blessedness eternal. He informs them that the way whereby this was to be wrought, was by the sufferings and death of the Messiah, and that no other way it could be accomplished; on which account they were indispensably necessary. And the first reason hereof he expresseth in this tenth verse. Hebrews 2:10. — ῎Επρεπεγὰραὐτῷ, δι᾿ὅντὰπάντακαὶδι᾿τὰπάντα, πολλοὺςυἱοὺςεἰςδόξανἀγαγόντα, τὸνἀρχηγὸντῆςσωτηρίαςαὐτῶνδιὰπαθημάτωντελειῶσαι.One or two copies read, διὰπαθήματοςαὐτὸντελειοῦαθαι, against the sense and design of the place. Αὐτόν is needlessly repeated unless put for ἑαυτόν, and then it disturbs the whole meaning of the verse, and is inconsistent with the passive verb following in this reading. Παθήματος, in the singular humor, relates only unto death, expressed in the verse foregoing by πάθημαθανάτου but here all the sufferings of Christ, as well those antecedent unto death as death itself, are intended. Τελειοῦθαι, in the passive, is followed by some copies of the Vulgar translation, reading “consummari;” both inconsistent with the sense of the place, as we shall see.Translations differ but little about these words. ῎Επρεπεγὰραὐτῷ. Most, “decebat enim eum,” “for it became him;” Beza, “decebat enim ut iste,” “for it was meet that he,” to make the following words flow regularly. Δι᾿ὅντὰπάντα, “propter quem omnia;” Syr., μְ ?ηָ ?εγְּ ?λֻ ?μ, “cui omnia,” “for whom are all things;” Beza, “propter quem sunt haec omnia,” expressing the article as restrictive to the things spoken of, “for whom are all these things.” One Syriac copy adds, αָּ ?ΰιִ ?γֵ ?δּ, “in his hand;” which somewhat corrupts the sense. Καὶδι᾿οὗτὰπάντα, “et per quem omnia,” “by whom are all things;” Beza, “haec omnia,” as before, without cause; for the article is frequently prefixed unto πάντα, where all things absolutely are intended; as Ephesians 1:11. Πολλοὺςυἱοὺςεἰςδόξαςἀγαγόντα. Vulg., “qui multos filios ad gloriam adduxerat,” “who had brought many sons unto glory;” Arias, “multos filios ad gloriam adducentem;” Beza, “adducendo,” “bringing many sons unto glory;” Syr., “adduxerat in gloriam suam,” “had brought many sons into his glory.” Τὸνἀρχηγόν. Vulg., “auctorem,” “the author;” Beza, “principem;” Syr., ψִ ?ιֹ ?ωָ ?ΰ, “the head” (or “prince”) “of their salvation.” Διὰπαθημάτωντελειῶσαι, “per passionem consummare,” “to consummate” (or “complete”) “by suffering;” Beza, “per perpessiones,” “by sufferings;” Syr., “perficere,” “perfectum reddere,” “to perfect,” “to make perfect.” The proper signification of the words in this verse is much to be heeded, as that which will give us much light the the sense of the whole. Πρέπει is “decet,” “convenit,” “dignum est;” “it becometh,” it is “meet,” “convenient, or “just.” ΠρέπονΘεοῖς, in Plato, is rendered by Cicero, “Deo decorum,” “that which becometh God;” and saith he, “Πρέπον, appellant hoc Graeci, nos dicamus sane decorum;” that which becometh any one in his state and condition, in a moral sense; as, “Holiness becometh the house,” — that is, the people of God. Κατὰτὸπρvεπον, “ut decet,” “ut par est;” that which is equal and right to be done. Πρέπουσατιμή, is “honor justly deserved;” and πρέπουσαθημία, “just loss” or “punishment.” The word, then, signifies that decency and becomingness which justice, reason, and equity require, so that the contrary would be unmeet, because unequal and unjust. Thus every one’s duty, that which is morally incumbent on him in his place and station, is that which becomes him; and hence in the New Testament, that which is not κατὰτὸπρέπον, thus decent, is condemned as evil, 1 Corinthians 11:13; 1 Timothy 2:10. And itself is commended as a rule of virtue, Matthew 3:15; Ephesians 5:3. Δι᾿ὅν. Διά with an accusative case constantly denotes the final cause, “propter quem,” “for whom :” Revelation 4:11, Σὺἔκτισαςτὰπάντα, “Thou hast created all things” (all things universally, with the article prefixed, as in this place), καὶδιὰτὸθέλημάσουεἰσί, καὶἐκτίσθησαν, “and for thy will” (“thy pleasure,” “thy glory”) “they are, and were created.” Romans 11:36, Εἰςὅντὰπάντα, “To whom” (to him, or for him, or his glory) “are all things.” Proverbs 16:4, λֹּ ?μτָ ?ςַ ?μּ ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδμַ ?ξַּ ?ςֲ ?πֵ ?δεּ, — “The LORD hath made all things for himself;” his glory is the final cause of them all. Καὶδι᾿οὗτὰπάντα, “and by whom are all things.” Διά with a genitive denotes the efficient cause. Some from this expression would have the Son to be the person here spoken of, because concerning him it is frequently said that all things are δι᾿αὐτοῦ, John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:3; but it is used also with reference unto the Father, Romans 11:36, Galatians 1:1. Schlichtingius here gives it for a rule, that when διά relates unto the Father, it denotes the principal efficient cause; when unto the Son, the instrumental. But it is a rule of his own coining, a groundless efflux of his πρῶτονψεῦδος, that the Son is not God; on which kind of presumptions men may found what Ruth 1 es they please. The principal efficiency or supreme production of all things by God is intended in this expression. ᾿Αγαγόντα, “bringing,” a word of common use and known signification, but in this place attended with a double difficulty, from a double enallage in the of it: — First, in the case; for whereas it seems to relate unto αὐτῷ, “it became him in bringing,” it should then regularly be ἀγαγόντι, not ἀγαγόντα. Hence some, by supposing a σύγχυσις in the words, refer it unto ἀρχηγόν, “the author;” as if the apostle had said, Τὸνἀρχημὸντῆςσωτηρίαςαὐτῶνπολλοὺςυἱοὺςἀγαγόντα, — “To make perfect the captain of their salvation, who brought many sons unto glory.” But this transposition of the words, neither the context nor the addition of αὐτῶν, “their,” unto σωτηρίας, “their salvation,” relating unto the sons before mentioned, will by any means allow. Wherefore an enallage of the case is necessarily to be allowed, ἀγαγόντα for ἀγαγόντι, unless we suppose a repetition ἔπρεπε, which frequently admits of the accusative case; but the principal author is unquestionably intended. Again, ἀγαγόντα is a participle of the second aoristus, which usually denotes the time past, and thence is it translated by many, “adduxit,” “adduxerat,” and “filib adductis;” — “after he had brought many sons to glory.” And this some refer to the saints who died under the old testament, unto whom the Lord Christ was no less a captain of salvation than to us. And so the apostle shows that after they were saved on his account, it was meet that he should answer for them, according to his undertaking. But neither doth this restraining of the word answer the apostle’s intention: for it is evident he principally minded them unto whom the Lord Jesus became eminently a captain of salvation after he was perfected by sufferings though not exclusively unto them that went before. ᾿Αγαγόντα then, is put for ἅγοντα, unless we shall suppose that the act of God here intended was on purpose thus expressed to comprehend all the sons, both those that lived before and those that lived after the sufferings of Christ, — “bringing,” “leading,” “bearing unto glory.” It concerns the whole execution of the design of God for the salvation and glorification of beliveres. Πολλοὺςυἱούς, “many sons,” Jews and Gentiles, all that were by faith to become his sons.Τὲνἀρχημόν, “the author.” Wherever this word is used in the New Testament it is applied unto Christ. Acts 3:15 he is called ἀρχηγὸςτῆςζωῆς, “the prince of life;” and Acts 5:31, God is said to make him ἀρχηγὸςκαὶσωτῆρα “a prince and a savior;” that is, ἀρχηγὸντῆςσωτηρίας, as here, “the prince of our salvation.” Hebrews 12:2, the apostle calls him, τὸντῆςπίστεωςἀρχηγὸνκαὶτελειωτήν, as we render it, “the author and finisher of faith;” as here God said τελειῶσαιτὸνἀρχηγόν, to finish or perfect this author of our salvation. Nowhere else is this word used in in the New Testament. It answers justly the Hebrew πָ ?βִ ?ιγ, which the LXX. render ἄρχων and ἡγούμενος, the signification of both which words is included in ἀρχηγός, “princeps” “dux” “praeses” “auctor,” — “ a prince” “captain,” “ruler,” “author.” And it is used in writers with respect to works good and bad. ᾿Αρχηγὸςδιδάσκαλοςτὼνἔργωντοιούτων, Isocrat.; — “The author and teacher of such works.” And ἀρχηγὸςτοῦκακουργήματος, “artifex maleficii,” — “the principal contriver of mischief.” It is also used for the author of astock, race, or kindred of men. In this place it is limited by σωτηρίας. It denotes the chief or principal operator or worker of that salvation, with especial reference unto the kingly or princely power whereunto he was advanced after his sufferings; as he is also absolutely a prince, a ruler, and the author or spring of the whole race and kind of believers, according unto the other senses of the word.Τελειῶσαι. This word is variously used and variously rendered: “to consummate,” “to perfect,” “to make perfect;” “to consecrate,” “dedicate,” “sanctify.” Some would have it in this place to be the same with ἄγεινεἰςδόξαν, “to bring unto glory.” But what is the precise signification of the word we shall clear in the exposition ensuing, when we declare what act of God it is that is here intended.Before we proceed to the exposition of the several parts of this text, we must consider the order of the words, to prevent some mistakes that divers learned commentators have fallen into about them. Some suppose a hyperbaton in them, and that these expressions, “For whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory,” do intend the Son, the captain of salvation. The word αὐτῷ, “him,” “it became him,” they confess to relate unto Θεοῦ, “God,” in the verse foregoing, and to relate unto the Father. In which order this would be the sense of the words: “It became him,” that is, God, “to make perfect through sufferings the captain of their salvation, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who bringeth many sons unto glory.” But there is no just reason why we should arbitrarily thus transpose the words. And that separation of “for whom are all things, and by whom are all things,” from “it became him,” takes away one main foundation of the apostle’s reasoning, as we shall see. And the reason alleged for this ordering of the words is infirm, namely, that it is Christ who brings the many sons unto glory, not the Father; for it is also assigned unto him, as we shall see, upon many accounts. Some refer the whole words unto Christ, to this purpose, “It became him,” that is, the Son incarnate, “for whom,” etc., “bringing many sons unto glory, to be consummated” or “made perfect by sufferings.” So Tena, and those whom he followeth. But this exposition of the words is directly contrary to the scope of the apostle, declared in the verse foregoing and that following. It leaves also αὐτῷ, “him,” nothing to relate unto, nor allows the causal γάρ, “for,” to give an account of any act of God before mentioned. And, besides, the whole of it is built on the corruption or mistake of one word in the Vulgar translation, “consummari” for “consummare,” and that but in some copies, as is acknowledged by the most learned Romanists, who here adhere unto the original; for taking that word actively, and the object of the act expressed in it being the captain of salvation, some agent distinct from him must needs be signified, which is God the Father.Some suppose an ἔλλειψις in the words, and therefore in the reading of those, “in bringing many sons unto glory,” they supply, “by afflictions” or “sufferings:” “Having brought many sons to glory by afflictions, it became him to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” So Cappellus. But this imaginary defect arose merely from a mistake, that the τὸπρέπον, or condecency here mentioned, hath a respect unto the things done, — that seeing the sons had suffered, it was meet and convenient that their captain should do so in an eminent manner. But the truth is, it respects only the doer of them; it was on his part requisite so to do the things mentioned. [3] [3] . — Τελειῶσαι. This word refers either to Christ’s consecration to office or to his exaltation to his reward. Turner holds it difficult to conceive how suffering could be the means of consecrating Christ to his priestly office, and that he must have been priest before his sufferings commenced, whereas the other view is in accordance with various parts of the New Testament, and with all the places in the epistle in which the word occurs. Conybeare and Howson hold that itmeans literally to bring to the appointed accomplishment, to develop the full idea of the character, to consummate. The last word, they state, would be the best translation, if it were not so unusual as applied to persons. . — “It became him, for whom and through whom all things subsist, to make perfect through suffering the captain of their salvation, as one who should bring many sons unto glory.” — Ebrard. — ED. Hebrews 2:10. — For it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.There are in the words, — 1. The causal connection unto the verse foregoing, — “for.”2. A design of God intimated as the foundation of the discourse, — which was, to “bring many sons unto glory.” 3. The means he fixed on for the accomplishment of that design, — namely, the appointing unto them a “captain of their salvation.” 4. The especial way of his dedicating him unto that office, — he “made him perfect by sufferings” 5. The reason of this his proceeding and dealing with him, — it “became him” so to do. 6. An amplification of that reason, in a description of his condition, — “him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things.” 1. A reason is rendered in the words of what he had asserted in the foregoing verse, namely, that Jesus, the Messiah, was to suffer death, and by the grace of God to “taste of death for all.” Why he should do this, on what account, what ground, necessity, and reason there was for it, is here declared. It was so to be, “for it became him,” etc.2. The design of God is expressed in this whole matter, and that was, to “bring many sons unto glory.” And herein the apostle declares the nature of the salvation which was to be wrought by the Messiah, about which the Jews were so greatly mistaken, and consequently in and about the way whereby it was to be wrought. His purpose herein was not now to carry his children into a new Canaan, to bring them into a wealthy country, an earthly kingdom; which must or might have been done by might, and power, and arms, as of old: but his design towards his sons, in and by the Messiah, was of another nature; it was to bring them unto glory, eternal glory with himself in heaven. And so it is no wonder if the way whereby this is to be accomplished be quite of another nature than that whereby their temporal deliverance was wrought, namely, by the death and sufferings of the Messiah himself. And here, in reference unto this design of God, it is supposed, — First, That some who were created for the glory of God had by sin come short of it; so that without a new way of bringing them unto it, it was impossible that they should ever be made partakers of it. This is here supposed by the apostle, and is the foundation of all his doctrine concerning the Messiah. Secondly, That the way whereby God will at length bring them who are designed unto glory thereunto, is by taking of them first into a state of sonship and reconciliation with himself; they must be sons before they are brought to glory. There is a double act of God’s predestination: the first is his designation of some unto grace, to be sons, Ephesians 1:5; the other, his appointment of those sons unto glory; both to be wrought and accomplished by Christ, the captain of their salvation. The latter, and the execution of it, — namely, the bringing of those unto glory who by grace are made sons, — is that which the apostle here expresseth. He dealeth not with the Hebrews in this epistle about the conversion of the elect, the traduction of them into a state of grace and sonship, but of the government of them being made sons, and their guidance unto glory. And therefore the sufferings of Christ, which absolutely and in themselves are the cause of our sonship and reconciliation with God, are mentioned here only as the means whereby Christ entered into a condition of leading sons unto glory, or of saving them who, upon the account of his sufferings, are made sons by grace. But yet this is not so precisely respected neither, but that the apostle withal intimates the necessity of the suffering of Christ, as to the whole effect of it towards the elect. Now these sons, thus to be brought unto glory, are said to be “many;” — not all absolutely, not a few, or of the Jews only, which they looked for, but all the elect of God, who are many, Revelation 7:9. And this work, of bringing many sons unto glory, is here signally assigned by the apostle unto God the Father; whose love, wisdom, and grace, believers are principally to eye in the whole work of their salvation, wrought out and accomplished by Jesus Christ. This, therefore, we shall a little insist upon, to declare the grounds and reasons on the account whereof it is to be ascribed unto him, or what acts are peculiarly assigned unto the Father in this work of bringing many sons unto glory; which will secure the ascription of it unto him, and therein our interpretation of the place. (1.) The eternal designation of them unto that glory whereunto they are to be brought is peculiarly assigned unto him. He “predestinates them to be conformed to the image of his Son,” Romans 8:28-30. The “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ chooseth us before the foundation of the world,” and “predestinateth us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself,” Ephesians 1:3-5; and “he hath from the beginning chosen us unto salvation,” 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. And this electing love of God, this eternal purpose of his good pleasure, which he purposed in himself, is the fountain and spring of all other immediate causes of our salvation. From hence faith, Acts 13:45, sanctification, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, holiness, Ephesians 1:4, preservation in grace, 2 Timothy 2:19, the death of Christ for them, John 3:16, and final glory itself, 2 Timothy 2:10, do all ensue and proceed: so that on the account hereof he may be justly said to be the bringer of many sons to glory.(2.) He was the spring and fountain of that covenant (as in all other operations of the Deity) that was of old between himself and his Son about the salvation and glory of the elect. See Zechariah 6:13; Isaiah 42:1; Proverbs 8:22-31; Isaiah 1:4-9; Isaiah 53:10-12; Psalms 16:10; Psalms 110:1; Psalms 110:6. He, in his love and grace, is still declared as the proposer both of the duty and of the reward of the mediator, the Son incarnate, as the Son accepts of his terms and proposals, Hebrews 10:5-9. And hence the intenseness of his love, the immutability of his counsel, the holiness of his nature, his righteousness and faithfulness, his infinite wisdom, do all shine forth in the mediation and sufferings of Christ, Romans 3:25-26; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:9; Hebrews 6:17-18; Titus 1:2. Rather than his love should not be satisfied and his counsel accomplished, he spared not his own Son, but gave him unto death for us.(3.) He signally gave out the first promise, that great foundation of the covenant of grace; and afterwards declared, confirmed, and ratified by his oath, that covenant wherein all the means of bringing the elect unto glory are contained, Genesis 3:15; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12. The person of the Father is considered as the principal author of the covenant, as the person covenanting and taking us into covenant with himself; the Son, as the Messiah, being considered as the surety and mediator of it, Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 9:15, and the purchaser of the promises of it.(4.) He gave and sent his Son to be a Savior and Redeemer for them and unto them; so that in his whole work, in all that he did and suffered, he obeyed the command and fulfilled the will of the Father. Him did God the Father “send,” and “seal,” and “give,” and “set forth,” as the Scripture everywhere expresseth it. And our Lord Jesus Christ everywhere remits us to the consideration of the love, will, and authority of his Father, in all that he did, taught, or suffered; so seeking the glory of God that sent him.(5.) He draws his elect, and enables them to come to the Son, to believe in him, and so to obtain life, salvation, and glory by him. “No man,” saith our Savior, “can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him,” John 6:44. No man, no, not any one of the elect, can come to Christ, unless the Father, in the pursuit of that love from whence it was that he sent the Son, do put forth the efficacy of his grace to enable him thereunto: and accordingly he reveals him unto some, when he is hidden from others, Matthew 11:25; for the revelation of Christ unto the soul is the immediate act of the Father, Matthew 16:17.(6.) Being reconciled unto them by the blood of his Son, he reconciles them unto himself, by giving them pardon and forgiveness of sins in and by the promises of the gospel; without which they cannot come to glory. He is in Christ reconciling us unto himself, by the non-imputation or forgiveness of our sins, 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; forgiving us all our trespasses for Christ’s sake, Ephesians 4:32. There are many things concurring unto the pardon of sin that are peculiar acts of the Father.(7.) He quickens them and sanctifies them by his Spirit, to make them “meet for the inheritance of the saints in light;” that is, for the enjoyment of glory. “He that raised up Jesus from the dead quickens us by his Spirit,” Romans 8:11; so“saving us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us richly by Jesus Christ,” Titus 3:5-6.This renovation and sanctification by the Holy Ghost, and all supplies of actual grace, enabling us unto obedience, are everywhere asserted as the grant and work of the Father, “who worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.” And so in especial is the saving illumination of our minds, to know the mystery of his grace, and discern the things that are of God, 2 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 2:2; Ephesians 3:14-19; Matthew 11:25.(8.) As the great Father of the family he adopts them, and makes them his sons, that so he may bring them unto glory. He gives them the power or privilege to become the sons of God, John 1:11; making them heirs and co-heirs with Christ, Romans 8:14-17; sending withal into their hearts the Spirit of adoption, enabling them to cry, “Abba, Father,” Galatians 4:6. The whole right of adopting children is in the Father; and so is the authoritative translation of them out of the world and kingdom of Satan into his own family and household, with their investiture in all the rights and privileges thereof. (9.) He confirms them in faith, establisheth them in obedience, preserveth them from dangers and oppositions of all sorts, and in manifold wisdom keeps them through his power unto the glory prepared for them; as 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 3:20-21; 1 Peter 1:5; John 17:11. (10.) He gives them the Holy Ghost as their comforter, with all those blessed and unspeakable benefits which attend that gift of his, Matthew 7:11; Luke 11:13; John 14:16-17; Galatians 4:6. In brief, in bringing the elect unto glory, all the sovereign acts of power, wisdom, love, and grace exerted therein, are peculiarly assigned unto the Father, as all ministerial acts are unto the Son as mediator; so that there is no reason why he may not be said, by the way of eminency, to be the ἀγωγεύς, the leader or bringer of his sons unto glory.And herein lies a great direction unto believers, and a great supportment for their faith. Peter tells us that “by Christ we do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that our faith and hope might be in God,” 1 Peter 1:21.Jesus Christ, considered as mediator, is the next, but not the ultimate object of our faith and hope. We so believe in him as by him to believe in God, that is, the Father, whose love is the supreme fountain and spring of our salvation; which the apostle manifests in that double instance of his raising up Christ and giving him glory, thereby declaring himself the principal author of the great work of his mediation. This he directs us unto, so to believe in Christ as that, discerning in and by him the grace, good- will, and love of the Father himself towards us, we may be encouraged to fix our faith and hope on him, seeing he himself loveth us. So that Christ himself had no need to pray for the love of the Father unto us, but only for the communication of the effects of it, John 16:26-27. And this is the work of faith, when, as we are directed, we pray to the Father in the name of Christ, John 16:23-24; and we thus place our faith in God the Father, when we conceive of him as the sovereign leader of us unto glory, by all the instances before mentioned. And then doth faith find rest in him, delight, complacency, and satisfaction, as we have elsewhere declared. 3. There is in these words intimated the principal means that God fixed on for the accomplishment of this design of his, for the bringing of many sons unto glory; it was by appointing a “captain of their salvation.” The Jews generally granted that the Messiah was to be the captain of their salvation; but misunderstanding that salvation, they also mistook the whole nature of his office. The apostle doth here evidently compare him unto Joshua, the captain and leader of the people into Canaan (as he had before preferred him above the angels, by whose ministry the law was given unto the people in the wilderness), which was a type of their salvation, as he further declares, chapter 4. All the sons of God are put under his conduct and guidance, as the people of old were put under the rule of Joshua, to bring them unto the glory designed for them, and promised unto them in the covenant made with Abraham. And he is called their ἀρχηγός, “prince,” “ruler,” and “captain,” or “author” of their salvation, on several accounts: — (1.) Of his authority and right to rule over them in order unto their salvation. So he appeared unto Joshua as ωψΰּ ?φְ ?αָ ?ΰΰּ ?ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ, Joshua 5:14, “The captain of the LORD’S host;” intimating thus that there was another captain and other work to do than what Joshua had then in hand, — the general of all the people of God, as Joab was to Israel, ωׂ ?ψΰּ ?φְ ?αָ ?ΰ.(2.) Of his actual leading and conduct of them, by his example, Spirit, and grace, through all the difficulties of their warfare. So he was promised as πָ ?βִ ?ιγ, Isaiah 55:4, “princeps,” “dux,” “antecessor,” ἀρχηγός, — “a leader and commander of the people,” one that goes before them for their direction and guidance, giving them an example in his own person of doing and suffering the will of God, and so entering into glory. So he is their πρόδρομος, Hebrews 6:20, “antecessor,” “forerunner;” or, as Daniel calls him, ξָ ?ωִׁ ?ιηַ πָ ?βִ ?ιγ, Daniel 9:25, “Messiah the prince,” or “guide.”(3.) As he is unto them αἴτιοςσωτηρίαςαἰσινίου, as Hebrews 5:9, “the author” (or “cause”) “of eternal salvation;” he procured and purchased it for them. So that the expression denotes both his acquisition of salvation itself, and his conduct or leading of the people of God unto the enjoyment of it. And the Holy Ghost hereby also intimates, that the way whereby God will bring the sons unto glory is full of difficulties, perplexities, and oppositions, as that of the Israelites into Canaan was also; so that they have need of a captain, leader, and guide, to carry them through it. But yet all is rendered safe and secure unto them, through the power, grace, and faithfulness of their leader. They only perish in the wilderness and die in their sins, who, either out of love unto the flesh-pots of Egypt, the pleasures of this world, or being terrified with the hardships of the warfare which he calls them unto, refuse to go up under his command. 4. There is expressed in the words the especial way whereby God fitted or designed the Lord Christ unto this office, of being a captain of salvation unto the sons to be brought unto glory. To understand this aright, we must observe that the apostle speaks not here of the redemption of the elect absolutely, but of the bringing them to glory, when they are made sons in an especial manner. And therefore he treats not absolutely of the designation, consecration, or fitting of the Lord Christ unto his office of mediator in general, but as unto that part, and the execution of it, which especially concerns the leading of the sons unto glory, as Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan. This will give us light into what act of God towards the Lord Christ is intended in this expression, τελειῶσαιαὐτὸνδιὰπαθημάτων. And sundry are here pleaded by expositors, not without some probability; as, — (1.) Some think that his bringing him to glory is intended: it became him τελειῶσαι, to bring him to glory, by and through sufferings, so to perfect him But besides that the word is nowhere so used, nor hath any such signification, the apostle doth not declare what God intended to bring him unto, but by what in and about him he intended to bring many sons to glory.(2.) Some would have it to denote the finishing of God’s work about him; whence in his sufferings on the cross he said Τετέλεσται, “It is finished,” John 19:30. This answers, indeed, the sense of the word τελέω, used in that place by our Savior, but not of τελειόω, the word here used by the apostle, which never signifies to end or finish, or to perfect by bringing unto an end. (3.) Some think God made the Lord Christ perfect by sufferings, in that he gave him thereby a full sense and experience of the condition of his people, whence he is said to “learn obedience by the things which he suffered,” Hebrews 5:8. And this is true, God did so; but it is not formally and directly expressed by this word, which is never used unto that purpose. This is rather a consequent of the act here intended than the act itself. Τελειῶσαι, then, in this place signifies to “consecrate,” “dedicate,’’to “sanctify” unto an office, or some especial part or act of an office. This is the proper meaning of the word. Τέλη are “mysteries;’’and τελεταί, “sacred acts and offices;” τετελεσμένοι are those who are initiated and consecrated unto sacred offices or employments. See Exodus 29:33; Exodus 29:35, in the LXX. Hence the ancients called baptism τελειωτής, or consecration unto the sacred service of Christ. And ἁγιάζω, the word next insisted on by our apostle, is so used by Christ himself, John 17:19 : ῾Υπὲραὐτῶνἐγὼὑγιάζωἐμαυτόν· — “For their sakes I sanctify” (that is, “dedicate, consecrate, separate”) “myself” to be a sacrifice. And his blood is said to be that ἐνᾧἡγιάσθη, Hebrews 10:29, “wherewith he was so consecrated.” Nor is this word used in any other sense in this whole epistle, wherein it is often used, when applied unto Christ. See Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 7:28. And this was the use of the word among the heathen, signifying the initiation and consecration of a man into the mysteries of their religion, to be a leader unto others. And among some of them it was performed, through the instigation of the devil, by great sufferings: ΟὐκἂνεἰςΜίθρανδυνησαίτοτιςτελεσθῆναιεἰμὴδιὰτινῶνβαθμῶνπαρελθὼντῶνκολασμῶνδείξῃἑαυτὸνὃσιονκαὶἀπαθῆ, saith Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. cont. Jul. i.; —“No man could be consecrated unto the mysteries of Mithra” (the sun) “unless he proved himself holy, and as it were inviolable, by passing through many degrees of punishments and trials.” Thus it became God to dedicate and consecrate the Lord Christ unto this part of his office by his own sufferings. He consecrated Aaron to be priest of old, but by the hands of Moses, and he was set apart to his office by the sacrifice of other things. But the Lord Christ must be consecrated by his own sufferings and the sacrifice of himself. And thence it is that those very sufferings which, as antecedaneous unto his being a captain of salvation, to this end that he might lead the sons unto glory, are the means of his dedication or consecration, are in themselves a great part of that means whereby he procures salvation for them. By all the sufferings, then, of the Lord Christ in his life and death, — by which sufferings he wrought out the salvation of the elect, — did God consecrate and dedicate him to be a prince, a leader, and captain of salvation unto his people; as Peter declares the whole matter, Acts 5:30-31, and Acts 2:36. And from these things last mentioned, of the Lord Christ being the captain of our salvation, and being dedicated unto that office by his own suffering, it appeareth, —I. That the whole work of saving the sons of God, from first to last, their guidance and conduct through sins and sufferings unto glory, is committed unto the Lord Jesus; whence he is constantly to be eyed by believers in all the concernments of their faith, obedience, and consolation. “Behold,” saith the Lord, “I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people,” Isaiah 55:4; — a witness, to testify the truth, in revealing the mind and will of God; a leader, going before them as a prince and captain, as the word signifies; and a commander, that gives out laws and rules for their obedience. God hath set him as a lord over his whole house, Hebrews 3:6, and committed all the management of all its concernments unto him. There is no person that belongs unto God’s design of bringing many sons to glory, but he is under his rule and inspection; neither is there any thing that concerns any of them in their passage towards glory, whereby they may be furthered or hindered in their way, but the care is committed unto him, as the care of the whole army lies on the general or prince of the host. This the prophet sets out in his type, Eliakim, Isaiah 22:21-24. He is fastened as a nail in a sure place; and all the glory of the house, and every vessel of it, from the greatest unto the least, is hanged on him. The weight of all, the care of all, is upon him, committed unto him. When the people came out of Egypt with Moses they were numbered unto him, he being the administrator of the law, and they died all in the wilderness; but they were delivered again by tale and number unto Joshua, the type of Christ, and none of them, not one, failed of entering into Canaan. And, first, he dischargeth this trust as a faithful captain, — (1.) With care and watchfulness: Psalms 121:4, “Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.” There is no time nor season wherein the sons committed unto his care may be surprised through any neglect or regardlessness in him; his eyes are always open upon them; they are never out of his heart nor thoughts; they are engraven on the palms of his hands, and their walls are continually before him; or, as he expresseth it, Isaiah 27:3,“I the LORD do keep my vineyard; I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day.”Greater care and watchfulness cannot be expressed; “night and day,” and “every moment” in them, he is intent about this work. Oh how great an encouragement is this to adhere unto him, to follow him in the whole course of obedience that he calls unto! This puts life into soldiers, and gives them security, when they know that their commander is continually careful for them. (2.) He dischargeth this great trust with tenderness and love: Isaiah 40:11, “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.”These sons are of various sorts and degrees; the best and strongest of them are but sheep, — poor, infirm, and helpless creatures; and amongst them some are young and tender, as lambs; some heavy and burdened with sins and afflictions, like those that are with young. In tender compassion he condescends unto all their conditions; feeds and preserves the whole flock as a shepherd; gathers in his arm and bears in his bosom those that otherwise, by their infirmity, would be cast behind and left unto danger. Compassion he hath for them that err and are out of the way; he seeks for them that wander, heals the diseased, feeds them when they are even a flock of slaughter. And where these two concur, care and compassion, there can be no want of any thing, Psalms 23:1. Indeed, Zion is ready sometimes to complain that she is forgotten. The sons in great distresses, afflictions, persecutions, temptations, that may befall them in their way to glory, are apt to think they are forgotten and disregarded, — that they are left as it were to shift for themselves, and to wrestle with their difficulties by their own strength and wisdom, which they know to be as a thing of nought. But this fear is vain and ungrateful. Whilst they are found in the way, following the captain of their salvation, it is utterly impossible that this watchfulness, care, love, and tenderness, should in any thing be wanting unto them.(3.) He leads them with power, authority, and majesty: Micah 5:4, “He shall stand and rule in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide.” The “name of God” is in him, accompanied with his power and majesty, which he puts forth in the feeding and ruling of his people; whereon their safety doth depend. “They shall abide,” or dwell in safety; because in this his glory and majesty he shall be great, or be magnified unto the ends of the earth. So also is he described in his rule: Zechariah 6:13,“Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne.”Having built the temple, raised a house and family to God, he shall be the ruler or captain of it, to preserve it unto glory; and this in a glorious manner, — bearing the glory of God, sitting upon a throne, in the whole discharge of his office both as a king and priest. Unto this end is he intrusted with all the power and authority which we have before described, God having given him to be “head over all things unto his church.” There is nothing so high, so great, so mighty, that lies in the way of his sons to glory, but it must stoop to his authority and give place to his power. The whole kingdom of Satan, the strongholds of sin, the high imaginations of unbelief, the strength and malice of the world, all sink before him. And thence are they described as so glorious and successful in their way: Micah 2:13,“The breaker is come up before them: they have broken up, and have passed through the gate, and are gone out by it: and their king shall pass before them, and the LORD on the head of them.”Many obstacles lie in their way, but they shall break through them all, because of their king and lord that goes before them. And those difficulties which in this world they meet withal, that seem to be too hard for them, their persecutions and sufferings, though they may put a stop unto somewhat of their outward profession, yet they shall not in the least hinder them in their progress unto glory. Their captain goes before them with power and authority, and breaks up all the hedges and gates that lie in their way, and gives them a free and abundant entrance into the kingdom of God. Secondly, As the manner how, so the acts wherein and whereby this antecessor and captain of salvation leads on the sons of God may be considered. And he doth it variously : —(1.) He goes before them in the whole way unto the end. This is a principal duty of a captain or leader, to go before his soldiers. Hence they that went unto the war were said to go at the feet of their commanders: Judges 4:10, “Barak went up with ten thousand men at his feet;” that is, they followed him, and went where he went before them. And this also became the captain of the Lord’s host, even to go before his people in their whole way, not putting them on any thing, not calling them to any thing, which himself passeth not before them in. And there are three things whereunto their whole course may be referred: — [1. Their obedience;[2. Their sufferings;[3. Their entrance into glory; and in all these hath the Lord Christ gone before them, and that as their captain and leader, inviting them to engage into them, and courageously to pass through them, upon his example and the success that he sets before them. [1. As unto obedience, he himself was “made under the law,” and “learned obedience,” “fulfilling all righteousness.” Though he was in his own person above the law, yet he submitted himself to every law of God and righteous law of men, that he might give an example unto them who were of necessity to be subject unto them. So he tells his disciples, as to one instance of his humility, “I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done,” John 13:15; as he calls on all to “learn of him, for he was meek and lowly in heart,” Matthew 11:29, — that is, learn to be like him in those heavenly graces. This the apostles proposed as their pattern and ours: 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be followers of me, as I am of Christ;” that is, ‘labor with me to imitate Christ.’And the utmost perfection which we are bound to aim at in holiness and obedience, is nothing but conformity unto Jesus Christ, and the pattern that he hath set before us, — to mark his footsteps and to follow him. This is our putting on of Jesus Christ, and growing up into the same image and likeness with him. [2. He goes before the sons of God in sufferings, and therein is also a leader unto them by his example. “Christ,” saith Peter, “hath suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps;” that is, be ready and prepared unto patience in sufferings when we are called thereunto, as he explains himself, 1 Peter 4:1, ‘“Forasmuch as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves therefore with the same mind,” that you may follow him in the same way.’And this our apostle presseth much in this epistle, Hebrews 12:2-3,“Look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith; who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame..... For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.”The sons of God are sometimes ready to think it strange that they should fall into calamity and distresses, and are apt to say with Hezekiah, “Remember, O LORD, we beseech thee, how we have walked before thee in truth, and with an upright heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight,” and weep sore; supposing that this might have freed them from oppositions and persecutions. And so it was with Gideon. When the angel told him the Lord was with him, he replies, “Whence is all this evil come upon us?” But when they find it is otherwise, and begin to apply themselves unto their condition, yet if their troubles continue, if they are not in their season removed, they are ready to be “weary and faint in their minds.” But saith the apostle, ‘Consider the captain of your salvation, he hath set you another manner of example; notwithstanding all his sufferings, he fainted not.’The like argument he presseth, Hebrews 13:12-13. And the Scripture in many places represents unto us the same consideration. The Jews have a saying, that a third part of the afflictions and troubles that shall be in the world do belong unto the Messiah. But our apostle, who knew better than they, makes all the afflictions of the church to be the “afflictions of Christ,” Colossians 1:24, who both before underwent them in his own person and led the way to all that shall follow him. And as the obedience of Christ, which is our pattern, did incomparably exceed whatever we can attain unto; so the sufferings of Christ, which are our example, did incomparably exceed all that we shall be called unto. Our pattern is excellent, inimitable in the substance and parts of it, unattainable and unexpressible in its degrees, and he is the best proficient who attends most thereunto. But what is the end of all this obedience and suffering? death lies at the door, as the ocean whereinto all these streams do run, and seems to swallow them up, that there they are lost for ever. No; for, — [3. This captain of our salvation is gone before us in passing through death, and entering into glory. He hath showed us in his own resurrection (that great pledge of our immortality) that death is not the end of our course, but a passage into another more abiding condition. He promiseth that whosoever believeth on him, they shall not be lost, or perish, or consumed by death, but that he will raise them up at the last day, John 6:39-40. But how shall this be confirmed unto them? Death looks ghastly and dreadful, as a lion that devours all that come within his reach. ‘Why,’ saith Christ, ‘behold me, entering into his jaws, passing through his power, rising from under his dominion; and fear not, — so shall it be with you also.’This our apostle disputes at large, 1 Corinthians 15:12-21. He is gone before us through death, and is become “the first-fruits of them that sleep.” And had Christ passed into heaven before he died, as did Enoch and Elijah, we had wanted the greatest evidence of our future immortality. What, then, remains for the finishing of our course? Why, the captain of our salvation, after he had suffered, entered into glory, and that as our leader, or forerunner, Hebrews 6:20. Jesus as our forerunner is entered into heaven. He is gone before us, to evidence unto us what is the end of our obedience and sufferings. In all this is he a captain and leader unto the sons of God. (2.) He guides them and directs them in their way. This also belongs unto him as their captain and guide. Two things in this are they of themselves defective in: —[1. They know not the way that leads to happiness and glory; and, [2. They want ability to discern it aright when it is showed unto them. And in both they are relieved and assisted by their leader; in the first by his word, in the latter by his Spirit.[1. Of themselves they know not the way; as Thomas said, “How can we know the way?” The will of God, the mystery of his love and grace, as to the way whereby he will bring sinners unto glory, is unknown to the sons of men by nature. It was a secret “hid in God,” a sealed book, which none in heaven or earth could open. But this Jesus Christ hath fully declared in his word unto all the sons that are to be brought unto glory. He hath revealed the Father from his own bosom, John 1:18; and declared those “heavenly things” which no man knew but he that came down from heaven, and yet at the same time was in heaven, John 3:12-13. In his word hath he declared the name and revealed the whole counsel of God, and “brought life and immortality to light,” 2 Timothy 1:10. Whatever is any way needful, useful, helpful, in their obedience, worship of God, suffering, expectation of glory, he hath taught it them all, revealed it all unto them; other teachers they need not. Had there been any thing belonging unto their way which he had not revealed unto them, he had not been a perfect captain of salvation unto them. And men do nothing but presumptuously derogate from his glory, who will be adding and imposing their prescriptions in and about this way. [2. Again; the way being revealed in the word, he enables them by his Spirit to see, discern, and know it, in such a holy and saving manner as is needful to bring them unto the end of it. He gives them eyes to see, as well as provides paths for them to walk in. It had been to no purpose to have declared the way, if he had not also given them light to see it. This blessed work of his Spirit is everywhere declared in the Scripture, Isaiah 43:16. And by this means is he unto us what he was unto the church in the wilderness, when he went before them in a pillar of fire, to guide them in their way, and to show them where they should rest. And herein lies no small part of the discharge of his office towards us as the captain of our salvation. Whatever acquaintance we have with the way to glory, we have it from him alone; and whatever ability we have to discern the way, he is the fountain and author of it. This God hath designed and called him unto. And all our wisdom consists in this, that we betake ourselves unto him, to him alone, for instruction and direction in this matter, Matthew 17:5. Doth not he deservedly wander, yea, and perish, who in war will neglect the orders and directions of his general, and attend unto every idle tale of men pretending to show him a way that they have found out better than that which his captain hath limited him unto?(3.) He supplies them with strength by his grace, that they may be able to pass on in their way. They have much work lying before them, much to do, much to suffer, and “without him they can do nothing,” John 15:5.Wherefore he watcheth over them, to “succor them that are tempted,” Hebrews 2:18, and to give out “help” unto them all “in time of need,” Hebrews 4:16; and hence they who have no might, no sufficiency, “can do all things, through Christ that strengtheneth them,” Philippians 4:13. Nothing is too hard for them, nothing can prevail against them, because of the constant supplies of grace which the captain of their salvation communicates unto them. And this makes the ways of the gospel marvellous both to the world and to believers themselves. Their “life is hid with Christ in God,” Colossians 3:3; and they have “a new name, which no man knoweth,” Revelation 2:17. The world seeing poor, mean, weak, contemptible creatures, willing, ready, and able to suffer, endure, and die for the name of Christ, stand astonished, not knowing where their great strength lies; as the Philistines did at the might of Samson, whom they saw with their eyes to be like other men. Let them, in the height of their pride and rage of their madness, pretend what they please, they cannot but be they really are, amazed to see poor creatures, whom otherwise they exceedingly despise, constant unto the truth and profession of the gospel, against all their allurements and affrightments. They know not, they consider not the constant supplies of strength and grace which they receive from their leader. He gives them the Spirit of truth, which the world neither sees nor knows, John 14:17; and therefore it wonders from whence they have their ability and constancy. They cry, ‘What! will nothing turn these poor foolish creatures out of their way?’They try them one way, and then another, add one weight of affliction and oppression unto another, and think surely this will effect their design; but they find themselves deceived, and know not whence it is. The ways of obedience are hence also marvellous unto believers themselves. When they consider their own frailty and weakness, how ready they are to faint, how often they are surprised, and withal take a prospect of what opposition lies against them, from indwelling sin, Satan, and the world, which they are acquainted with in several instances of their power and prevalency, they neither know how they have abode so long in their course as they have done, nor how they shall continue in it unto the end. But they are relieved when they come to the promise of the gospel. There they see whence their preservation doth proceed. They see this captain of their salvation, in whom is the fullness of the Spirit, and to whom are committed all the stores of grace, giving out daily and hourly unto them, as the matter doth require. As the captain in an army doth not at once give out unto his soldiers the whole provision that is needful for their way and undertaking, — which if he should, the most of them would instantly waste it, and so quickly perish for want, — but he keeps provision for them all in his stores, and gives out unto them according to their daily necessities; so God gave the people manna for their daily food in the wilderness: even so deals this great leader of the sons of God. He keeps the stores of grace and spiritual strength in his own hand, and from thence imparts unto them according as they stand in need. (4.) He subdues their enemies. And this belongs unto his office, as the captain of their salvation, in an especial manner. Many enemies they have, and unless they are conquered and subdued, they can never enter into glory. Satan, the world, death, and sin, are the chief or heads of them, and all these are subdued by Christ; and that two ways: —First, in his own person; for they all attempted him, and failed in their enterprise, John 14:30. He bruised the serpent’s head, Genesis 3:15, and “destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil,” Genesis 3:14 of this chapter, — destroyed his power in a glorious and triumphant manner. Colossians 2:15, “he spoiled principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in his cross,” — adding the utmost complement, unto his victory, in a triumph. And he overcame the world: John 16:33, “Be of good cheer,” saith he, “I have overcome the world.” Both it and the prince of it were put under his feet. Death also was subdued by him; he “swallowed it up in victory,” 1 Corinthians 15:54. He plucked out its sting, broke its power, disannulled its peremptory law, when he shook it off from him, and rose from under it, Acts 2:24. Sin also set upon him in his temptations, but was utterly foiled; as all sin is destroyed in its very being where it is not obeyed. And all this was for the advantage of the sons of God. For, [1. He hath given them encouragement, in showing them that their enemies are not invincible, their power is not uncontrollable, their law not peremptory or eternal; but that having been once conquered, they may the more easily be dealt withal. [2. They know also that all these enemies set upon his person in their quarrel, and as he was the great defender of the faithful: so that although they were not conquered by their persons, yet they were conquered in their cause; and they are called in to be sharers in the victory, although they were not engaged in the battle. [3. That he subdued them by God’s ordinance and appointment, as their representative; declaring in his person, who is the head, what should be accomplished in every one of his members. [4. And that, by his personal conquest over them, he hath left them weak, maimed, disarmed, and utterly deprived of that power they had to hurt and destroy before he engaged with them. For he hath thereby deprived them, 1st, Of all their right and title to exercise their enmity against or dominion over the sons of God. Before his dealing with them, they had all right to the utmost over mankind, — Satan to rule, the world to vex, sin to enslave, death to destroy and give up unto hell. And all this right was enrolled in the law and hand-writing of ordinances which was against us. This was cancelled by Christ, and nailed to the cross, never to be pleaded more, Colossians 2:14. And when any have lost their right or title unto any thing, whatever their strength be, they are greatly weakened. But he hath herein,2dly, Deprived them of their strength also. He took away the strength of sin as a law, and the sting of death in sin, the arms of the world in the curse, and the power of Satan in his works and strongholds.But this is not all: he not only subdues these enemies for them, but also in them and by them; for though they have neither title nor arms, yet they will try the remainder of their power against them also. But “thanks be to God,” saith the apostle, “who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ,” 1 Corinthians 15:57. He enables us in our own persons to conquer all these enemies. “Nay,” saith he, “in all these things we are more than conquerors,” Romans 8:37; because we have more assurance of success, more assistance in the conflict, more joy in the trial, than any other conquerors have. We do not only conquer, but triumph also. For Satan, he tells believers “that they have overcome the wicked one,” 1 John 2:13-14; and shows how it came to pass that they should be able to do so. It is “because greater is he that is in them than he that is in the world,” 1 John 4:4. The good Spirit, which he hath given unto them to help and assist them, is infinitely greater and more powerful than that evil spirit which rules in the children of disobedience. And by this means is Satan bruised even under their feet. A conflict, indeed, we must have with him; we must “wrestle with principalities and powers in heavenly places;” but the success is secured, through the assistance we receive from this captain of our salvation. The world also is subdued in them and by them: 1 John 5:4, “Whosoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” Faith will do this work; it never failed in it, nor ever will. He that believeth shall overcome; the whole strength of Christ is engaged unto his assistance. Sin is the worst and most obstinate of all their enemies. This puts them hard to it in the battle, and makes them cry out for aid and help, Romans 7:24. But this also they receive strength against, so as to carry away the day. “I thank God,” saith the apostle, “through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 7:25, — namely, for deliverance and victory. Sin hath a double design in its enmity against us; — first, to reign in us; secondly, to condemn us. If it be disappointed in these designs it is absolutely conquered; and that it is by the grace of Christ. As to its reign and dominion, it is perfectly defeated for the present, Romans 6:14. The means of its rule is the authority of the law over us; that being removed, and our souls put under the conduct of grace, the reign of sin comes to an end. Nor shall it condemn us, Romans 8:1. And what can it then do? where is the voice of this oppressor? It abides but a season, and that but to endure and die. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The great reason and ground of the necessity of the sufferings of Christ bath been declared. It became God that he should suffer. But it doth not yet appear on what grounds this suffering of his could be profitable or beneficial unto the sons to be brought unto glory. It was the sinner himself against whom the law denounced the judgment of death; and although the Lord Christ, undertaking to be a captain of salvation unto the sons of God, might be willing to suffer for them, yet what reason is there that the punishment of one should be accepted for the sin of another? Let it be granted that the Lord Christ had an absolute and sovereign power over his own life and all the concernments of it, in the nature which he assumed, as also that he was willing to undergo any sufferings that God should call him unto; this, indeed, will acquit the justice of God in giving him up unto death, but whence is it that sinners should come to be so interested in these things as thereon to be acquitted from sin and brought unto glory? In these verses the apostle enters upon a discovery of the reasons hereof also. He supposeth, indeed, that there was a compact and agreement between the Father and Son in this matter; which he afterwards expressly treateth on, chapter 10. He supposeth, also, that in his sovereign authority, God had made a relaxation of the law as to the person suffering, though not as to the penalty to be suffered; which God abundantly declared unto the church of the Jews in all their sacrifices, as we shall manifest. These things being supposed, the apostle proceeds to declare the grounds of the equity of this substitution of Christ in the room of the sons, and of their advantage by his suffering, the proposition whereof he lays down in these verses, and the especial application in those that ensue. Hebrews 2:11-13. — ῞Οτεγὰρἀγιάζωνκαὶοἱἀγιαζόμενοιἐξενὸςπάντες·δι᾿ἥναἰτίανοὐκἐπαισχύςεταιἀδελφοὺςαὐτοὺςκαλεῖν, λέγων·᾿Απαγγελῶτὸὄνομάσουτοῖςἀδελφοῖςμου, ἐνμέσῳἐκκλησίαςὑμνήσωσε. Καὶπάλινv ῾Εγώἔσομαιπεποιθὼςἐπ᾿αὐτῷ·καὶτάλιν·᾿ΙδοὺἐγὼκαὶτὰπαιδίαἅμοιἔδωκενὁΘεός.There is no variety in the reading of these words in any copies, nor do translators differ in rendering, the sense of them. The Syriac renders the last testimony as if the words were spoken unto God, “Behold I and the children μִ ?ιΰַ ?μָ ?δָ ?ΰγְּ ?ιַ ?δֵ ?αְ ?ϊְּ, whom thou hast given unto me, O God.” The Ethiopic, “Wherefore they who sanctify and they who are sanctified are altogether;” to what purpose I cannot guess.῾Αγιάζω is used in this epistle both in the legal sense of it, “to separate,” “consecrate,” “dedicate;” and in the evangelical, “to purify,” “sanctify,” to make internally and really holy. It seems in this place to be used in the latter sense, though it includes the former also, κατ᾿ἀκολούθησιν, “by just consequence,” for they who are sanctified are separated unto God. The word, then, expresseth what the Lord Christ doth unto and for the sons as he is the captain of their salvation. He consecrates them unto God, through the sanctification of the Spirit, and washing in his own blood.᾿Εξἑνός. It may be of the masculine gender, and so denote one person; or of the neuter, and so one thing, one mass, one common principle; whereof afterwards.The first testimony is taken from Psalms 22:23, ΰֲ ?ρַ ?τְ ?ψָ ?δωִׁ ?ξְ ?κָ μְ ?ΰֶ ?ηָ ?ιαְּ ?ϊιִ ?κְ χָ ?δָ ?μΰֲ ?δַ ?μְ ?μֶ ?γָּ; which the LXX. render Διηγήσομαιτὸὀνομάσουτοῖςἀὸελφοῖςμου, ἐνμέσῳἐκκλησίαςὑμνήσωσε. The first word, ΰֲ ?ρַ ?τְ ?ψָ ?δ, “narrabo,” “annunciabo,” the apostle renders by ἀπαγγελῶ, more properly than they by διηγήσομαι. In the rest of the words there is a coincidence, the original being expressly rendered in them. For though ηִ ?μֵּ ?μ, be rendered simply “to praise,” yet its most frequent use, when respecting God as its object, is “to praise by hymns or psalms;” as the apostle here, Υμνήσωσε, “Tibi hymnos canam,” or, “Te hymnis celebrabo,” — “ I will sing hymns unto thee,” or “praise thee with hymns:” which was the principal way of setting forth God’s praise under the old testament.It is not certain whence the second testimony is taken. Some suppose it to be from Isaiah 8:17, from whence the last also is cited. The words of the prophet there, εְ ?χִ ?ιֵּ ?ιϊִ ?ιμεֹ, are rendered by the LXX. Καὶπεποιθὼςἔσομαιἐπ᾿αὐτῷ, the words here used by the apostle. But there are sundry things that will not allow us to close with this supposal: — First, the original is not rightly rendered by the LXX., and, as we shall see, the apostle’s words do exactly express the original in another place. Besides, χָ ?ιָ ?δis never but in this place and once more turned into πείθω by the LXX., but is constantly rendered by them μένω, or ὑπομένω: so that it is not improbable but that these words might be inserted into the Greek text out of this place of the apostle, there being some presumptions and likelihoods that it was the place intended by him, especially because the next testimony used by the apostle consists in the words immediately ensuing these in the prophet. But yet that yields another reason against this supposition; for if the apostle continued on the words of the prophet, to what end should he insert in the midst of them that constant note of proceeding unto another testimony, καὶπάλιν, “and again,” especially considering that the whole testimony speaks to the same purpose?We shall, then, refer these words unto Psalms 18:3, ΰֶ ?ηֶ ?ρֶ ?δΰּ ?αּ ?εֹ; which the LXX. render, “ ᾿Ελπιῶἐπ᾿αὐτόν, “I will hope in him;” the apostle more properly, ῎Εσομαιπεποιθὼςἐπ᾿αὐτῷ, “I will put my trust in him.” And that that psalm had respect unto the Lord Christ and his kingdom our apostle showeth elsewhere, by citing another testimony out of it concerning the calling of the Gentiles, Romans 15:9; nor was the latter part of the psalm properly fulfilled in David at all.The last testimony is, unquestionably taken out of Isa 8:18, where the words are, δִ ?πֵּ ?ηΰָ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ιεְ ?δַ ?ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ινΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψπָ ?ϊַ ?ομִ ?ιιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ; and rendered by the LXX., as here by the apostle, ᾿ΙδοὺἐγὼκαὶτὰπαιδίαἅμοιἔὸωκενὁΘεός. ιִ ?μָ ?γִ ?ινis properly “nati,” γεννητοί, or ἕκγονοι, those that are begotten or born of any one, whilst they are in their tender age. But it may be rendered by παιδία, as it is by the LXX., Genesis 30:26; Genesis 32:23; Genesis 33:1-2, which is “children” in a larger sense. [5] [5] . — ῾Αγιάξ, according to Ebrard, refers neither to sanctification nor to justification, as such, but to the total change in their relation to God whichtakes place in the members of the new covenant, in opposition to the relation of the natural man to God. ᾿Εξἑνός, “of one;” that is, Father. — Macknight, De Wette, Conybeare and Howson, Tholuck, Ebrard, etc. . — ῞Οτεγὰρἀγιάζ. Both the purifier and the purified. — Scholefield. He that atoneth, and they that are atoned for. — Turner. He who maketh expiation, and they for whom expiation is made. — Stuart. ῾Αγιαζόμενοι, literally, who are in the process of sanctification. — Conybeare and Howson. — ED. Hebrews 2:11-13. — For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.The words contain, — First, A further description of the captain of salvation, and the sons to be brought unto glory by him, mentioned in the verse foregoing, taken from his office and work towards them, and the effect thereof upon them, “He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified;” which is the subject of the first proposition in these words. Secondly, An assertion concerning them, “They are all of one.”Thirdly, A natural consequence of that assertion, which includes also the scope and design of it, “He is not ashamed to call them brethren.” Fourthly, The confirmation hereof by a triple testimony from the Old TestamentFirst, He describes the captain of salvation and the sons to be brought unto glory by their mutual relation to one another in sanctification. He is ὁἁγιάζων, “he that sanctifieth;” and they are οἱἁγιαζόμενοι, “they that are sanctified.” That it is the Son, the captain of salvation, that is intended by the sanctifier, both what the apostle affirms immediately of him and them, and the ensuing testimonies whereby he confirms it, do make evident. And as in the verse foregoing, giving an account why God would have Christ to suffer, he describes him by that property of his nature which includes a necessity of his so doing; so here, setting forth the causes on our part of that suffering, and the grounds of our advantage thereby, he expresseth him and the children by those terms which manifest their relation unto one another, and which they could not have stood in had they not been of the same nature, as he afterwards declares. Now, the same word being here used actively and passively, it must in both places be understood in the same sense, the one expressing the effect of the other. As Christ sanctifies, so are the children sanctified. And the act of Christ which is here intended is that which he did for the sons, when he suffered for them according to God’s appointment, as Hebrews 2:10. Now, as was said before, to sanctify is either to separate and to dedicate unto sacred use, or to purify and make really holy; which latter sense is here principally intended. Thus, when the apostle speaks of the effects of the offering of Christ for the elect, he distinguisheth between their τελείωσις, or “consummation,” and their ἀγιασμός, or “sanctification:” Hebrews 10:14, Μιᾷπροσφορᾷτετελείωκεντοῦςἀγιαζομένους·. — “By one offering he consummated’’(or “perfected”) “the sanctified.” First, he sanctifieth them, and then dedicates them unto God, so that they shall never more need any initiation into his favor and service. This work was the captain of salvation designed unto. The children that were to be brought unto glory being in themselves unclean and unholy, and on that account, separated from God, he was to purge their natures and to make them holy, that they might be admitted into the favor of and find acceptance with God. And for the nature of this work, two things must be considered: — first, The impetration of it, or the way and means whereby he obtained this sanctification for them; and, secondly, The application of that means, or real effecting of it. The first consisteth in the sufferings of Christ and the merit thereof. Hence we are so often said to be sanctified and washed in his blood, Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:32; Revelation 1:5; and his blood is said to cleanse us from all our sins, 1 John 1:7. As it was shed for us, he procured, by the merit of his obedience therein, that those for whom it was shed should be purged and purified, Titus 2:14. The other consists in the effectual working of the Spirit of grace, communicated unto us by virtue of the blood-shedding and sufferings of Christ, as the apostle declares, Titus 3:4-6. And they who place this sanctification merely on the doctrine and example of Christ (as Grotius on this place), besides that they consider not at all the design and scope of the place, so they reject the principal end and the most blessed effect of the death and blood-shedding of the Lord Jesus. Now, in this description of the captain of salvation and of the sons, the apostle intimates a further necessity of his sufferings, — because they were to be sanctified by him, which could no otherwise be done but by his death and blood- shedding. Having many things to observe from these verses, we shall take them up as they offer themselves unto us in our procedure; as here, —I. That all the children which are to be brought unto glory, antecedently unto their relation unto the Lord Christ, are polluted, defiled, separate from God.They are all to be sanctified by him, both as to their real purification and their consecration to be God’s hallowed portion. This, for many blessed ends, the Scripture abundantly instructs us in: Titus 3:3, “We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” A most wretched, defiled, and loathsome condition, that which justly might be an abhorrency to God and all his holy angels! and such, indeed, God describes it to be by his prophet: Ezekiel 16:5-6,“Thou wast polluted in thy blood; and cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person.”Thus we were, saith the apostle; even we, who are now sanctified and cleansed by the means which he afterwards relates. The like description he gives of this estate, 1 Corinthians 6:11, with an assertion of the same delivery from it. We are naturally very proud, — apt to please ourselves in ourselves; to think of nothing less than of being polluted or defiled, or at least not so far but that we can wash ourselves. What a hard thing is it to persuade the great men of the world, in the midst of their ornaments, paintings, and perfumes, that they are all over vile, leprous, loathsome, and defiled! Are they not ready to wash themselves in the blood of them who intimate any such thing unto them? But whether men will hear or forbear, this is the condition of all men, even of the sons of God themselves, before they are washed and sanctified by Christ Jesus. And as this sets out the infinite love of God in taking notice of such vile creatures as we are, and the unspeakable condescension of the Lord Christ, with the efficacy of his grace in cleansing us by his blood, so it is sufficient to keep us humble in ourselves, and thankful unto God all our days.II. That the Lord Christ is the great sanctifier of the church. His title is ὁἁγιάζων, “the sanctifier;” of which more afterwards. The Lord Christ, the captain of our salvation, sanctifies every son whom he brings unto glory.He will never glorify an unsanctified person. The world, indeed, is full of an expectation of glory by Christ; but of that which is indispensably previous thereunto they have no regard. But this the Scripture gives us as a principal effect of the whole mediation of Christ; — of his death, Ephesians 5:26; Titus 2:14; — of his communication of his word and Spirit, John 17:19; Titus 3:5-6; — of his blood-shedding in an especial manner, 1 John 1:7; Romans 6:5-6; Revelation 1:5; — of his life in heaven and intercession for us, Colossians 3:1-3. This he creates his people unto by his grace, Ephesians 2:8, excites them unto by his promises and commands, 2 Corinthians 7:1, John 15:16-17. So that no end of the mediation of Christ is accomplished in them who are not sanctified and made holy. And this was necessary for him to do, on the part, —1. Of God; 2. Of himself; 3. Of themselves.1. Of God, unto whom they are to be brought in glory. He is holy, “of purer eyes than to behold evil,” — no unclean thing can stand in his presence; holy in his nature, “glorious in holiness;” holy in his commands, and “will be sanctified in all that draw nigh unto him.” And this Peter urgeth as that which requires holiness in us, 1 Peter 1:15-16,“As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.”And thence it is said that “holiness becometh his house,” — that is, all that draw nigh unto him; and the apostle sets it down as an uncontrollable maxim, that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” If the Lord Christ, then, will bring the children unto God, he must make them holy, or they can have no admittance into his presence, no acceptance with him; for no unclean thing, nothing that defileth, can enter into the new Jerusalem, the place where his holiness dwelleth. It is utterly impossible that any soul not washed with the blood of Christ, not sanctified by his Spirit and grace, should stand in the sight of God. And this was expressed in all the typical institutions about cleansing which God appointed unto his people of old. He did it to teach them that unless they were sanctified, washed, and cleansed from their sins, they could be admitted unto no communion with him nor enjoyment of him. Neither can any serve him here unless their consciences be purged by the blood of Christ from dead works; nor can they come to him hereafter, unless they are washed from all their defilements. Their services here he rejects as an unclean and polluted thing; and their confidences for the future he despiseth as a presumptuous abomination. God will not divest himself of his holiness, that he may receive or be enjoyed by unholy creatures. And the day is coming wherein poor unsanctified creatures, who think they may miss holiness in the way to glory, shall cry out, “Who amongst us shall inhabit with those everlasting burnings?” for so will he appear unto all unsanctified persons. 2. Of himself, and the relation whereinto he takes these sons with himself. He is their head, and they are to be members of his body. Now, he is holy, and so must they be also, or this relation will be very unsuitable and uncomely. A living head and dead members, a beautiful head and rotten members, — how uncomely would it be! Such a monstrous body Christ will never own. Nay, it would overthrow the whole nature of that relation, and take away the life and power of that union that Christ and his are brought into as head and members; for whereas it consists in this, that the whole head and members are animated, quickened, and acted by one and the self-same Spirit of life, — nor doth any thing else give union between head and members, — if they be not sanctified by that Spirit, there can be no such relation between them. Again, he takes them unto himself to be his bride and spouse. Now, you know that it was appointed of old, that if any one would take up a captive maid to be his wife, she was to shave her head, and pare her nails, and wash herself, that she might be meet for him. And the Lord Christ taking this bride unto himself, by the conquest he hath made of her, must by sanctification make them meet for this relation with himself. And therefore he doth it: Ephesians 5:25-27,“Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”This it became him to do, this was the end why he did it: he sanctifieth his church that he may present it a meet bride or spouse unto himself. The like may be said of all other relations wherein the Lord Christ stands unto his people; there is no one of them but makes their sanctification absolutely necessary. 3. On the part of the children themselves; for unless they are regenerate, or born again, wherein the foundation of their sanctification is laid, they can by no means enter into the kingdom of God. It is this that makes them “meet for the inheritance of the saints in light.” As without it they are not meet for their duty, so are they not capable of their reward. Yea, heaven itself, in the true light and notion of it, is undesirable unto an unsanctified person. Such a one neither can nor would enjoy God if he might. In a word, there is no one thing required of the sons of God that an unsanctified person can do, no one thing promised unto them that he can enjoy. There is surely, then, a woeful mistake in the world. If Christ sanctifies all whom he saves, many will appear to have been mistaken in their expectations another day. It is grown amongst us almost an abhorrency unto all flesh, to say that the church of God is to be holy. What though God hath promised that it should be so, and Christ hath undertaken to make it so? what if it be required to be so? what if all the duties of it be rejected of God if it be not so? — it is all one. If men be baptized whether they will or no, and outwardly profess the name of Christ, though not one of them be truly sanctified, yet they are, as it is said, the church of Christ. Why, then, let them be so; but what are they the better for it? Are their persons or their services therefore accepted with God? are they related or. united unto Christ? are they under his conduct unto glory? are they meet for the inheritance of the saints in light? Not at all; not all, not any of these things do they obtain thereby. What is it, then, that they get by the furious contest which they make for the reputation of this privilege? Only this, that satisfying their minds by it, resting if not priding themselves in it, they obtain many advantages to stifle all convictions of their condition, and so perish unavoidably. A sad success, and for ever to be bewailed! Yet is there nothing at this day more contended for in this world than that Christ might be thought to be a captain of salvation unto them unto whom he is not a sanctifier, — that he may have an unholy church, a dead body. These things tend neither to the glory of Christ, nor to the good of the souls of men. Let none, then, deceive themselves: sanctification is a qualification indispensably necessary unto them who will be under the conduct of the Lord Christ unto salvation, he will lead none to heaven but whom he sanctities on the earth. The holy God will not receive unholy persons; this living head will not admit of dead members, nor bring men into the possession of a glory which they neither love nor like. Secondly, Having given this description of the captain of salvation and of the sons to be brought unto glory, the apostle affirms of them that they are ἐξἐνός, “of one ;” which made it meet for him to suffer and for them to be made partakers of his sufferings. The equity hereof lies in the agreement, that he and they are of one; which what it is we must now inquire.1. The word hath this ambiguity in it, that it may be of the masculine gender, and denote one person, or of the neuter, and signify one thing. If it relate unto the person, it may have a double interpretation: —(1.) That it is God who is intended. They are “all of one;” that is, God. And this may be spoken in several respects, The Son was of him by eternal generation; the many sons, by temporal creation, — they were made by him. Or, they are all of him: he ordained him to be the sanctifier, them to be sanctified; him to be the captain of salvation, and them to be brought unto glory. And this sense the last testimony produced by the apostle seems to give countenance unto: “Behold I and the children which God hath given unto me;” — ‘me to be their father, captain, leader; they to be the children to be cared for and conducted by me.’And this way went most of the ancients in their exposition of this place. In this sense, the reason yielded by the apostle in these words why the captain of salvation should be made perfect by sufferings is, because the sons to be brought unto glory were also to suffer, and they were all of one, both he and they, even of God. But though these things are true, yet they contain not a full reason of what the apostle intends to prove by this assertion: for this interpretation allows no other relation to be expressed between Christ and the sons than what is between him and angels; they are also, with him, of one God. And yet the apostle afterwards showeth that there was another union and relation between Christ and the elect needful, that they might be saved by him, than any that was between him and angels. And if nothing be intimated but the good pleasure of God appointing him to be a Savior and them to be saved, because they were all of himself, of one God, which was sufficient to make that appointment just and righteous, then is here nothing asserted to prove the meetness of Christ to be a Savior unto men and not to angels, which yet the apostle in the following verses expressly deduceth from hence. (2.) If it respect a person, it may be “ex uno homine,” “of one man;” that is, of Adam. They are all of one common root and stock, he and they came all of one, Adam. Unto him is the genealogy of Christ referred by Luke. And as a common stock of our nature he is often called the “one,” the “one man,” Romans 5. And this, for the substance of it, falls in with what will be next considered. 2. It may be taken in the neuter sense, and denote one thing. And so also it may receive a double interpretation: —(1.) It may denote the same mass of human nature. ᾿Εξἑνόςφυράματος, of one and the same mass of human nature; or, ἐξἑνὸςαἵματος. So it is said of all mankind that God made them ἐξἑνὸςαἵματος, “of one blood,”Acts 17:26, of one common principle; which gives an alliance, cognation, and brotherhood, unto the whole race of mankind. As the making of all mankind by one God gives them all a relation unto him, as saith the apostle, “We are also his offspring;” so their being made of “one blood” gives them a brotherhood among themselves, See Acts 14:15. And this interpretation differs not, in the substance of it, from that last preceding, inasmuch as the whole mass of human nature had its existence in the person of Adam; only it refers not the oneness mentioned formally unto his person, but unto the nature itself whereof he was made partaker. And this sense the apostle further explains, Acts 14:14; as he also observes it, Romans 9:5. (2.) By “one,” some understand the same spiritual nature, the principle of spiritual life which is in Christ the head, and the children his members. And this, they say, is that which is their peculiar oneness, or being of one, seeing all wicked men, even reprobates, are of the same common mass of human nature as well as the children. But yet this is not satisfactory. It is true, indeed, that after the children are really sanctified, they are of one and the same spiritual nature with their head, 1 Corinthians 12:12, and hereby are they differenced from all others: but the apostle here treats of their being so of one that he might be meet to suffer for them; which is antecedent unto their being sanctified, as the cause is unto the effect. Neither is it of any weight that the reprobates are partakers of the same common nature with the children, seeing the Lord Christ partook of it only on the children’s account, as 1 Corinthians 12:14; and of their nature he could not be partaker without being partaker of that which was common to them all, seeing that of one blood God made all nations under heaven. But the bond of nature itself is, in the covenant, reckoned only unto them that shall be sanctified.It is, then, one common nature that is here intended. He and they are of the same nature, of one mass, of one blood. And hereby he came to be meet to suffer for them, and they to be in a capacity of enjoying the benefit of his sufferings; which how it answers the whole design of the apostle in this place doth evidently appear. First, he intends to show that the Lord Christ was meet to suffer for the children; and this arose from hence, that he was of the same nature with them, as he afterwards at large declares. And he was meet to sanctify them by his sufferings, as in this verse he intimates. For as in an offering made unto the Lord of the first-fruits, of meat or of meal, a parcel of the same nature with the whole was taken and offered, whereby the whole was sanctified, Leviticus 2; so the Lord Jesus Christ being taken as the first-fruits of the nature of the children, and offered unto God, the whole lump, or the whole nature of man in the children, — that is, all the elect, — is separated unto God, and effectually sanctified in their season. And this gives the ground unto all the testimonies which the apostle produceth unto his purpose out of the Old Testament; for being thus of one nature with them, “he is not ashamed to call them brethren,” as he proves from Psalms 22. For although it be true, that, as brethren is a term of spiritual cognation and love, he calls them not so until they are made partakers of his Spirit, and of the same spiritual nature that is in him, yet the first foundation of this appellation lies in his participation of the same nature with them; without which, however he might love them, he could not properly call them brethren. Also, his participation of their nature was that which brought him into such a condition as wherein it was needful for him to put his trust in God, and to look for deliverance from him in a time of danger; which the apostle proves in the second place by a testimony out of Psalms 18 : which could not in any sense have been said of Christ had he not been partaker of that nature, which is exposed unto all kinds of wants and troubles, with outward straits and oppositions, which the nature of angels is not. And as his being thus of one with us made him our brother, and placed him in that condition with us wherein it was necessary for him to put his trust in God for deliverance; so being the principal head and first- fruits of our nature, and therein the author and finisher of our salvation, he is a father unto us, and we are his children: which the apostle proveth by his last testimony from Isaiah 8, “Behold I and the children which the Lord hath given unto me.” And further, upon the close of these testimonies, the apostle assumes again his proposition, and asserts it unto the same purpose, Isaiah 8:14, showing in what sense he and the children were of one, namely, in their mutual participation of “flesh and blood.” And thus this interpretation of the word will sufficiently bear the whole weight of the apostle’s argument and inferences. But if any one list to extend the word further, and to comprise in it the manifold relation that is between Christ and his members, I shall not contend about it. There may be in it, — 1. Their being of one God, designing him and them to be one mystical body, one church, — he the head, they the members;2. Their taking into one covenant, made originally with him, and exemplified in them;3. Their being of one common principle of human nature;4. Designed unto a manifold spiritual union in respect of that new nature which the children receive from him; with every other thing that concurs to serve the union and relation between them. But that which we have insisted on is principally intended, and to be so considered by us. And we might teach from hence, that, —III. The agreement of Christ and the elect in one common nature is the foundation of his fitness to be an undertaker on their behalf, and of the equity of their being made partakers of the benefits of his mediation, but that this will occur unto us again more fully, Isaiah 8:14. And by all this doth the apostle discover unto the Hebrews the unreasonableness of their offense at the afflicted condition and sufferings of the Messiah. He had minded them of the work that he had to do; which was, to save his elect by a spiritual and eternal salvation: he had also intimated what was their condition by nature; wherein they were unclean, unsanctified, separate from God: and withal had made known what the justice of God, as the supreme governor and judge of all, required that sinners might be saved. He now minds them of the union that was between him and them, whereby he became fit to suffer for them, as that they might enjoy the blessed effects thereof in deliverance and salvation. Thirdly, The apostle lays down an inference from his preceding assertion, in these words, “For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” In which words we have, —1. The respect of that which is here affirmed unto the assertion foregoing: “For which cause.”2. The thing itself affirmed; which is, that the Lord Christ calls the sons to be brought unto glory his “brethren.”3. The manner of his so doing: “He is not ashamed to call them so.” And herein also the apostle, according to his wonted way of proceeding, which we have often observed, makes a transition towards somewhat else which he had in design, namely, the prophetical office of Christ, as we shall see afterwards.“For which cause,” — that is, because they are of one, partakers of one common nature, — “he calls them brethren.” This gives a rightful foundation unto that appellation. Hereon is built that relation which is between him and them. It is true, there is more required to perfect the relation of brotherhood between him and them than merely their being of one; but it is so far established from hence that he was meet to suffer for them, to sanctify and save them. And without this there could have been no such relation. Now, his calling of them “brethren” doth both declare that they are so, and also that he owns them and avouches them as such. But whereas it may be said, that although they are thus of one in respect of their common nature, yet upon sundry other accounts he is so glorious, and they are so vile and miserable, that he might justly disavow this cognation, and reject them as strangers, the apostle tells us it is otherwise, and that, passing by all other distances between them, and setting aside the consideration of their unworthiness, for which he might justly disavow them, and remembering wherefore he was of one with them, “he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” There may be μείωσις; in the words, and the contrary asserted to that which is denied: “He is not ashamed;” that is, willingly, cheerfully, and readily he doth it. But I rather look upon it as an expression of condescension and love. And herein doth the apostle show the use of what he taught before, that they were of one, namely, that thereby they became brethren, he meet to suffer for them, and they meet to be saved by him. What in all this the apostle confirms by the ensuing testimonies, we shall see in the explication of them; in the meantime we may learn for our own instruction, —IV. That notwithstanding the union of nature ίwhich is between the Son of God incarnate, the sanctifier, and the children that are to be sanctified, there is in respect of their persons an inconceivable distance between them; so that it is a marvellous condescension in him to call them brethren.He is not ashamed to call them so, though, considering what himself is and what they are, it should seem that he might justly be so. The same expression, for the like reasons, is used concerning God’s owning his people in covenant, Hebrews 11:16, “Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God.” And this distance between Christ and us, which makes his condescension so marvellous, relates unto a fourfold head; — 1. The immunity of the nature wherein he was of one with us in his person from all sin. He was made like unto us in all things, sin excepted. The nature of man in every other individual person is defiled with and debased by sin. We are every one “gone astray, and are become all together filthy” or abominable. This sets us at no small distance from him. Human nature defiled with sin is farther distanced from the same nature as pure and holy, in worth and excellency, than the meanest worm is from the most glorious angel. Nothing but sin casts the creature out of its own place, and puts it into another distance from God than it hath by being a creature. This is a debasement unto hell, as the prophet speaks: “Thou didst debase thyself even unto hell,” Isaiah 57:9. And therefore the condescension of God unto us in Christ is set out by his regarding of us “when we were enemies” unto him, Romans 5:10; that is, whilst we were “sinners,” as Romans 5:8. This had cast us into hell itself, at the most inconceivable distance from him. Yet this hindered not him who was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” to own us as his brethren. He says not, with those proud hypocrites in the prophet, “Stand farther off, I am holier than you;” but he comes unto us, and takes us by the hand in his love, to deliver us from this condition. 2. We are in this nature obnoxious unto all miseries, in this world and that which is to come. Man now is “born to trouble,” all the trouble that sin can deserve or a provoked God inflict. His misery is great upon him, and that growing and endless. He, just in himself, free from all, obnoxious to nothing that was grievous or irksome, no more than the angels in heaven or Adam in paradise. “Poena noxam sequitur;” — “Punishment and trouble follow guilt only naturally.” He “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth;” so that God was always well pleased with him. Whatever of hardship or difficulty he underwent, it was for us, and not for himself. Might not he have left us to perish in our condition, and freely enjoyed his own? We see how unapt those who are in prosperity, full and rich, are to take notice of their nearest relations in poverty, misery, and distress; and who among them would do so if it would cast them into the state of those who are already miserable? Yet so it did the Lord Christ. His calling us brethren, and owning of us, made him instantly obnoxious unto all the miseries the guilt whereof we had contracted upon ourselves. The owning of his alliance unto us cost him, as it were, all he was worth; for being rich, “for our sakes he became poor.” He came into the prison and into the furnace to own us. And this also renders his condescension marvellous. 3. He is inconceivably distanced from us in reject of that place and dignity which he was destined unto. This, as we have showed at large, was to be “Lord of all,” with absolute sovereign authority over the whole creation of God. We are poor abjects, who either have not bread to eat, or have no good right to eat that which we meet withal. Sin hath set the whole creation against us. And if Mephibosheth thought it a great condescension in David on his throne to take notice of him, being poor, who was yet the son of Jonathan, what is it in this King of kings to own us for brethren in our vile and low condition? Thoughts of his glorious exaltation will put a lustre on his condescension in this matter.4. He is infinitely distanced from us in his person, in respect of his divine nature, wherein he is and was “God over all, blessed for ever.” He did not so become man as to cease to be God. Though he drew a veil over his infinite glory, yet he parted not with it. He who calls us brethren, who suffered for us, who died for us, was God still in all these things. The condescension of Christ in this respect the apostle in an especial manner insists upon and improves, Philippians 2:5-11. That he who in himself is thus over all, eternally blessed, holy, powerful, should take us poor worms of the earth into this relation with himself, and avow us for his brethren, as it is not easy to be believed, so it is for ever to be admired.And these are some of the heads of that distance which is between Christ and us, notwithstanding his participation of the same nature with us. Yet such was his love unto us, such his constancy in the pursuit of the design and purpose of his Father in bringing many sons unto glory, that he overlooks as it were them all, and “is not ashamed to call us brethren.” And if he will do this because he is of one with us, because a foundation of this relation is laid in his participation of our nature, how much more will he continue so to do when he hath perfected this relation by the communication of his Spirit! And this is a ground of unspeakable consolation unto believers, with supportment in every condition. No unworthiness in them, no misery upon them, shall ever hinder the Lord Christ from owning them, and openly avowing them to be his brethren. He is a brother born for the day of trouble, a Redeemer for the friendless and fatherless. Let their miseries be what they will, he will be ashamed of none but of them who are ashamed of him and his ways when persecuted and reproached. A little while will clear up great mistakes All the world shall see at the last day whom Christ will own; and it will be a great surprisal, when men shall hear him call them brethren whom they hated, and esteemed as the offscouring of all things. He doth it, indeed, already by his word; but they will not attend thereunto. But at the last day they shall both see and hear, whether they will or no. And herein, I say, lies the great consolation of believers. The world rejects them, it may be their own relations despise them, — they are persecuted, hated, reproached; but the Lord Christ is not ashamed of them. He will not pass by them because they are poor and in rags, — it may be, reckoned (as he himself was for them) among malefactors. They may see also the wisdom, grace, and love of God in this matter. His great design in the incarnation of his Son was to bring him into that condition wherein he might naturally care for them, as their brother; that he might not be ashamed of them, but be sensible of their wants, their state and condition in all things, and so be always ready and meet to relieve them. Let the world now take its course, and the men thereof do their worst; let Satan rage, and the powers of hell be stirred up against them; let them load them with reproaches and scorn, and cover them all over with the filth and dirt of their false imputations; let them bring them into rags, into dungeons, unto death ; — Christ comes in the midst of all this confusion and says, ‘Surely these are my brethren, the children of my Father,’and he becomes their Savior. And this is a stable foundation of comfort and supportment in every condition. And are we not taught our duty also herein, namely, not to be ashamed of him or his gospel, or of any one that bears his image? The Lord Christ is now himself in that condition that even the worst of men esteem it an honor to own him: but indeed they are no less ashamed of him than they would have been when he was carrying his cross upon his shoulders or hanging upon the tree; for of every thing that he hath in this world they are ashamed. His gospel, his ways, his worship, his Spirit, his saints, they are all of them the objects of their scorn; and in these things it is that the Lord Christ may be truly honored or be despised. For those thoughts which men have of his present glory, abstracting from these things, he is not concerned in them; they are all exercised about an imaginary Christ, that is unconcerned in the word and Spirit of the Lord Jesus. These are the things wherein we are not to be ashamed of him. See Romans 1:16; 2 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 4:16. Fourthly, That which remaineth of these verses consisteth in the testimonies which the apostle produceth out of the Old Testament in the confirmation of what he had taught and asserted. And two things are to be considered concerning them, — the end for which they are produced, and the especial importance of the words contained in them. The first he mentions is from Psalms 22:22,“I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.”The end why the apostle produceth this testimony, is to confirm what he had said immediately before, namely, that with respect unto his being one with the children, Christ owns them for his brethren; for this he doth expressly in this place. And we are to take notice that the apostle in the use of these testimonies doth not observe any order, so that one of them should confirm one part, and another, another part of his assertion, in the order wherein he had laid them down. It sufficeth him that his whole intendment, in all the parts of it, is confirmed in and by them all, one having a more especial respect unto one part than another. In this first it is clear that he proves what he had immediately before affirmed, namely, that the Lord Christ owns the children for his brethren, because of their common interest in the same nature. And there needs nothing to evince the pertinency of this testimony but only to show that it is the Messiah which speaketh in that psalm, and whose words these are; which we have done fully already in our Prolegomena. For the explication of the words themselves, we may consider the twofold act or duty that the Lord Christ takes upon himself in them; — first, that he will declare the name of God unto his brethren; and, secondly, that he would celebrate him with praises in the congregation. In the former we must inquire what is meant by the “name” of God, and then how it is or was “declared” by Jesus Christ. This expression, the “name of God,” is variously used. Sometimes it denotes the being of God, God himself; sometimes his attributes, his excellencies or divine perfections, some one or more of them. As it is proposed unto sinners as an object for their faith, trust, and love, it denotes in an especial manner his love, grace, and goodness, — that in himself he is good, gracious, and merciful, Isaiah 50:10. And withal itintimates what God requires of them towards whom he is so good and gracious. This name of God is unknown to men by nature; so is the way and means whereby he will communicate his goodness and grace unto them. And this is the name of God here intended, which the Lord Jesus “manifested unto the men given him out of the world,” John 17:6; which is the same with his declaring the Father, whom “no man hath seen at any time,” John 1:18. This is that name of God which the Lord Jesus Christ had experience of in his sufferings, and the manifestation whereof unto his brethren he had procured thereby. Hereof he says in the psalm, ΰֲ ?ρַ ?τְ ?ψָ ?δ, “I will declare it,” — recount it in order, number the particulars that belong unto it, and so distinctly and evidently make it known. ᾿Απαλλελῶ, ‘I will make it known as a messenger, sent from thee and by thee.’And there are two ways whereby the Lord Christ declared this name of God: —1. In his own person; and that both before and after his sufferings: for although it be mentioned here as a work that ensued his death, yet is it not exclusive of his teachings before his suffering, because they also were built upon the supposition thereof. Thus in the days of his flesh, he instructed his disciples and preached the gospel in the synagogues of the Jews and in the temple, declaring the name of God unto them. So also after his resurrection he conferred with his apostles about the kingdom of God, Acts 1. 2. By his Spirit; and that both in the effusion of it upon his disciples, enabling them personally to preach the gospel unto the men of their own generation, and in the inspiration of some of them, enabling them to commit the truth unto writing for the instruction of the elect unto the end of the world. And herein doth the apostle, according unto his wonted manner, not only confirm what he had before delivered, but make way for what he had further to instruct the Hebrews in, namely, the prophetical office of Christ, as he is the great revealer of the will of God and teacher of the church; which he professedly insists upon in the beginning of the next chapter. In the second part of this first testimony is declared further: — 1. What Christ will moreover do: He will “sing praises unto God;’ and, 2. Where he will do it: “In the midst of the congregation.”The expression of both these is accommodated unto the declaration of God’s name and of praising him in the temple. 1. The singing of hymns of praise unto God in the great congregation was then a principal part of his worship. And in the first expression two things are observable: —(1.) What Christ undertakes to do; and that is, to praise God. Now this is only exegetical of what went before. He would praise God by declaring his name. There is no way whereby the praise of God may be celebrated like that of declaring his grace, goodness, and love unto men; whereby they may be won to believe and trust in him, whence glory redounds unto him.(2.) The cheerfulness and alacrity of the spirit of Christ in this work. He would do it as with joy and singing, with such a frame of heart as was required in them who were to sing the praises of God in the great assemblies in the temple. 2. Where would he do this? αְּ ?ϊεֹ ?κְ χָ ?δָ ?μ, “in the midst of the congregation,” — “the great congregation,” as he calls it, Acts 1:23; that is, the great assembly of the people in the temple. And this was a type of the whole church of the elect under the new testament. The Lord Christ, in his own person, by his Spirit in his apostles, by his word, and by all his messengers unto the end of the world, setting forth the love, grace, goodness, and mercy of God in him the mediator, sets forth the praise of God in the midst of the congregation. I shall only add, that whereas singing of hymns unto God was an especial part of the instituted worship under the old testament, to whose use these expressions are accommodated, it is evident that the Lord Christ hath eminently set forth this praise of God in his institution of worship under the new testament, wherein God will ever be glorified and praised. This was that which the Lord Christ engaged to do upon the issue of his sufferings; and we may propose it unto our example and instruction, namely, — V. That which was principally in the heart of Christ upon his sufferings, was to declare and manifest the love, grace, and good-will of God unto men, that they might come to an acquaintance with him and to acceptance before him.There are two things in the psalm and the words that manifest how much this was upon the heart of Christ The most part of the psalm containeth the great conflict that he had with his sufferings, and the displeasure of God against sin declared therein. He is no sooner delivered from thence, but instantly he engageth in this work. As he lands upon the shore from that tempest wherein he was tossed in his passion, he cries out, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.” And thus we find, that upon his resurrection he did not immediately ascend into glory, but first declared the name of God unto his apostles and disciples, and then took order that by them it should be declared and published to all the world. This was upon his spirit, and he entered not into his glorious rest until he had performed it. The words themselves also do evidence it, in that expression of celebrating God’s name with hymns, with singing. It was a joy of heart unto him to be engaged in this work. Singing is the frame (εὐθυμοῦντων, James 5:13) of them that are in a glad, free, rejoicing condition. So was the Lord Christ in this work. He rejoiced of old with the very thoughts of this work, Proverbs 8:30-31; Isaiah 61:1-3; and it was one of the glorious promises that were made unto him upon his undertaking the work of our salvation, that he should declare or preach the gospel, and the name of God therein, unto the conversion of Jews and Gentiles, Isaiah 49:1-10. He rejoiced, therefore, greatly to do it; and that, —1. Because herein consisted the manifestation and exaltation of the glory of God, which he principally in his whole work aimed at. He came to do the will, and thereby to set forth the glory, of the Father. By and in him God designed to make his glory known; — the glory of his love and grace in sending him; the glory of his justice and faithfulness in his sufferings; the glory of his mercy in the reconciliation and pardon of sinners; the glory of his wisdom in the whole mystery of his mediation; and the glory together of all his external excellencies in bringing his sons unto the everlasting enjoyment of him. Now nothing of all this could have been made known, unless the Lord Christ had taken upon him to preach the gospel and declare the name of God. Without this, whatever else he had done or suffered had been lost, as unto the interest of the glory of God. This, then, being that which he principally aimed at, this design must needs be greatly in his mind. He took care that so great glory, built on so great a foundation as his incarnation and mediation, should not be lost. His other work was necessary, but this was a joy of heart and soul unto him. 2. The salvation of the sons to be brought unto glory, with all their interest in the benefit of his sufferings, depended on this work of his. How much he sought that, his whole work declares. For their sakes it was that he came down from heaven, and “was made flesh, and dwelt among them;” for their sakes did he undergo all the miseries that the world could cast upon him; for their sakes did he undergo the curse of the law, and wrestle with the displeasure and wrath of God against sin. And all this seemed as it were little unto him, for the love he bare them; as Jacob’s hard service did to him for his love unto Rachel. Now, after he had done all this for them, unless he had declared the name of God unto them in the gospel, they could have had no benefit by it; for if they believe not, they cannot be saved. And how should they believe without the word? and how or whence could they hear the word unless it had been preached unto them? They could not of themselves have known any thing of that name of God, which is their life and salvation. Some men talk of I know not what declaration of God’s name, nature, and glory, by the works of nature and providence; but if the Lord Christ had not indeed revealed, declared, and preached these things, these disputers themselves would not have been in any other condition than all mankind are who are left unto those teachers, — which is most dark and miserable. The Lord Christ knew that without his performance of this work, not one of the sons, the conduct of whom to glory he had undertaken, could ever have been brought unto the knowledge of the name of God, or unto faith in him, or obedience unto him; which made him earnestly and heartily engage into it. 3. Hereon depended his own glory also. His elect were to be gathered unto him; and in, among, and over them, was his glorious kingdom to be erected. Without their conversion unto God this could not be done. In the state of nature they also are “children of wrath,” and belong to the kingdom of Satan. And this declaration of the name of God is the great way and means of their calling, conversion, and translation from the power of Satan into his kingdom. The gospel is “the rod of his strength,” whereby “his people are made willing in the day of his power.” In brief, the gathering of his church, the setting up of his kingdom, the establishment of his throne, the setting of the crown upon his head, depend wholly on his declaring the name of God in the preaching of the gospel. Seeing, therefore, that the glory of God which he aimed at, the salvation of the sons which he sought for, and the honor of his kingdom which was promised unto him, do all depend on this work, it is no wonder if his heart were full of it, and that he rejoiced to be engaged in it. And this frame of heart ought to be in them who under him are called unto this work. The work itself, we see, is noble and excellent, — such as the Lord Christ carried in his eye through all his sufferings, as that whereby they were to be rendered useful unto the glory of God and the salvation of the souls of men. And, by his rejoicing to be engaged in it, he hath set a pattern unto them whom he calls to the same employment. Where men undertake it for “filthy lucre,” for self ends and carnal respects, this is not to follow the example of Christ, nor to serve him, but their own bellies. Zeal for the glory of God, compassion for the souls of men, love to the honor and exaltation of Christ, ought to be the principles of men in this undertaking. Moreover, the Lord Christ, by declaring that he will set forth the praise of God in the church, manifests what is the duty of the church itself, namely, to praise God for the work of his love and grace in our redemption by Christ Jesus. This he promiseth to go before them in; and what he leads them unto is by them to be persisted in. This is indeed the very end of gathering the church, and of all the duties that are performed therein and thereby. The church is called unto the glory of the grace of God, Ephesians 1:6, — that it may be set forth in them and by them. This is the end of the institution of all the ordinances of worship in the church, Ephesians 3:8-10; and in them do they set forth the praises of God unto men and angels. This is the tendency of prayer, the work of faith, the fruit of obedience. It is a fond imagination which some have fallen upon, that God is not praised in the church for the work of redemption, unless it be done by words and hymns particularly expressing it. All praying, all preaching, all administration of ordinances, all our faith, all our obedience, if ordered aright, are nothing but giving glory to God for his love and grace in Christ Jesus in a due and acceptable manner. And this is that which ought to be in our design in all our worship of God, especially in what we perform in the church. To set forth his praise, to declare his name, to give glory unto him by believing, and the profession of our faith, is the end of all we do. And this is the first testimony produced by our apostle. His next is taken from Psalms 18:2, “I will put my trust in him.” The whole psalm literally respects David, with his straits and deliverances; not absolutely, but as he was a type of Christ. That he was so the Jews cannot deny, seeing the Messiah is promised on that account under the name of David. And the close of the psalm, treating of the calling of the Gentiles, as a fruit of his deliverance from sufferings, manifests him principally to be intended. And that which the apostle intends to prove by this testimony is, that he was really and truly of one with the sons to be brought unto glory: and that he doth from hence, inasmuch as he was made and brought into that condition wherein it was necessary for him to trust in God, and act in that dependence upon him which the nature of man whilst exposed unto troubles doth indispensably require. Had he been only God, this could not have been spoken of him. Neither is the nature of angels exposed to such dangers and troubles as to make it necessary for them to betake themselves unto God’s protection with respect thereunto. And this the word ηָ ?ρָ ?δ, used by the psalmist, properly signifies, to ‘betake a man’s self unto the care and protection of another,’as Psalms 2 ult. This, then, the condition of the Lord Christ required, and this he did perform. In all the troubles and difficulties that he had to contend withal, he put his trust in God; as Isaiah 50:7-9, Psalms 22:19. And this evinceth him to have been truly and really of one with the children, his brethren, seeing it was his duty no less than it is theirs to depend on God in troubles and distresses. And in vain doth Schlichtingius hence endeavor to prove that Christ was the son of God by grace only, because he is said to depend on him, which if he had been God by nature he could not do. True, if he had been God only; but the apostle is now proving that he was man also, like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. And as such his duty it was, in all straits, to betake himself by faith unto the care and protection of God. And some things may hence also be briefly observed; as, — I. That the Lord Christ, the captain of our salvation, was exposed in the days of his flash unto great difficulties, anxiety of mind, dangers, and troubles This is included in what he here affirms about putting his trust in God. And they were all typified out by the great sufferings of David before he came unto his kingdom. In the consideration of the sufferings of Christ, men commonly fix their thoughts solely unto his death. And indeed therein was a recapitulation of all that he had before undergone, with an addition of the wrath of God. But yet neither are the sufferings of his life to be disregarded. Such they were as made his whole pilgrimage on the earth dangerous and dolorous. There was upon him a confluence of every thing that is evil or troublesome unto human nature. And herein is he principally our example, at least so far that we should think no kind of sufferings strange unto us. II. The Lord Christ, in all his perplexities and troubles, betook himself unto the protection of God, trusting in him. See Isaiah 50:7-9. And he always made an open profession of this trust, insomuch that his enemies reproached him with it in his greatest distress, Matthew 27:43. But this was his course, this was his refuge, wherein at length he had blessed and glorious success.III. He both suffered and trusted as our head and precedent. What he did in both these kinds he calls us unto. As he did, so must we undergo perplexities and dangers in the course of our pilgrimage. The Scripture abounds with instructions unto this purpose, and experience confirms it; and professors of the gospel do but indulge unto pleasing dreams when they fancy any other condition in this world unto themselves. They would not be willing, I suppose, to purchase it at the price of inconformity unto Jesus Christ. And he is a precedent unto us in trusting as well as in suffering. As he betook himself unto the protection of God, so should we do also; and we shall have the same blessed success with him. There remains yet one testimony more, which we shall briefly pass through the consideration of: “Behold I and the children which God hath given me.” It is taken from Isaiah 8:18. That it is a prophecy of Christ which is there insisted on we have proved at large in our Prolegomena, so that we need not here again further to discourse that matter. That which the apostle aims at in the citation of this testimony, is further to confirm the union in nature, and the relation that ensues thereupon, between the captain of salvation and the sons to be brought unto glory. Now, as this is such that thereon he calls them brethren, and came into the same condition of trouble with them, so they are, by the grant and appointment of God, his children. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The union of Christ and the children, in their relation unto one common root and participation of the same nature, being asserted, the apostle proceeds to declare the ends, use, and necessity of that union, in respect of the work which God had designed him unto, and the ends which he had to accomplish thereby. Of these, two he layeth down in these two verses, namely, the destruction of the devil, and the delivery thereby of them that were in bondage by reason of death; neither of which could have been wrought or effected but by the death of the captain of salvation; which he could not have undergone, nor would what he could otherwise have done been profitable unto them, had he not been of the same nature with the children; as will appear in the opening of the words themselves. Hebrews 2:14-15. — ᾿Επεὶου῏ντὰπαιδίακεκοινώνηκεσαρκὸςκαὶαἵματος, καὶαὐτὸςπαραπλησίωςμετέσχετῶναὐτῶν, ἵναδιὰτοῦθανάτουκαταργήσῃτὸντὸκράτοςἔχοντατοῦθανάτου, τουτέστι, τόνδιαβολον, καὶἀπαλλάξῃτούτους, ὅσοιφοβῳθανάτουδιὰπαντὸςτοῦζῇνἔνοχοιη῏σανδουλείας.᾿Επεὶου῏ν. V. L., “quia ergo;” Bez., “quoniam ergo;” — “because therefore.” Syr., ξֶ ?θεμβֵּ ?ιψ, “for seeing,” or, “for because;” Eras., “posteaquam igitur;” ours, “forasmuch then.” ᾿Ετεί is sometimes used for ἐφ᾿ου῏, “postquam,” “ex quo tempore,” “from whence;” so as to express no causality as to that which follows, but only the precendency of that which it relates unto. But it is not in that sense used with ου῏ν, which here is subjoined, but [in the sense of] “quoniam,” “quandoquidem;” the particle ου῏ν, “therefore,” plainly expressing a causality. They are well rendered by ours, “forasmuch then,” or “therefore.”Τὰπαιδίακεκοινώνηκεσαρκὸςαἵματος. V.L. “Pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguini;” — “The children communicated in flesh and blood.” Syr., αְּ ?πָ ?ιִּ ?ΰ, “The sons were partakers,” or “do partake.” Eras., “Commercium habent cum carne et sanguine;” — “Have communion” (or “commerce”) “with flesh and blood.” Bez., “Pueri participes sunt carnis et sanguinis;” — “The children are partakers of flesh and blood ;” as ours. The Vulgar expresseth the time past, which the original requireth. Ethiopic, “He made his children partakers of his flesh and blood;” with respect, as it should seem, to the sacrament of the eucharist. Καὶαὐτὸςπαραπλησίωςμετέσχετῶναὐτῶν. V.L., “Et ipse similiter” (“consimiliter,” A.M.,) “participavit eisdem.” Bez., “Ipse quoque consimiliter particeps factus est eorundem;” as ours, “He also himself took part of the same.” And the Syr., ΰδָ ?εαָּ ?ηλγְ ?ξεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?δַּ ?ιְ ?δַּ αְּ ?δֵ ?ιοαְּ ?δָ ?μֵ ?ιο; “He himself also, in the same likeness” (or “manner”), “was partaker” (or “partook”) “in the same,” (or “self-same things.”) Arab., “He also, like unto them, partook in the properties of the same;” that is, truly partook of flesh and blood in all their natural or essential properties. Ethiop., “And he also was made as a brother unto them.”῞Ιςαδιὰθαςάτου. Syr., γְּ ?ξַ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δ“ut per mortem suam,” “that by his own death;” properly as to the sense. Καταργήοη, V.L., “destueret;” all other Latin translations, “aboleret” — “that he might destroy;” so ours. But to destroy respects the person; “abolere,” in the first place, the power. Τὸντὸκράτοςἔχοντατοῦθανάτου. “Eum qui tenebat mortis imperium,” Syr., Eras., Vul.; — “Him that held” (or “had”) “the rule of death.” Bez., “Eum penes quem est mortis robur;” — “Him that had the power of death.” Ethiop., “The prince of death.” Τουτέστιτὸνδιάβολον. Syr., γִּ ?ΰιϊַ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιρָ ?θָ ?πָ ?ΰ, “which is Satan.” Καὶἀπαλλάξῃ (some copies read ἀποκαταλλάξῃ) τούτουςὅσοι. V., “et liberaret cos;” Bez., “et liberos redderet eos;” — “and free them,” “and make them free.” Syr., “and loose them.” Διὰπαντὸςτοῦζῆν. “Per omne vivere suum,” — “whilst they lived,” “all their lives.”῎Ενοχοιη῏σανὸουλείας. “Obnoxii erant servituti,” Bez.; “Mancipati erant servituti;” properly, “Damnates erant servitutis;” — “obnoxious,” “subject unto bondage.”“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood.” This expression is not elsewhere used in the Scripture. Κοινωνέω is to have any thing whatever in common with another; ἀκοινώνητος is he who hath nothing in fellowship or common with others. And this word is used in reference unto all sorts of things, good and bad; as nature, life, actions, qualities, works. Here it intimateth the common and equal share of the children in the things spoken of. They are equally common to all. These are σάρξκαὶαἷμα, — “flesh and blood;” that is, human nature, liable to death, misery, destruction. Some would have, not the nature of man, but the frail and weak condition of mankind to be intended in this expression. So Enjedinus, and after him Grotius, who refers us to Hebrews 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16,1 Corinthians 4:11, for the confirmation of this sense. But in none of those places is there mention of “flesh and blood,” as here, but only of “flesh;” which word is variously used both in the Old Testament and New. Yet in all the places referred unto, it is taken, not for the quality of human life as it is infirm and weak, but for human nature itself, which is so. As concerning that of 1 Timothy 3:16, it hath at large been declared. And the design of this place rejects this gloss, which was invented only to defeat the testimony given in these words unto the incarnation of the Son of God: for the apostle adds a reason in these verses why the Lord Christ was so to be of one with the children as to take upon himself their nature; which is, because that was subject unto death, which for them he was to undergo. And “flesh and blood” are here only mentioned, though they complete not human nature without a rational soul, because in and by them it is that our nature is subject unto death. We may only further observe, that the apostle having especial regard unto the saints under the old testament, expresseth their participation of flesh and blood in the preterperfect tense, or time past: which by proportion is to be extended to all that believe in Christ; unless we shall say that he hath respect unto the common interest of all mankind in the same nature, in the root of it; whence God is said of “one blood” to have made them all. Παραπλησίως, we see, is rendered by interpreters “similiter,” “consimiliter,” “eodem modo,” “ad eandem similitudinem;” that is, ὁμοίως, or τὸναὐτὸντρόπον — “ likewise,” or, “after the same manner.” And παραπλήσιος is as much as κατὰπάνταὅμοιος, Hebrews 2:17, — “every way like.” Here it is restrained by τῶναὐτῶν, “the same;” that is, flesh and blood, human nature. As to the human nature, he was every way as the children.Μετέσχε, “partem habuit,”” particeps erat,” — “he took part.” And in the use of this word the dative case of the person is still understood, and sometimes expressed. So Plato, ῞Ιναδὴμετέχοιτῶντπαγμάτωναὐτοῖς, — “That he might share” (or “partake”) “in the same acts with them.” And it is here also understood, ‘That he might partake with them of flesh and blood.’And the apostle purposely changeth the word from that which he had before used concerning the children, Κεκοινώνηκετὰπαιδία, — they had human nature in common; they were men, and that was all, having no existence but in and by that nature. Concerning him, he had before proved that he had a divine nature, on the account whereof he was more excellent than the angels; and here he says of him, μετέσχε, — existing in his divine nature, he moreover took part of human nature with them which makes a difference between their persons, though as to human nature they were every way alike. And this removes the exception of Schlichtingius, or Crellius, that he is no more said to be incarnate than the children.“That by death καταργήοῃ.” This word is peculiar to Paul; he useth it almost in all his epistles, and that frequently. Elsewhere it occurs but once in the New Testament (Luke 13:7), and that in a sense whereunto by him it is not applied. That which he usually intends in this word, is to make a thing or person to cease as to its present condition, and not to be what it was. So Romans 3:3, ΜὴἡἀπιστίααὐτῶντὴνπίστιντοῦΘεοῦκαταργήσει; — “Shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect?” cause it to cease, render the promise useless. And Romans 3:31, Νόμονοὗνκαταργοῦμενδιὰτῆςπίστεως; — “Do we make the law void by faith?” take away its use and end. Romans 4:14, Κατήργηταιἡἐπαγγελία — “The promise is made ineffectual.” Romans 7:2, ᾿Εὰνδὲἀποθάνηὁἀνὴρ, κατήργηταιἀποτοῦνόμου, — “If her husband is dead, she is freed from the law,” the law of the husband hath no more power over her. So Romans 7:6; 1 Corinthians 13:8; 1 Corinthians 13:10-11; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:26; 2 Corinthians 3:11; 2 Corinthians 3:13; Galatians 3:17; Galatians 5:4; Galatians 5:11; Ephesians 2:15. The intention of the apostle in this word is the making of any thing to cease, or to be void as to its former power and efficacy; not to remove, annihilate, or destroy the essence or being of it. And the expression here used is to the same purpose with that in Psalms 8:3, μְ ?δַ ?ωְׁ ?αִּ ?ιϊΰιֹ ?ιֵ ?αεּ ?ξִ ?δְ ?πַ ?χֵּ ?ν, — “to quiet” or “make to cease the enemy and self-avenger.”Τὸντὸκράτοςἔχουτατοῦθανάτου. Κράτος is properly “vis,” “rebur,” “potentia,” “force,” “strength,” “power,” like that of arms, or armies in battle. And sometimes it is used for role, empire, and authority. ᾿Ενκράτειεἷναι, is to be in place of power; and κράτοςἔχειν, is to be able to dispose of what it relates unto. And in both senses we shall see that the devil is said to have κράτοςτοῦθαςάτου, “the power of death.”Now, there is not any notion under which the devil is more known unto or spoken of among the Jews, than this of his having the power of death. His common apellation among them is, ξμΰκְ δξεϊ, — the angel of death;” and they call him Samael also. So the Targum of Jonathan, γξεϊΰεδζϊΰϊϊΰρξΰμξμΰκְ, Genesis 3:6, — “And the woman saw Samael, the angel of death.” And Maimon. More Nebuch. lib. 2, cap. 30, tells us from the Midrash that Samael rode upon the serpent when he deceived Eve; that is, used him as his instrument in that work. And most of them acknowledge Satan to be principally intended in the temptation of Eve, though Aben Ezra denies it in his comment on the words, and disputes against it. And he adds, that by Samael, the angel of death, they understand Satan: which he proves from the words of their wise men, who say in some places that Satan would have hindered Abraham from sacrificing of Isaac, and in others that Samael would have done it; which proves that it is one and the same who by both names is intended. And hence they usually call him ψΰωλμδωγινρξΰμδψως, — “the wicked Samael, the prince of all the devils;” and say of him, ρξΰμβψινξεϊΰμλμςμξΰ, — “Samael brought death upon all the world.” So that by this Samael, or angel of death, it is evident that they intend him who is termed ὁδιάβολος, as the prince and ruler of the rest. So also they speak expressly in Bava Bathra, Distinc. Hashatephir: δεΰιφψδψςΰψωξςεοδεΰωθοδεֹ ?ΰξμΰκְ δξεϊ; — “Rabbi Simeon said, the same is Satan, and the angel of death, and the evil figment;” that is, the cause and author of it. And they call him the angel of death on many accounts, the consideration whereof may give us some light into the reason of the expression here used by the apostle. The first is that before mentioned, namely, that by his means death entered and came upon all the world. His temptation was the first occasion of death; and for that reason is he termed by our Savior, ᾿Ανθρωποκτόνοςἀπ᾿ἀρχῆς, John 8:44, “A murderer from the beginning.” And herein he had the power of death, prevailing to render all mankind obnoxious to the sentence and stroke of it. Secondly, Because he is employed in great, and signal judgments to inflict death on men. He is the head of those ξμְ ?ΰֲ ?λֵ ?ιψָ ?ςִ ?ιν, “evil angels,” who slew the Egyptians, Psalms 78:49. So in Psalms 91:5, these words, “Thou shalt not fear ξֵ ?ηֵ ?Σιָ ?ςεּ ιεֹ ?ξָ ?ν” “from the arrow that flieth by day,” are rendered by the Targum, ξεϊΰγωγιαιξξΰξοβψψΰγξμΰκְ, “from the arrow of the angel of death, which he shooteth by day.” And in the next verse these words, ξִ ?χֶּ ?θֶ ?αιָ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?γφָ ?δַ ?ψָ ?ιִ ?ν, “from the destruction that wasteth at noonday,” they render, ξριςϊωιγιογξηαμιοαθιδγΰ, “from the troop of devils that waste at noonday;” the psalmist treating of great and sudden destructions, which they affirm to be all wrought by Satan. And hence the Hellenists also render the latter place by δαιμόνιονμεσημβρινόν, “the devil at noonday;” wherein they are followed by the Vulgar Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic translations. And this the apostle seems to allude unto, 1 Corinthians 10:10, where he says that those who murmured in the wilderness were destroyed ἀπὸτοῦολοζρευτοῦ “by the destroyer;” ὁἄγγελοςὀλοθρευτὴς, that ξμΰκְ δξεϊ, “the destroying angel,” or “the angel of death;” as in this epistle he terms him ὁὀλοθρεύων Hebrews 11:28. And it may be this is he who is called αְּ ?λεֹ ?ψξָ ?ιֶ ?ϊ, Job 18:13, — “the first-born of death,” or he that hath right unto the administration of it. They term him also ΰωξεγι, — that is, ὀλοθοευτής, “the waster” or “destroyer;” and ωγ, from ωεγ, “to waste” or “destroy;” as also ΰαγεο, — which, as John tells us, is the Hebrew name of the angel of the bottomless pit, Revelation 9:11, as his Greek name is ᾿Απολλύων that is, ξμΰκְ δξεϊ, and ὀλοθρευτὴς. Thirdly, The later Jews suppose that this angel of death takes away the life of every man, even of those who die a natural death. And hereby, as they express the old faith of the church, that death is penal, and that it came upon all for sin through the temptation of Satan, so also they discover the bondage that they themselves are in for fear of death all their days; for when a man is ready to die, they say the angel of death appears to him in a terrible manner, with a drawn sword in his hand, from thence drops I know not what poison into him, whereon he dies. Hence they woefully howl, lament, and rend their garments, upon the death of their friends; and they have composed a prayer for themselves against this terror. Because also of this their being slain by the angel of death, they hope and pray that their death may be an expiation for all their sins. Here lies “the sting” of death, mentioned by the apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:55. Hence they have a long story in their Midrash, or mystical exposition of the Pentateuch, on the last section of Deuteronomy about Samael’s coming to take away the life of Moses, whom he repelled and drove away with the rod that had the Shem Hamphorash written in it. And the like story they have in a book about the acts of Moses, which Aben Ezra rejects on Exodus 4:20. This hand of Satan in death, manifesting it to be penal, is that which keeps them in bondage and fear all their days. Fourthly, They suppose that this angel of death hath power over men even after death. One horrible penalty they fancy in particular that he inflicts on them, which is set down by Elias in his Tishbi in ηαεθδχαψ, out of the Midrash of Rabbi Isaac, the son of Parnaer; for when a man, as they say, departs out of this world ειεωαςμχαιεαΰξμΰκְ δξεϊ, “the angel of death comes and sits upon his grave.” And he brings with him a chain, partly of iron, partly of fire, and making the soul to return into the body, he breaks the bones, and torments variously both body and soul for a season. This is their purgatory; and the best of their hopes is, that their punishment after this life shall not be eternal. And this various interest of Satan in the power of death both keeps them in dismal bondage all their days, and puts them upon the invention of several ways for their deliverance. Thus one of their solemn prayers on the day of expiation, is to be delivered from δαιθor this punishment of the devil in their graves; to which purpose also they offer a cock unto him for his pacification. And their prayer to this purpose in their Berachoth is this, ψζζοεδςιμπεξβζιψεϊψςεϊεξπγμιϊξςιεϊξλμξιπιτεςπιεϊεξγιπδωμβδβνεξηαζθωμχαψιδι; — “That it may please thee (good Lord) to deliver us from the evil decrees” (or “laws,”) “from poverty, from contempt, from all kind of punishments, from the judgments of hell, and from beating in the grave by the angel of death.” And this supposition is in like manner admitted by the Mohammedans, who have also this prayer, “Deus noster libera nos ab angelo interrogante tormento sepulchri, et a via mala.” And many such lewd imaginations are they now given up unto, proceeding from their ignorance of the righteousness of God. But yet from these apprehensions of theirs we may see what the apostle intended in this expression, calling the devil “him that had the power of death.” Καὶἀπαλλάξῃτούτουςὅσοι, “Et liberaret ipsos,” “hos,” “quotquot,” “quicunque,” — “and free those who.” ᾿Απαλάττω is “to dismiss,” “discharge,” “free;” and in the use of the word unto the accusative case of the person, the genitive of the thing is added or understood: ᾿Απαλάττωσετούτου, — “I free thee from this.” Ταύταςἀπαλλάξεινσετῆςσ᾿φθαλμίας, Aristoph. — “To deliver thee from this eyesore.” And sometimes the genitive case of the thing is expressed where the accusative of the person is omitted: ᾿Απαλλάττεινφόβου, — that is, τινά, “to free or deliver one from fear;” as here the accusative case of the person is expressed and the genitive of the thing omitted: ᾿Απαλλάξῃτούτους, — that is, φόβου or θανάτου, “to deliver them,” that is, from death or from fear because of death. ῎Ενοχοιἧσανδουλείας. ῎Ενοχος is “obnoxious,” “obstrictus,” “reus,” “damnas.” He that is legally obnoxious, subject, liable to any thing; that is, law, crime, judge, judgment, punishment, in all which respects the word is used. He that is under the power of any law is ἔνοχοςτῷνόμῳ, “subject unto its authority and penalty.” See Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 26:66; Mark 3:29; 1 Corinthians 11:27; James 2:10. Now the δουλεία, “servitude,” or “bondage,” here mentioned, is penal, and therefore are men said to be ἔνοχοι, “obnoxious” unto it. [6] [6] . — Tischendorf, on the strength of a considerable preponderance of MS. authorities, reads αἵματοςκαὶσαρκός. . — He, in order to make us partakers in his sonship to God, has first taken part in our sonship to Adam. . — Καταργ. Render powerless. — Craik. Subdue him. — Stuart. Undo him. — De Wette. — ED. Hebrews 2:14-15. — Forasmuch then as [or, seeing therefore that] the children are [were in common] partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise [after the same manner] took part [did partake] of the same; that through [by] death he might destroy [make void the authority of] him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver [free, discharge] them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.In the former verses, as was showed, the apostle declared the necessity that there was on the part of God, intending to bring many sons unto glory, to constitute such a union between them and the captain of their salvation as that it might be just for him to suffer in their stead. In these he proceeds to manifest in particular what that nature is in the common participation whereof the union desired did consist, wherein they were all of one, and what were the especial reasons why the Lord Christ was made partaker of that nature. This coherence of these verses Chrysostom briefly gives us: Ει῏ταδείξα; τὴνἀδελφότητα, καὶτὴναἰτίαντίθησιτῆςοἰκονομίας, — “Having showed the brotherhood” (that was between Christ and the children) “he lays down the causes of that dispensation;’’ and what they are we shall find here expressed. There are sundry things which the apostle supposeth in these words as known unto and granted by the Hebrews; as, first, that the devil had the power of death; secondly, that on this account men were filled with fear of it, and led a life full of anxiety and trouble by reason of that fear; thirdly, that a deliverance from this condition was to be effected by the Messiah; fourthly, that the way whereby he was to do this was by his suffering. All which, as they are contained in the first promise, so that they were allowed of by the Hebrews of old we have fully proved elsewhere. And by all these doth the apostle yield a reason of his former concession, that the Messiah was for a little while made lower than the angels, the causes and ends whereof he here declares. There are in the words, — First, A supposition of a twofold state and condition of the children to be brought unto glory: —1. Natural, or their natural state and condition; they were all of them in common partakers of flesh and blood: “Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood.”2. Moral, their moral state and condition; they were obnoxious unto death, as it is penal for sin, and in great bondage through fear of it: “Them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”Secondly, There is a double affirmation with respect unto this supposition, on the part of Christ, the captain of salvation: —1. As to their natural condition, that he did partake of it, he was so to do: “He also himself did partake of the same.”2. As to their moral condition, he freed them from it: “And deliver them.”Thirdly, The means whereby he did this, or this was to be done, evidencing the necessity of his participation with them in their condition of nature, that he might relieve them from their condition of trouble; he did it by death: “That by death.”Fourthly, The immediate effect of his death, tending unto their delivery and freedom, and that is the destruction of the devil, as to his power over and interest in death as penal, whereof their deliverance is an infallible consequent: “That he might destroy him,” etc.In the first place the apostle expresseth, as by way of supposition, 1. The natural condition of the children, — that is, the children whom God designed to bring unto glory, those who were given unto Christ; they were in common “partakers of flesh and blood.” I shall not stay to remove the conceit of some, who yet are not a few among the Romanists, who refer these words unto the participation of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament; whereunto also, as we have observed, the Ethiopic version gives countenance: for not only is there not any thing in the expression that inclines unto such an imagination, but also it enervates the whole design of the apostle’s discourse and argument, as from the former consideration of it doth appear. “Flesh and blood” are, by a usual synecdoche, put for the whole human nature; not as though by “blood” the soul were intended, because the life is said to be in it, as not acting without it; but this expression is used, because it is not human nature as absolutely considered, but as mortal, passible, subject unto infirmities and death itself, that is intended. And it is no more than if he had said, ‘The children were men subject unto death;’for he gives his reason herein why the Lord Christ was made a man subject unto death. That he and the children should be of one nature he had showed before. Forasmuch, then, as this was the condition of the children, that they were all partakers of human nature, liable to sufferings, sorrow, and death, he was so also. And this is thus expressed to set forth the love and condescension of Jesus Christ, as will afterward appear. 2. The second thing in these words is the moral condition of the children. And there are sundry things, partly intimated, partly expressed, in the description that is here given us of it; as, —(1.) Their estate absolutely considered, — they were subject to death:(2.) The consequences of that estate, —[1. It wrought fear in them; [2. That fear brought them into bondage:(3.) The continuance of that condition, — it was for the whole course of their lives.(1.) It is implied that they were subject, obnoxious unto, guilty of death, and that as it was penal, due to sin, as contained in the curse of the law; which what it comprehendeth and how far it is extended is usually declared. On this supposition lies the whole weight of the mediation of Christ. The children to be brought unto glory were obnoxious unto death, and the curse and wrath of God therein, which he came to deliver them from.(2.) [1. The first effect and consequent of this obnoxiousness unto death concurring unto their state and condition is, that they were filled with fear of it: “For fear of death.” Fear is a perturbation of mind, arising from the apprehension of a future imminent evil; and the greater this evil is, the greater will the perturbation of the mind be, provided the apprehension of it be answerable. The fear of death, then, here intended, is that trouble of mind which men have in the expectation of death to be inflicted on them, as a punishment due unto their sins. And this apprehension is common to all men, arising from a general presumption that death is penal, and that it is the “judgment of God that they which commit sin are worthy of death,” as Romans 1:32; Romans 2:15. But it is cleared and confirmed by the law, whose known sentence is, “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” And this troublesome expectation of the event of this apprehension is the fear of death here intended. And according unto the means that men have to come unto the knowledge of the righteousness of God are, or ought to be, their apprehensions of the evil that is in death. But even those who had lost all clear knowledge of the consequences of death natural, or the dissolution of their present mortal condition, yet, on a confused apprehension of its being penal, always esteemed it φοβερῶνφοβερώτατον, — the most dreadful of all things that are so unto human nature. And in some this is heightened and increased, until it come to be φοβερὰἐκδοχὴκρίσεως, καὶπυρὸςζῆλος, ἐσθίεινμέλλοντοςτοὺςὐπεναντίους, as our apostle speaks, Hebrews 10:27, —“a fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”And this is the first thing that is in this description of the estate and condition of the children to be brought unto glory. Being obnoxious unto the sentence of death, they could not but live in fear of the execution of it. [2. They are by this means brought into bondage. The troublesome expectation of death as penal brings them into bondage, into the nature whereof we must a little inquire. Sundry things concur to make any state a state of bondage; as, 1st. That it be involuntary. No man is in bondage by his will; that which a man chooseth is not bondage unto him. A man that would have his ear bored, though he were always a servant, was never in bondage; for he enjoyed the condition that pleased him. Properly all bondage is involuntary.2dly. Bondage ingenerates strong desires after, and puts men on all manner of attempts for liberty. Yokes gall, and make them on whom they are desire ease. So long as men are sensible of bondage, which is against nature (for that which, is not so is not bondage), they will desire and labor for liberty. When some in the Roman senate asked an ambassador of the Privernates, after they were overthrown in battle, if they granted them peace, how they would keep it, what peace they should have with them? he answered, “Si bonam dederitis, et fidam et perpetuam; si malam, hand diuturnam.” Whereat some in the senate stormed, as if he had threatened them with war and rebellion; but the wiser sort commended him as one that spake like a man and a freeman, adding as their reason, “An credi posse, ullum populum, aut hominem denique in ea conditione, cujus eum poeniteat, diutius quam necesse sit mansurum,” Liv., lib. 8 cap. 21. So certain it is that bondage wearieth and stirreth up restless desires in all, and endeavors in some after liberty. 3dly. Bondage perplexeth the mind. It ariseth from fear, the greatest perturbation of the mind, and is attended with weariness and distrust; all which are perplexing.4thly. Where bondage is complete, it lies in a tendency unto future and greater evils. Such is the bondage of condemned malefactors, reserved for the day of execution; such is the bondage of Satan, who is kept in chains of darkness for the judgment of the great day. And all these things concur in the bondage here intended; which is a dejected, troublesome state and condition of mind, arising from the apprehension and fear of death to be inflicted, and their disability in whom it is to avoid it, attended with fruitless desires and vain attempts to be delivered from it, and to escape the evil feared. And this is the condition of sinners out of Christ, whereof there are various degrees, answerable unto their convictions; for the apostle treats not here of men’s being servants unto sin, which is voluntary, but of their sense of the guilt of sin, which is wrought in them even whether they will or no, and by any means they would cast off the yoke of it, though by none are they able so to do: for, — (3.) They are said to continue in this estate all their lives. Not that they were always perplexed with this bondage, but that they could never be utterly freed from it; for the apostle doth not say that they were thus in bondage all their days, but that they were obnoxious and “subject” unto it. They had no ways to free or deliver themselves from it, but that at any time they might righteously be brought under its power; and the more they cast off the thoughts of it, the more they increased their danger. This was the estate of the children whose deliverance was undertaken by the Lord Christ, the captain of their salvation. And we may hence observe that, — I. All sinners are subject unto death as it is penal. The first sentence reacheth them all, Genesis 2:17; and thence are they said to be “by nature children of wrath,” Ephesians 2:3, — obnoxious unto death, to be inflicted in a way of wrath and revenge for sin. This passeth upon “all, inasmuch as all have sinned,” Romans 5:12. This all men see and know; but all do not sufficiently consider what is contained in the sentence of death, and very few how it may be avoided. Most men look on death as the common lot and condition of mankind, upon the account of their frail natural condition; as though it belonged to the natural condition of the children, and not the moral, and were a consequent of their being, and not the demerit of their sin. They consider not that although the principles of our nature are in themselves subject unto a dissolution, yet if we had kept the law of our creation, it had been prevented by the power of God, engaged to continue life during our obedience. Life and obedience were to be commensurate, until temporal obedience ended in life eternal. Death is penal, and its being common unto all hinders not but that it is the punishment of every one. How it is changed unto believers by the death of Christ shall be afterward declared. In the meantime, all mankind are condemned as soon as born. Life is a reprieve, a suspension of execution. If during that time a pardon be not effectually sued out, the sentence will be executed according to the severity of justice. Under this law are men now born; this yoke have they put on themselves by their apostasy from God. Neither is it to any purpose to repine against it or to conflict with it; there is but one way of delivery. II. Fear of death, as it is penal, is inseparable from sin, before the sinner be delivered by the death of Christ. They were in “fear of death.” There is a fear of death that is natural, and inseparable from our present condition; that is but nature’s aversation of its own dissolution. And this hath various degrees, occasioned by the differences of men’s natural constitution, and other accidental occurrences and occasions: so that some seem to fear death too much, and others not at all; I mean of those who are freed from it as it is in the curse and under the power of Satan. But this difference is from occasions foreign and accidental; there is in all naturally the same aversation of it. And this is a guiltless infirmity, like our weariness and sickness, inseparably annexed unto the condition of mortality. But sinners in their natural state fear death as it is penal, as an issue of the curse, as under the power of Satan, as a dreadful entrance into eternal ruin. There are, indeed, a thousand ways whereby this fear is for a season stifled in the minds of men. Some live in brutish ignorance, never receiving any full conviction of sin, judgment, or eternity. Some put off the thoughts of their present and future estate, resolving to shut their eyes and rush into it, when as they can no longer avoid it. Fear presents itself unto them as the forerunner of death, but they avoid the encounter, and leave themselves to the power of death itself. Some please themselves with vain hopes of deliverance, though well they know not how nor why they should be partakers of it. But let men forego these helpless shifts, and suffer their own innate light to be excited with such means of conviction as they do enjoy, and they will quickly find what a judgment there is made in their own souls concerning death to come, and what effects it will produce. They will conclude that it is “the judgment of God, that they which commit sin are worthy of death,” Romans 1:32; and then their own consciences do accuse and condemn them, Romans 2:14-15; whence unavoidably fear, dread, and terror will seize upon them. And then, —III. Fear of death, as penal, renders the minds of men obnoxious unto bondage; which what it is we have in part before declared. It is a state of trouble, which men dislike, but cannot avoid. It is a penal disquietment, arising from a sense of future misery. Fain would men quit themselves of it, but they are not able. There is a chain of God in it not to be broken. Men may gall themselves with it, but cannot remove it; and if God take it from them without granting them a lawful release and delivery, it is to their further misery. And this is, in some measure or other, the portion of every one that is convinced of sin before he is freed by the gospel. And some have disputed what degrees of it are necessary before believing. But what is necessary for any one to attain unto is his duty; but this bondage can be the duty of no man, because it is involuntary. It will follow conviction of sin, but it is no man’s duty; rather, it is such an effect of the law as every one is to free himself from, so soon as he may in a right way and manner. This estate, then, befalls men whether they will or no. And this is so if we take bondage passively, as it affects the soul of the sinner; which the apostle seems to intend by placing it as an effect of the fear of death. Take it actively, and it is no more than the sentence of the law, which works and causeth it in the soul; and so all sinners are inevitably obnoxious unto it. And this estate, as we observed, fills men with desires after, and puts them upon various attempts for deliverance. Some desire only present ease, and they commonly withdraw themselves from it by giving up themselves wholly unto their hearts’lusts, and therein to atheism; which God oftentimes, in his righteous judgment, gives them up unto, knowing that the day is coming wherein their present woeful temporal relief will be recompensed with eternal misery. Some look forward unto what is to come, and according to their light and assistance variously apply themselves to seek relief; some do it by a righteousness of their own, and in the pursuit thereof also there are ways innumerable, not now to be insisted on; and some do it by Christ, which how it is by him effected the apostle in the next place declares. Two things, as was showed, are affirmed of the Lord Christ, in consequence unto the premised supposition of the children’s being partakers of flesh and blood, and of their obnoxiousness unto death and to bondage: — 1. That of their natural condition he himself partook. 2. That from their moral condition he delivered them; which that he might do, it was necessary that he should partake of the other.1. “He himself likewise did partake of the same.” The wordπαραπλησίως, “likewise,” “in like manner,” doth denote such a similitude as is consistent with a specifical identity. And therefore Chrysostom from hence urgeth the Marcionites and Valentinians, who denied the reality of the human nature of Christ, seeing that he partook of it in like manner with us; that is, truly and really, even as we do. But yet the word, by force of its composition, doth intimate some disparity and difference: ‘He took part of human nature really as we do, and almost in like manner with us.’For there were two differences between his being partaker of human nature and ours: — First, In that we subsist singly in that nature; but he took his portion in this nature into subsistence with himself in the person of the Son of God.Secondly, This nature in us is attended with many infirmities, that follow the individual persons that are partakers of it; in him it was free from them all. And this the apostle also intimates in the word μετέσχε, changing his expression from that whereby he declared the common interest of the children in the same nature, which is every way equal and alike. The whole is, that he took his own portion, in his own manner, unto himself. And this observation removes what is hence objected against the deity of Christ. “Cum Christus,” saith Schlichtingius, “hominum mortalium et fragilium dux et fautor sit, propterea is non angelus aliquis, multo vero minus ipse Deus summus qui solus immortalitatem habet, sed homo suo tempore malis, et variis calamitatibus obnoxius esse debuit.” It is true, it appears from hence that Christ ought to be a man, subject to sufferings and death, and not an angel, as the apostle further declares in the next verse; but that he ought not to be God doth not appear. As God, indeed, he could not die; but if he who was God had not taken part of flesh and blood, God could not have redeemed his church “with his own blood.” But this is the perpetual paralogism of these men: “Because Christ is asserted to have been truly a man, therefore he is not God;” which is to deny the gospel, and the whole mystery of it. He proceeds with his exceptions against the application of these words unto the incarnation of the Lord Christ; the sum whereof is, ‘That the words παραπλησίωςμετέσχε denote a universal conformity or specific identity between Christ and the children, not only as to the essence, but also as to all other concernments of human nature, or else no benefit could redound unto them from what he did or suffered.’But, —(1.) The words do not assert any such thing, as hath been declared;(2.) It is not true.The children were partakersof human nature either by creation out of the dust of the earth, as Adam, or by natural generation; the Lord Christ was conceived of a virgin, by the power of the Holy Ghost; — and yet the benefit redounds unto the children. It is evident, then, thatthe similitude urged by the apostle is confined to the substance of flesh and blood, or the essence of human nature, and is not to be extended unto the personal concernments of the one or the other, nor to the way whereby they became partakers of the same nature. Nor is the argument for the incarnation of Christ taken merely from the expressions in this verse; but whereas he had before proved him to be above and before the angels, even God over all, and here intimateth his existence antecedent to his participation of flesh and blood, his incarnation doth necessarily ensue. 2. The necessity of this incarnation of Christ, with respect unto the end of it, hath before been declared, evinced, and confirmed. We shall now stay only a little to admire the love, grace, and mystery of it. And we see here, — IV. That the Lord Christ, out of his inexpressible love, willingly submitted himself unto every condition of the children to be saved by him, and to every thing in every condition of them, sin only excepted.They being of flesh and blood, which must be attended with many infirmities, and exposed unto all sorts of temptations and miseries, he himself would also partake of the same. His delight was of old in the sons of men, Proverbs 8:31, and his heart was full of thoughts of love towards them; and that alone put him on this resolution, Galatians 2:20; Revelation 1:5. When God refused sacrifices and burnt-offerings, as insufficient to make the atonement required, and the matter was rolled on his hand alone, it was a joy unto him that he had a body prepared wherein he might discharge his work, although he knew what he had to do and suffer therein, Psalms 40:7-8; Hebrews 10:5-9. He rejoiced to do the will of God, in taking the body prepared for him, because the children were partakers of flesh and blood. Though he was “in the form of God,”equal unto him, yet “that mind,” that love, that affection towards us, was in him, that to be like unto us, and thereby to save us, “he emptied himself, and took on him the form of a servant,” our form, and became like unto us, Philippians 2:5-8. He would be like unto us, that he might make us like unto himself; he would take our flesh, that he might give unto us his Spirit; he would join himself unto us, and become “one flesh” with us, that we might be joined unto him, and become “one spirit” with him, 1 Corinthians 6:17. And as this was a fruit of his eternal antecedent love, so it is a spring of consequent love. When Eve was brought unto Adam after she was taken out of him, Genesis 2:23, to manifest the ground of that affection which was to be always between them, he says of her, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” And by this condescension of Christ, saith the apostle, we are “members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” Ephesians 5:30; whence he infers that he loves and nourisheth his church, as a man doth his own flesh. And how should this inexpressible love of Christ constrain us to love him and to live unto him, 2 Corinthians 5:14; as also to labor to be like unto him, wherein all our blessedness consisteth, seeing for that end he was willing to be like unto us, whence all his troubles and sufferings arose! Here also we see that, —V. It was only in flesh and blood, the substance and essence of human nature, and not in our personal infirmities, that the Lord Christ was made like unto us.He took to himself the nature of all men, and not the person of any man. We have not only human nature in common, but we have every one particular infirmities and weaknesses following that nature, as existing in our sinful persons. Such are the sicknesses and pains of our bodies from inward distempers, and the disorder of the passions of our minds. Of these the Lord Christ did not partake. It was not needful, it was not possible that he should do so; — not needful, because he could provide for their cure without assuming them; not possible, for they can have no place in a nature innocent and holy. And therefore he took our nature, not by an immediate new creation out of nothing, or of the dust of the earth, like Adam; for if so, though he might have been like unto us, yet he would have been no kin to us, and so could not have been our Goel, to whom the right of redemption did belong: nor by natural generation, which would have rendered our nature in him obnoxious to the sin and punishment of Adam: but by a miraculous conception of a virgin, whereby he had truly our nature, yet not subject on its own account unto any one of those evils whereunto it is liable as propagated from Adam in an ordinary course. And thus, though he was joined unto us in our nature, yet as he was “holy, harmless, and undefiled” in that nature, he was “separate from sinners,” Hebrews 7:26. So that although our nature suffered more in his person than it was capable of in the person of any mere man, yet, not being debased by any sinful imperfection, it was always excellent, beautiful, and glorious. And then, —VI. That the Son of God should take part in human nature with the children is the greatest and most admirable effect of divine love, wisdom, and grace.So our apostle proposeth it, 1 Timothy 3:16, — a mystery which the angels with all diligence desire to look into, 1 Peter 1:11-12. See John 1:14; Isaiah 9:6; Romans 9:5. Atheists scoff at it, deluded Christians deny it; but the angels adore it, the church professeth it, believers find the comfort and benefit of it. “The heavens,” indeed, “declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy-work,” Psalms 19:1; and “the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,” Romans 1:20.In particular, man himself is “fearfully and wonderfully made.” These works of God’s power and providence do greatly manifest the glory of his wisdom, omnipotency, and goodness, and are like the light, which was created on the first day, at the beginning of all things, as we have showed. But in this instance, of assuming human nature into personal subsistence with himself, that scattered light is gathered into one sun, giving out most glorious beams, unto the manifestation of his infinite excellencies far above all other things. And this surely was not done but for the greatest end that can be conceived; and such is the salvation of sinners. But we must proceed with our apostle; and he gives the reason and end of this wonderful dispensation. The end is, the delivery of the children from the condition before described. And, first, the means whereby he wrought and brought about this end is proposed unto us: “By death,” — he was to do it by death. “That by death he might deliver them;” that is, by his own death. This, as it is placed as one principal end of his being made partaker of flesh and blood, so it is also the means of the further end aimed at, namely, the delivery of the children out of the condition expressed. Some translations add, “By his own death,” — which is evidently understood, though it be not literally in the text, — the death which he underwent in the nature of man, whereof he was partaker. His death was the means of delivering them from death. Some distinguish between death in the first place which Christ underwent, and that death in the close of the verse which the children are said to be in fear of; for this latter, they say, is more extensive than the former, as comprising death eternal also. But there doth not any thing in the text appear to intimate that the captain of salvation by death of one kind should deliver the children from that of another; neither will the apostle’s discourse well bear such a supposition. For if he might have freed the children by any way or means as well as by undergoing that which was due unto them for sin, whence could arise that indispensable necessity which he pleads for by so many considerations of his being made like unto them, seeing without the participation of their nature which he urgeth he might have done any other thing for their good and benefit, but only suffer what was due to them? And if it be said that without this participation of their nature he could not die, which it was necessary that he should do, I desire to know, if the death which he was to undergo was not that death which they were obnoxious unto for whom he died, how could it be any way more beneficial unto them than any thing else which he might have done for them, although he had not died? There is no ground, then, to pretend such an amphibology in the words as that which some contend for. How, as we observed before, the death of Christ is here placed in the midst, as the end of one thing, and the means or cause of another, — the end of his own incarnation, and the means of the children’s deliverance. From the first we may see, — VII. That the first and principal end of the Lord Christ’s assuming human nature, was not to reign in it, but to suffer and die in it.He was, indeed, from of old designed unto a kingdom; but he was to “suffer,” and so to enter into his glory, Luke 24:26. And he so speaks of his coming into the world to suffer, to die, to bear witness unto the truth, as if that had been the only work that he was incarnate for. Glory was to follow, a kingdom to ensue, but suffering and dying were the principal work he came about. Glory he had with his Father “before the world was,” John 17:5; and therein a joint rule with him over all the works of his hands. He need not have been made partaker of flesh and blood to have been a king; for he was the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the only Potentate, from everlasting. But he could not have died if he had not been made partaker of our nature. And therefore, “when the people would have taken him by force, and made him a king,” he hid himself from them, John 6:15; but he hid not himself when they came to take him by force and put him to death, but affirmed that for that hour, or business, he came into the world, John 18:4-5; John 18:11. And this further sets forth his love and condescension. He saw the work that was proposed unto him, — how he was to be exposed unto miseries, afflictions, and persecutions, and at length to “make his soul an offering for sin,” — yet, because it was all for the salvation of the children, he was contented with it and delighted in it, And how, then, ought we to be contented with the difficulties, sorrows, afflictions, and persecutions, which for his sake we are or may be exposed unto, when he on purpose took our nature, that for our sakes he might be exposed and subject unto much more than we are called unto! There yet remain in these verses the effects of the death of Christ: “That he might destroy sin, and deliver,” etc.; wherein we must consider, — 1. Who it is that had the power of death; 2. Wherein that power of his did consist; 3. How he was destroyed; 4. How by the death of Christ; 5. What was the delivery that was obtained for the children thereby.1. He that had the power of death is described by his name, ὁδιάβολος, “the devil;” — the great enemy of our salvation; the great calumniator, make-bate, and false accuser; the firebrand of the creation; the head and captain of the apostasy from God, and of all desertion of the law of the creation; the old serpent, the prince of the apostate angels, with all his associates, who first falsely accused God unto man, and continues to accuse men falsely unto God: of whom before.2. His power in and over death is variously apprehended. What the Jews conceive hereof we have before declared, and much of the truth is mixed with their fables; and the apostle deals with them upon their acknowledgment in general that he had the power of death. Properly in what sense, or in what respect, he is said so to have it, learned expositors are not agreed. All consent,(1.) That the devil hath no absolute or sovereign, supreme power over death; nor,(2.) Any ἐξουσία, or “authority” about it, “de jure,” in his own right, or on grant, so as to act lawfully and rightly about it according unto his own will; nor,(3.) Any judging or determining power as to the guilt of death committed unto him, which is peculiar to God, the supreme rector and judge of all, Genesis 2:17, Deuteronomy 32:39, Revelation 1:18.But wherein this power of Satan doth positively consist they are not agreed. Some place it in his temptations unto sin, which bind unto death; some, in his execution of the sentence of death, — he hath the power of an executioner. There cannot well be any doubt but that the whole interest of Satan in reference unto death is intended in this expression. This death is that which was threatened in the beginning, Genesis 2:17, — death penally to be inflicted in the way of a curse, Deuteronomy 27:26, Galatians 3:10; that is, death consisting in the dissolution of soul and body, with every thing tending penally thereunto, with the everlasting destruction of body and soul. And there are sundry things wherein the κράτος, or power of Satan in reference unto this death doth consist; as, —(1.) He was the means of bringing it into the world. So is the opinion of the Jews in this matter expressed in the book of Wisdom, written, as is most probable, by one of them not long before this epistle. They tell us, Wis 1:13, ῾ΟΘεὸςθάνατονοὐκἐποίησε, — “God made not death,” it belonged not unto the original constitution of all things; but, Wis 2:24, Φθόνῳδιαβόλουθάνατοςεἱσῆλθενεἰςτὸνκόσμον, — “By the envy of the devil death entered into the world.” And that expression of εἰσῆλθενεἰςτὸνκόσμον is retained by the apostle, Romans 5:12; only he lays the end of it on the morally-deserving cause, the sin of man, as here it is laid on the efficiently-procuring cause, the envy of the devil. And herein consisted no small part of the power of Satan with respect unto death. Being able to introduce sin, he had power to bring in death also; which, in the righteous judgment of God, and by the sentence of the law, was inseparably annexed thereunto. And, by a parity of reason, so far as he yet continueth to have power over sin, deserving death, he hath power over death itself. (2.) Sin and death being thus entered into the world, and all mankind being guilty of the one and obnoxious unto the other, Satan came thereby to be their prince, as being the prince or author of that state and condition whereinto they are brought. Hence he is called “the prince of this world,” John 12:31, and the “god” of it, 2 Corinthians 4:4; inasmuch as all the world are under the guilt of that sin and death which he brought them into.(3.) God having passed the sentence of death against sin, it was in the power of Satan to terrify and affright the consciences of men with the expectation and dread of it, so bringing them into bondage. And many God gives up unto him, to be agitated and terrified as it were at his pleasure. To this end were persons excommunicate given up unto Satan to vex them, 1 Timothy 1:20. He threatens them as an executioner with the work that he hath to do upon them. (4.) God hath ordained him to be the executioner of the sentence of death upon stubborn sinners unto all eternity; partly for the aggravation of their punishment, when they shall always see, and without relief bewail, their folly in hearkening unto his allurements; and partly to punish himself in his woeful employment. And for these several reasons is Satan said to have the power of death. And hence it is evident that, —VIII. All the power of Satan in the world over any of the sons of men is founded in sin and the guilt of death attending it. Death entered by sin; the guilt of sin brought it in. Herewith comes in Satan’s interest, without which he could have no more to do in the earth than he hath in heaven. And according as sin abounds or is subdued, so his power is enlarged or straitened. As he is a spirit, he is mighty, strong, wise; as sinful, he is malicious, subtle, ambitious, revengeful, proud. Yet none of all these gives him his power. He that made him can cause his sword to pierce unto him, and preserve man, though weak and mortal, from all his force as a mighty spirit, and his attempts as a wicked one. And yet these are the things in him that men are generally afraid of, when yet by them he cannot reach one hair of their heads. But here lies the foundation of his power, even in sin, which so few regard. Then, —IX. All sinners out of Christ are under the power of Satan. They belong unto that kingdom of death whereof he is the prince and ruler. “The whole world lies τῷπονηρῷ,” — “in the power of this wicked one.” If the guilt of death be not removed from any, the power of the devil extends unto them. A power it is, indeed, that is regulated. Were it sovereign or absolute, he would continually devour. But it is limited unto times, seasons, and degrees, by the will of God, the judge of all. But yet great it is, and answerable unto his titles, the prince, the god of the world. And however men may flatter themselves, as the Jews did of old, that they are free, if they are not freed by an interest in the death of Christ, they are in bondage unto this beastly tyrant; and as he works effectually in them here, he will ragingly inflict vengeance on them hereafter.3. He is destroyed: “Destroy him.” The sense and importance of the word here used was before declared. It is not applied unto the nature, essence, or being of the devil, but unto his power in and over death; as it is elsewhere declared, John 12:31, “Now is the judgment of this world, now is the prince of this world cast out.”That which is here called the destroying of the devil, is there called the casting out of the prince of this world. It is the casting him out of his power, from his princedom and rule; as Colossians 2:15,“Having spoiled principalities and powers, he made an open show of them, triumphing over them in his cross;”as conquerors used to do when they had not slain the persons of their enemies, but deprived them of their rule, and led them captive. The destruction, then, here intended of “him that had the power of death,” is the dissolution, evacuation, and removing of that power which he had in and over death, with all the effects and consequences of it. 4. The means whereby Satan was thus destroyed is also expressed. It was “by death,” by his own death. This of all others seemed the most unlikely way and means, but indeed was not only the best, but the only way whereby it might be accomplished. And the manner how it was done thereby must be declared and vindicated. The fourfold power of Satan in reference unto death, before mentioned, was all founded in sin. The obligation of the sinner unto death was that which gave him all his power. The taking away, then, of that obligation must needs be the dissolution of his power. The foundation being removed, all that is built upon it must needs fall to the ground. Now this, in reference unto the children for whom he died, was done in the death of Christ, — virtually in his death itself, actually in the application of it unto them. When the sinner ceaseth to be obnoxious unto death, the power of Satan ceaseth also. And this every one doth that hath an interest in the death of Christ: for “there is no condemnation unto them that are in Christ Jesus,” Romans 8:1; and this because he died. He died for their sins, took that death upon himself which was due unto them; which being conquered thereby, and their obligation thereunto ceasing, the power of Satan is therewith dissolved. The first branch of his power consisted in the bringing of sin into the world. This is dissolved by Christ’s “taking away the sin of the world,” John 1:29; which he did as “the Lamb of God,” by the sacrifice of himself in his death, typified by the paschal lamb and all other sacrifices of old. Again, his power consisted in his rule in the world, as cast under sin and death. From this he was cast out, John 12:31, in the death of Christ. When contending with him for the continuance of his sovereignty, he was conquered, the ground whereon he stood, even the guilt of sin, being taken away from under him, and his title defeated. And actually believers are translated from under his rule, from the power of darkness, into the kingdom of light and of the Son of God. Nor can he longer make use of death as penal, as threatened in the curse of the law, to terrify and affright the consciences of men: for “being justified by faith” in the death of Christ, “they have peace with God,” Romans 5:1. Christ making peace between God and us by the blood of his cross, Ephesians 2:14-15, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, the weapons of this part of his power are wrested out of his hand, seeing death hath no power to terrify the conscience, but as it expresseth the curse of God. And, lastly, his final execution of the sentence of death upon sinners is utterly taken out of his hand by the death of Christ, inasmuch as they for whom he died shall never undergo death penally. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Having asserted the incarnation of the Lord Christ, the captain of our salvation, and showed the necessity of it, from the ends which were to be accomplished by it, and therein given the reason of his concession that he was for a season made less than the angels, the apostle proceeds in this verse to confirm what he had taught before by testimony of the Scripture; and adds an especial amplification of the grace of God in this whole dispensation, from the consideration of the angels, who were not made partakers of the like love and mercy. Hebrews 2:16. — Οὐγὰρδήπουἀγγέλωνἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰσπέρματος᾿Αβραὰμἐπιλαμβάνεται.Οὐγὰρδήπου. The Syriac quite omits δήπου, and reads only μָ ?ΰβֵּ ?ιψ, “non enim;” “for he did not.” V. L., “nusquam enim.” Που he renders “usquam,” “anywhere? and on the consideration of the negative particle, οὐ, “nusquam,” “nowhere.” Beza, “non enim utique,” as ours; “for verily” [he took] “not,” — not reaching the force or use of δήπου. Arias, “non enim videlicet;” which answers not the intent of this place. Erasmus fully and properly, “non enim sane usquam,” “for verily not anywhere;” that is, in no place of the Scripture is any such thing testified unto: which way of expression we observed our apostle to use before, Hebrews 1:5.᾿᾿Αγγέλωνἐπιλαμβάνεται. Syr., ξֵ ?οξַ ?μָ ?ΰλֵ ?ΰπְ ?ρָ ?α, “ex angelis assumpsit,” “he took not of” (or “from among”) “the angels;” that is, of their nature. V. L., Arias, “angelos apprehendit,” “he doth not take hold of angels.” Beza, “angelos assumpsit,” “he assumed not,” “he took not angels to himself: ἐπιλαμβάνεται for ἐπέλαβε, by an enallage of time; which ours follow, “he took not on him the nature of angels.” But this change of the tense is needless; for the apostle intends not to express what Christ had done, but what the Scripture saith and teacheth concerning him in this matter. That nowhere affirms that he takes hold of angels.The remaining words are generally rendered by translators according to the analogy of these: “sed apprehendit,” “assumit,” “assumpsit, semen Abrahae,” — “he laid hold of,” “he takes,” “he took the seed of Abraham;” only the Ethiopic reads them, “Did he not exalt the seed of Abraham?” departing from the sense of the words and of the text. The constant use of this word ἐπιλαμβάνω, in the New Testament, is “to take hold of;” and so in particular it is elsewhere used in this epistle, Hebrews 8:9, ᾿Επιλαβομένον, — “In the day that I took them by the hand.” In other authors it is so variously used that nothing from thence can be determined as to its precise signification in this or any other place. The first and proper sense of it is acknowledged to be “to take hold of,” as it were with the hand. And however the sense may be interpreted, the word cannot properly be translated any otherwise than “to take.” As for what some contend, that the effect or end of taking hold of is to help, to vindicate into liberty, — whence by Castalio it is rendered “opitulatur,” — it belongs to the design of the place, not the meaning of the word, which in the first place is to be respected. [7] [7] ᾿Επιλαμζ. is now translated differently from the A. V., by almost all expositors. “He doth succor.” — Stuart. “He giveth his aid.” — Conybeare Howson. “He doth lay hold on.” — Craik. “The church fathers and the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries supplied a φύσιν to the genitive, and rendered thus, ‘He has not assumed the nature of angels, but that of the seed of Abraham.’ Castalio was the first to oppose this monstrous interpretation; after him the Socinians and Arminians. Since 1650 the right interpretation has been the general one.” — Ebrard. — ED. Hebrews 2:16. — For verily not anywhere doth he take angels, but he taketh the seed of Abraham.In the words there is First the reference that the apostle makes unto somewhat else, whereby that which he declareth is confirmed, “For verily not anywhere;” that is, that which he denieth in the following words is nowhere taught in the Scripture: as Hebrews 1:5, “For unto which of the angels said he at any time;” that is, ‘There is no testimony extant in the Scripture concerning them to that purpose.’So here, ‘Nowhere is it spoken in the Scripture that Christ taketh angels.’And what is so spoken, he is said to do. And thus also the affirmative clause of his proposition, “But he taketh the seed of Abraham,” is to be referred to the Scripture. There it is promised, there it is spoken, and therein it is done by him. Secondly, That which he asserteth hath the nature of a discrete axiom, wherein the same thing is denied and affirmed of the disparates expressed, and that univocally in the same sense: “He took not angels, but he took the seed of Abraham.” And this, we being referred to the Scripture for the proof and confirmation of, gives light and perfect understanding into the meaning of the words. For how doth Christ in the Scripture take the seed of Abraham, in such a sense as that therein nothing is spoken of him in reference unto angels? It is evident that it was in that he was of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; that he was promised to Abraham that he should be of his seed, yea, that he should be his seed, as Galatians 3:16. This was the great principle, the great expectation of the Hebrews, that the Messiah should be the seed of Abraham. This was declared unto them in the promise; and this accordingly was accomplished. And he is here said to take the seed of Abraham, because in the Scripture it is so plainly, so often affirmed that he should so do, when not one word is anywhere spoken that he should be an angel, or take their nature upon him. And this, as I said, gives us the true meaning of the words. The apostle in them confirms what he had before affirmed, concerning his being made partaker of flesh and blood together with the children. This, saith he, the Scripture declares, wherein it is promised that he should be of the seed of Abraham, which he therein takes upon him; and which was already accomplished in his being made partaker of flesh and blood. See John 1:14; Romans 9:5, Galatians 4:4; Galatians 3:16. This, then, the apostle teacheth us, that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, according to the promise, took to himself the nature of man, coming of the seed of Abraham, — that is, into personal union with himself; but took not the nature of angels, no such thing being spoken of him or concerning him anywhere in the Scripture. And this exposition of the words will be further evidenced and confirmed by our examination of another, which, with great endeavor, is advanced in opposition unto it.Some, then, take the meaning of this expression to be, that the Lord Christ, by his participation of flesh and blood, brought help and relief, not unto angels, but unto men, the seed of Abraham. And they suppose to this purpose, that ἐπιλαμβάνεται is put for ναλαμβάνεται, — “to help, to succour, to relieve, to vindicate into liberty.” Of this mind are Castalio and all the Socinians: among those of the Roman church, Ribera; Estius also and a Lapide speak doubtfully in the case: of Protestants, Cameron and Grotius, who affirms, moreover, that Chrysostom and the Greek scholiasts so interpret the place and words; which I should have marvelled at, had I not long before observed him greatly to fail or mistake in many of his quotations. Chrysostom, whom he names in particular, expressly referreth this whole verse unto the Lord Christ’s assumption of the nature of man, and not of the nature of angels. The same also is insisted on by Theophylact and OEcumenius, without any intimation of the sense that Grotius would impose upon them. The Socinians embrace and endeavor to confirm this second exposition of the words: and it is their concernment so to do; for if the words express that the Lord Christ assumed human nature, which necessarily infers his pre-existence in another nature, their persuasion about the person of Christ is utterly overthrown. Their exceptions in their controversial writings unto this place have been elsewhere considered. Those of Enjedinus on this text are answered by Paraeus, those of Castalio by Beza, and the objections of some others by Gomarus. We shall, in the first place, consider what is proposed for the confirmation of their sense by Schlichtingius or Crellius; and then the exceptions of a very learned expositor unto the sense before laid down and confirmed. And Schlichtingius first argues from the context: — “Praeter ipsa verba,” saith he, “quae hunc sensum nullo modo patiuntur ut postea dicemus, contextus et ratiocinatio auctoris id repudiat; qui pro ratione et argumento id sumere non potuit debuitve, quod sibi hoc ipso argumento et ratione probandum sumsisset. De eo enim erat quaestio, cur Christus qui nunc ad tantam majestatem et gloriam est evectus, non angelicam sed humanam, morti et variis calamitatibus obnoxiam habuerit naturam? hujus veto rei, quo pacto ratio redderetur, per id quod non angelicam sed humanam naturam assumpserit; cum istius ipsius rei, quae in hac quaestione continetur, nempe quod Christus homo fuit natus, nune causa ratioque quaeratur. At vero si haec verba, de juvandis non angelis, sed hominibus, deque ope iis ferenda intelligamus, pulcherrime omnia cohaerent; nempe Christum hominem mortalem fuisse, non angelum aliquem, quod non angelis sed hominibus juvandis, servandisque fuerit destinatus.” But the foundation of this exposition of the context is a mistake, which his own preceding discourse might have relieved him from; for there is no such question proposed as here is imagined, nor doth he in his following exposition suppose it. The apostle doth not once propose this unto confirmation, that it behoved the Lord Christ to be a man, and not an angel. But having proved at large before, that in nature and authority he was above the angels, he grants, Galatians 3:7, that he was for a little while made lower than they, and gives at large the reason of the necessity of that dispensation, taken from the work which God had designed him unto: which being to “bring many sons unto glory,” he shows, and proves by sundry reasons, that it could not be accomplished without his death and suffering; for which end it was indispensably necessary that he should be made partaker of “flesh and blood.” And this he confirms further by referring the Hebrews unto the Scripture, and in especial unto the great promise of the Messiah made unto Abraham, that the Messiah was to be his seed; the love and grace whereof he amplifies by an intimation that he was not to partake of the angelical nature. That supposition, therefore, which is the foundation of this exposition, — namely, that the apostle had before designed to prove that the Messiah ought to partake of human nature, and not of angelical, which is nothing to his purpose, — is a surmise suited only to the present occasion. Wherefore Felbinger, in his Demonstrationes Evangelicae, takes another course, and affirms that these words contain the end of what was before asserted, Galatians 3:14-15, — namely, about Christ’s participation of flesh and blood, — which was, not to help angels, but the seed of Abraham, and to take them into grace and favor. But these things are both of them expressly declared in those verses, especially Galatians 3:15, where it is directly affirmed that his design in his incarnation and death was to destroy the devil, and to free and save the children. And to what end should these things be here again repeated, and that in words and terms far more obscure and ambiguous than those wherein it was before taught and declared? for by “angels” they understand evil angels; and there could be no cause why the apostle should say in this verse that he did not assist or relieve them, when he had declared in the words immediately foregoing that he was born and died that he might destroy them. Neither is it comely to say, that the end why Christ destroyed the devil was that he might not help him; or the end why he saved the children was that he might assist them. Besides, the introduction of this assertion, οὐγὰρδήπου, will not allow that here any end is intimated of what was before expressed, there being no insinuation of any final cause in them.The context, therefore, not answering their occasion, they betake themselves to the words: “Verbum ἐπιλαμβάνεται,” saith he, “significat proprie, manu aliquem apprehendere; sive ut illum aliquo ducas, sive ut sustentes; hinc ad opitulationem significandum commode transfertur; quos enim adjutos volumus ne cadant, vel sub onere aliquo succumbant, aut si ceciderint erectos cupimus, iis manum injicere solemus, quo sensu Sir 4:11. De sapientia dictum est, Καὶἐπιλαμβάνεταιτῶνθητούντωναὐτήν, — hoc est, ‘opitulatur quaerentibus se;’eadem est significatio verbi ἀντιλαμβάνεται, quod qui aliquem sublevatum velint illi ex adverso manum porrigere solent.”It is acknowledged that ἀντιλαμβάνεται doth frequently signify as here is alleged, namely, “to help and assist,” as it were by putting forth the hand for to give relief. But if that were intended by the apostle in this place, what reason can be assigned why he should waive the use of a word proper unto his purpose, and frequently so applied by himself in other places, and make use of another, which signifying no such thing, nor anywhere used by him in that sense, must needs obscure his meaning and render it ambiguous? Whereas, therefore, ἀντιλαμβάνεται, signifies “to help and relieve,” and is constantly used by our apostle in that sense, it being not used or applied by him in this place to express his intention, but ἐπιλαμβάνεται, which signifies no such thing, nor is ever used by him to that purpose, the sense contended for, of help and relief, is plainly excluded. The place of Ecclesiasticus, and that alone, is referred unto by all that embrace this exposition. But what if the word be abused in that place by that writer? must that give a rule unto its interpretation in all other writers where it is properly used? But yet neither is the word used there for to help and relieve, but to take and receive. Wisdom, “suscipit,” “receiveth,” or taketh unto itself, “suo more,” those that seek it; which is the sense of the word we plead for, and so is it rendered by translators. So the Lord Christ, “suo modo,” took to himself the seed of Abraham, by uniting it unto his person as he was the Son of God. In the very entrance also of his discourse this author acknowledgeth that ἐπιλαμβάνεται, doth not directly or properly signify “to help” or “to relieve,” but signifying “to take hold of,” is transferred unto that use and sense. I ask where? by whom? in what author? If he says in this place by the apostle, that will not prove it; and where any will plead for the metaphorical use of a word, they must either prove that the sense of the place where it is used enforces that acceptation of it, or at least that in like cases in other places it is so used; neither of which are here pretended. But he proceeds: “Quod hic dicit, ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι, Sir 4:18, per βοηθῆσαι, effert; de eadem enim re utrobique agitur, et rationem consequentiae argumenti, quod in hoc versiculo proponit illic explicat.”This is but imagined; the contrary is evident unto every one, upon the first view of the context. Here the apostle discourseth the reason of the humiliation of Christ, and his taking flesh; there, the benefit of his priestly office unto them that do believe. ᾿Επιλαμβάνομαι is therefore properly “assumo,” “accipio,” “to take unto,” or, “to take upon;” and the apostle teacheth us by it, that the Lord Christ took unto him, and took on him, our human nature, of the seed of Abraham.That the genuine sense of the place may be yet more fully vindicated, I shall further consider the exceptions of a very learned man unto our interpretation of the words, and his answers unto the reasons whereby it is confirmed. First, he says that “ἐπιλαμβάνεται, being in the present tense, signifieth a continued action, such as Christ’s helping of us is; but his assumption of human nature was a momentaneous action, which being past long before, the apostle would not express it as a thing present.” It is generally answered unto this exception, that an enallage is to be allowed, and that ἐπιλαμβάνεται is put for ἐπελάβετο, which is usual in the Scripture. So John 1:31; John 21:13. But yet there is no just necessity of supposing it in this place. The apostle in his usual manner, disputing with the Hebrews on the principles wherein they had been instructed from the Old Testament, minds them that there is nothing said therein of his taking upon him the nature of angels, but only of the seed of Abraham. So that “he takes” is, “he doth so in the Scripture,” that affirms him so to do; and in respect hereunto the expression in the present tense is proper to his purpose. This way of arguing and manner of expression we have manifested on Hebrews 1:5. Again he adds, “This expression, ‘He took not on him angels,’for, ‘the nature of angels,’is hard and uncouth, as it would be in the affirmative to say, ‘Assumpsit homines,’or ‘hominem,’‘He took men,’or ‘a man;’which we say not, although we do that he took human nature.” But the reason of this phrase of speech is evident. Having before affirmed that he was partaker σαρκὸςκαὶαἵματος, “of flesh and blood,” whereby the nature of man is expressed, repeating here again the same assertion with respect unto the promise, and negation of the same thing in reference unto angels, because their nature consisteth not of flesh and blood, he expresseth it indefinitely and in the concrete, “He took not them,” — that is, not that in and of them which answers unto flesh and blood in the children, — that is, their nature. So that there is no need to assert, as he supposeth some may do, that σαρκὸςκαὶαἵματος ought to be repeated ἐκτοὕκοινοῦ, and referred unto those bodies which the angels assumed for a season in their apparitions under the old testament, there being only an ellipsis, easy to be supplied, of that in them which answers unto flesh and blood in the children. Thirdly, “The apostle,” he saith, “showeth, John 21:17, that Christ ought in all things to be made like unto us, by this reason, ‘Quod non assumpsit angelos, sed semen Abrahae.’But if this be to take on him the nature of man, he comes to prove the same thing by the same; for to be made like unto us, and to assume human nature, differ only in words, and not really or in deed. But take ἐπιλαμβάνεται to signify ‘to help’or ‘relieve,’and all things agree. For because he came to help us and not angels, it became him to be made like unto us.” But herein lies a double mistake: — First, In the scope and argument of the apostle; for those words in the beginning of the 17th verse are not an inference or conclusion from what is asserted in this verse, but an affirmation of the necessity of what is there asserted from that which follows in the same verse, “that he might be a faithful high priest.” Secondly, These words, “like unto us,” do not intend his conformity unto us in his participation of human nature, which he had on other reasons before confirmed, but in the sufferings and temptations which there he insists upon. Fourthly, “The seed of Abraham,” he says, “is a collective expression, and denotes many; at least it must denote the person of some man, which Christ did not assume. And therefore it is the spiritual seed of Abraham that is intended; that is, believers. And the apostle so calls them, because the Hebrews were well pleased with the mention of that privilege.” But this will not abide the examination. The great promise of old unto Abraham was, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. The intendment of that promise was, that the Messiah should be his seed, of his posterity. That by this seed one individual was intended our apostle declares, Galatians 3:16; as Christ in like manner is said to be “of the seed of David according to the flesh,” Romans 1:3. Of this promise the apostle minds the Hebrews. So that his taking on him the seed of Abraham is not the assuming of many, nor of the person of any one of them, but merely his being made of the seed of Abraham according to the promise. And to bend these words unto any other sense than the accomplishment of the promise made to Abraham, that Christ should be of his seed, is plainly to pervert them. And this is all of weight that I can meet withal which is objected unto our interpretation of this place; which being removed, it is further established. Lastly, In the disparate removed, by “angels,” the good angels, not fallen angels, are principally regarded. Of fallen angels he had newly spoken under the collective expression, “the devil,” who had the power of death. Nor are, it may be, the devils anywhere called absolutely by the name of angels; but they are termed either “evil angels,” or “angels that sinned,” “that left their habitation,” “that are to be judged,” “the devil’s angels,” or have some or other peculiar adjunct whereby they are marked out and distinguished. Now, it cannot be that this word ἐπιλαμβάνεται, if it be interpreted “to help,” “assist,” or “relieve,” can in any sense be applied unto the angels that must be intended, if any; for the word must denote either any help, assistance, or relief in general, or that especial help and assistance which is given by Christ in the work of reconciliation and redemption. If the first be intended, I much question the truth of the assertion, seeing the angels owe their establishment in grace unto Christ, and also their advancement in glory, Ephesians 1:10. If it be to be taken in the latter sense, as is pretended, then the nature of the discrete axiom here used by the apostle requires that there be the same need of the help intimated in both the disparates, which is denied as unto the one, and affirmed as unto the other. But now the angels, that is, the good angels, had no need of the help of redemption and reconciliation unto God, or of being freed from death, or the fear of it, which they were never obnoxious unto. And what remains for the clearing of the mind of the apostle will appear yet further in the ensuing observations from the words. I. The Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and man in one person; and this is fully manifested in these words. For,1. There is supposed in them his pre-existence in another nature than that which he is said here to assume. He was before, he subsisted before, or he could not have taken on him what he had not. This was his divine nature; as the like is intimated where he is said to be “made flesh,” John 1:14; to be “made of a woman,” Galatians 4:4; to be “manifested in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16; to “take on him the form of a servant,” Philippians 2:8-9; as here, “he took the seed of Abraham.” He was before he did so; that is, as the Son, the Word of God, the Son of God, as in the places mentioned, eternally pre-existing unto this his incarnation: for the subject of this proposition, “He took on him,” etc., denotes a person pre-existing unto the act of taking here ascribed unto him; which was no other than the Son of God. 2. He assumed, he took to himself, another nature, “of the seed of Abraham,” according unto the promise. So, continuing what he was, he became what he was not. For,3. He took this to be his own nature. He so took it as himself to become truly “the seed of Abraham,” to whom and concerning whom the promise was given, Galatians 3:16; and was himself made “of the seed of David according to the flesh,” Romans 1:3; and “as concerning the flesh came of the fathers,” Romans 9:5; and so was “the son of David, the son of Abraham,” Matthew 1:1. And this could no otherwise be done but,4. By taking that nature into personal subsistence with himself, in the hypostasis of the Son of God. The nature he assumed could no otherwise become his. For if he had by any ways or means taken the person of a man to be united unto him, in the strictest union that two persons are capable of, a divine and a human, the nature had still been the nature of that other person, and not his own.5. But he took it to be his own nature; which it could no ways be but by personal union, causing it to subsist in his own person. And he is therefore a true and perfect man: for no more is required to make a complete and perfect man but the entire nature of man subsisting; and this is in Christ as a man, the human nature having a subsistence communicated unto it by the Son of God. And therefore, 6. This is done without a multiplication of persons in him; for the human nature can have no personality of its own, because it was taken to be the nature of another person who was pre-existent unto it, and by assuming of it prevented its proper personality. Neither,7. Did hence any mixture or confusion of natures ensue, or of the essential properties of them; for he took the seed of Abraham to be his human nature, which if mixed with the divine it could not be. And this he hath done,8. Inseparably and for ever. Which things are handled at large elsewhere.II. The redemption of mankind by the taking of our nature, was a work of mere sovereign grace.He took the seed of Abraham; he took not the nature of angels. And for what cause or reason? Can any be assigned but the sovereign grace, pleasure, and love of God? nor doth the Scripture anywhere assign any other. And this will the better appear if we consider, — 1. That for a sinning nature to be saved, it was indispensably necessary that it should be assumed. The nature of angels being not taken, those that sinned in that nature must perish for ever; and they that fancy a possibility of saving sinners any other way but by satisfaction made in the nature that had sinned, seem not to have considered aright the nature of sin and the justice of God. Had any other way been possible, why doth the perishing of angels so inevitably follow the non-assumption of their nature? This way alone, then, could it be wrought.2. That we were carrying away all human nature into endless destruction; for so it is intimated: whence Christ’s assumption of it is expressed by his putting forth his hand and taking hold of it, to stop it in its course of apostasy and ruin. Of angels, only some individual persons fell from God; but our whole nature, in every one to whom it was communicated from and by Adam, was running headlong to destruction. In itself there could be no relief, nor any thing to commend it unto God. Here sovereign grace interposeth, — the love of God to mankind, Titus 3:4. As to the angels, he “spared them not,” 2 Peter 2:4. He spared not them, and “spared not his Son” for us, Romans 8:32. And if we consider rightly what the Scripture informs us of the number and dignity of the angels that sinned, of their nature and ability to accomplish the will of God, and compare therewith our own vileness and low condition, we may have matter of eternal admiration suggested unto us. And there was infinite wisdom as well as sovereign grace in this dispensation, sundry branches whereof the apostle afterwards holds out unto us. Having declared the general reasons why the Son or Messiah was for a little while to be made lower than the angels, in his incarnation and sufferings, and showed the ends thereof, the apostle proceeds to declare other especial ends of this divine dispensation, and therein makes way unto what he had to instruct the Hebrews in about the priestly office of Christ; which was the principal ground and foundation of what he intended more fully afterwards to discourse with them about and to inform them in. Hebrews 2:17-18. — ῞Οθενὤφειλεκατὰπάντατοῖςἀδελφοῖςὀμοιωθῆναι, ἳναἐλεήμωνγένηταικαὶπιστὸςἀρχιερεὺςτὰπρὸςτὸνΘεὸν, εἰςτὸἰλάσκεσθαιτὰςἀμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ. ᾿Ενᾧγὰρπέπονθεναὐτὸςπειρασθεὶς, δύναταιτοῖςπειραζομένοιςβοηθῆσαι.῞Οθενὤφειλε. V., “unde debuit,” “whence he ought.” So Beza. Syr., ηָ ?πָ ?ΰζָ ?γָ ?χξֶ ?θεּ ?μ“for which cause,” (or “wherefore”) “it was just,” “meet,” or “equal.” Others, “wherefore it was due;” “it was convenient;” “wherefore it behoved him;” so ours. ᾿Οφείλω joined with an infinitive mood, as here it is, signifies commonly “oportet me,” or “necesse est” or “debeo,” — “I ought,” “it behoveth me,” “it is necessary for me;” and denotes more than a mere congruency, conveniency, or expediency, even such a kind of necessity ariseth from that which in itself is just and equal; which the Syriac expresseth. It is of the same importance with ἔπρεπε, Hebrews 2:10.Κατὰπάντα, “per omnia.” Syr., αְּ ?λֻ ?μξֵ ?γֵ ?ν, “in omni re,” “in every thing.” Arab., “In cunctis eorum conditionibus,” “in all conditions;” that is, every condition and state of life. Ours, “in all things,” leaving the words where they are placed in the original, “wherefore in all things it behoved him;” whereas a little transposition of them would more clear up the sense, “wherefore it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren in all things.” The Ethiopic quite omits the words here, and placeth them after ἐλεήμων, “merciful in all things.” Τοῖςἀδελφοῖςὁμοιωθῆναι. V., “fratribus simulari;” Eras., “similis reddi;” Beza, “similis fieri;” as ours, “to be made like.” The article prefixed to ἀδελφοῖς restrains the name “brethren” unto those whom he had before discoursed of under the names of “children,” “disciples,” “sanctified ones.”῞Ιναἐλεήμωνγένηταικαὶπιστὸςἀρχιερευς, “ut misericors fieret” (or “esset”) “pontifex;” so V., Eras., Bez. The Syriac somewhat otherwise, εְ ?ψָ ?αλּ ?εָָּ ?ξψֵ ?ΰγְּ ?ιֶ ?δְ ?εֵ ?ΰξְ ?ψַ ?ηְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?ΰ“that he might be merciful, and a great priest,” or “chief priest,” ξְ ?δַ ?ιְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?ΰ“faithful in the things of God;” so making his mercifulness an attribute of his person absolutely, and faithfulness only to respect him as a high priest. So also the Arabic and Ethiopic. And the word whereby ἐλεήμοιν is rendered signifies “tenderly merciful,” with that kind of mercy which is called “bowels of compassion,” from ψָ ?ηַ ?ν. And it may be here observed that that interpreter throughout the epistle renders ἀρχιερεύς by ψαλεξψΰ “rab comara,” though that word be always used in an ill sense in the Old Testament. Three times it occurs therein — 2 Kings 23:5, where we render it “idolatrous priests;” Zephaniah 1:4, [where] the name “chemarims” is retained; Hosea 10:5, [where] we express it by “priests,” but place “chemarim” in the margin. For it principally denoted the priests of Baal and Moloch, and their “blackness” (as the word is rendered, Job 3:5), not from the garments they wore, but from the color they contracted in their diabolical sacrifices in the fire. Hence, wherever the word λֹּ ?δֵ ?οis applied unto a priest of a false god, or one engaged in false worship, the Targumists constantly render it by ξεξψΰ. See Judges 17:5; Judges 18:4; Judges 18:30. But this translator respected not so much the use, as the original and extraction of the word; for from λָּ ?ξַ ?ψin Niphal, πִ ?λְ ?ξַ ?ψ, is “to wax hot,” and “to be moved with internal heat;” whence taken to signify compassion and pity, — the same with ψָ ?ηַ ?ν. Hence, Deuteronomy 13:18, εְ ?πָ ?ϊַ ?ομְ ?κָ ψַ ?ηֲ ?ξִ ?ιν, and shall give thee tender mercy” (“bowels of compassion”), is rendered by Ben Uzziel, ειλξεψςμλιιοψηξιοειψηνςμιπεο, “and shall wax hot towards you with compassion, and shall have compassion on you,” — ‘He shall be warmed and moved with compassion towards you.’In like manner is the word used, Psalms 77:10. With respect unto this heat of affection and abundant compassion, the word may well be applied unto the Lord Christ, our high priest.ΤὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν. V., “ad Deum,” “pontifex ad Deum,” “an high priest towards God ;” very defectively. Eras., “in his quae apud Deum forent agenda,” “in the things that were to be done before God:” so also Beza, noting “forent agenda, as a supplement unto the text. So Vatablus and others. Syr., αְּ ?γַ ?ΰμָ ?δָ ?ΰ“in the things of God.” The apostle explains his own meaning, Hebrews 5:1, where he tells us, that “every high priest καθίσταταιτὰπρὸςτὸνΘεονV, ἵναπροσφέρη,” — “ is set over the things appertaining unto God, that he may offer sacrifice.” “In things appertaining unto God,” — what he hath to do with God in their behalf for whom he ministers in his office before him. Arab., “res nostras apud Deum peragens.” Εἰςτὸἰλάσκεσθαιτὰςἀμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ. V., “ut repropitiaret delicta populi;” aiming to express the sense of the original, it falls upon a barbarous word, yielding no tolerable sense, though that which seems to be intended in it is, to make propitiation or atonement. Ar., Vatab., Eras., Bez., “ad expiandum.” Syr., ςμηֲ ?θָ ?δַ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιγּ ?ςַ ?ξָּ ?ΰξְ ?δַ ?ρֵ ?ΰ, “expians super peccata populi;” so the word is constantly translated, though it rather signifies to show mercy or pity. ῾Ιλάσκομαι is commonly used actively for “propitium facio,” or “propitio,” “to please,” “appease,” “atone,” “turn away anger;” and when it is taken in a passive or neuter sense, it signifies “to be merciful,” “appeased,” “reconciled,” as Luke 18:13, ῾ΟΘεὸς, ἰλάσθητίμοιτῷἁμαρτωλῷ, — “God be merciful unto me a sinner.” I much doubt whether any instance can be given of its signifying” to expiate, “though, because of the construction of it in this place, it be generally so rendered. If it be taken in its first proper sense, then sin cannot be the next object of the act denoted by it. Ours, “ to make reconciliation for the sins of the people;” of the sense whereof we shall deal afterwards at large. Ἐνᾧγάρ. V., “in eo enim,” “for in that;” Eras., “nam ex hoc,” “for from hence;” Beza, “nam ex eo;” Vat., “ex eo;” “ob id;” ours, “for in that,” — that is, “inasmuch;” not, “in that thing wherein he was tempted,” but, “whereas,” “inasmuch,” “seeing that;” Arab., “for from those things which happened unto him when he was tempted.”Πέπονθεναὐτὸςπειρασθείς. V., “passus est ipse tentatus,” “in which himself suffered and was tempted.” “Et,” Erasmus tells us, is not in many ancient copies. Ar., “in quo passus est ipse tentatus,” “in that he suffered himself being tempted.” Bez., “ex eo quod perpessus ipse fuit, quum est tentatus,” “for that which he suffered when he was tempted.” But the words rather signify his sufferings by being tempted, or from his temptations, than his suffering on other accounts when he was tempted. Syr., “for in that he suffered and was tempted;” as the Vul., Eras., “quod whole upon temptation, because in the latter clause mention is made of “them that are tempted,” without any addition of sufferings. It is not certain whether πέπονθα be from πάσχω or from πονέω, from whose active, πεπόνηκα, the middle significtion in πέπονα is formed, and πέπονθα by a usual pleonasm of theta; and if so, not his suffering, but his laboring under temptation, is intended. If, as it is commonly thought, it be from πάσχω, I confess that word is sometimes used it is here rendered by Erasmus, “accidit,” “contigit,” “usu venit,” “it happened,” “it befell;” but it is but rarely, and that not without regard unto suffering. But it being evident that the suffering of Christ is here intended, his temptation being mentioned only as an instance of that whereby he suffered, that is not to be passed over, and the sense carried on unto his temptation only: “He suffered being tempted.” Πειράζω is in itself but to make a trial or experiment; but this being done from various principles, by sundry means, for different ends, and upon diverse subjects, there is a great difference in such trials, and great variety in the nature of temptations. How the Lord Christ was tempted, by whom, and of what sort his temptations were, we shall consider afterwards. The Ethiop. reads, “when he tempted him and afflicted him;” that is, God.Δύναταιβοηθῆσαι. V., “potens est et eis qui tentantur auxiliari.” “Et” again is added, but retained by Beza, as not copulative, but emphatical, “potest et eis qui tentantur succurrere,” — “he can” (or “is able to”) “help,” “relieve,” “succor.” Βοηθέω is properly ἐπὶβοὴνθέω, “to run in to the cry of any one;” that is, to help and relieve him in his distress, to come speedily, and as it were in haste, to the help of him that crieth out in danger. So Thucydides: Ου῏τοιδὲτοῖς᾿Αθηςαίοιςἐβεβοηθήκεσαν, — “These came in to the help of the Athenians” [in their distress]. And this is the direct sense of the word in this place, as it respects them that are distressed under the power of temptation, crying out for help. And it is plainly expressed in the Latin “succurrere,” and our “succor,” taken from thence. So Chrysostom interprets these words, Δύναταιβοηθῆσαι·μετὰπολλῆςπροθυμίαςὀρέξειχεῖρα, — “He gives out his hand unto them with all readiness.”Hebrews 2:17-18. — Wherefore [hence] it behoved him to [it was meet he should] be made like unto his [the] brethren in all things [every manner of way], that he might be a merciful and faithful high for the sins of the people. For in that [whereas] he hath suffered being [when he was] tempted, he is able to succor [come in to the help of] them that are tempted. In these two verses the apostle illustrates what he had taught before, and confirms what he had asserted concerning the Son’s participation of flesh and blood in like manner with the children, from one especial end thereof. And this end is his being a high priest; which that the Messiah was to be, both the Hebrews granted and he himself intended more largely afterwards to demonstrate. Moreover, he was to be such a high priest as was settled and suited for the discharge of his office unto the benefit of them for whose good he was to minister therein. This the wisdom of God and the nature of the thing itself do require. Now, they being persons obnoxious unto temptations and sufferings of all sorts, he must in an especial manner be able to help, relieve, and save such persons. And all this the apostle declares in these verses, in the opening whereof we may consider, — 1. The importance of the illative expression in the entrance: “wherefore,” or “hence.”2. The necessity intimated of what is here assigned to the Messiah: “it behoved him,” or, “it was meet that he should.”3. What the apostle repeats and re-asserts namely, that he was “in all things” (or “every manner of way”) “to be made like unto his brethren; 4. The general end of this his necessary conformity unto the brethren: “that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest.”5. The especial work and end of that office which he was so prepared for: “in the things of God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”6. A further enforcement of the necessity of the foregoing assertion, taken from a double consideration; —(1.) Of what he did, or what befell him, in the condition wherein he was made like unto the brethren: he “suffered being tempted,” or “when he was tempted;”(2.) Of the blessed effect and consequence thereof, both in his own preparation unto the further discharge of his office, and the benefit of them whom he ministers in it for: “he is able to succor them that are tempted.” may respect either what had been before discoursed, or what is further insisted on in the words ensuing. In the first way the apostle would seem to infer the necessity of his being “made like unto his brethren in all things” from what he had before proved of his participation of human nature; but this seems not to be the meaning of the word. That expression, “To be made like unto his brethren in all things,” is only a recapitulation of what the apostle had before taught concerning his incarnation and sufferings; and here his design is to show the reason or end thereof, namely, that he might be a high priest, and discharge his office unto the benefit of the people. He gives, therefore, an account of what he had delivered, and declares the end of it: “Wherefore” (or “therefore”) “ought he thus to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful high priest.” And thus did Chrysostom understand the connection of these words. ῞Ιναοὐν, saith he, προσενέγκῃθυσίανδυναμένηνἡμᾶςκαθαρίσαι, διὰτοῦτογέγονενἄνθρωπος· — “Therefore was he made man, that he might be a sacrifice able to purge our sins.” 2. The necessity of the matter of the apostle’s assertion is expressed in the word ὤφειλε, “he ought,” “it must be so;” it could not be otherwise, on supposition that he was to be a high priest. God having designed him unto that office and the work thereof, it was indispensably necessary for him to be made like unto his brethren in all things.3. That which the apostle thus asserts, is his being “made like unto his brethren in all things.” The proposition is of the nature of them that are καθόλουὠςκαθόλου, — universal, but not universally to be understood. For that expression, κατὰπάντα, is capable of sundry limitations; as, first, It respects only all those things which are necessary unto the end assigned; and, secondly, In them also there may be a great difference. The things it respects are nature with the essential properties thereof, attended with temptations and sufferings. But whereas the brethren are sinners, he was not made like unto them in sin; which exception the apostle elsewhere puts in unto this assertion, Hebrews 4:15 : for this would have been so far from conducing unto the end aimed at, that it would have been utterly destructive thereof. In the things also wherein he was made like unto them, still the regulation from the end is to be carried along with us. That therein which was needful thereunto, this assimilation or conformity extends unto; that which was otherwise it supposeth not. And as the first part of this double limitation is made evident in the instance of sin, so the truth and necessity of the latter will appear in the consideration of the things wherein this conformity doth consist; as, — (1.) He was made like unto them in the essence of human nature, a rational spiritual soul, and a mortal body, quickened by its union therewithal. This it was necessary he should be like the brethren in, and not have a fantastical body, or a body animated by the Deity, as some have fancied of old. But that he should take this nature upon him by natural generation, after the manner of the brethren, this was not necessary; — yea, so to have done would not have furthered the end of his priesthood, but have enervated the efficacy of it, and have rendered him incapable of being such a priest as he was to be; for whereas the original contagion of sin is derived by natural procreation, had he been by that means made partaker of human nature, how could he have been “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” as it became our high priest to be? Hebrews 7:26. Again, it was not necessary that this human nature should have its individuation from itself, and a particular subsistence in and by itself ; — yea, this also would have overthrown his priesthood; for whereas the efficacy thereof depends on the excellency of the divine nature, this could not have given its influence thereunto, had not the human nature been taken into the same personal subsistence with itself. Only, as we said, that he should have a human nature, truly and really as the brethren, and therein be like unto them, this was necessary, that he might be an offering priest, and have of his own to offer unto God.(2.) It was also necessary, that in and with his human nature he should take upon him all the properties and affections of it, that so he might be made like unto the brethren. He was not to have an ubiquitarian body, a body commensurate to the Deity, — that is, immense, and consequently no true body at all; nor was his soul to be freed from the affections which are connatural to a human rational soul, as love, joy, fear, sorrow, shame, and the like; nor was his body to be free from being obnoxious unto hunger, thirst, cold, pain, death itself. But now, whereas these things in the brethren are attended with irregular perturbations for the most part; and whereas all the individuals of them have their proper infirmities in their own persons, partly by inordinate inclinations from their tempers and complexions, partly in weaknesses and sicknesses, proceeding either from their original constitutions or other following inordinacies; it was no way needful that in any of these he should be made like unto the brethren; — yea, a conformity unto them therein would have absolutely impeded the work he had to do. (3.) He was also like unto us in temptations, for the reason which the apostle gives in the last verse. But herein also some difference may be observed between him and us; for the most of our temptations arise from within us, from our own unbelief and lusts. Again, in those that are from without, there is somewhat in us to take part with them, which always makes us fail in our duty of resistance, and ofttimes leads to further miscarriages. But from these things he was absolutely free; for as he had no inward disposition or inclination unto the least evil, being perfect in all graces and all their operations at all times, so when the prince of this world came unto him, he had no part in him, — nothing to close with his suggestions or to entertain his terrors.(4.) His sufferings were of the same kind with them that the brethren underwent, or ought so to have done; yet they had far different effects on him from what they would have had on them. For whereas he was perfectly innocent and perfectly righteous, no way deserving them in his own person, he was free from all impressions of those sinful consequents which attend the utmost sufferings under the curse of the law by sinners themselves.Thus the ὁμοίωσιςκατὰπάντα, the “likeness in all things,” here asserted, is capable of a double limitation; — the first concerning some things themselves, as sin; the other, the mode or manner of the things wherein the conformity doth really consist.Now, thus to be made like unto them it “became him.” It was meet, just, and necessary that God should make him so, because of the office, duty, and employment that he had assigned him unto; which, as the end hereof, is nextly to be inquired after. 4. The general end of his conformity unto the brethren is, that he “might be a merciful and faithful high priest.” Two things are comprised herein: first, The office that he was designed unto, — he was to be a “high priest;” secondly, His qualifications for that office, — he was to be “merciful and faithful.” His conformity unto the brethren, as we have seen, consisted in two things: first, His participation of their nature; secondly, His copartnership with them in their condition of suffering and temptation. The first of these was necessary unto his office; the latter unto his qualifications. He was made man, that he might be a high priest; he suffered being tempted, that he might be merciful and faithful. There was no more required, that he might be a high priest, but that he should partake of our nature; but that he might be merciful and faithful, with that kind of mercy and faithfulness which the brethren stood in need of, it was moreover required that he should suffer and be tempted: which things must be distinctly considered. (1.) That he might be a high priest, it was necessary that he should be partaker of the nature of them for whom he was to administer in the things of God. So the apostle informs us, Hebrews 5:1, “Every high priest for men must be taken from among men.” This is not work for an angel, nor for God himself as such. And therefore, although the benefits of the priesthood of Christ were communicated unto all believers from the foundation of the world, by virtue of the compact and agreement between the Father and him for the undertaking and execution of that office at the time appointed, yet he was not actually, nor could be a high priest, until he was clothed with flesh, and made partaker of the nature of the children. The duty which, as a high priest, he had to perform, — namely, to “offer gifts and sacrifices” unto God, Hebrews 8:3, — with the especial nature of that great sacrifice that he was to offer, which was himself, his body and soul, prepared and given him for that purpose, Hebrews 10:10, require and make necessary this conformity. For this cause, then, was he made like unto the brethren in a participation of human nature. (2.) That in this nature he should be perfectly holy, and exactly discharge his duty according unto the mind and will of God, was all that was required of him as to his being a high priest. But this was not all that the estate and condition of the brethren required. Their sorrows, tenderness, weakness, miseries, disconsolations, are such, that if there be not a contemperation of his sublime holiness, and absolute perfection in fulfilling of all righteousness, with some qualifications inclining him to condescension, pity, compassion, and tender sense of their condition, whatever might be the issue of their safety in the life to come, their comfort in this life would be in continual hazard. For this cause, therefore, was he made like unto them in the infirmities of their nature, their temptations and sufferings, from whence all their disconsolations and sorrows do arise. Hence was the necessity of the qualifications for his office which by his sufferings and temptations he was furnished withal; and they are two: — [1. Mercifulness. He was ἐλεήμων, “merciful,” “tenderly compassionate,’’as the Syriac version renders the word; “misericors,” one that lays all the miseries of his people to heart, so caring for them, to relieve them. Mercy in God is but a naked simple apprehension of misery, made effective by an act of his holy will to relieve. Mercy in Christ is a compassion, a condolency, and hath a moving of pity and sorrow joined with it. And this was in the human nature of Christ a grace of the Spirit in all perfection. Now, it being such a virtue as in the operation of it deeply affects the whole soul and body also, and being incomparably more excellent in Christ than in all the sons of men, it must needs produce the same effects in him wherewith in others in lesser degrees it is attended. Thus we find him at all times full of this compassion and pity towards all the sons of men, yea, the worst of his enemies, expressing itself by sighs and tears, intimating the deep compassion of his heart. And this made him as it were even forget his own miseries in his greatest distress; for when, seeing the daughters of Jerusalem mourn for him, as he was going to his cross, he minds them of that which his compassionate heart was fixed on, even their approaching misery and ruin, Luke 23:28. But yet neither is this mercifulness in general that which the apostle intends; but he considers it as excited, provoked, and drawn forth by his own temptations and sufferings. He suffered and was tempted, that he might be merciful, not absolutely, but a merciful high priest. The relation of the sufferings and temptations of Christ unto his mercifulness, is not as unto the grace or habit of it, but as unto its especial exercise as our high priest. And this mercifulness of Christ is the gracious condolency and compassion of his whole soul with his people, in all their temptations, sufferings, dangers, fears, and sorrows, with a continual propensity of will and affection unto their relief, implanted in him by the Holy Ghost, as one of those graces which were to dwell in his nature in all fullness, excited and provoked, as to its continual exercise in his office of high priest, by the sense and experience which he himself had of those miseries which they undergo: whereof more on the last verse. [2. The other qualification mentioned is, that he should be πίστος “faithful” Some understand by πίστος, “verus,” “legitimus,” “true and rightful,” — made so in a due manner; whereof the apostle treats expressly, Hebrews 5:5 : others, his general faithfulness, integrity, and righteousness, in the discharge of his office, being “faithful unto him that appointed him,” as Hebrews 3:2. But neither of these senses answers the especial design of the apostle, nor his referring of his qualifications unto his conformity with the brethren in sufferings and temptations. It must also answer that mercifulness which we have before described. It consists, therefore, in his exact, constant, careful consideration of all the concernments of the brethren, under their temptations and sufferings. This he is excited unto by his own experience of what it is to serve God in such a condition. It is described, Isaiah 40:11. Not his faithfulness, then, in general, whereby he discharged his whole office, and accomplished the work committed unto him, mentioned John 17:4, but his constant care and condescension unto the wants and sorrows of his suffering and tempted brethren, is here intended.Before we proceed unto the explication of the remaining passages of these verses, what offers itself from what hath been already discoursed unto our instruction, may be observed; as, — I. The promised Messiah was to be the great high priest of the people of God. This the apostle here presumes, and proves elsewhere, And this we have elsewhere confirmed. The especial office of priesthood, for one to perform it in the behalf of others, came in after sin, upon the first promise. In the state of innocency every one was to be priest for himself, or perform in his own name the things which with God he had to do, according unto the law of his creation. This privilege failing by sin, which cut off all gracious intercourse between God and man, a new way was provided, and included in the first promise, for the transaction of things between God and sinners. This was by Christ alone, the promised seed. But because he was not to be immediately exhibited in the flesh, and it was the will of God that sundry sacrifices should be offered unto him; partly for his honor and glory in the world, and to testify the subjection of his people unto him; partly to teach and instruct them in the nature and benefits of the priesthood which he had designed for them, and to exemplify it in such representations as they were capable of; he did at several seasons institute various sorts of temporary, fading typical priests. This he did both before and after the law. Not that ever there was amongst them a priest properly and absolutely so called, by whom the things of men might be completely and ultimately transacted with God; only those who were appointed to administer before the Lord in the behalf of others were called priests, as rulers are called gods, because they represented the true Priest, and outwardly expressed his actings unto the people. The true, proper, and absolute high priest is Jesus Christ alone, the Son of God; for he alone had all the solemnities that were necessary for the constitution and confirmation of such a priest: as, in particular, the oath of God was necessary hereunto, that his priesthood might be stable and unchangeable, 1. Now, none was ever appointed a priest by the oath of God but Christ alone, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 7:20-21. And how this differences his office from that of others shall on that place be made manifest.2. He alone had somewhat of his own to offer unto God. Other priests had somewhat to offer, but nothing of their own; they only offered up the beasts that were brought unto them by the people. But the Lord Christ had a body and soul of his own prepared for him to offer, which was properly his own, and at his own disposal, Hebrews 10:5.3. He alone was set over the whole spiritual house of God, the whole family of God in heaven and earth. This belongs unto the office of a high priest, to preside in and over the house of God, to look to the rule and disposal of all things therein. Now, the priests of old were, as unto this part of their office, confined unto the material house or temple of God; but Jesus Christ was set over the whole spiritual house of God, to rule and dispose of it, Hebrews 3:6.4. He alone abides for ever. The true and real high priest was not to minister for one age or generation only, but for the whole people of God unto the end of the world. And this prerogative of the priesthood of Christ the apostle insists upon, Hebrews 7:23-24.5. He alone did, and could do, the true and proper work of a priest, namely, “make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” The sacrifices of other priests could only represent what was to be done, the thing itself they could not effect; for “it was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” as the apostle shows, Hebrews 10:4; but this was done effectually by that “one offering” which this high priest offered, Hebrews 10:11-14. All which things must be afterwards insisted on in their proper places, if God permit. This, then, is his prerogative, this is our privilege and advantage. II. The assumption of our nature, and his conformity unto us therein, were principally necessary unto the Lord Jesus on the account of his being a high priest for us.It behoved him to be made like unto us, that he might be a high priest. It is true, that, as the great prophet of his church, he did in part teach and instruct it whilst he was in the flesh, in his own person; but this was in a manner a mere consequence of his assuming our nature to be our high priest: for he instructed his church before and after principally by his Spirit, and this he might have done to the full though he had never been incarnate. So also might he have ruled it with supreme power as its king and head. But our high priest without the assumption of our nature he could not be, because without this he had nothing to offer; and ‘of necessity,’saith the apostle, ‘he must have somewhat to offer unto God.’A priest without a sacrifice is as a king without a subject. Had not God prepared him a body, he could have had nothing to offer. He was to have a self to offer to God, or his priesthood had been in vain; for God had showed that no other sacrifice would be accepted or be effectual for that end which was designed unto this office. On this, therefore, is laid the indispensable necessity of the incarnation of Christ. III. Such was the unspeakable love of Christ unto the brethren, that he would refuse nothing, no condition, that was needful to fit him for the discharge of the work which he had undertaken for them.Their high priest he must be; this he could not unless he were made like unto them in all things. He knew what this would cost him, what trouble, sorrow, suffering, in that conformity unto them he must undergo; what miseries he must conflict withal all his life; what a close was to be put unto his pilgrimage on the earth; what woeful temptations he was to pass through: all lay open and naked before him. But such was his love, shadowed out unto us by that of Jacob to Rachel, that he was content to submit unto any terms, to undergo any condition, so that he might save and enjoy his beloved church. See Ephesians 5:25-26. And surely he who was so intense in his love is no less constant therein; nor hath he left any thing undone that was needful to bring us unto God. But we are yet further to proceed with our explication of the words. The apostle having asserted the priesthood of Christ, describes in the fifth place the nature of the office itself, as it was vested in him: and this he doth two ways.(1.) By a general description of the object of it, or that which it is exercised about: ΤὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν, “The things pertaining unto God.”(2.) In a particular instance taken from the end of his priesthood, and the great work that he performed thereby: “To make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”(1.) He was to be a high priest in “the things pertaining unto God;” — that is, either in things that were to be done for God with men, as the apostle speaks, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us,” 2 Corinthians 5:20; or in things that were to be done with God for men. For there were two general parts of the office of the high priest: the one, to preside in the house and over the worship of God, to do the things of God with men. This the prophet assigns unto Joshua the high priest, an especial type of Christ, Zechariah 3:7,“Thus saith the Load of hosts, If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts;”and to Christ himself, “Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne,” Hebrews 6:13, — that is, “the high priest of our profession,” Hebrews 3:1. He was set authoritatively over the house of God, to take care that the whole worship of it were performed according unto his appointment, and to declare his statutes and ordinances unto the people. And in this sense the Lord Christ is also the high priest of his church, τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν, feeding and ruling them in the name and authority of God, Micah 5:4. Yet this is not that part of his office which is here intended by the apostle. The other part of the high priest’s office was to perform the things toward God which on the part of the people were to be performed. So Jethro adviseth Moses, Exodus 18:19, ηַ ?ιֵ ?δΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δμָ ?ςָ ?νξεּ ?μηַ ?ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, — “Be thou unto the people before God:” which words the LXX. render, ΓίνουσύτῷλαῷτὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν, in the phrase here used by the apostle, “Be thou unto the people in things appertaining unto God.” And this was the principal part of the office and duty of the high priest, the other being only a consequent thereof. And that it was so as to the office of Christ, the apostle manifests in the especial limitation which he adjoins unto this general assertion; he was “an high priest in things pertaining unto God, εἰςτὸἰλάσκεσθαιτὰςἀμαρτίαςτοῦλαοῦ, — to reconcile” (that is, “make reconciliation”) “for the sins of the people.”(2.) Two things are to be considered in these words: —[1. The object of the priestly action here assigned to the Lord Christ; [2. The action itself which with respect thereunto he is said to perform. [1. The first is, ὁλαός, “the people.” That is, say some, the seed of Abraham, whose interest in the mediation of Christ, and their privilege therein, the apostle here minds them of, to provoke the Hebrews to constancy in their faith and profession. And so also they limit the term “brethren” before used; not, as they say, that the elect among the Gentiles are excluded, but that he expressly mentions only the first-fruits in the Jews. But this sense is not necessarily included in the words. The intention of the apostle in the expression, is only to give some light into the effect of the priesthood of Christ, from the office of the high priest under the old testament and the discharge thereof; for as he had a peculiar people for whom he made atonement, so also hath Christ, — that is, all his elect.[2. The action ascribed unto him is expressed in these words, Εἰςτὸἰλάσκεσθαιτὰςἀμαρτίας, which want not their difficulty, the construction of the verb being inconsistent with its native and proper signification. ῾Ιλάσκομαι is properly and usually, in all writers, sacred and others, to “appease,” “to atone,” “to please,” “to propitiate,” “to reconcile.” But the following word seems not to admit of that sense in this place, for how can any one be said to please, or atone, or reconcile sin? Wherefore some, laying the emphasis of the expression on the construction, do regulate the sense of the verb by the noun, of the act by the object; and so will have it signify to expiate, cleanse, and do away sin, to cleanse the sins of the people, to do away the sins of the people. The Vulgar Latin renders the word “repropitio,” “ut repropitiaret;” which, as Anselm tells us (and he hath those that follow him), is composed of “re,” “prope,” and “cieo,” — a barbarous etymology of a barbarous word. “Propitio” is a Latin word, and used not only by Plautus, but by Suetonius and Pliny, and that to “appease,” “atone,” “please,” or “turn away anger.” Most translations render it by “expio,” “ad expiandum peccata;” but the signification of that word is also doubtful. It is, indeed, sometimes used for “to cleanse,” “make pure,” and “to take away sin;” but never in any good author but with reference unto atonement, to take it away by sacrifice, by public punishment, by men’s devoting themselves to destruction. So Livy, lib. 1 cap. 26, speaking of Horatius who killed his sister, “Ita ut caedes manifesta aliquo tamen piaculo lueretur, imperatum patri, ut filium, expiaret pecunia publica.” “Expiare” is the same with “luere piaculo,” which is to take away the guilt of a crime by a commutation of punishment. There may, then, be a double sense of these words; — 1st. To make atonement and reconciliation for sin, appeasing the anger and wrath of God against it;2dly. To remove and take away sin, either by the cleansing and sanctifying of the sinner, or by any means prevailing with him not to continue in sin. Against the first sense, the construction of the word with τὰςἀμαρτίας, “sins,” is objected; against the latter, the constant sense of the word itself, which is not to be deserted. It is the former sense, therefore, which we do embrace, and shall confirm.(1st.) The constant use of the word in all good authors of the Greek tongue will admit no other. ῾Ιλάσκομαι is of an active importance, and denotes “propitium facio,” “placo,” as we observed before, “to appease” and “atone.” And this is that whereby the heathen generally expressed their endeavors to turn away the wrath of their gods, to appease them; and then they use it transitively, with an accusative case of the object; as Homer, Iliad. 1:386: —᾿ΕγὼπρῶτοςκιλόμηνΘεὸςἰλάσκεσθαι· —“To propitiate” or “appease God.”And Iliad.l:443-445: — Φοίβῳθ᾿ἱερὴνἑκατόμβην῾ΡέξαιὑπὲρΔαναῶνὄφρ᾿ἑλασσώμεθ᾿ἅνακτα῞Οςνῦν᾿Αργείοιτιπολύστονακήδε᾿ἐφῆκεν· ?— “To offer a hecatomb unto Apollo for the Greeks, and appease him who hath sent on them so many sorrows,” or “atone him.”And when it hath the accusative case of the person joined with it, it can bear no other sense. So Plutarch, ῝Ιλασοθυσίαιςἥρωας: and Lucian, ῾ιλάσατοτὸνΘεόν, “to appease God.” Sometimes it is used with a dative case, as Plutarch in Public. ῾Ιλασόμενοςτῷᾃδῃ, and then it hath respect unto the sacrifice whereby atonement is made, and anger turned away; and is rendered “piaculare sacrum facere,” “to offer up a piacular sacrifice.” So that the word constantly hath regard unto the anger and wrath of some person, which is deprecated, turned away, appeased, by reconciliation made.(2dly.) The use of the word by the LXX. confirms it unto this sense. Commonly they render the Hebrew λָּ ?τַ ?ψ, by it; which when regarding God always signifies “atonement,” and “to atone.” So the noun, Psalms 49:8, “No man can redeem his brother, λָּ ?τְ ?ψεֹ μֹ ?ΰΰּ ?ιִ ?ϊֵּ ?ομֵ ?ΰμֹ ?δִ ?ιν, — “nor can he give to God his ransom,” or the price of his redemption, ἐξίλασμα. And unto the verb, where it respecteth the offense to be atoned for, they usually annex περί. Exodus 32:30, “You have sinned a great sin, and now I will go up unto the LORD, ΰεּ ?μַ ?ιΰֲ ?λַ ?τְ ?ψָ ?δαְּ ?ςַ ?γηַ ?θַּ ?ΰϊְ ?λֶ ?ν,” ἵναἐξιλάσωμαιπερίτῆςἀμαρτίαςὑμῶν, — “that I may atone for your sins.” And it is God who is the object of the act of appeasing or atoning:‘to make atonement with God for your sin.’ So Numbers 28:22; Numbers 28:30, Nehemiah 10:33. Once in the Old Testament it is used transitively, and sin placed as the object of it: Daniel 9:24, εּ ?μְ ?λַ ?τֵּ ?ψςָ ?εֹ ?ο, καὶτοῦἐξιλάσασθαιἀδικίας “to atone sin,” or “unrighteousness;” that is, ἐξιλάσασθαιτὸνΘεὸνπερὶτῆςἀδικίας, — “to make atonement with God for sin.” And so also they express the person with περί for whom the atonement is made: ᾿Εξιλάσασθαιπερίαὐτοῦ, αὐτῶνψυχῆςαὐτοῦ, Exodus 30:15-16, Leviticus 1:4; Leviticus 4:20; Leviticus 4:26, Numbers 15:25-26. And still God is respected as he who is offended and is to be reconciled; as it is expressed, Leviticus 10:17, καὶἐξιλάσησθεπερίαὐτῶνἔναντιΚυρίου, — “shall make atonement for them before the LORD.” And sometimes they add that wherewith the atonement is made namely, offerings or sacrifices of one sort or another, Leviticus 8:17. And they well give us the sense of the word in another place: Proverbs 16:14, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death, ἀνὴρδὲσοφὸςἐξιλάσεταιαὐτόν,” — “a wise man shall appease him;” referring that to the king which the original doth to his wrath, ιְ ?λַ ?τְ ?ψֶ ?πָּ ?δ, “shall turn away,” that is, by appeasing him. In the use of this word, then, there is always understood, —[1st.] An offense, crime, guilt, or debt, to be taken away; [2dly.] A person offended, to be pacified, atoned, reconciled; [3dly.] A person offending, to be pardoned, accepted; [4thly.] A sacrifice or other means of making the atonement. Sometimes one is expressed, sometimes another, but the use of the word hath respect unto them all. And in vain doth Crellius pretend, ad. Grot. ad. cap. 7 p. 360, that ἰλάσκεσθαίτινα and ἰλάσκεσθαι, are the same, and denote the same thing, the former always denoting the person offended, the latter the person offending, or the offense itself. The one is to atone or appease another, the other to make atonement for another; which surely are sufficiently different. (3dly.) The Jews, to whom Paul wrote knew that the principal work of the high priest was to make atonement with God for sin, whereof their expiation and freedom from it were a consequent; and therefore they understood this act and duty accordingly, it being the usual expression of it that the apostle applies unto it. They knew that the great work of their high priest was to make atonement for them, for their sins and transgressions, that they might not die, that the punishment threatened in the law might not come upon them, as is fully declared, Leviticus 16:10; Leviticus 16:21. And the apostle now instructs them in the substance of what they had before attended unto in types and shadows. Nor is there any mention in the Scripture of the expiation of sin but by atonement, nor doth this word ever in any place signify the real cleansing of sin inherent from the sinner; so that the latter sense proposed hath no consistency with it. The difficulty pretended from the construction is not of any moment. The sense and constant use of the word being what we bare evinced, there must be an ellipsis supposed, and ἰλάσκεσθαιτὰςἀμαρτίας is the same in sense with ἰλάσκεσθαιτὸνΘεὸνπερὶτῶνἀμαρτιῶν, — “to make reconciliation with God for sins;” as the same phrase is in other places explained.6. There is a further double enforcement of the necessity of what was before affirmed, concerning his being “made like unto his brethren in all things,” with reference unto his priesthood; and the first is taken from what he did or suffered in that condition, the other from the benefits and advantages which ensued thereon; — the first in these words, “For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted.” ᾿Ενω῏ψάρ, “for in that.” That is, say some, “in the same nature,” he suffered in the flesh that he took, being tempted. But the words seem rather only an illation of what the apostle concludes or infers from that which he had before laid down: λּ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, “whereas,” “inasmuch,” “seeing that.” So both ἐφ᾿ᾧ and ἐνᾧ are often used, Romans 5:12.Now, it is here affirmed of Christ that πέπονθεπειρασθείς, “he suffered being tempted;” not, “it happened unto him to be tempted,” which we before rejected. The Vulgar Latin, and expositors following that translation, “He suffered and was tempted.” But the “and” inserted we have showed to be superfluous; and it is acknowledged to be so by Erasmus, Estius, a Lapide, though Tena with some others contend for the retaining of it. It is not the suffering of Christ in general that is here intended, nor is the end mentioned of it that of his suffering in general, which was to make reconciliation; but the succoring and relieving of them that are tempted, which regards the sufferings that befell him in his temptations. It is not his sufferings absolutely considered, nor his being tempted, that is peculiarly designed, but his suffering in his temptation, as was before observed. To know, then, what were these sufferings, we must inquire what were his temptations, and how he was affected with them.To “tempt,” and “temptations,” are things in themselves of an indifferent nature, and have no moral evil in them absolutely considered. Whatever attends them of that kind proceeds either from the intention of the tempter or the condition of them that are tempted. Hence God is said to tempt men, but not to induce them unto sin, Genesis 22:1, James 1:13. What of evil ensues on temptation is from the tempted themselves. Moreover, though temptation seems to be of an active importance, yet in itself it is merely for the most part neutral. Hence it compriseth any thing, state, or condition, whereby a man may be tried, exercised, or tempted. And this will give us light into the various temptations under which the Lord Christ suffered; for although they were all external, and by impressions from without, yet they were not confined unto the assaults of Satan, which are principally regarded under that name. Some of the heads of them we may briefly recount: — (1.) His state and condition in the world. He was poor, despised, persecuted, reproached, especially from the beginning unto the end of his public ministry. Herein lay one continued temptation; that is, a trial of his obedience by all manner of hardships. Hence he calls this whole time the time of his temptations, “Ye have continued with me in my temptations;” or in the work that he carried on in a constant course of temptation, arising from his outward state and condition. See James 1:2; 1 Peter 5:9. In this temptation he suffered hunger, poverty, weariness, sorrow, reproach, shame, contempt; wherewith his holy soul was deeply affected. And he underwent it cheerfully, because it was to be the condition of them whose preservation and salvation as their high priest he had undertaken, as we shall see. And his experience hereof is the spring of their comfort and safety. (2.) Whilst he was in this state and condition, innumerable particular temptations befell him, under all which he suffered: —[1. Temptations from his relations in the flesh, being disregarded and disbelieved by them, — which deeply affected his compassionate heart with sorrow; [2. From his followers, being forsaken by them upon his preaching the mysteries of the gospel; [3. From his chosen disciples, all of whom left him, one denied him, and one betrayed him; [4. From the anguish of his mother, when “a sword pierced through her soul” in his sufferings; [5. From his enemies of all sorts; — all which are at large related in the Gospel: from all which his sufferings were inexpressible. (3.) Satan had a principal hand in the temptations wherein he suffered. He set upon him in the entrance of his ministry, immediately in his own person, and followed him in the whole course of it by the instruments that he set on work. He had also a season, an hour of darkness, allowed unto him, when he was to try his utmost strength and policy against him; under which assault from him he suffered, as was foretold from the foundation of the world, the bruising of his heel, or the temporal ruin of all his concernments. (4.) God’s desertion of him was another temptation under which he suffered. As this was most mysterious, so his sufferings under it were his greatest perplexity, Psalms 22:1-2, Hebrews 5:7.These are some of the heads and springs of those various and innumerable temptations that the Lord Christ suffered in and under. Again; The blessed effect and consequent hereof is expressed in these words, “He is able to succor them that are tempted:” wherein we have, (1.) The description of them for whose sake the Lord Christ underwent this condition;(2.) The ability that accrued unto him thereby for their relief; and,(3.) The advantage that they are thereby made partakers of.(1.) They for whose sakes he underwent this condition, are those whom he reconciled unto God by his sacrifice as a high priest, but they are here described by an especial concernment of their obedience, which, producing all their sorrow and trouble, makes them stand in continual need of aid and assistance. They are οιπειραζόμενοι, “tempted ones.” Notwithstanding their reconciliation unto God by the death of Christ, they have a course of obedience prescribed unto them. In this course they meet with many difficulties, dangers, and sorrows, all proceeding from the temptations that they are exercised withal. Hence is this description of them, they are those who are tempted, and suffer greatly on that account. Others are little concerned in temptations. Outward, it may be, as unto danger, they have not many; and if they have, it is the trouble and not the temptation which they regard; — inward, as unto sin, they yield obedience unto; but the trouble from temptation is in the opposition made unto it. It is reconciled persons who emphatically are the tempted ones, especially as temptations are looked on as the cause of sufferings. They are the mark of Satan and the world, against which all their arrows and darts are directed, the subject whereon God himself exerciseth his trials. And besides all this, they maintain a continual warfare within them against temptations in the remainder of their own corruptions. So that with, in, and about them, are they conversant in the whole course of their lives. Moreover, unto this constant and perpetual conflict, there do befall them, in the holy, wise providence of God, certain seasons wherein temptations grow high, strong, impetuous, and are even ready to ruin them. As Christ had an hour of darkness to conflict withal, so have they also. Such was the condition of the believing Hebrews when Paul wrote this epistle unto them. What through persecution, wherein they endured “a great fight of afflictions,” and what through the seductions of false brethren, alluring them unto an apostasy unto Judaism and an acquiescency in Mosaical ceremonies, they were even ready to be utterly ruined. Unto them, therefore, and by them unto all others in the like condition, the apostle hath respect in his description of those whom the Lord Christ is ready to succor; they are tempted ones. This is the proper name of believers. As Satan, from what he doth, is called the tempter; so they, from what they endure, may be called the tempted ones. Their calling is to oppose temptations, and their lives a conflict with them. The high priest having suffered the like things with them, they have an assured ground of consolation in all their temptations and sufferings; which he confirms by what is added in the second place, namely, his ability to help them. (2.) Δύναται, “he is able.” Now, this ability is such as ariseth from that peculiar mercifulness which he is disposed unto from that experience which he had of suffering under temptation; — a moral power, not a natural. It is not δύναμιςἐνεργητική, an executive power, a power of working or operation, not a power of the hand, but δύναμιςσυμπαθητική, a power of heart and will, an ability in readiness of mind, that is here assigned unto Christ. It is this latter, and not the former, that was a consequent of his temptations and sufferings. A gracious, ready enlargedness of heart, and constant inclination unto the succor of them that are tempted, is the ability here designed; for as this power was originally and radically implanted in the human nature of Christ, by the communication of all habitual grace unto him, so its next inclination to exert itself in suitable effects, with a constant actual excitation thereunto, he had upon the account of his suffering in temptations: for, — [1. He had particular experience thereby of the weakness, sorrows, and miseries of human nature under the assaults of temptations; he tried it, felt it, and will never forget it. [2. His heart is hereby inclined to compassion, and acquainted with what it is that will afford relief. In his throne of eternal peace and glory, he sees his poor brethren laboring in that storm which with so much travail of soul himself passed through, and is intimately affected with their condition. Thus Moses stirs up the Israelites unto compassion unto strangers, from the experience they had themselves of the sorrows of their hearts: “Thou knowest the heart of a stranger.” And the Jews tell us that the ωθψιν, or officers that he set over the people in the wilderness, were of those elders who were so evilly entreated by the taskmasters in Egypt; that from their own sufferings they might know how to exercise tenderness over their brethren, now put under their rule. [3. This compassion moves and excites him unto their relief and succor. This is the proper effect of mercy and compassion. It sets power on work for the relief of them whose condition it is affected withal. So said she, “Non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco.” — Virg. AEn. 1:634.Being exercised with evils and troubles herself, she had thence learned to relieve the miserable so far as she was able. This is the ability ascribed unto our high priest, — compassion and mercy, arising from an experience of the sufferings and dangers of human nature under temptations, exciting his power for the relief of them that are tempted. (3.) Lastly, The advantage of the brethren from hence lies in the succor that he is thus able to afford unto them. This in general, as we have showed, consists in a speedy coming in with relief unto them, who being in distress, do cry out or call for it. There are three things that tempted believers do stand in need of, and which they cry out for: —[1. Strength to withstand their temptations, that they prevail not against them. [2. Consolation to support their spirits under them. [3. Seasonable deliverance from them. Unto these is the succor afforded by our high priest suited. And it is variously administered unto them; as, 1st. By his word or promises.2dly. By his Spirit; and that,(1st.) By communicating unto them supplies of grace or spiritual strength;(2dly.) Strong consolation;(3dly.) By rebuking their tempters and temptations.3dly. By his providence disposing of all things to their good and advantage in the issue. And what is more in the words will be manifested in the ensuing observations taken from them. I. The principal work of the Lord Christ as our high priest, and from which all other actings of his in that office do flow, was to make reconciliation or atonement for sin.This John declares, 1 John 2:1-2, “We have an advocate with the Father,..... and he is the propitiation for our sins.” What he doth for us in heaven as our advocate, depends on what he did on earth when he was a propitiation for our sins. This work was that which was principally regarded in the first promise, Genesis 3:15, namely, that which he was to do by his sufferings. To shadow out and represent this unto the church of old, were all the sacrifices of the law and the typical priesthood itself instituted. They all directed believers to look for and to believe the atonement that was to be made by him. And that this should be the foundation of all his other actings as a high priest, was necessary, —1. On the part of his elect, for whom he undertook that office. They were by nature “enemies” of God and “children of wrath.” Unless peace and reconciliation be made for them in the first place, they could neither have encouragement to go to him with their obedience, nor to accept any mercy from him or acceptation with him; for as enemies they could neither have any mind to serve him nor hope to please him. Here lie the first thoughts of all who have any design seriously to appear before God, or to have to do with him: ‘Wherewith shall we come before him? how shall we obtain reconciliation with him?’Until this inquiry be answered and satisfied, they find it in vain to address themselves unto any thing else, nor can obtain any ground of hope to receive any good thing from the hand of God. This order of things the apostle lays down, Romans 5:8-10. The first thing to be done for us, was to reconcile us to God whilst we were “sinners” and “enemies” This was done by the death, by the blood of Christ, when, as our high priest, he offered himself a sacrifice for us. This being performed, as we have abundant cause of and encouragement unto obedience, so also just ground to expect whatever else belongs unto our salvation, as he also argues, Romans 8. 2. It was so on his own part also. Had not this been first accomplished, he could not have undertaken any other act of his priestly office for us. What the Lord Christ doth in heaven on our behalf was prefigured by the entrance of the high priest into the holy place. Now this he could not do unless he had before offered his sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof he carried along with him into the presence of God. All his intercession for us, his watching for our good, as the merciful high priest over the house of God, is grounded upon the reconciliation and atonement which he made his intercession, indeed, being nothing but the blessed representation of the blood of the atonement. Besides, this was required of him in the first place, namely, that he should “make his soul an offering for sin,” and do that in the body prepared for him which all sacrifices and burnt-offerings of old could not effect or accomplish. And therefore hereon depended all the promises that were made unto him about the success of his mediation; so that without the performance of it he could not claim the accomplishment of them. 3. It was so on the part of God also; for herein principally had he designed to manifest his righteousness, grace, love, and wisdom, wherein he will be glorified: Romans 3:25, “He set him forth to be a propitiation, to declare his righteousness.” The righteousness of God was most eminently glorified in the reconciliation wrought by Christ, when he was a propitiation for us, or made atonement for us in his blood. And herein also “God commendeth his love toward us,” Romans 5:8; John 3:16; 1 John 4:9. And what greater demonstration of it could possibly be made, than to send his Son to die for us when we were enemies, that we might be reconciled unto him? All after-actings of God towards us, indeed, are full of love, but they are all streams from this fountain, or rivers from this ocean. And the apostle sums up all the grace of the gospel in this, that “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,” and that by this way of atonement,“making him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Corinthians 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21.And so also he declares that this was “the mystery of his will, wherein he abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence,” Ephesians 1:8-10. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ THE general nature of this whole epistle, as in the former part of our exposition was declared, is parenetical. And therefore the doctrines proposed and insisted on in it are constantly improved to press and enforce the exhortations intended; as such is the end and use of all principles in sciences that are practical, especially of that taught us in the Scripture, which is a wisdom and a knowledge of living unto God. Wherefore our apostle, having in the foregoing chapters manifested the excellency of Christ (who was the author of the gospel), both in his person and his work, and that both absolutely and comparatively with the angels, the most glorious ministers employed in the dispensation of the will of God unto the church of old, with some respect unto Joshua, the captain of the people, under whose conduct they entered into Canaan, — in the entrance of this chapter he acquaints the Hebrews to what end he insisted on these things, namely, that by the consideration of them they might be prevailed with unto constancy and perseverance in the faith and worship of God, by him declared and revealed. This is the design of his discourse in this chapter. But, as his manner is throughout this epistle, he hath no sooner intimated his intention in the first verse, but he adds a new enforcement to his exhortation, unto the end of the sixth verse. From thence again he proceedeth unto his general exhortation, with a supply of new reasons, arguments, and inferences, taken from the consideration or enforcement newly and occasionally insisted on. There are therefore three general parts of this chapter: — 1. An exhortation unto constancy and perseverance in the profession of the gospel. And therein are observable,(1.) The means of accomplishing the duty exhorted unto, Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 3:8-9; Hebrews 3:12-13; (2.) The nature of it, Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14;(3.) The things that are contrary unto it, Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 3:15; (4.) The benefits of it, Hebrews 3:14;(5.) The danger of its neglect, Hebrews 3:8-11; Hebrews 3:15-19.2. A new enforcement of the exhortation, taken from the fidelity of Christ in the discharge of the office committed unto him, Hebrews 3:2-6 : wherein occur,(1.) The reason itself, or the fidelity of Christ asserted;(2.) The manner of its proposal, by comparing him with and preferring him above Moses. And therein the apostle[1. Prevents an objection that might yet remain on the behalf of the Judaical church-state upon the account of Moses, the principal revealer of it; and [2. Lays down a concession of the faithfulness of Moses in his trust and employment; with [3. A comparison of him with the Lord Christ as to the dignity of his person and work; and [4. The evictions of his coming short of him therein. 3. Especial reasons relating unto his general argument, taken from express testimonies of Scripture, Hebrews 3:7-11, and the dealings of God towards others failing in the duty exhorted unto; which he pursues at large in the next chapter. The whole, therefore, of this chapter is a pathetical exhortation, pressed with many cogent reasons, unto constancy and perseverance in the faith and obedience of the gospel. Hebrews 3:1-2. — ῞Οθεν, ἀδελφοὶἅγιοι, κλήσεωςἐπουρανίουμέτοχοι, κατανοήσατετὸνἀπόστολονκαὶἀρχιερέατῆςὁμολογίαςἡμῶν, Χριστὸν᾿Ιησοῦν·πιστὸνὄντατῷποιήσαντιαὐτὸν, ὠςκαὶΜωυσῆςἐνὅλῳτῷοἴκῳαὐτοῦ.The Vulgar leaves out Χριστόν, “Christ;” all ancient copies and translations beside retain it.῝Οθεν, that is, “unde,” properly “from whence.” But these words are used as illatives; as “proinde,” “itaque,” “quamobrem,” “quocirca” “quare;” all which are made use of by translators in this place, — “wherefore.” Respect is had unto the preceding discourse, from whence the apostle infers his ensuing exhortation: ‘Seeing that things are thus, that the author of the gospel is such an one as hath been described.’ Κλήσεωςἐπουρανιου, “vocationis coelestis,” “of the heavenly calling.” Syr., ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ιָּ ?ΰγְּ ?ξֵ ?ο, “which is from heaven.” Some render it, “supra- coelestis,” “above the heavens;” as ἐπιχθόνια are things upon the earth, and so above it. And Plato, Apolog. Socrat., opposeth τὰὑπὸγήν, “things under the earth,” and τὰἐπουράνια, “things above the heavens.” And this word is almost peculiar unto our apostle, being used frequently by him in this and his other epistles, and but twice besides in the whole New Testament, Matthew 18:35; John 3:12. See 1 Corinthians 15:40; 1 Corinthians 15:48-49; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 6:12; Philippians 2:10, 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 6:4; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 9:23; Hebrews 11:16; Hebrews 12:22. And as he useth this word frequently, opposing it to ἐπίγαιος, so he expresseth the same thing in other words of the same signification: Philippians 3:14, ἥἄνωκλήσις, “the supernal calling;” that is, ἐπουράνοις. For οὐρανός, saith Aristotle, de Mund., is τοῦκόσμουτὸἄνω, Θεοῦοἰκητήριον, “that of the world which is above, the dwelling-place of God.” And as our apostle opposeth τὰἐπουράνια, “heavenly things,” so he doth also τὰἄνω, “things above,” absolutely, unto τὰἐπὶτῆςγῆς, “things that are on the earth,” Colossians 3:1-2. This phrase of speech is therefore the same, and peculiar unto our apostle. And both these expressions denote God, the author of this callings, who is ΰֵ ?μξִ ?ξָּ ?ςַ ?μ, Job 31:28, “God above ;” Θεὸςἐπὶπάντων, “God over all,” Ephesians 4:6; ἐπουράνοις, “heavenly,” Matthew 18:35.Μέτοχοι, “participes,” “partakers;” “consortes,” Beza. To the same purpose, Syr., γְּ ?ΰηְ ?χְ ?ψִ ?ιϊεּ ?ο, “who are called with an holy calling,” omitting the force of this word, intended to express their common interest in the same calling. The signification of this word was declared on Hebrews 2:14. The matter intended is fully expressed by the same apostle,Ephesians 4:4, ῞ΕνσῶμακαὶἕνΠνεῦμα, καθὼςκαὶἐκλήθητεἐνμιᾷἐλπίδιτῆςκλήσεωςὐμῶν, — “One body and one Spirit, even as ye were called in one hope of your calling;” that is, partakers of and companions in the same heavenly calling.Κατανοήσατε, “considerate,” “contemplamini,” — “consider,” “meditate on.” Κατανοέω is properly “animadverto,” — to set the mind diligently to mark and consider, so as to understand the thing considered; whence it is often rendered (as by Cicero) by “intelligo,” and “perspicio,” “to understand,” and “perceive.” See Romans 4:19, where it is denied of Abraham. “Consider diligently.” Τὸυἀπόστολον, “apostolum, “legatum,” — “the apostle,” “legate,” “ambassador.” Syr., ωְׁ ?μִ ?ιηָ ?δηָ ?πָ ?ΰ “hune apostolum,” “this apostle.” He is so only; he that was “sent of God,” namely, to the work of revealing him by the gospel. And by a periphrasis hereof he often describes himself, calling his Father τὸνὐποστείλαντα, “ him that sent him.” Ethiopic, “apostolum vestrum,” “your apostle.”Τῆςὀμολογίαςἡμῶν, “et pontificem,” “and the high priest,” or “chief priest;” Syr., λּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψֵ ?ΰψַ ?α, “prince of priests;” whereof we have spoken before, Hebrews 2:17. ῾ομολογία is properly a “joint agreement,” “consent,” or “concurrence” in the declaration of anything. It is used also in good authors for a “convention,” “covenant,” or “agreement.” Syr., γְּ ?ϊַ ?ιְ ?γִ ?ιηַ ?ο,” of our confession;” and so the Vulgar, “confessionis nostrae:” both with respect unto the Greek translation of the Old Testament, wherein ιָ ?ψָ ?δin Hiphil, signifying properly “to celebrate,’’“to praise,” to set forth praise by words, is constantly rendered ἐξομολογέω, “to confess.” Hence these words of our apostle, 2 Corinthians 9:13, ΔοξάζοντεςτὸνΘεὸνἐπὶτῇὑποταγῇτῆςὁμολογίαςὑμῶνεἰςτὸἐυαγγέλιοντοῦΧριστοῦ, are rendered by the Vulgar, “Deum glorificamus quod subjecti sitis confessioni evangelii;” — “We glorify God that you are subject to the confession of the gospel;” very imperfectly, and without any clear sense. “The subjection of your profession” is a Hebraism for “professed subjection,” as ours well render the words. ῾Ομολογέω is but once used in the New Testament for to “confess,” 1 John 1:9, any otherwise than as to confess is coincident in signification with to profess or make profession. And this hath obtained in common use; whence the doctrines that men profess, or make profession of, being declared, are called their confession, or the confession of their faith. So our apostle calls it τῆνκαλὴνὁμολογίαν, “that good confession,” 1 Timothy 6:12-13; and absolutely τὴνὁμολογίαν, “profession,” Hebrews 4:14 of this epistle; and τὴνὁμολογίαντῆςἐλπίδοςγίαν, Hebrews 10:23, “the profession of hope.” And it is to be observed that this word also is peculiar unto our apostle, and by him frequently used. It is public or joint profession. Some copies of the Vulgar read “vestra,” “your” profession, but without countenance from ancient copies or translations. Τῶποιήσαντιαὐτόν, “facienti ipsum,” “ei qui fecit ipsum,” — “to him that made him.” Some Socinians from these words would prove that Christ is a mere creature, because God is said to make him. But it is not of the essence or nature of Christ that the apostle treateth, as Schlichtingius himself acknowledgeth, but of his office and work. See Acts 2:36, ΚύριονκαὶΧριοτὸναὐτὸνὁΘεὸςἐποίησε, — “God hath made him both Lord and Christ;” the same with ἔθηκε, Hebrews 1:2, — he hath “made,” “appointed,” “designed,” “exalted” him. So in the Hebrew, ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ, “fecit,” “he made,” is used and applied 1 Samuel 12:6, ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψςָ ?ωָׂ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ξωֶׁ ?δεְ ?ΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ΰַ ?δֲ ?ψεֹ ?ο which the LXX. render, ὁποιήσαςτονΜωυσῆν, “who made Moses and Aaron;” that is, βָּ ?γַ ?μ or ψεֹ ?ξֵ ?ν, “raised up,” or “exalted,” or “appointed them,” — that is, to their office. For whom God raiseth up or exalteth, he doth it unto some work and service; and whom he appointeth unto any service, he doth therein exalt.῾ΩςκαὶΜωσῆςἐνοπγῳτῷοἴκῳαὐτοῦ, “Even as Moses in his whole house.” These words, “in his whole house,” may be referred unto the former expression concerning Christ, “Faithful to him that appointed him in his whole house, even as was Moses.” So the Arabic translation disposeth the words. Thus a comma is to be placed after Moses, or, “even as Moses,” is to be enclosed in a parenthesis. Or they may be referred unto Moses, and then they are to be rendered, as by ours, “as was Moses;” and then the sense is to be supplied by repeating πιστός “faithful:” “As Moses was faithful in his whole house.” But as to the matter itself, both are intended, and the same words are used of Moses elsewhere. Numbers 12:7. [1][1] . — Jesus is called ἀπόστολος, from the analogous relation in which he stands to the ξμΰκְ ιΰιas messenger of God to men; ἀρχιερεύς, from the analogy between him and λֹ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, as representative of men before God. — Ebrard. . — Τῆςὁμολ. Confession. — De Wette, Wahl, Craik, Conybeare and Howson, Ebrard. Covenant. — Titmann, Tholuck. Whom we have acknowledged.— Storr, Stuart. — ED. Hebrews 3:1-2. — Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider [diligently] the apostle and high priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful [being faithful] to him that appointed him [made him so], even as Moses in all his house [in his whole house.]The apostle in these two verses entereth upon the application of the doctrine which he had declared and confirmed in the two foregoing chapters. Herewithal, according to his constant method in this epistle, he maketh way for what he had further to deliver of the same nature and importance. The first word respects that which went before, “wherefore,” or, ‘seeing things are as I have manifested, — namely, that he of whom I speak unto you is so excellent and so highly exalted above all, and that whereas he was humbled for a season, it was unspeakably for the benefit and advantage of the church, — it cannot but be your duty to consider him; that is, both what he is in himself, and what he is unto us.’His design is to press upon them his general exhortation unto constancy and perseverance in the profession of the gospel; but he doth not express it in these verses, insisting only upon an intermediate duty, subservient unto that principally intended. Now, this is their diligent consideration of Jesus Christ, with what he had delivered concerning him, and what he was yet further to declare unto them. And this he urgeth as the only way whereby they might be prevailed on unto and assisted in the stability aimed at. This is the connection of his discourse and the intention of his inference; whence observe, that, — I. All the doctrines of the gospel, especially those concerning the person and offices of Christ, are to be improved unto practice in faith and obedience.This course our apostle insists on: having before laid down the doctrine of the person and offices of Christ, here he applies it unto their duty and establishment in the profession of the truth. These things are not revealed unto us only to be known, but to be practically used for the ends of their revelation. We are so to know Christ as to live to him in the strength of his grace, and unto the praise of his glory. “If ye know these things,” saith he, “happy are ye if ye do them,” John 13:17. It is our privilege to know them, a great privilege; but it is our blessedness to do them. When men content themselves with the notion of spiritual things, without endeavoring to express their power and efficacy in the practical conformity of their minds and souls unto them, it proves their ruin. That word which is preached unto us ought to dwell in us. See what it is to “learn Christ” in a due manner, Ephesians 4:20-24. There is a miserable profession, where some preach without application, and others hear without practice.To hear that we may learn, to learn that we may learn, is but part of our duty; indeed, in and for themselves no part of it. To hear and to learn are good, but not for themselves, for their own sake, but only for the practice of what we hear and learn. The apostle tells us of some who are “always learning, but are never able to come εἰςἐπίγνωσινἀληθείας,” 2 Timothy 3:7; that is, to a practical acknowledgment of it, so as to have an impression of its power and efficacy upon their souls. And such are some who are πάντοτεμανθάνοντες, — such as make it their business to hear and to learn, so that they scarcely do any thing else. Gospel truths are “medicina animae,” — physic for a sin-sick soul. Now, of what use is it to get a store of medicines and cordials, and never to take them? No more is it to collect, at any price or rate, sermons, doctrines, instructions, if we apply them not, that they may have their efficacy in us and proper work towards us. There is in some a dropsy of hearing; — the mere they hear, the more they desire. But they are only pleased with it at present, and swelled for the future, — are neither really refreshed nor strengthened. But every truth hath, as the Hebrews express it, φιγατιε, “meat in its mouth,” something for our own nourishment. We should look unto sermons as Elijah did to the ravens, that “brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening,” 1 Kings 17:6. They bring food with them for our souls, if we feed on it; if not, they are lost. When the Israelites gathered manna to eat, it was a precious food, “bread from heaven, angels’meat,” food heavenly and angelical, — that is, excellent and precious; but when they laid it up by them, “it bred worms and stank,” Exodus 16:20. When God scatters truths amongst men, if they gather them to eat, they are the bread of heaven, angels’food; but if they do it only to lay them by them, in their books, or in the notions of their mind, they will breed the worms of pride and hypocrisy, and make them an offensive savor unto God. When, therefore, any truth is proposed unto you, learn what is your concernment in it, and let it have its proper and perfect work upon your souls.Secondly, In the manner of his pressing his exhortation two things occur: — 1. His compellation of them, in these words, “Holy brethren.”2. His description of them by one property or privilege, “Partakers of the heavenly calling.”1. In the former, two things also are observable:(1.) The appellation itself which he makes use of, “Brethren.”(2.) The adjunct of that appellation, “Holy.”(1.) This term of relation, “brethren,” is variously used in the Scripture; sometimes naturally, and that most strictly, for children of the same father or mother, Genesis 42:13; or more largely for near kinsmen (and among the Hebrews the descendants of the same grandfather are almost constantly so called; whence is that expression of the brethren of our Lord Jesus Christ, who were descendants of his grandfather according to the flesh, Genesis 13:8; Genesis 24:27; Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31; John 2:12; John 7:3; John 7:5; John 7:10; Acts 1:14,): or, in analogy thereunto, for all the branches of one common stock, though a whole nation, yea, though of many nations. So all the Hebrews were brethren, Deuteronomy 15:12; and the Edomites are said to be their brethren, because of the stock of Abraham, Deuteronomy 23:7. And in this sense, in another place, our apostle calls all the Jews his brethren; that is, his kinsfolk in the flesh, Romans 9:3. Sometimes it is used civilly, and that,[1. On the mere account of cohabitation, Genesis 19:7;[2. Of combination in some society, as, 1st. For evil, Genesis 49:5; 2dly. For good, Ezra 3:2.And sometimes it expresseth a joint profession of the same religion; on which account the Jews called themselves brethren all the world over, Acts 28:21. Lastly, It is also an expression of spiritual cognation, founded on that of our Savior, “All ye are brethren..... and one is your Father, which is in heaven,” Matthew 23:8-9. And herein is an allusion to the first, proper signification of the word. That men be brethren, properly and strictly, it is required that they have one father, be of one family, and be equally interested in the privileges and advantages thereof. This is the nearest bond of alliance that is or can be between equals, the firmest foundation of love. And thus it is with those who are brethren spiritually, as will afterwards appear.Now, though the apostle stood in the relation intimated with the Hebrews upon a natural account, yet he here calls them brethren principally in the last sense, as spiritually interested in the same family of God with himself; although I am apt to think that in the use of this expression to the Jews the apostle had respect also unto that brotherhood which they had among themselves before in their ancient church-state. So Peter, writing to some of them, tells them that the same afflictions which they suffered would befall τῇἐνκόσμῳὑμῶνἀδελφότητι, “the whole brotherhood of them in the world,” 1 Peter 5:9; that is, all the believing Jews. And whereas they had a particular and especial mutual love to each other on that account, our apostle warns them that they should not think that that relation or love was to cease upon their conversion to Christ, Hebrews 3:1 : ῾Ηφιλαδελφίαμενέτω, — ‘Let that brotherly love continue which hath been amongst you.’ But principally I suppose he respects their new relation in Christ; which further appears from the adjunct of this compellation annexed, “holy.” (2.) “Holy.” This is the usual epithet wherewith our apostle adorns believers, Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1. And in many places he joins their calling with it, which here he subjoins unto it. And this is peculiar to Paul. What he means by ἅγιοι, “holy,” he declares, where he terms the same persons ἡγιασμένοι, “sanctified ones,” 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; John 17:19. He accounted them holy, not upon the account of an external separation, as of old all the people were holy, but also of internal, real sanctification and purity. This he judged the professing Hebrews to be interested in, as being “called by an holy calling.” And it may be, in the present use of this expression, he hath respect unto what he had before affirmed of believers, namely, their being ἀγιαζόμενοι, “sanctified,” or made holy by Christ, Hebrews 2:11; considering that from thence he infers their relation unto Christ as his brethren, Hebrews 2:12, and so becoming in him brethren to one another, even all of them ἀδελφότης, “a brotherhood,” or “fraternity,” 1 Peter 5:9. And by this compellation of “holy brethren” doth the apostle manifest his high regard of them or respect unto them, looking on them as persons sanctified by the Spirit and word of Christ, and a dear affection for them as his brethren. By this treatment also of them he gives a great evidence of his sincerity in dealing with them; for they might not fear that he would impose any thing on them whom he honored as holy, and loved as brethren. And hereby he smooths his way to his ensuing exhortation. 2. He describes them from their calling, Κλήσεωςἐπουρανίουμέτοχοι. This is usual with our apostle: “Called to be saints” — ‘‘Sanctified in Christ Jesus.” And this calling or vocation he first describes by its quality; it is “heavenly,” or “super-celestial;” or, as elsewhere, “the calling that is from above:” and then ascribes an interest unto them therein. And he calls it “heavenly,”(1.) From the fountain and principal cause of it; that is, God, even the Father, which is in heaven. As our election, so our calling is in an especial manner ascribed unto him, 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:15; 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 5:10; Philippians 3:14; Galatians 5:8 : for no man can come unto the Son, unless the Father draw him. Believers, indeed, are termed Κλήτοιτοῦ᾿ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ, Romans 1:6, — “The called of Jesus Christ;” that is, to him, not by him; or, by him as executing the counsel and dispensing the grace of the Father, 2 Corinthians 5:20.(2.) In respect of the means whereby this calling is wrought, which are spiritual and heavenly, namely, the word and Spirit, both from above, John 16:7-11 : for the word of the gospel is on many accounts heavenly, or from heaven; whence our apostle calls it “the voice of him that speaketh from heaven,” Hebrews 12:25. And Christ, who is the author of it, is called “The Lord from heaven,” 1 Corinthians 15:47; and that on this account, that he who was in heaven came down from heaven to reveal the gospel, John 3:13; John 6:38. And so also the Spirit is poured out from above, being given of Christ after he was ascended into heaven, Acts 2:33. (3.) Of the end also; which is to heaven and heavenly things, wherein lies the hope of our calling, Ephesians 1:18; Ephesians 4:4. So that effectual vocation from God above, in his grace and mercy by Jesus Christ, is here intended.Herein the apostle assigns a participation unto these Hebrews; they were “partakers” of it, had an interest in it, — together with himself were so called. And this he doth for several reasons: — (1.) That he might manifest wherein their great privilege consisted, and which, as such, they were to value. They were apt to boast of the privileges they enjoyed in their Judaism, John 8:33, Romans 2:17-18; which also were great, Romans 3:1-2; Romans 9:4-5 : but they were all of no esteem in comparison of what they had now obtained an interest in, by the grace of Jesus Christ, in their high, holy, and heavenly calling. This he manifests in the instance of himself, Philippians 3:4-9. The call of Abraham, which was the foundation of all their privileges in their Judaism, was but an earthly call, — on the earth and to the earth; but this is every way more excellent, being heavenly. (2.) To set forth the grace of God towards the Jews, and his own faith concerning them, that they were not all rejected of God, notwithstanding the hardness and obstinacy of the most of them, as Romans 11:2; Romans 11:4-5. And, on the other hand, he insinuates that they were not to make an enclosure of this privilege, like those wherewith of old they were intrusted. The Gentiles being fellow-heirs with them therein, they were “partakers” with others in this “heavenly calling;” as Ephesians 3:6.(3.) He declares his own communion with them in that great privilege, whereby they might understand his intimate concernment in their state and condition.(4.) He minds them of their duty from their privilege. Being partakers of this calling unto Christ, it must needs be their duty diligently to “consider” him; which he exhorts them unto. But we may make some observations on the words unfolded already.II. Dispensers of the gospel ought to use holy prudence in winning upon the minds and affections of those whom they are to instruct.So dealeth Paul with these Hebrews. He minds them here of their mutual relation; calls them brethren; ascribes unto them the privileges of holiness and participation of a heavenly calling; — all to assure them of his love, to remove their prejudices against him, and to win upon their affections. And, indeed, next unto our Lord Jesus Christ himself, he is the most signal pattern and example of holy wisdom, tenderness, companion, and zeal, unto all ministers of the gospel. The image of his spirit, expressed in his instructions given unto his two beloved sons, Timothy and Titus, sufficiently testify hereunto. Yea, so great was his wisdom and condescension in dealing with his hearers, that seducers and false apostles took occasion from thence to say, that being crafty he caught them with guile, 2 Corinthians 12:16. The words are an objection of his adversaries, not a concession of his. He shows how in all things he was tender towards them, and put them neither to charge nor trouble. Hereunto he supposeth a reply by the false apostles: ῎Εστωδὲ, ἐγὼοὐκατιβάρησαὑμᾶςἀλλ᾿ὑπάρχωνπανοῦργος, δόλῳὑμᾶςἔλαβον· — “Be it so, that I myself did not burden you, nor put you to charge, yet being every way crafty, I took you by deceit.” This is their reply unto his plea, and not any concession of his; for both the words, πανοῦργος and δόλος, are such as will admit no interpretation in a good sense, so that the apostle should ascribe them unto himself. But wherein did that craft and deceit consist which they would impute unto him? It was in this, that though he himself put them to no charge, he burdened them not, yet when he was gone, and had secured them unto himself, then he sent those to them which should receive enough for him and themselves. Unto this calumny the apostle replies, 2 Corinthians 12:17-18, showing the falseness of it. “Did I,” saith he, “make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?” This was that which was imputed unto him, which he rejects as false and calumnious. And he confirms what he says by an especial instance: “I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?” So that this reproach is every way false, and such as may be evicted so to be. And this is the true sense of this place. This was not his way. But this he always did, and on all occasions, — he testified unto them his great affection, his readiness to spend and to be spent for them, 2 Corinthians 12:14-15. His gentleness towards them, — cherishing them as a nurse cherisheth her children, 1 Thessalonians 2:7, or as a father his, 1 Thessalonians 2:11, — forewent that which in earthly things was due to him by the appointment of Christ, that he might no way burden them, 2 Corinthians 11:9-11, Acts 20:33-35; enduring all things for their sakes, 2 Timothy 2:10, — amongst which were many able to make the stoutest heart to tremble. His care, pains, travail, watchfulness, patience, love, compassion, zeal, who can declare or sufficiently admire! By these means he removed or rendered ineffectual the great peddle of forsaking Judaism, kept up a regard in his hearers against the insinuations of seducers and false apostles, raised their attention, prepared them every way for instruction, and won them over to Christ. Blessed Jesus! what cause have we to mourn when we consider the pride, covetousness, ambition, wrath, negligence, self-seeking, and contempt of thy flock, which are found amongst many of them who take upon themselves to be dispensers of thy word, whereby the souls of men are scandalized and filled with offenses against thy holy ways every day!III. Believers are all related one unto another in the nearest and strictest bond of an equal relation. They are all brethren, “holy brethren.”So the Holy Ghost calls them in truth; so the reproaching world calls them in scorn. They have “one Father,” Matthew 23:8-9; one elder Brother, Romans 8:29, who is “not ashamed to call them brethren,” Hebrews 2:11; and have “one Spirit, and are called in one hope of calling, Ephesians 4:4, — which being a Spirit of adoption, Romans 8:15, interesteth them all in the same family, Ephesians 3:14-15, whereby they become “joint-heirs with Christ,” Romans 8:17. The duties of unity, love, usefulness, and compassion, which depend on this relation, are more known than practiced, and ought to be continually pressed, Psalms 133:1; Hebrews 13:1. Of old, indeed, the Pagans spake proverbially of the Christians, “See how they love one another!” in a way of admiration. The contrary observation hath now prevailed, to the shame and stain of the profession of these latter days. What through dissensions and divisions amongst them who have any real interest in the privilege of sonship; what through an open, visible defect as to any relation unto God as a father, or unto the Lord Christ as an elder brother, in the most of them that are called Christians, — we have lost the thing intended, and the name is become a term of reproach. But when iniquity abounds, love will wax cold. In the meantime, it were well if those who are brethren indeed could live as brethren, and love as brethren, and agree as brethren. The motives unto it are great and many. That mentioned in the business of Abraham and Lot seems to me of weight: Genesis 13:7-8,“There was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land. And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be men that are brethren.”Abraham and Lot were brethren naturally, as near kinsfolk, for Abraham was Lot’s uncle; and spiritually, as the children of God. A difference happening between their herdmen, Abraham, as a wise man, fears lest it should proceed to some distance and variance between themselves. Thereupon he takes into consideration the state of things in the place where they were. “The Canaanite and the Perizzite,” saith he, “are in the land;” — ‘The land is full of profane men, enemies to us both, who would rejoice in our divisions, and take advantage to reproach the religion which we profess.’This prevailed with them to continue their mutual love, and should do so with others. But our condition is sad whilst that description which the Holy Ghost gives of men whilst uncalled, whilst unbelievers, is suited unto them who profess themselves to be Christians, See Titus 3:3. IV. All true and real professors of the gospel are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and made truly and really holy. So Paul here terms those Hebrews, exercising towards them the judgment of charity, declaring what they ought to be, and what they professed themselves to be, what he believed them to be, and what, if they were living members of Christ, really they were. It is true, some that profess holiness may not be really holy. But, first, If they do not so profess it as not to be convinced by any gospel means of the contrary, they are not to be esteemed professors at all, Acts 8:20-23; Philippians 3:18-19; 2 Timothy 3:5. Secondly, If that holiness which men profess in their lives be not real in their hearts, they have no right to the privileges that attend profession, John 3:5.V. No man comes unto a useful, saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in the gospel, but by virtue of an effectual heavenly calling.These Hebrews came to be “holy brethren,” children of God, united unto Christ, by their participation in a “heavenly calling.” We are “called out of darkness into his marvellous light,” 1 Peter 2:9; and this not only with the outward call of the word, — which many are made partakers of who never attain the saving knowledge of Christ, Matthew 20:16, — but with that effectual call, which, being granted in the pursuit of God’s purpose of election, Romans 8:28, is accompanied with the energetical, quickening power of the Holy Ghost, Ephesians 2:5, giving eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to obey the word, according unto the promise of the covenant, Jeremiah 31:33-34. And thus no man can come to Christ unless the Father draw him, John 6:44.VI. The effectual heavenly vocation of believers is their great privilege, wherein they have cause to rejoice, and which always ought to mind them of their duty unto Him that hath called them.For these two ends doth the apostle mind the Hebrews of their participation in the heavenly calling; — first, That they might consider the privilege they enjoyed by the gospel far above and beyond whatever they boasted of under the law; and, secondly, That he might stir them up unto the performance of their duty in faith and obedience, according as God requires of them who are called. And this calling will appear a signal privilege if we consider: — 1. The state from whence men are called, which is a state of death, Ephesians 2:1; and of darkness, Colossians 1:13, 1 Peter 2:9; and of enmity against God, Colossians 1:21, Ephesians 4:18, Romans 8:7; and of wrath, John 3:36, Ephesians 2:3. It is a state of all that misery which the nature of man is capable of or obnoxious unto in this world or to eternity. Or, 2. By whom they are called, even by God above, or in heaven, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:9, Romans 8:28, 1 Peter 1:15; Philippians 3:14, Galatians 5:8. And,3. From whence or what inducement it is that he calls them; which is from his own mere love and undeserved grace, Titus 3:3-5. And,4. The discrimination of persons in this call. All are not thus called, but only those that are, in the eternal purpose of the love of God, designed to so great a mercy, Romans 8:28; Romans 8:31-32. And,5. The outward condition for the most part of them that are called, which is poor and contemptible in this world, 1 Corinthians 1:26-28, James 2:5. And, 6. The means of this calling, which are the holy Word and Holy Spirit, John 17:17, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:14. And,7. What men are called unto; which is to light, 1 Peter 2:9, Colossians 1:13; and to life, John 5:24-25; to holiness, Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:7; and unto liberty, Galatians 5:13; unto the peace of God, Colossians 3:15, 1 Corinthians 7:15; and unto his kingdom, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, Colossians 1:13; unto righteousness, Romans 8:30; and to mercy, Romans 9:23-24; and unto eternal glory, 1 Peter 5:10. Of all these benefits, with the privilege of the worship of God attending them, are believers made partakers by their heavenly calling. And this minds them of their whole duty ; —(1.) By the way of justice, representing it unto them as meet, equal, and righteous, 1 Peter 1:15;(2.) Of gratitude, or thankfulness for so great mercy, 1 John 3:1, 1 Peter 3:9;(3.) Of encouragement, etc. Proceed we again unto the exposition of the words.“Consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.” The words may be read either, “Consider Christ Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our profession,” and so the person, of Christ is placed as the immediate object of the consideration required, and the other words are added only as a description of him by his offices; or, “Consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,” and then the apostle and high priest of our profession are the proper objects of this consideration, and the name added doth but indigitate the individual person who was clothed with these offices. This is the immediate duty which the apostle here presseth them unto, namely, the consideration of that apostle and high priest of our profession, whose greatness, glory, excellency, and pre-eminence in all things he had declared. And herein the nature of the duty and the object of it are represented unto us. First, The nature of it, in the word “consider.” Some suppose that faith, trust, and confidence,, are intended or included in this word. But κατανοέω is nowhere used in any such sense, nor will the present design of the apostle admit of any such interpretation in this place; for the duty he exhorts unto is in order unto faith, and constancy therein. And this is no other but a diligent intension of mind, in their considerations, thoughts, meditations, and conceptions about Jesus Christ, that they may understand and perceive aright who and what he is, and what will follow upon his being such. And this rational consideration is of singular use unto the end proposed. And as he afterwards blames them for their remissness and backwardness in learning the doctrine of the gospel, Hebrews 5:11-14; so here he seems to intimate that they had not sufficiently weighed and pondered the nature and quality of the person of Christ, and his offices, and were thereupon kept in their entanglements unto Judaism. This, therefore, he now exhorts them unto, and that by fixing their minds unto a diligent, rational, spiritual consideration of what he had delivered, and was yet further to deliver concerning him and them. VII. The spiritual mysteries of the gospel, especially those which concern the person and offices of Christ, require deep, diligent, and attentive consideration.This is that which the Hebrews are here exhorted unto: Κατανοήσατε, “Consider attentively,” or “diligently.” This is assigned as one means of the conversion of Lydia, Acts 16:14. Προσέχει, — she attended diligently to the things spoken by Paul, as an effect of the grace of God in opening her heart, Careless, wayside hearers of the word get no profit by it, Matthew 13:19. Their nature and worth, with our own condition, call for this duty. 1. In their nature they are mysteries; that is, things deep, hidden, and full of divine wisdom: 1 Corinthians 2:7, ΣοφίαΘεοῦἐνμυστηρίῳ, — “The wisdom of God in a mystery;” such as the angels desire to bow down (not in a way of condescension, but of endeavor, ἐπιθυμοῦσιπαρακύψαι) and look into, 1 Peter 1:12. For in Christ, and through him in the gospel (εἰςἐπίγνωσιντοῦμυστηρίουτοῦΧριστοῦ, ἐνᾧ, “unto the acknowledgment of the mystery of Christ; in whom,” or “wherein”), “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” Colossians 2:2-3. And hence are we directed to cry after knowledge, to apply our hearts to understanding, to “seek her as silver, to search for her as hid treasures,” Proverbs 2:3-4; and not to consider these things as easily exposed to every wandering eye and lazy passenger. Such persons find not mines of silver or the hid treasures of former generations. Of this search the prophets and holy men of old are proposed for our example, 1 Peter 1:10-11. Unto this purpose they are said ἐρευνᾶν, to “investigate” or “diligently search” into the Scriptures; as we are commanded to do if we intend to attain eternal life, John 5:39. For the most part men content themselves with an overly consideration of these things. It is the πάρεργον of their lives, — what they do on the by, or when they have nothing else to do whereby they come to know no more of them than they must, as it were, whether they will or no, — which upon the matter is nothing at all. Carnal sloth is not the way to an acquaintance with spiritual things or mysteries. 2. The worth and importance of these things bespeaks the same duty. Things may be dark and mysterious, and yet not weighty and worthy, so that they will not defray the charge of diligent search after them. Solomon’s merchants would not have gone to Ophir had there not been gold there, as well as apes and peacocks. But all things are here secure. There are unsearchable treasures in these mysteries, Ephesians 3:8, πλοῦτοςἀνεξιχςίαστος, — riches not in this world to be searched out to perfection. No tongue can fully express them, no mind perfectly conceive them. Their root and spring lies in the divine nature, which is infinite, and therefore inexpressible and inexhaustible. There is in them μαργαρίτηςπολύτιμος, Matthew 13:46, “an exceeding precious pearl,” a pearl of great and invaluable price; — a stone which, though by some rejected, is yet esteemed of God “elect and precious;” and so also by them that believe, 1 Peter 2:6-7. “The merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold: it is more precious than rubies,” Proverbs 3:14-15. Whatever is of worth and value in the glory of God, and the everlasting good of the souls of sinners, is wrapped up in these mysteries. Now, every thing is (at least comparatively)despised that is not esteemed according unto its proper worth. So undoubtedly are these things by the most of them to whom they are preached.3. Our own condition calls for diligence in the discharge of this duty. We are for the most part, like these Hebrews, νωθροί, Hebrews 5:11, — “slothful,” or “dull in hearing.” We have a natural unreadiness unto that hearing whereby faith cometh, which is the consideration here called for; and therefore cannot sufficiently stir up our spirits and minds unto our duty herein. The manner of the most in attending unto the mysteries of the gospel should cause our sorrow here, as it will theirs (if not prevented) unto eternity. Secondly, The object of this consideration is Christ Jesus, who is the apostle and high priest of our profession. Together with the especial indigitation of the person intended by his name, “Christ Jesus,” we have the description of him as he is to be considered, by his offices, an “apostle,” and a “high priest;” with their limitation, “of our profession.” 1. He is said, and he is here only said, to be an “apostle,” or “the apostle.” An apostle is one sent, a legate, ambassador, or public messenger. And this is one of the characteristical notes of the Messiah. He is one sent of God upon his great errand unto the children of men, his apostle. Speaking of himself by his Spirit, Isaiah 48:16, he saith ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ιιַ ?δεָ ?δωְׁ ?μָ ?ηַ ?πִ ?ιεְ ?ψεּ ?ηεֹ — “The Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me;” and again, Isaiah 61:1, ιָ ?δָֹ ?εδΰּ ?ωְׁ ?μָ ?ηַ ?πִ ?ι, — “The LORD hath sent me,” namely, according unto the promise that God would send him unto the church to be a savior, Isaiah 19:20. And this he tells the church, that they may gather and know from his love and care, namely, that the Lord God had sent him, Zechariah 2:8-9, — that he was his legate, his apostle. And because God had promised from the foundation of the world thus to send him, this became a periphrasis or principal notation of him, “He whom God would send;” that is, his great legate. Hereunto Moses seems to have had respect in these words, Exodus 4:13, αְּ ?ιַ ?γΰּ ?ϊִּ ?ωְׁ ?μָ ?ηωְׁ ?μַ ?ηΰּ ?πָ ?ΰ; — “Send now, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send,” namely, ‘to be the deliverer and savior of thy people.’Hence in the old church he came to be called emphatically ὁἐρχόμενος, — “he that was to come,” “that was to be sent.” So when John sent his disciples to Jesus to inquire whether he was the Christ, he doth it in these words, Σὺεἰὁἐρχόμενος; — “Art thou he that was to come?” that is, to be sent of God, Matthew 11:3, John 11:27. And thence the ancient Latin translation renders “Shilo,” Genesis 49:10, “qui mittendus est,” “he that is to be sent,” — it may be deriving the word, by a mistake, from ωָׁ ?μַ ?η, “to send.” But it well expresseth the common notion of him in the church after the giving of the first promise, “He that was to be sent.” And in the Gospel he doth not himself more frequently make mention of any thing than of his being sent of God, or of being his apostle. “He whom God hath sent,” is his description of himself, John 3:34; and him he calls τὸνἀποστείλαντα, “him that sent him,” or made him his apostle, Matthew 10:40. And this is most frequently repeated in the Gospel by John, that we may know of what importance the consideration of it is: see John 3:17; John 3:34; John 4:34; John 5:23-24; John 5:30; John 5:36-38; John 6:29; John 6:38-40; John 6:44; John 6:57; John 7:16; John 7:28-29; John 8:16; John 8:18; John 8:29; John 8:42; John 9:4; John 10:36; John 11:42; John 13:20; John 12:44-45; John 12:49; John 14:24; John 16:5; John 17:3; John 17:18; John 17:21; John 17:23; John 17:25; John 20:21. Two things, then, are included in this expression or title: — (1.) The authority he had for his work. He came not of himself, but was sent of God, even the Father; and therefore spake in his name, and fed the church“in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God,” Micah 5:4.And as he became the apostle of the Father by his being sent of him, so by his sending of others in his name he made them his apostles, John 20:21. As the love, therefore, so the authority of the Father is much to be considered in this matter. (2.) His work itself, which is here included, and elsewhere largely declared. It was to reveal and declare the will of the Father unto the children of men, to declare the Father himself, John 1:18, and his name, John 17:6; John 17:26; that is, the mystery of his grace, covenant, and whole will concerning our obedience and salvation, Hebrews 1:1-2. For this end was he the apostle and ambassador of the Father, sent into the world by him, Malachi 3:1. In brief, the prophetical office of Christ, with respect unto his immediate authoritative mission by the Father, is intended in this title. And it is a title of honor as well as of office that is here given him. Hence the impious Mohammedans, when they would persuade or compel any one to their sect, require no more of him but that he acknowledge Mohammed to be “Resul Ellahi,” “The apostle of God.” In this sense, then, is the Lord Christ called “The apostle of our profession,” in that he was sent of God to declare his mind and will, in his name and with his authority, as ambassadors are wont to do in reference unto them that send them. But whereas our Lord Jesus Christ was in an especial manner, as to the time of his conversation in the flesh, and his personal revealing the will of God, sent unto the Jews, and therefore says, Matthew 15:24, that “he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” — that is, as unto his personal ministry on the earth; and our apostle affirms that he was “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” Romans 15:8; and being only in this place unto the Hebrews called an apostle, — I leave it unto consideration whether there may not be some especial respect unto his peculiar mission, in his person and ministry unto them, intended in his name and title, here only given him. 2. Hereunto is added the “high priest;” — both in one, as the kingdom and priesthood are also promised, Zechariah 6:13. Both the Hebrews and we are now to look for all in him.These offices of old were in several persons. Moses was the apostle, or ambassador of God, to declare his will and law unto the people; and Aaron was the high priest, to administer the holy things in the worship of God. This was the poverty of types, that no one could so much as represent the work between God and the church. I will not deny but that Moses was a priest in an extraordinary manner before the institution of the Aaronical priesthood; but his officiating in that office being but a temporary thing, which belonged not to the condition of the Judaical church, it was not considered by our apostle in his comparing of him with Christ. To manifest, therefore, unto the Hebrews how the Lord Christ hath the preeminence in all things, he instructs them that both the offices, that of an apostle, which of old was executed by Moses, and that of the high priesthood, committed unto Aaron, were vested in him alone, intending afterwards to evince how far he excelled them both, and how excellent were his offices in comparison of theirs, though they came under the same name. 3. The limitation adjoined is, “of our profession:” “The apostle and high priest of our profession.” The words may be taken objectively and passively, ‘The apostle and high priest whom we profess,’— that is, believe, declare, and own so to be; or they may actively denote ‘the author of our profession,’— ‘the apostle and high priest who hath revealed and declared the faith which we profess, the religion which we own, and therein exerciseth in his own person the office of the priesthood.’In this sense he is called “The author and finisher of our faith,” Hebrews 12:2. Our faith objectively, and our profession, are the same. Our profession is the faith and worship of God which we profess. This is our ὀμολογία, even the gospel, with the worship and obedience required therein. And the Lord Christ was and is the apostle of this profession, as he revealed the will of God unto us in the gospel, as he brought life and immortality to light thereby, teaching and instructing us in the whole will of God, as Moses did the Jews of old. He is also the high priest of this our profession, inasmuch as he himself offered the one and the only sacrifice which in our religion we own and profess, and continues alone to perform the whole office of a priest therein, as Aaron and his successors did in that of the Jews. It belonged not unto the office of the high priest to institute and appoint any thing in the worship of God, but only to execute his own duty in offering sacrifices and interceding for the people. So the Lord Christ, — who, as the apostle of our profession, instituted the whole worship of God to be observed therein, — as our high priest doth only offer the sacrifice of the church and intercede for the people. The word “our” is added by way of discrimination, and is regulated by the compellation and description foregoing: “Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, he is the apostle and high priest of our profession;” — ‘Whatever by others he be esteemed, he is so to us; and our inestimable privilege and honor it is that he is so.’ This is the present exhortation of the apostle. That which he finally aims at, is to prevail with these Hebrews to hold fast the beginning of their confidence unto the end. To this purpose he exhorts, warns, and chargeth them, by all the bonds of mutual love and endearedness, by the greatness of the privilege which they are made partakers of, and the inexpressibleness of their concernment therein, that they would fix themselves unto a diligent consideration of him in whom all those offices now in our profession, — which of old were shared amongst many, in a low, carnal administration of them, — are gloriously vested. And how useful this would be unto them, and wherein this consideration doth consist, shall afterwards be made to appear. For the present we shall make some observations on the passages of the text that have been opened. VIII. The business of God with sinners could be no way transacted but by the negotiation and embassy of the Son.He must become our apostle; that is, be sent unto us. He did, indeed, at sundry times send servants and messengers into the world about his affair with us; but whereas they could never accomplish it, “last of all he sent his Son,” Matthew 21:37; Hebrews 1:1-2. There was a threefold greatness in this matter, which none was fit to manage but the Son of God: — 1. A greatness of grace, love, and condescension. That the great and holy God should send to treat with sinners for the ends of his message, for peace and reconciliation, it is a thing that all the creation must admire, and that unto eternity. He is every way in himself holy, good, righteous, and blessed for evermore. He stood in no need of sinners, of their service, of their obedience, of their being. But he was justly provoked by them, by their apostasy and rebellion against him, and that unto an indignation beyond what can be expressed. His justice and law required their punishment and destruction; which as he could have inflicted unto his own eternal glory, so they did not in any thing, nor could by any means, seek to divert him from it. Yet in this condition God will send a message unto these poor, perishing rebels, an embassy to treat with them about peace and reconciliation. But this now is so great a thing, includes such infinite grace, love, and condescension in it, that sinners know not how to believe it. And, indeed, who is fit to testify it unto them? Objections that arise against it are able to shake the credit and reputation of any angel in heaven. Wherefore God commits this message unto his Son, his only Son, makes him his apostle, sends him with these tidings, that they may be believed and accepted: 1 John 5:20, ‘The Son of God came, and gave this understanding.’It is true that God sent others with some parts of this message before; for “he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning of the world,” Luke 1:70; but yet as the first promise was given out by the Son of God himself, as I have elsewhere declared, so all the messages of the prophets in or about this matter depended on the confirmation of them that he was afterward to give in his own person. So saith our apostle: Romans 15:8,“Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.” The truth of God in this matter delivered by the prophets was further to be attested by Jesus Christ, to whose testimony they referred themselves. And with respect hereunto he tells the Pharisees, that if he had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin. If the sealed book of prophecies concerning the judgment of God, in the Revelation, was of so great concernment that “no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth,” that is, no creature, “was able to open it, or look thereon,” Revelation 5:3, until the Lamb himself undertook it, Revelation 5:6-8, how much less was any creature meet or worthy to open the eternal secret counsels of the bosom of the Father, concerning the whole work of his love and grace, but the Son only! The grace of this message was too great for sinners to receive, without the immediate attestation of the Son of God. 2. There is a greatness in the work itself that is incumbent on the apostle of God, which required that the Son of God should be engaged therein; for, (1.) As the ambassador or apostle of the Father, he was perfectly to represent the person of the Father unto us. This an ambassador is to do; he bears and represents the person of him by whom he is sent. And no king can more dishonor himself than by sending a person in that employment who, by reason of any defect, shall be unmeet so to do. God had, as was said, sent other messengers unto the children of men; but they were all but envoys of heaven, “anteambulones,” — some that ran before as particular messengers, to give notice of the coming of this great apostle or ambassador of God. But themselves were not to represent his person, nor could so do. See Malachi 3:1. Indeed he once, in a particular business, made Moses his especial legate, to, represent him to Pharaoh; and therefore he says to him, μְ ?τָ ?ψְ ?ςֹ ?δπְ ?ϊַ ?ϊִּ ?ικָ ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, Exodus 7:1, — that is, “instead of God,” ‘one that may represent me in my terror and severity unto him:’but this was in one particular case and business. But who could fully represent the person of the Father unto sinners in this great matter? None, certainly, but he who is in himself “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” Hebrews 1:3; and so represents unto us the holiness, the goodness, the grace, the love of the Father, by whom he was sent. Hence he tells his disciples that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father, John 14:9; and that because he is so in the Father, and the Father in him, that he represents him fully unto us, John 14:10. He is “the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15; that is, the Father, who in his own person dwells in light, whereunto no creature can approach, hath exhibited and expressed the glorious properties of his nature unto us in the person of his Son, as our apostle expresseth it, 2 Corinthians 4:4. None, then, was fit to be this great apostle but he, for he only could fully represent the Father unto us. Any creature else undertaking this work would, or might, have led us into false notions and apprehensions of God. And the great wisdom of faith consists in teaching us to learn the Father, his nature and will, his holiness and grace, in the person of the Son incarnate, as his apostle and ambassador unto us; for beholding his glory, “the glory of the only-begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth,” we behold the glory of his Father also. So he and the Father are one.(2.) The greatness of the work requires that he who undertakes it be intimately acquainted with all the secret counsels of God that lay hid in his infinite wisdom and will from all eternity. None else could undertake to be God’s apostle in this matter. But who must this be? It is true that God was pleased to reveal sundry particular things, effects of his counsels, unto his servants the prophets; but yet it is concerning them that the Holy Ghost speaks, John 1:18,“No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”The best of them had but a partial acquaintance with God. Moses saw but a glimpse of his back parts in his passage before him; that is, had but a dark and obscure revelation of his mind and will, — sufficient for his work and employment. This will not suffice him who is to manage the whole treaty between God and sinners. Who, then, shall do it? “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” “In his bosom;” that is, not only in his especial love, but who is partaker of his most intimate and secret counsels. This the design of the place requires to be the meaning of it: for so it follows, “He hath declared him;” — ‘He hath revealed him; he hath made him known, in his nature, his name, his will, his grace; he hath exhibited him to be seen by faith: for he only is able so to do, as being in his bosom; that is, acquainted with his nature, and partaker of his most intimate counsels.’Without this none could in this matter be God’s apostle; for the work is such as wherein God will reveal and make known, not this or that portion of his will, but himself, and all the eternal counsels of his mind, about all that he will have to do with sinners in this world, and the whole glory which he aims at therein to eternity. This knowledge of God and his counsels no creature was capable of. The Son alone thus knows the Father and his mind. If it were otherwise, — if our apostle did not know the whole counsel of God in this matter, all that is in his heart and mind, — it is impossible but that in this great concern sinners would have been left under endless fears and doubts, lest some things might yet remain, and be reserved in the unsearchable abyss of the divine understanding and will, that might frustrate all their hopes and expectations. Their sin, and guilt, and worthlessness would still suggest such thoughts and fears unto them. But in this embassy of the Son there is full and plenary satisfaction tendered unto us that the whole counsel of God was originally known unto him; so that there is no ground of the least suspicion that there is any reserve in the counsels of God concerning us that he hath not made known. (3.) To this end also it was necessary that he should have these counsels of God always abiding with him, that at all times and on all occasions he might be able to declare the mind and will of God. It was not enough that originally, as he was God, he knew all the things of God, but also as he was sent, as he was the apostle of God, the counsel of God was constantly to abide with him. This is another thing; for the wisdom and knowledge of Christ as mediator, to be acted in the human nature, was distinct from his knowledge as he was in himself God over all, blessed for ever. And without this none could have been a meet apostle from God unto sinners; for how else should he reveal the will of God unto them according unto all emergencies and occasions? When the council of Trent was sitting, and any hard matter (indeed almost any thing) came to be determined amongst them, the leaders of them, not knowing what to do, always sent to Rome to the pope and his cardinals for their determination. When this came to them, they decreed it under the usual form, “It pleaseth the Holy Ghost, and us” Hence there grew a common by-word amongst the people, that the Holy Ghost came once a week from Rome to Trent in a portmanteau. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The apostle having made his entrance into the comparison designed by him between Christ and Moses, and showed in general wherein they were alike, and as to his purpose equal (which that those who are compared together should be in some things is necessary), he proceeds to evince the prelation of Christ and his exaltation above him in sundry signal instances, the mater principally aimed at: — Hebrews 3:3-6. — ΠλείονοςγὰρδόξηςοὗτονπαρὰΜωυσῆνἠξίωται, καθ᾿ὅσονπλείονατιμὴνἕχειτοῦοἴκουὁκατασκευάσαςαὐτόν·πᾶςγὰροι῏κοςκατασκευάζεταιὑπότινος, ὁδὲτὰπάντακατασκευάσας, Θεός. ΚαὶΜωυσῆςμὲνπιστὸςἐνὅλῳτῷοἴκῳαὐτοῦ, ὠςθεράπων, εἰςμαρτύριοντῶνλαληθησομένων, Χριστὸςδὲυἱὸςἐπὶτὸνοἱκοναὐτοῦ·οὗοἷκόςἐσμενἡμεῖς, ἐάπερτὴνπαῤῥησίαν, καὶτὸκαύχηματῆςἐλπίδοςμέχριτέλουςβεζαίανκατάσχωμεν.Πείονος. Vulg. Lat., “Amplioris enim gloriae iste prae Moyse dignus est habitus.” Retaining the case of the Greek substantive, the Latin is corrupt, Valla, Erasmus, and Vatablus observe. But, the sense is not obscured. The Syriac renders not ἠξίωται at all, but reads the words “For the glory” (or “honor”) “of this man is more” (or “greater”) “than that of Moses.”Erasmus and Beza supply “tanto” at the beginning of the verse, to answer καθ᾿ὅσον, which they translate “quanto,” in the next words; or they take that expression to answer “tanto,” “quanto.” Ours, “in quantum,” “inasmuch,” properly.Οὗτος, “iste,’ “this man.” A demonstrative pronoun, used sometimes in a way of contempt, as John 9:29, Τοῦτονοῦκοἰδαμενπόθενἐστίν, where we render it “This fellow,” as being spoken with contempt; but more frequently in a way of excellency, as, ΟὗτοςἐστινὁΔημοσθένης, — “This is that Demosthenes.” So Lucian, Δείξεισὲτῳδακτύλῳοὗτοςἐκεῖνοςλέγων· — “He shall point at thee, saying, This is that excellent person.” Which the poet expresseth, —“At pulchrum est digito monstrari et dicier, Hic est.” — Pers. Sat. 1:28. Mostly it is simply demonstrative and distinctive, as in this place: “This man of whom we speak,” or “person.” The words of comparison are doubled: ΠλείονοςπαρὰΜωυσῆν, for ἠΜωυσῆς, or τοῦΜωυσέως; or absolutely, ΔόξηςΠαρὰ. But the conjunction of παρά with an adjective comparative, as it is not unusual, so it is emphatical, and denotes the greatness of the prelation of Christ above Moses.᾿Ηξίωται, “dignus habitus est,” — “is” (or “was”) “counted worthy.” But the word signifies not only a bare being accounted worthy, but so as also to be possessed of that whereof one is so esteemed worthy. ᾿Αξιωθεὶςδωρῶν is not only “worthy of gifts,” or “ rewards,” but he that is “muneribus donatus qaibus dignus censetur;” that is, possessed of the rewards whereof he is worthy. So that ἀξιωθεὶςτιμῆς and δόξης, is he that hath that honor and glory whereof he is esteemed worthy. And therefore the Syriac leaves this out, namely,”esteem” or “accounting,” and expresseth that which is principally intended: “His glory was greater than that of Moses.”Πλείονατιμὴνἕχειτοῦοἴκου. Vulg. Lat,” Quanto ampliorem honorem habet domus, qui fabricavit illam.” Rendering the Greek construction by the same case, οἴκου by domus, not only is the speech barbarous, but the sense is also perverted; yet the Rhemists retain this ambiguity, “By so much as more ample glory than the house hath he that framed it.” But πλείονατιμὴνἔχειτοῦοἴκου, is “majorem,” or “ampliorem habet honorem quam ipsa domus;” — “ hath more honour than the house,” or “the house itself.”Δόξη, and τιμή “glory and honor,” are used by the apostle as ἰσοδυναμοῦντα, words of the same importance and signification; and so are they frequently used elsewhere in the Scripture.Τοῦοἵκου, “the house.” Many of the old translators render it “the temple,” because the temple of old was frequently called ηαַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ, “the house.” But the allusion of the apostle is general unto any house, and the building of it. And Moses was faithful ὡςθεράπων, “tanquam famulus;” Syr., ςαְ ?γΰ, “servus,” “a servant.’Θεράπων is properly and most usually one that doth “inservire sacris,” that attends upon and ministers about holy things, λειτουργός. So amongst the heathen, θεραπεύειντοὺςθεούς, and ἡπερὶτοὺςθεοὺςθεραπεία, — “the sacred service of the gods.” So Pollux Onomast. lib. 1, ᾿Ονόματατοὺςθεοὺς; θεραπευόντων·τῶνθεῶνθεραπευταὶἱερεῖς, νεωκόροι, the same with priests, sacred officers. The word is used in the New Testament only in this place; θεραπεία and θεραπεύω often, but always for being or curing the sick and infirm; which is another sense of the word. And in this sense it is derived from the Hebrew ψָ ?τָ ?ΰ“to heal;” whence is ψָ ?τָ ?ΰִ ?ινrendered sometimes “physicians,” sometimes “dead men.” Θεραπεύειν, when it is used elsewhere for “to serve,” is applied unto the service of a freeman, and is more honorable than δουλεύειν, although that also is translated into an honorable use in the gospel, from the object and lord or author of it: Δοῦλός᾿ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ, ἀφωρισμένος, Romans 1:1; — “A servant of Jesus Christ separated to the service of the gospel.”῾Οκατασκευάσας, “qui praeparat,” “prepareth,” “frameth it;” and, as respecting τὸνοἴκον, a house “built it.”“If we hold fast τὴνπαῤῥησίαν.” Vulg. Lat., “fiduciam,” “trust” or “confidence.” Syr., βּ ?μְ ?ιεּ ?ϊ, “the revelation,” or “opening of the face;” alluding to that of the apostle, 2 Corinthians 3:18, ᾿Ανακεκαλυμμένῳ, “With open face behold the glory of God:” an Hebraism for confidence. Beza, “loquendi libertatem,” “freedom” (or “boldness”) “of speaking unto God.” So παῤῥησιάζομαι is most frequently used to speak openly or boldly. And as παῤῥησία is joined here with καύχημα, “glorying,” or “boasting,” it may have that sense. And the rise of the word refers to speaking. It is from ῥῆσις, “dictio,” “a saying,” or “speaking,” from εἴρω, “dico;” and is as much as πανρησία, the speaking of all that is or ought to be spoken; “fandi libertas,” “a liberty of speaking,” and “boldness in speaking,” notwithstanding opposition and danger. So he in the poet: —“Dicam equidem, licet ille mihi mortemque minetur,” “He would speak truth, though it cost him his life.”And so παῤῥησίαν is to give liberty of speech. Boldness and confidence absolutely is θάῤῥος. Ours leave Beza (which they do seldom), and render this word “confidence.” It is used frequently in the New Testament; sometimes adverbially, for “boldly,” “openly,” “plainly,” especially by John in the Gospel; sometimes substantively, for “boldness,” or “confidence;” but constantly in an indifferent sense. Nowhere doth it denote any Christian grace, but only in this epistle of Paul and the first epistle of John. Καὶτὸκαύχηματῆςἐλπίδος. Vulg. Lat., “et gloriam spei,” “the glory of hope.” So the Rhemists. “Gloriationem spei,” “the glorying” (or “boasting”) “of hope,” Arias, Erasm., Vatab. Ours,”the rejoicing of hope,” wanting a word to render “gloriatio;” usual, [i. e., indifferent,] and not restrained to an ill sense. And καύχημα is sometimes used forἀγαλλίαμα. Beza, “Spem illam de qua gloriamur,” “that hope whereof we boast.” This word is peculiar to Paul, and not used in the New Testament but by him, and by him frequently; as are also καμχάομαι and καύχησις. And it is a word, as that foregoing, ἐκτῶνμέσων, of an inherent sense and acceptation, which may be applied either unto good or evil. Some καύχημα, or “boasting,” is not good, James 4:16; and there is a καύχημα which here and elsewhere our apostle commends, a rejoicing, or exultation in that which is good.Τῆςἐλπίδος. Syr., γְּ ?ρַ ?αְ ?ιֵ ?η, “of his hope;” that is, the hope we have in him. Ethiop., “If we hold fast our grace, and our rejoicing, and our hope.”Βεβαίανκατάσχωμεν, “firmam retinuerimus.” Βεβαίαν is properly referred to παῤῥσίαν, not agreeing with καύχημα in gender, nor with ἐλπίδος in case; which latter it may have yet respect unto, supposing a trajection in the words. Our translators have fitly rendered these words by “holding fast our hope firm;” for “firm” regards the thing held, and not our manner of holding. Beza supposeth it ought to be Βεβαίον, but unnecesarily (as such conjectures were the only fault of that great interpreter), for it refers principally to παῤῥησίαν. The Syriac expresseth it not.The rest of the words are plain and obvious. Only the Vulgar Latin stumbles oft in this verse; It renders ουοι῏κόςἐσμεν, “quae domus sumus nos,” as the Rhemists; “which house we are,” for “whose house are we.” The translator seems to have read ὅς, not ου: and so Beza affirms that he found it in one Greek copy.And again, “Christ as a son in domo sua,” “in his house;” that is ἔνοἴκωαὐτοῦ, for ἐπίτὸνοι῏κον, “over his own house.” The Rhemists retain “in his house,” corrupting the sense. Αὐτοῦ, not αὐτοῦ, “his own house,”’not “his house;” or, if the relative be retained, it refers unto Christ, — “I will,” saith he, “build my church,” — and not to God the Father. [2] [2] . — Lachmann and Tischendorf read ἐάν instead of ἐὰνπερ. The latter also omits entirely μέχριτέλους, and instead of οἵκου he gives οἷκοναὐτοῦ. The English translation of the words, “his own house,” is founded on the former reading; which is corroborated by the Vulgate, “in domo sua.” . — Ebrard finds a threefold difference between Christ and Moses: — the former filling the place of the κατασκευάσας, the latter that of a part of the familia; the former being Lord of the living house, the latter serving in a house which was for a testimony of a future revelation; the former being the Son, the latter a servant. — ED. Hebrews 3:3-6. — For this [man] was counted worthy of more glory [was more honorable] than Moses; inasmuch as he who hath builded the house [an house] hath more honor than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were [after] to be spoken. But Christ [was faithful] as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of [or glorying in] the hope firm unto the end. The apostle proceeds in these words with his design of evidencing the excellency and prelation of Christ above Moses, as he had done before in reference unto angels and all other revealers of the will of God unto the church, reserving an especial consideration for him who was of especial esteem with the Hebrews. Herewithal he expresseth the reason of his desire that they would seriously “consider” him, namely, in his person and offices. Two things in general are to be borne in mind for the right understanding of these words, and the meaning of the apostle in them: — First, That he is now dealing with the Hebrews in the last and greatest instance of the excellency of the gospel, taken from the consideration of his person by whom it was revealed; for here he prefers him above Moses, whose dignity was the last plea and pretense of the Hebrews for retaining their old church-state and customs. But no plea or pretense will prescribe unto the authority and honor of Jesus Christ.Secondly, That the subject he here treats of is not his utmost intention; but he useth it as an argument or medium to prevail with them unto constancy and perseverance, as the verses immediately ensuing do manifest.The connection of the discourse is denoted in the first word, “for,” a causal conjunction, which sometimes renders a reason of what hath been before spoken; sometimes directs unto an inference of what is afterwards to be introduced, as we have seen, Hebrews 2:10-11. In this place it is evident that the apostle doth not render a reason of what he had last affirmed, — namely, that Christ was faithful in all the house of God, as was Moses, — seeing he passeth directly unto a new argument for his general end and purpose, namely, the dignity of Christ above Moses; which he manifests by sundry instances. Neither doth this word respect the ensuing proof of the pre-eminence of Christ asserted, as if he had said, ‘He is worthy of more glory than Moses, because he that buildeth the house,’etc. But there is a retrospect in it unto the first verse, and a reason of it induced why it was so necessary for the Hebrews diligently to consider “the apostle of our profession,” namely, because of his glory, honor, and dignity, above that of Moses. ‘Consider him,’saith he, ‘for he is worthy of more glory than Moses;’which he demonstrates in these four verses, and then returns again unto his exhortation. This is the order of the discourse; and in it there is a proposition, and two arguments for its confirmation, which contain the subject-matter of it. The proposition laid down by the apostle in these verses is plain and evident; so also do the arguments whereby he confirms it seem to be. But the illustration that he makes of them, and the inferences he takes from them, are involved. Wherefore these things in general we shall endeavor to give some light into. The proposition is this, that “Christ was counted worthy of more glory than Moses” The first proof of this proposition lies in these words of Heb 2:3, “Inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house;” and this he further confirms or illustrates, Hebrews 2:4, “For every house is builded of some; but he that built all things is God;” the latter expressly in Hebrews 2:5-6, of which afterwards. As for the manner of arguing here used by the apostle, it is educed from the foregoing verses. In the comparison made between Christ and Moses, he allowed Moses to be faithful, proving it by the testimony of God himself, who had said he was “faithful in all his house.” The church or people of God being in that testimony called “The house of God,” and that by God himself, the apostle takes advantage of the metaphor to express the dignity of Christ in his relation to the church under that expression of “The house of God;” for not only the things themselves, but the manner of their expression in the Scripture, is of great importance, and much wisdom, much acquaintance with the mind of God, may be attained by a due consideration thereof. And a double relation unto this house doth he ascribe unto him, which are the principal relations that attend any house whatever. The first is of a builder, whence he takes his first argument, Hebrews 2:3-4; the other is of an owner, inhabiter, and possessor, whence he takes his second, Hebrews 2:5-6. And these are the principal respects of any house: without the first, it is not; and without the latter, it is of no use.In his first argument, Hebrews 2:3, the proposition only is expressed, the assumption is included, and the conclusion left unto an obvious inference; for plainly the apostle reasons syllogistically in this case. The proposition is this, “He that buildeth the house hath more honor than the house.” The assumption included is, “But Christ built the house, and Moses was only of the house, or a part of it: and therefore he had more glory than Moses.” That this assumption is included in the words is evident both from the necessity of it, to infer the purpose of the apostle, as also from his management of his second argument to the same end, Hebrews 2:5-6 : for therein the proposition is only supposed, as having been before, for the substance of it, expressed; and the assumption is plainly laid down, as containing the new medium which he insists upon. The proposition of the argument in these verses is, ‘A son over his own house is of more honor than a servant in the house of another.’This is only supposed. The assumption is expressed, “But Christ is a son over his own house; Moses was only a servant in another’s house:” whence the conclusion is plain and evident. As, then, the proposition in the latter argument is supposed, so is the assumption in the former. In the confirmation of the first argument the fourth verse is inserted, “For every house is builded of some; but he that built all things is God.” Some say these words are produced in the confirmation of the proposition of the first argument, “He that buildeth the house hath more honor than the house ;” and so, that it is God the Father who is intended in them. For to prove that he who buildeth the house is more honorable than the house, he instanceth in him who is the great builder or creator of all things, even God himself, who is infinitely more glorious than all things built by him; which holds in proportion to all other builders and their buildings. Others say that this is affirmed in confirmation of the minor proposition, namely, that “Christ built the house;” because it being a house, it must be built by some; and being such a house as it is, it could be built by none but him who is God. And these take the Son to be expressed by that name, “God.” And some there are who would not have any proof to be intended in these words, but a mere illustration of what was before spoken, by a comparison between Christ and his works about his house, and God and his house in the creation of all; which way the Socinians take. The true intendment of the apostle we hope to evince in the ensuing exposition. “For this [man] was counted worthy of more glory [was more honorable] than Moses.” Here lies the proposition that is proposed unto confirmation; wherein two things occur: 1. A supposition, — “that Moses was counted worthy of glory;”2. An assertion, — “that the Lord Christ was much more worthy of glory.”1. The apostle grants and supposeth that Moses was ἀξιωθείςδόξης, “counted worthy of glory;” or “truly glorious and honorable.” Glory is “excellentis virtutis fama cum laude,” — -”the illustrious fame of an excellency with praise.” And in this glory there are two things; — first, an excellency deserving honor; and, secondly, the fame and reputation of that excellency. Where both these concur, there is a person ἀξιωθείςδόξης, “worthy of glory,” and really honorable. So the glory of God himself consisteth in his essential excellencies, and their manifestation.For the first, with respect unto Moses, it consisteth principally in two things: — First, In the work wherein he was employed. The work itself was glorious, and rendered him so who was employed about it. So our apostle declares, 2 Corinthians 3:7, “The ministration of death, written, and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance.” It was glorious, and rendered him so; and one part of this ministration is called “the glory,” Romans 9:4. The giving of the law, the erection of the visible church-state in the posterity of Abraham, attended with all that glorious worship which was instituted therein, was a work of exceeding glory. In this work was Moses employed, and that in so high and honorable a manner as to be the sole mediator therein between God and the people, Galatians 3:19; as himself speaketh, Deuteronomy 5:5, “I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD.” This was his peculiar glory, that God singled him out from amongst all the posterity of Abraham to be thus employed.Secondly, In his fidelity in the discharge of his work and office. This is a singular excellency, which added unto the former dignity makes it complete. It is no glory for a man to be employed in a glorious work and to miscarry therein; it will rather end in his dishonor and reproach: as he in the fable, who would needs drive the chariot of the Sun, which ended in the breaking of his neck. Better never be employed in the work of God, than deal unfaithfully in it. But a glorious trust and great faithfulness therein render the condition of a man really excellent. So was it with Moses, as was declared in the preceding verses. However he might fail personally in his own faith as a believer, he failed not ministerially in his fidelity as the “internuncius” between God and his people; and every personal failing in faith doth not impeach a man’s ministerial fidelity, or faithfulness in his office. In these things was he excellent. It is a thing very glorious, to be faithful in an office committed to us of God. Secondly, He had the fame and reputation of these excellencies on a double account: —First, In the testimony that was given him by God himself as to his fidelity in the discharge of his trust. This God gave him during his life, as was showed, and sundry times after his death. This is the great foundation of all his renown. And what greater honor could be done unto any creature, than to be adorned with such an illustrious testimony by God himself? Greater honor never had any, but He alone with whom he is compared. And thus God gives grace and glory, — grace to be faithful, and glory upon men’s being so. Secondly, He had glory in that honor and esteem which was continued unto him in the church, until the Son himself came. Until that time, the whole church of God was precisely bound unto the observation of the laws and ordinances appointed by him; and thereon did all their happiness in this world and that to come depend. That was the condition of their temporal and eternal welfare. The neglect hereof exposed them unto all misery from God and man. This was the charge that God left on them throughout all their generations: “Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments,” Malachi 4:4.This made his name and remembrance honorable unto the church, and which the sinful abuse of turned afterwards to the snare, temptation, and disadvantage of the incredulous Jews; according to the prophetical imprecation of the psalmist, “Let their table become a snare before them, and that which should have been for their welfare become a trap,” Psalms 69:22 :which our apostle declares to have befallen them on their rejection of the gospel, through an obstinate adherence to the letter of the law of Moses, Romans 11:7-10. Yet we may observe, that in all the honor which God gave Moses in the church, he never commanded, he never allowed, that any should worship him or adore him, pray to him or make images of him. To give this honor unto saints, angels, or others, is men’s invention, not God’s institution. God knows how to give glory unto his servants without imparting unto them his own, the royalty of his crown: “his glory will he not give unto another,” This, then, was the glory of Moses; and if we shall add hereunto other concernments of him, they will make it the more conspicuous. Such were the care of God over him in his infancy, his miraculous call to his office, the honor he had in the world, the miracles which he wrought, and the signal testimony given him from God, in all the contests about his ministry; and many things of the like nature might be added. But it is the things which appertain unto his office and the discharge of it which are principally intended. This, therefore, the apostle grants, that he might not give the least suspicion unto the Hebrews that he would detract from the due praise and honor of Moses, as he was commonly traduced amongst them to do. See Acts 21:28; Acts 25:8. The unbelieving part of them, indeed, boasted of Moses, unto the contempt of the Lord Christ: John 9:29, “We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not whence he is.” And they generally thought the prevalency of the gospel was derogatory unto his honor and law, Acts 13:45; Acts 13:50. But these things moved not him to deal partially in the truth. He allows unto Moses his due honor and glow, and yet asserts the excellency of Christ above him, showing evidently the consistency of these things, as there neither is nor can be any opposition or contrariety between any ordinances or institutions of God. And we may hence observe, — I. Every one who is employed in the service of God in his house, and is faithful in the discharge of his work and trust therein, is worthy of honor: so was Moses.It becometh neither the greatness nor goodness of God that it should be otherwise. And he hath established it by an everlasting law. “Them that honor me,” saith he, “I will honor; and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed,” 1 Samuel 2:30. The honoring of God in the service of his house is that which, by this unalterable edict for its being honored, is ratified and confirmed. They who therein honor God shall be honored, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. They are honorable; for, —First, Their work is so. Reputation, glory, and honor, attend honorable works. This work is God’s. The church is “God’s husbandry, God’s building,” 1 Corinthians 3:9. They have a great work in hand, God’s work; and have a glorious συνεργός, or “associate,” even God himself. God so works by them as that also he works with them, and they are συνεργοὶΘεοῦ, — “laborers together with God.” They work also in the name and on the behalf of God, 2 Corinthians 5:20. Whatever glory and honor, then, can possibly redound unto any from the nature of the work wherein they are employed, it all belongs to them. Hence the apostle commands that we should “esteem such very highly in love for their work’s sake,” 1 Thessalonians 5:13. Their work makes them worthy of estimation, yea, of “double honor,” 1 Timothy 5:17. What that is in particular, it may be, is uncertain; but it is certain that not an ordinary honor, not a common respect or esteem, but that which is double, or abounding, is intended.Secondly, Honor is reflected upon them from him who goes before them in their work, and their especial relation unto him. This is Jesus Christ, the great builder of the church. Are they pastors or shepherds? — he is the ἐπίσκοποςτῶνψυχῶν, “the bishop of souls,” 1 Peter 2:25; and the ἀρχιποιμήν, “the chief” (or “prince”) of those shepherds, 1 Peter 5:4. And to be associated with Christ in his work, to share in office under him, will appear at length to have been honorable. The queen of Sheba counted them happy and blessed who were servants unto Solomon, and stood before him, 2 Chronicles 9:7; and what are they who stand before him who is infinitely greater and wiser than Solomon! The Lord help poor ministers to believe their relation unto the Lord Christ, and his engagement with them in their work, that they may be supported against those innumerable discouragements that they meet withal!Thirdly, The especial nature of their work and employment is another spring of honor unto them. It lies about things holy, spiritual, mysterious, and more excellent than all the things of this world. It is their work to discover and to bring forth to light “unsearchable riches,” Ephesians 3:8; to reveal and to declare “all the counsel of God,” Acts 20:27; to prepare and make ready the bride for the Lamb; to gather in God’s revenue of glory, etc.Fourthly, The effects of their work do also communicate honor unto them. They are such, they are all those things whereon depends all the glory of God in the concernments of the souls of men unto eternity. The ministry of the word is that alone whereby God ordinarily will treat with the souls of men, the means that he will make use of for their conviction, conversion, sanctification, and salvation. These things depend, therefore, on this work of theirs, and are effects of it. And in them will the glory of God be principally concerned unto eternity; in them will his goodness, righteousness, grace, mercy, patience, and all the other excellencies of his nature, shine forth in glory. All of them appear in his dealings with the souls of men by his word.Fifthly, Their especial honor will one day appear in their especial reward: Daniel 12:3, δξַּ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμִ ?ιν, “instructors,” “teachers,” they that make men wise, that give them understanding, “shall shine as the brightness of the firmament;” εּ ?ξַ ?φְ ?γּ ?ιχֵ ?ιδָ ?ψָ ?αִּ ?ιν, “and the justifiers of many,” those that make them righteous ministerially, by revealing unto them the knowledge and righteousness of Christ, whereby they are justified, Isaiah 53:11, “as the stars for ever and ever.” If they have not more glory than others, yet they shall have a distinct glory of their own; for when the prince of shepherds shall be manifested, he will give unto these his shepherds ἀμαράντινοντῆςδόξηςστέφανον, 1 Peter 5:4, — such a peculiar crown as great triumphant conquerors were wont to be crowned withal.Only it must be observed, that there is nothing of all this spoken merely with respect unto being employed one way or other, really or in pretense, in this house of God, but only unto a faithfulness in the discharge of the trust committed unto them who are so employed. Moses was worthy of honor, not because he was employed, but because he was “faithful” in his trust and employment. The twelve spies that were sent into Canaan, to search the land, were all equally commissionated and employed; but two of them only were esteemed worthy of honor, the rest died in their sin, as not faithfully discharging their trust, but bringing up an evil report on the land of promise, — as many do on the house of God, by one means or other, who are employed in the service of it. And these are so far from being worthy of honor, that they deserve nothing but reproach, contempt, and shame; for as God says in this matter, “He that honoreth me, I will honor;” so he adds, “and he that despiseth me shall be lightly esteemed.” Such persons are rejected of God from any acceptance in their office, Hosea 4:6; and as unsavory salt unto the house itself, are to be cast out on the dunghill, Matthew 5:13. They are servants whom, when their Lord comes, he will tear in pieces, and give them their portion with hypocrites, Matthew 24:50-51. Persons, therefore, who undertake to be builders in the house of God, who have received no skill or ability from the master- builder, or are negligent in their work, or corrupt it, or daub with untempered mortar, or are any way unfaithful, whatever double or treble advantage they may obtain from men in this world, they shall have nothing but shame and confusion of face from God in that which is to come.Let, then, those who are indeed faithful in this work be satisfied with the work itself. It will prove in the end to have been a good revenue, a blessed inheritance. Add but that reward which the Lord Christ brings with him unto the reward of honor that is in the work itself, and it will be abundantly satisfactory. We dishonor our master, and manifest that we understand not much of our work, when we are solicitous about any other recompence. And this also will serve to strengthen such persons in all the oppositions they meet withal, and all the discouragements they are encompassed with in the discharge of their duty. It is enough to give them a holy contempt and scorn of the worst that can befall them. And this also may teach others their duty towards them; which for the most part they are unwilling to hear, and more unwilling to practice. 2. Let us now return to consider what is positively affirmed in this assertion, with the proof of it. “This man,” ου῏τος, a demonstrative pronoun, denoting the person treated of. It is rendered “this man,” but it respects him not merely as man, but directs to his person, God and man, as he is expressly called God in the next verse, as we shall show.“Was counted worthy of more glory,” — much more glory. ΔόξηςπλείονοςπαρὰΜωυσῆν. See the explication of the words. Speaking of the ministry of Christ and of Moses, 2 Corinthians 3:10, he saith, “For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.” So doth the manner of the expression here used intimate the glory of Christ to be so far above the glory of Moses that in comparison thereof it might even seem to be “no glory.” “Accounted worthy,” — more honored, had more glory from God, and in the church was more glorious. And this glory, although it did attend the person of Christ, yet it is not that which is due unto him upon the account of his person (as afterwards shall be more fully declared), but that which belongs to him in his office, the office which he discharged towards the church (wherein alone he is to be compared with Moses, for in his person he was before exalted above all); which yet is such as none could discharge but he whose person was so excellent, as he declares, 2 Corinthians 3:4. This the apostle positively asserts, and then proceeds to the proof of it in the next words. His way of proof is, as I observed, syllogistical, wherein the proposition is expressed, “That he who builds a house is of more honor than the house built.” The assumption is supposed and included, “But Christ built the house; Moses was only a part of it.” The force of which argument will appear in our opening of the words. The glory of Christ intended the apostle sets forth under the metaphorical terms of a house, its building, and builder. The occasion of this metaphor he takes (as was said) from the foregoing testimony, wherein it is affirmed that “Moses was faithful in the house of God.” A house is either natural, — that is, a family or a household, the children of one parent, that is built by them (as αֵּ ?ο, “a son,” is from αַָּ ?πָ ?δ, “to build;” so Rth 4:11, “The LORD make the woman that is come into thy house like Rachel and like Leah, ωְׁ ?ϊֵּ ?ιδֶ ?νΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?αֵּ ?ιϊιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶ ?ψαָּ ?πεּ,” — “which two built” (“childed”) “the house of Israel”); or artificial, — a building by men for a habitation, as every such house is built by some. And in an allusion thereunto, there is a house that is moral and spiritual, or a mystical habitation, namely, for God himself. Such is the church of God said to be, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 2:20, 1 Peter 2:5; partly by a general allusion unto any house for habitation, partly with particular respect to the temple, that was called the “house of God” under the old testament. The metaphor used by the apostle in this place respects an artificial house, and the things spoken do primarily belong thereunto. The application that he makes is unto a spiritual house, — the house of God wherein he will dwell; and thereunto also do the things that are spoken properly appertain. Herein, then, lies the design and force of the apostle’s discourse; the church of God, with all the ordinances of worship in it, is a house, the house of God, as appears in the foregoing testimony. Now, as to honor and glory, this is the condition of a house, that he who builds it is much more honorable than the house itself. But this house of God was built by Jesus Christ, whereas Moses was only a part of the house itself, and so no way to be compared in honor and glory with him that built it. Both parts of this discourse are obnoxious to some difficulty, the removal whereof will further clear up the sense of the words and meaning of the Holy Ghost. First, then, ‘It doth not appear that the proposition laid down by the apostle is universally true in all cases, namely, that he who builds the house is always more honorable than the house, which yet is the foundation of the apostle’s inference in this verse; for Solomon built the temple, yet the temple was far more glorious than Solomon. I do not speak in respect of their essence and being, — for so an intellectual, rational creature is to be preferred above any artificial building whatever, — but in respect of their use in the church of God; and so the temple far excelled Solomon, its builder.’ I answer, This may so fall out where one builds a house by the authority of another, and for his use, so that it is not his own house when it is built. But when one builds a house by his own authority, for his own use, whereby it becomes his own house, and wholly at his own disposal, then he is always more honorable than the house itself. And so is it in this matter. Solomon indeed built the temple, but upon the command and authority of God; he built it as a servant; it was never his in possession, or for his use, to dwell in or dispose of. On all accounts it was another’s. It was the house of God, built by his command, for himself to dwell in. It is no wonder, then, if it were more honorable than Solomon. But things are quite otherwise in the building intended. Christ built his house by his own authority, for his own use, for himself to dwell in. And in such cases the proposition is universally true. And this appears so clearly from the nature of the thing itself that it needs no further confirmation. Secondly, ‘For the proof of the apostle’s intention, it is supposed in the assumption that Moses was not the builder of the house of God, but only a part of it; for without that supposition, the assertion of Christ’s being preferred above him as the builder is not confirmed. But the contrary hereunto seems to be true, namely, that Moses was a principal builder of the house of God, at least of the house under the old testament. Paul, upon the account of his preaching the gospel, fears not to term himself “a wise master-builder,” 1 Corinthians 3:10; and shall not at least the same honor be allowed unto Moses? for what was wanting to render him a builder? There were two principal parts of that house of God wherein his ministry was used ; — first, the place and seat of the worship of God, or the tabernacle, with all its glorious utensils and appurtenances; secondly, the ordinances and institutions of worship to be celebrated therein. Of these two that house of God seemed to consist; and they are often so called. And was not Moses the principal builder of both? For the tabernacle and the furniture of it, he received its pattern from God, and gave direction for its building unto the utmost pins, like a wise master-builder. And, secondly, for the ordinances and institutions of worship, they were wholly of his appointment. He received them, indeed, by revelation from God, and so God spake in him, as he did afterwards in the Son, Hebrews 1:1; but he prescribed them unto the church, on which account they are called “The law of Moses.” So that he seems not to have been a part of the house, but plainly the builder of it.Ans. To remove this difficulty, we must consider both what house it is that the apostle intends, and also what manner of building of it, in the application of his metaphor. First, For the house of God in this place, the apostle doth not intend by it the house of this or that particular age, under this or that form or administration of worship, but the house of God in all ages and places, from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof: for as this is evident from what he insists on in the next verse in confirmation hereof, namely, that “he that built all things is God, so it was not sufficient unto the purpose of the apostle to declare that Christ was a builder, and Moses the part of a house, unless he manifested he was so; that is, a part of the house that Christ built. Now, of this house Moses unquestionably was not the builder, but only a part of it, and employed in the ministry of it in one age or season alone. Secondly, The building of the house, as to the manner of it, is either ministerial or autocratorical. In the first way, every one who labors by God’s appointment, in the dispensation of the word or otherwise, for the edification of the church, is a builder, a ministerial builder; and those who are employed in that work in an especial and eminent manner, as the apostles were, may be said to be master-builders. And so was Moses in the house of God. But it is a building in the other way and manner that is intended by the apostle, a building with supreme power, and for the builder’s own use.Having cleared and vindicated the argument of the apostle in this third verse, our next work is to explain and confirm the severals of his assertion, partly expressed, and partly included therein. And they are these: — 1. That Christ built the church, or the house of God. 2. That he was worthy of glory and honor on that account, and had them accordingly. 3. That this his glory and honor was incomparably greater than that of Moses.1. Unto the building of the house of God, three things are required: —First, The giving out the design, platform, and pattern of it, in its laws, ordinances, and institutions, that it may answer the end whereunto it is designed. This is the ϊּ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊ, the τύπος or ἐκτύπωμα, the “effigiation” or “delineation” of the house.Secondly, The preparing and fitting of the materials of it, and the compacting of them together, that they may grow up unto a house, a holy temple, a habitation for God; and this is properly δαִּ ?πְ ?ιָ ?ο, or οἰκοδομή, the “building of the house.”Thirdly, The solemn entrance of the presence of God into it, for its appropriation, dedication, and sanctification unto God, ηֲ ?πֻ ?λָ ?δ. These three things concurred in both the old typical houses, the tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon. The first thing was, that the pattern was prepared and showed unto Moses in the mount: Exodus 25:8-9, “Make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make its” And Exodus 25:40, “Look that thou make them after the pattern, which thou wast caused to see in the mount.” God had caused Moses to see ϊּ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊ, “a similitude,” a “representation” of the house which he would have built, and also the things that belonged thereunto. This our apostle calls τύπος, Hebrews 8:5, “an express image” of it; which contained not only the material fabric, but also the laws, ordinances, and institutions of the worship of God belonging thereunto, for all these did God show and declare unto Moses in the mount, as is expressed in the story. Secondly, Upon this Moses prepared all the materials fit for that fabric by the free- will offerings of the people; and, by the skill of Bezaleel and Aholiab, compacted, fitted, and reared up a house, a tabernacle, or a sanctuary. See Exodus 35-40. Thirdly, The glorious presence of the Lord entered into the tabernacle so erected, and God dwelt there: Exodus 40:34,“Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.”God came, and in a wonderful manner took possession of this his house. So it was also in the preparation and building of the temple: — First, The pattern of it, of the whole fabric, and all the orders, ordinances, and worship of it, was given and showed unto David, who delivered it unto Solomon, his son. So he concludes the account that he gave of all the particular concernments of these things: 1 Chronicles 28:19,“All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.”Secondly, Solomon prepared materials in abundance, and by the skill of Hiram framed them into a house, and all the holy utensils of it, as is at large expressed in the story. Thirdly, The temple being erected, the glorious presence of God entered there-into, to appropriate, dedicate, and sanctify it unto God: 1 Kings 8:10-11, “And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD.”It is evident, then, that these three things are required to the building of the house of God, whereof these material fabrics were a type and representation. And all these were perfectly effected by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have said before, that it is not the house or church of this or that age, place, or generation, that is intended in this expression, but the church of God in all ages and places from first to last, I confess the principal instance of this work is in the church of the new testament, whose foundation in himself and erection on himself he did so expressly and particularly undertake. “On this rock,” saith he, “I will build my church,” Matthew 16:18; — the stable rock of faith in himself as the eternal Son of God, and as designed to the great work of God in glorifying himself among sinners. This work of building the house of God was always, from the beginning, performed by himself. The first thing required unto it may be considered two ways: —First, as to the delineation or forming of this house in his own eternal mind, as the Son and Wisdom of the Father. He was in the eternal counsels of the Father about the providing and framing of this habitation for himself. God from all eternity had laid the plot and design of this great fabric and all the concernments of it in the idea of his own mind. And there it was hid, even from all the angels in heaven, until its actual rearing, until the event, Ephesians 3:9-11. This design and purpose of his “he purposed in Christ Jesus;” — that is, this counsel of God, even of Father and Son, Proverbs 8:31-32, was to be accomplished in and by him. And this glorious pattern he had in his mind in all ages, and brought with him into the world when he came to put the last hand unto it. This answered the ϊַּ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊ or idea represented to Moses in the mount. He expressed this conception of his mind, when he gave out laws, rules, orders, ordinances, institutions of worship, the whole pattern of the house, as it was in divers manners and at sundry seasons to be erected. I have in the Prolegomena unto the first part of these discourses abundantly manifested that it was the Son who, from the foundation of the world, immediately in his own person transacted the affairs of God with men. Thither I refer the reader. He it was that walked in the garden when Adam had sinned, and gave the first promise unto him; which proved the foundation of the house of God in after ages. He it was that was with the people in the wilderness, which gave them their laws and statutes in Horeb, and so built autocratically the house of God. And for the church of the new testament, when he immediately and visibly transacted all the affairs of the kingdom of God, it is most apparent he spake with and instructed his disciples in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God, Acts 1:3, — that is, of the house. And as God commanded Moses that he should make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount, so Christ requires of his disciples that they should teach men to do and observe all things whatever he commanded, Matthew 28:20; which is therefore all that belongs unto the house of God.Secondly, The second thing required unto the building of this house is the providing of materials, and the framing and compacting of them into a house for God. Now this was a great work indeed, especially considering the condition of all those persons whereof this house was to be constituted. They were dead in trespasses and sins, and the house was to be a living house, 1 Peter 2:5. They were all enemies to God, strangers from him, and under his curse; and the house was to be made up of the friends of God, and such as he might delight to dwell with and among. They were dead stones, and the house was to be built of the children of Abraham. This, then, was a great and glorious work, and which none could perform but he that was unspeakably more honorable than Moses or all the sons of men. The particulars of this work are many and great; I shall briefly reduce them into four heads, such as were resembled and represented in the building of the tabernacle by Moses: — First, then, Moses gathered the materials of the tabernacle by a free-will offering from among the people: Exodus 35:4-5,“And Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD commanded, saying, Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD.” By this means, without force, or compulsion, or imposition, were the materials of the tabernacle brought in. And so also doth the Lord Christ provide for the building of the church. He doth not gather men by force or violence, or drive them together into the profession of the truth with the sword, as Mohammed and the Pope do to their idols; but he invites none, receives none, admits of none, but those that willingly offer themselves. Such as come unto him, and give up themselves to the Lord, and to the officers of his house, by the will of God, he admits, and no other, 2 Corinthians 8:5; Romans 12:1. And herein he puts forth the greatness of his power, in giving them this will of coming; for they have it not in nor of themselves, but he makes them “willing in the day of his power,” Psalms 110:3. And this work we could manifest to be great and glorious, might we insist on the particulars of it.Secondly, The materials of the tabernacle being freely offered, were wisely framed and compacted together, and fashioned into a sanctuary for a habitation of the Lord. This was the work of Bezaleel and Aholiab, by art, wisdom, and skill. But the fashioning of the real spiritual house of God by Christ in all ages is a thing full of mysterious wisdom and holiness. The apostle expresseth it in sundry places; we may touch on some of them: Ephesians 2:20-22,“Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”The living stones being brought together by their own willing offering themselves to the Lord, they are by him (as the tabernacle of old) fitly framed together into a holy temple or habitation for God. How this is done, as he says in general that it is by the Spirit, so he particularly declares, Ephesians 4:15-16,“Growing up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”And he expresseth it again to the same purpose, Colossians 2:19. There are various allusions in the words, both unto an artificial house and unto the natural body of a man. The sum is, that in Christ, the head of this body, the lord and builder of this house, there is resident a Spirit of life, which by him is communicated to every stone of the house, which gives it life, usefulness, union unto the head or lord of the body or house, as also order and beauty in reference unto the whole; that is, being all alike united unto Christ, and acted in their places and order by one Spirit, they become one house unto God. In brief, the compacting and uniting of the materials of this house is twofold; — first, physical and living; secondly, legal or moral. The former is, as was said, by the communication of the same Spirit of life unto them all which is in Christ their head, so that they are all animated and acted by the same Spirit. The latter is their regular disposition into beautifully-ordered societies, according to the rules and laws of the gospel. Thirdly, That the house so built and compacted might be a habitation unto God, it was necessary that an atonement should be made for it by sacrifice, and that it should be purified and sanctified with the blood thereof. This our apostle declares, Hebrews 9:19-21 :“For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.”This also was Christ to do in the building of his church, as the apostle in the same place declares. He was to make atonement for it by the sacrifice of himself, and to sprinkle it wholly with his own blood, that both an atonement might be made for it, and likewise that it might be cleansed, sanctified, and dedicated unto God; which part of his work in building his house the Scripture most largely insists upon. Fourthly, The tabernacle being erected, and sprinkled with blood, it was also with all its utensils to be anointed with the holy oil; and it was so accordingly, Exodus 40:9-10.“Thou shalt,” saith God, “take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy. And thou shalt anoint the altar of the burnt-offering, and all his vessels, and sanctify the altar: and it shall be an altar most holy.”That this unction was a type of the Holy Ghost is known; he is the “oil of gladness” wherewith Christ himself and all his were to be anointed. This, therefore, the Lord Christ in an especial manner takes care for in the building of his house, namely, to have it anointed by the Holy Ghost. This he promised unto them, John 16:7; and this he performeth accordingly, 1 John 2:27. This unction, with all the blessed and glorious effects of it, doth the Lord Christ grant unto this whole house of his. And these are the heads of some of the principal actings of Christ in the building of the house of God; all which are done by him effectually, and by him alone.Lastly, Unto the completing of this house for a habitation to the Lord, the glorious entrance of his presence into it was required. And this also is accomplished by him, according to his promise that he will be with us, among us, and dwell in us by his Spirit, unto the end of the world, Matthew 28:20, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:19-22.And so we have briefly demonstrated the first thing expressed in the words, namely, that Christ was the builder of the house, whereof Moses was a part and a member only. 2. The second thing asserted is, that the Lord Christ is worthy of all glory and honor, upon the account of his thus building his church, the house of God.This also is directly taught by the apostle, and included in the comparison that he makes of him with Moses, and his preference above him. He is worthy of much more glory and honor than Moses. What glory it is that the apostle intends we must first inquire; and then show both that he is worthy of it and also hath it; which things comprise what remains of the apostle’s intention in this first argument. First, The Lord Christ hath an essential glory, the same with that of the Father. This he had from eternity, antecedent unto his whole undertaking of building the house of God. He and his Father are ONE, John 10:30. Before his humiliation “he was in the form of God, and counted it not robbery to be equal with God,” Philippians 2:6, — equal in dignity and glory, because of the same nature with him, which is the fountain of all divine glory and honor. This is “the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;” which being clouded for a season, in his taking on him “the form of a servant,” Philippians 2:7, he desires the manifestation of again, upon the accomplishment of his work in this world, John 17:5, Romans 1:3-4. But this is not the glory intended; for the reason and cause of it is not his building the house of God, but his divine nature, from which it is absolutely inseparable. Had this house never been built, yet he would have been thus glorious to eternity.Secondly, There is in Christ the glory and honor of the human nature, as glorified after its obedience and suffering. This nature was rendered glorious by virtue of its union with the Son of God from his incarnation, as it is expressed by the angel, Luke 1:35 :“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”But it received an inconceivable addition of glory, when, being made spiritual and heavenly, and every way glorified beyond what the understanding of man can reach unto (for whereas “our vile bodies shall be made like unto his glorious body,” or we shall be made like unto him, “it doth not appear,” is not conceivable, “what we shall be,” 1 John 3:2), it was received triumphantly into heaven, Acts 1:9, there to continue “until the times of the restitution of all things,” Acts 3:21. Neither is this, as absolutely considered, the glory and honor here intended; for this glory is not merely that which he hath in himself, but that which is due to him from and given to him by the church.Thirdly, There is the honor and glory which he hath received in his exaltation as the head of the church. What this glory is, and wherein it doth consist, or what are the effects of his exaltation, have been at large declared on Acts 1:2-3, etc. See Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-22, Colossians 1:15-18. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ HAVING demonstrated the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above Moses in their respective ministries about the house of God, the apostle, according unto his design and method, proceeds unto the application of the truth he had evinced, in an exhortation unto stability and constancy in faith and obedience. And this he doth in a way that adds a double force to his inference and exhortation; — first, in that he presseth them with the words, testimonies, and examples recorded in the Old Testament, unto which they owned an especial reverence and subjection; and then the nature of the examples which he insists upon is such as supplies him with a new argument unto his purpose. Now this is taken from the dealing of God with them who were disobedient under the ministry and rule of Moses; which he further explains, Hebrews 3:15-19. For if God dealt in severity with them who were unbelieving and disobedient with respect unto him and his work who was but a servant in the house, they might easily understand what his dispensation towards them would be who should be so with respect unto the Son and his work, who is Lord over the whole house, and “whose house are we.” Hebrews 3:7-11.— Διὸ, καθὼςλέγειτὸπνεῦματὸἅγιον·Σήμερον, ἑὰντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούσητε, μὴσκληρύνητετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν, ὡςἐντῷπαραπικρασμῷ, κατὰτὴνἡμέραντοῦπειρασμοῦἐντῇἐρήμῳ, οὗἐπείρασάνμεοἱπατέρεςὑμῶν, ἐδοκίμασάνμε, καὶει῏δοντὰἔργαμου, τεσσαράκονταἕτη. Διὸπροσώχθισατῇγενεᾷἐκείνῃ, καὶει῏πον·᾿Αεὶπλανῶνταιτῇκαρδίᾳ·αὐτοὶδὲοὐκἔγνωσαντὰςὁδούςμου. ῾Ωςὤμοσαἐντῇὀργῇμου·Εἰεἱσελεύσονταιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου.There are some little varieties in some words and letters observed in some old manuscripts, but of no importance or use, and for the most part mere mistakes; as ἐνδοκίμασαν for ἐδοκίμασαν, ταύτῃ for ἐκείνη, ει῏πα for ει῏πον; as many such differences occur, where some have tampered to make the apostle’s words and the translation of the LXX. in all things to agree. Καθώς, “sicut;” the Syriac and Arabic translations omit this word. “Wherefore the Holy Ghost saith.” ῾Ωςἐντῷπαραπικρασμῷ. So the LXX. in the psalm, “sicut in exacerbatione,” “in irritatione,” — “in the provocation.” Syr., “ut ad iram eum provocetis tanquam exacerbatores,” both in the psalm and here also, departing both from the Hebrew text and the apostolical version, — “ that you stir him not up to anger as provokers.” Κατὰτὴνἡμέραντοῦπειρασμοῦ. So the LXX. in the psalm. Vulg., “secundum diem tentationis,” — “ according to the day of temptation;” that is, as those others, the fathers of the people, did in the day of temptation: so also in this place following the LXX. in the psalm, though not only the original but that version also might more properly be rendered, “sieur in die tentationis,” “as in the day of temptation.” Οὗἐπείρασαν. The translator of the Syriae version in the psalm, “qua tentarunt,” that is, “qua die;” referring it unto the time of the temptation, “the day wherein.” Here “quum,” “when,” to the same purpose. Neither was there any need of the variety of expression, the word used by that translator in both places being the same, referring unto time, not place, — the day of temptation, not the wilderness wherein it was. Vulg., “ubi,” properly “where;” as the Arabic, “in quo,” “in which,” — “desert,” the next antecedent. Ethiop, “Eo quod tentarunt eum patres vestri, tentarunt me,” — “Whereas your fathers tempted him, they tempted me.” For it was Christ who was tempted in the wilderness, 1 Corinthians 10:9.“Saw my works τεσσαράκονταἔτη,” — “forty years.” Here the apostle completes the sense; for although sundry editions of the New Testament, as one by Stephen, and one by Plantin, out of one especial copy, place the period at ἔργαμου, “my works,” yet the insertion of διό after τεσσαράκονταἔτη by the apostle, proves the sense by him there to be concluded. So is it likewise by the Syriac in the psalm, and by all translations in this place. However, the Ethiopic, omitting διό, seems to intend another sense. The LXX. and Vulgar Latin in the psalm follow the original; though some copies of the LXX. have been tampered withal, to bring them to conformity with the apostle here, as usually it hath fallen out. And there is no doubt but that the order of the words in the Syriac version on the psalm came from this place. Προσώχθισα, “offensus fui,” “incensus fui;” Arab., “exsecratus sum,” — “I cursed this generation.” ᾿Αεὶπλανῶνται. The original in the psalm, ςνζֶ ?δ, [3] “this people,” which in the psalm is followed by the Syriac; and, contrary to the apostle, the same expression is retained in that version on this place. The LXX. in the psalm have taken in these words of the apostle, and left out those of the original; wherein they are (as almost constantly in the Psalms) followed by the Vulgar Latin. [3] The Hebrew in the psalm is in reality ςνδֹּ ?ςֵ ?ι. — ED. Διό, “wherefore.” It expresseth an inference from what was spoken before, manifesting the ensuing exhortation to be deduced from thence. And it hath respect unto the exhortation itself which the apostle directly enters upon, 1 Corinthians 10:12, “Take heed, brethren,” — ‘Wherefore take heed, brethren.’There is therefore a hyperbaton in the discourse, the words that agree in sense being separated by an interposition of other things; and there is between them a digression to an example or argument for the better enforcement of the exhortation itself. ΚαθὼςλέγειτὸΠνεῦματὸἅγιον, “as the Holy Ghost saith;” or, ‘that I may use the words of the Holy Ghost.’There is an emphasis in the manner of the expression, — τὸΠνεῦματὸἅγιον, “that Holy Spirit;” so called κατ᾿ἐξοχήν, by way of eminency, the third person in the Trinity, who in an especial manner spake in the penmen of the Scripture. Those holy men of God spake ὑπὸΠνεύματοςἁγίουφερόμενοι, “moved,” “acted,” “inspired by the Holy Ghost,” 2 Peter 1:21.Καθὼςλέγει, “as he saith.” This may intend either his first immediate speaking in his inspiration of the psalmist, as it is expressed, Hebrews 4:7, ἐνΔαβὶδλέγων, “saying in David,” where these words are again repeated; or his continuing still to speak these words to us all in the Scripture. Being given out by inspiration from him, and his authority always accompanying them, he still speaketh them.The words reported by the apostle are taken from Psalms 95:7-11. He mentions not the especial place, as speaking unto them who either were, or whom he would have to be exercised in the word, 2 Timothy 3:15. Besides, though such particular citations of places may be needful for us, for a present help unto them that hear or read, it was not so to the holy penmen of the New Testament, whose writings are continually to be searched and meditated upon all our lives, John 5:39. Whereas ours are transient and for the present occasion, every thing in their writings (which makes us attentive and industrious in our search) is to our advantage. The leaving, therefore, of an uncertainty whence particular quotations are taken is useful to make us more sedulous in our inquiries. This psalm the apostle makes use of both in this chapter, and the next. In this, he manifests it to contain a useful and instructive example, in what happened unto the people of God of old. In the next, he shows that not only a moral example may be taken from what so fell out, but also that there was a type in the things mentioned in it (and that according unto God’s appointment) of our state and condition; and moreover, a prophecy of the gospel state of the church under the Messiah, and the blessed rest therein to be obtained. Here we have the consideration of it as historical and exemplary; in the next we shall treat of it as prophetical. The Jews had a tradition that this psalm belonged unto the Messiah. Hence the Targum renders these words of the first verse, μְ ?φεּ ?ψιִ ?ωְׁ ?ςֶ ?μεּ, “to the rock of our salvation,” χγνϊχιτιΰּ ?χπΰ, “before the mighty one of our redemption;” with respect unto the redemption to be wrought by the Messiah, whom they looked for as the Redeemer, Luke 24:21. Sover. 7, ιεξΰγιο, “in that day,” seems to refer unto the same season. And the ancient Jews do frequently apply these words, “To-day, if ye will hear his voice,” unto the Messiah. For from these words they have framed a principle, that if all Israel would repent but one day the Messiah would come, because it is said, “To-day, if ye will hear his voice.” So in the Talmud. Tract. Taanith., distinc. Mamarai Maskirin. And the same words they used in Midrash Shirhashirim, cap. 5: Hebrews 3:2. And this is no small witness against them as to the person of the Messiah; for he is God undoubtedly concerning whom the psalmist speaks, as is evident from Hebrews 3:2-7. He whose voice they are to hear, whom they acknowledge to be the Messiah, is “Jehovah, the great God,” Hebrews 3:3; “who made the sea, and formed the dry land,” Hebrews 3:5; “the LORD our maker,” Hebrews 3:6. And indeed this psalm, with those that follow unto the 104th, is evidently of those new songs which belong unto the kingdom of the Messiah. And this is among the Jews the ωִׁ ?ιψηָ ?γָ ?ωׁ, or principal “new song,” expressing that renovation of all things which under it they expect. The next psalm expresseth it: “Sing unto the LORD ωִׁ ?ιψηָ ?γָ ?ωׁ,” “a new song.” ςμδςϊιγּ ξζξεψζδ, saith Rashi, “This psalm is for the time to come;” that is, the days of the Messiah. Σήμερον, “hodie,” “today,” “this day.” A certain day or space of time is limited or determined, as the apostle speaks in the next chapter. And the psalm being in part, as was showed, prophetical, it must have a various application; for it both expresseth what was then done and spoken in the type, with regard to what was before as the foundation of all, and intimateth what should afterwards be accomplished in the time prefigured, in what the words have respect unto as past. The general foundation of all lies in this, that a certain limited present space of time is expressed in the words. This is the moral sense of them: — limited, because a day; present, because to-day. And this space may denote in general the continuance of men’s lives in this world. δָ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν; that is, saith Rashi, αςεμνδζδ, “in this world,” in this life: afterwards there will be neither time nor place for this duty. But yet the measure of such a day is not merely our continuance in a capacity to enjoy it, but the will of God to continue it. It is God’s day that is intended, and not ours, which we may outlive, and lose the benefit of it, as will afterwards appear. Again, the general sense of the word is limited to a special season, both then present when the words were spoken, and intimated in prophecy to come afterwards. For the present, or David’s time, that refers, saith Aben Ezra, to πִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?ιֶ ?ηαּ ?ΰֹ ?εּ, “come, let us fall down and worship,” Hebrews 3:6; as if he had said, ‘If you will hear his voice, come and worship before him this day.’And in this sense, it is probable that some especial feast of Moses’ institution, when the people assembled themselves unto the solemn worship of God, was intended. Many think that this psalm was peculiarly appointed to be sung at the feast of tabernacles. Neither is it unlikely, that feast being a great type and representation of the Son of God coming to pitch his tabernacle amongst us, John 1:14. Let this, then, pass for David’s typical day. But that a farther day is intended herein the apostle declares in the next chapter. Here the proper time and season of any duty, of the great duty exhorted unto, is firstly intended, as is evident from the application that the apostle makes of this instance, John 1:13, “Exhort one another daily, while it is called δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?νσήμερον, “to-day;” that is, whilst the season of the duty is continued unto you.’So was it also originally used by the psalmist, and applied unto the duties of the feast of tabernacles, or some other season of the performance of God’s solemn worship. ᾿Εάν, “si,” “if;” a mere conditional, as commonly used. But it is otherwise applied in the New Testament, as Matthew 8:19, “I will follow thee ὅπουἐὰνἀπέρχῃ,” — “ whithersoever thou goest.” And Matthew 12:36, “Every idle word ὅἐὰνλαλήσωσινοἱἄνθρωποι,” — “which men shall speak.” There is no condition or supposition included in these places, but the signification is indefinite, “whosoever,” “whatsoever,” “whensoever.” Such may be the sense of it in this place; which would, as some suppose, remove a difficulty which is cast on the text; for make it to be merely a conditional, and this and the following clause seem to be coincident, “If ye will hear,” that is, obey his voice, “harden not your hearts;” for to hear the voice of God, and the not hardening of our hearts, are the same. But there is no necessity, as we shall see, to betake ourselves unto this unusual sense of the word. Τῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούσητε, — “Ye will hear his voice:” αְּ ?χֹ ?μεֹ ϊִ ?ωְׁ ?ξָ ?ςεּ. Where-ever this construction of the words doth occur in the Hebrew, — that ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ς is joined with αְּ ?χεֹ ?μ, whether it be spoken of God in reference unto the voice of man, or of man in reference unto the voice of God, — the effectual doing and accomplishment of the thing spoken of is intended. So Numbers 14:22, “They have tempted me these ten times, εμְֹ ?ΰωָׁ ?ξְ ?ςεּ αְּ ?χεֹ ?μִ ?ι,” “and have not heard my voice;” that is, ‘have not yielded obedience to my command.’So of God with reference unto men: Joshua 10:14,” There was no day like that, before nor after it, αְּ ?χεֹ ?μΰִ ?ιωׁ μִ ?ωִׁ ?ξֹ ?ςַ ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ that the LORD should hearken to the voice of a man;” that is, effectually to do so great a thing as to cause the sun and moon to stand still in heaven. So between man and man, Deuteronomy 21:18-19. See Matthew 18:15-17. It is frequently observed, that to “hear,” to “hearken,” in the Scripture, signifies to “obey,” or to “yield obedience to the things heard;” as to “see” doth to “understand” or “believe,” and to “taste” denotes “spiritual experience;” words of outward sense being used to express the inward spiritual acts of the mind. Sometimes I say it is so, but this phrase is always so used. The Holy Ghost, therefore, herein lays down the duty which we owe to the word, to the voice of God, when we hear it in the way of his appointment, — that is, to yield sincere obedience unto it; and the hinderance thereof is expressed in the next words. Now, as this command is translated over into the gospel, as it is by our apostle in the next chapter, it hath respect unto the great precept of hearing and obeying the voice of Christ, as the great prophet of the church; given originally, Deuteronomy 18:19, “Whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name” (for the Father speaketh in the Son, Hebrews 1:1-2). “I will require it of him,” Acts 3:22-23; which was again solemnly renewed upon his actual exhibition: Matthew 17:5, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” See 2 Peter 1:17. And he is thereon, as we have seen, compared with Moses in his prophetical office, and preferred above him, John 1:17-18.ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδαְּ ?χֹ ?μεֹּ ?τῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦχεֹ ?μ, “the voice of the LORD,” is sometimes taken for his power, inasmuch as by his word, as an intimation and signification of the power which he puts forth therein, he created and disposeth of all things. See Psalms 29:3-5; Psalms 29:7-9, where the mighty works of God’s power and providence are assigned unto his voice. See also Micah 6:9. Sometimes it is used for the revelation of his will in his commands and promises. This is the λόγοςπροφορικός of God, the word of his will and pleasure. But it is withal certain that χεֹ ?μand φωνή are used principally, if not solely, for a sudden, transient voice or speaking. For the word of God as delivered in the Scripture is γָּ ?αָ ?ψand λόγος, sometimes ῥῆμα, not χεֹ ?μor φωνή. So the lifting up of the voice amongst men, is to make some sudden outcry; as, “They lifted up their voice and wept.” These words, then, do ordinarily signify a sudden, marvelous speaking of God from heaven, testifying unto anything. So doth φωνή, Mark 1:11, Καὶφωνὴἐγένετοἐκτῶνοὐρανῶν, — “And there was a voice from heaven.” So Matthew 17:5; Luke 3:22; John 12:28, ῏Ηλθενου῏νφανὴἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ, — “There came therefore a voice from heaven:” which when the multitude heard, they said βροντὴνγεγονέναι, thundered;” for thunder was called χεֹ ?μΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, “the voice of God.” So the χֹ ?μֹ ?ϊ, “the voices,” Exodus 19:16, that accompanied the αְ ?ιָ ?χִ ?ιν or “lightnings,” that is, the thunders that were at the giving of the law, are rendered by our apostle φωνὴῥημάτων, Hebrews 12:19; that is, the thunders from heaven which accompanied the words that were spoken. So is φωνή used Acts 10:13; Acts 10:15; Acts 26:14. Hence came the αϊχεμ, “Bath Kol” among the ancient Jews: or, as. in the Chaldee, χμΰαψϊ, Genesis 38:26. “There came filia vocis” (“the daughter of the voice”) “from heaven.” And so the Syriac version in this place: αψϊχμδϊωξςιοΰο, “if you will hear the daughter of the voice.” They called it so, as being an effect or product of the power of God, to cause his mind and will to be heard and understood by it. They thought it was not the voice of God himself immediately, but as it were the echo of it, — a secondary voice, the offspring of another. And whereas they acknowledge, that after the building of the second temple the ψεηπαεΰδ, or ψεηδχγεω, the “Spirit of prophecy and of inspiration,” ceased in their, church, they contend that revelations were made by the by the αϊχεμ, or immediate voice from heaven, though they can instance in none but those which concerned our Savior, which the apostles declared and made famous, 2 Peter 1:17. But it may be there is that in this tradition which they understand not. Elias in his Tishbi tells us, λοδεΰαςμιδχαμδΰεξψινωδεΰχεμωμξγδΰηϊδπχψΰϊχεμΰεμι, — “The Cabbalists say that it is the voice of a property in God which is called Kol; and it may be it is so.” They have no other way to express a person in the divine nature but by ξγδ, a special property. And one of these, they say, is called “Kol,” that is, “the Word,” the eternal Word or Son of God. His especial speaking is intended in this expression; which is true. So his speaking is called his “speaking from heaven,” Hebrews 12:25; although I deny not but that the immediate speaking of the Father in reference unto the Son is sometimes so expressed, Matthew 17:5, 2 Peter 1:17. But an especial, extraordinary word is usually so intended. So our Savior tells the Pharisees, that they had not heard φωνήν, the voice of God at any time, nor seen his ει῏δος, his shape, John 5:37. They had heard the voice of God in the reading and preaching of the word, but that was ὁλόγος, “his word.” His φωνήν they had not heard. Notwithstanding all their pretences and boasting’s, they had not at any time extraordinary revelations of God made unto them. For there is an allusion to the revelation of the will of God at Horeb, when his χιֹ ?μ, or φωνή, or “voice,” was heard, and his ξַ ?ΰְּ ?ΰֶ ?δ or εἷδος, his “shape,” appeared, or a miraculous appearance of his presence was made; both now being accomplished in himself in a more eminent manner, as the apostle declares, John 1:16-18. It is true the Lord Christ calls his ordinary preaching, as we say, “viva voce,” τὴνφωνήν, his “voice,” John 10:3; John 10:16; but this he doth because it was extraordinary, his person, work, and call being so. Wherefore the psalmist in these words, as to the historic and typical intendment of them, recalls the people unto the remembrance and consideration of God’s speaking unto them in the giving of the law at Horeb, and exhorts them unto obedience unto it formally upon that consideration, — namely, that the will of God was uttered unto them in a marvellous and extraordinary manner. And as to the prophetical intendment of it, he intimates another extraordinary revelation of it, to be made by the Messiah, the Son of God. Μὴσκληρύνητετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν, ΰμΰּ ?ϊַּ ?χְ ?ωׁ ?εּ μְ ?αַ ?αְ ?λֶ ?ν, — “Harden not your hearts.” This expression is sacred; it occurs not in other authors. To harden the heart, is a thing peculiarly regarding the obedience that God requireth of us. Σκληρότης, “hardness,” is indeed sometimes used in heathen writers for stubbornness of mind and manners. So Aristotle says of some that they are ὀνομαστότατοιἐπὶσκληρότητι, “famous for stubbornness.” Such as Homer describes Achilles to have been, who had περισκελεῖςφρένας, “a hard, stubborn, inflexible mind.” So is σκληροτράχηλος sometimes used, “duricervicus,” “hard-necked” or “stiff-necked,” “curvicervicum pecus,” “a crook-necked, perverse beast.” But “to harden,” is scarcely used unless it be in the New Testament and in the translation of the Old by the LXX. Three times it occurs in the New Testament,— Acts 19:9, Romans 9:18, and in this chapter; everywhere by Paul, so that it is a word peculiar unto him. Σκληρύνειντὴνκαρδίαν, therefore, “to harden the heart,” in a moral sense, is peculiar to holy writ; and it is ascribed both to God and man, but in different senses, as we shall see afterwards. By this word the apostle expresseth χָ ?ωָׁ ?δ out of the original; that is, “to be hard, heavy, and also difficult.” In Hiphil it is “to harden and make obdurate,” and is used only in a moral sense. The LXX. render it constantly by σκληρύνω, “induro;” or “gravo,” 1 Kings 12:4 : to “harden,” or to “burden.” Sometimes it is used absolutely: Job 9:4, δִ ?χְ ?ωָׁ ?δΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε, “hardened against him,” that is, himself; — “hardened himself against him.” Ofttimes it hath ςֹ ?ψֶ, the “neck,” added unto it: ξχְ ?ωֶׁ ?δςֹ ?ιֶ, Proverbs 29:1, that “stiffeneth,” or “hardeneth his neck;” as one that goes on resolvedly, as will not so much as turn aside or look back towards any one that calls him. Sometimes it hath ψεּ ?ηַ, the “spirit” joined to it: Deuteronomy 2:30, δִ ?χְ ?ωָׁ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ψεּ ?ηεֹ, “he hardened his spirit.” But most commonly it hath μֵ ?αָ ?α the “heart,” as here. And it still in man denotes a voluntary perverseness of mind, in not taking notice of, or not applying the soul unto the will of God as revealed, to do and observe it.῾Ωςἐντῷπαραπικρασμῷ, “as in the provocation;” λִּ ?ξְ ?ιִ ?ιαָ ?δ. The LXX. render this word, where it is first used, by λοιδόρησις, “convitium,” “a reproach,” Exodus 17:7; afterwards constantly by ἀντιλογία, “contradiction,” or contention by words, as Numbers 20:13; Numbers 27:14, Deuteronomy 33:8; and nowhere by παραπικρασμός, as in this place of the psalm. Hence some suppose it is evident that the present Greek translation is not the work or endeavor of the same persons, but a cento of many essays. I rather think that we have hence a new evidence of the insertion of the apostle’s words into that version; for, as I will not deny but that the writers of the New Testament might make use of that Greek version of the Old which was then extant, so that many words and expressions are taken from them, and inserted in that which we now enjoy, is too evident for any man of modesty or sobriety to deny. And this word, as here compounded, is scarce used in any other author. Πικρός is “bitter,” in opposition to γλυκὺς, “sweet,” “pleasant;” that is the proper, natural sense of the word. So also of πικρόω and πικραίνω, “to make bitter to the taste” or sense. But the metaphorical use of these words in a moral sense is frequent for “exacerbo,” “provoco.” The Hebrew λִּ ?ςֵ ?ρ, is “to stir up to anger,” “to vex,” “imbitter,” “provoke,” as 1 Samuel 1:6.So παραπικρασμός must be” exacerbatio,” “provocatio,” an imbittering, a provocation to anger by contention: ξְ ?ιִ ?ιαָ ?δ, which here is so rendered, is “jurgium,” a strife agitated in words. We render it “chiding.” The story which this principally refers unto is recorded, Exodus 17:1-7,“And they pitched in Rephidim: and there was no water for the people to drink. Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD? And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children, and our cattle, with thirst?And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me. And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?”Another story to the like purpose we have of what befell the people in the wilderness of Zin nearly forty years afterwards, when, in their murmuring for water, another reek was smitten to bring it forth, whereon it is added, “This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the LORD,” Numbers 20:13. is also said on the same occasion that they “chode with Moses,” Numbers 20:3.Κατὰτὴνἡμέραντοῦπειρασμοῦ, λְּ ?ιεֹ ?νξַ ?ρָ ?δ; — “as in the day of Massah,” or “temptation;” ξρָ ?δ, from πָ ?ρָ ?δ, “to tempt;” the other name given to the place before mentioned in Exodus: for thence it is that the apostle takes his example, where both the names are mentioned, and where the place is said to be called Massah and Meribah; whereas in that of Numbers it is only said, “This is the water of Meribah,” or strife. And yet it may be not without respect to the latter also. The first instance was at the beginning, the latter at the close of their provocations. As they began so they ended. This was a remarkable passage between God and that people; for, first, a double name is given to the place where it fell out: “He called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah,” Exodus 17:7. Meribah, which the apostle renders παραπικρασμός, seems principally or firstly to respect Moses as the object of it: Exodus 17:2, ειָ ?ψֶ ?αδָ ?ςָ ?νςִ ?νξωֶׁ ?δ, “and the people chode with Moses.” Thence had the place the name of Chiding, “Meribah,” from “jareb.” And God was the immediate object of their temptation. So in the text there is made a distribution of these things distinctly, whence these several names arose. “And Moses said unto the people, ξδΰּ ?ϊְּ ?ιִ ?ιαιּ ?οςִ ?ξָ ?γִ ?ιξַ ?δΰּ ?ϊְּ ?πַ ?ριοΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ιְ ?δָֹ ?ιδ, ” “Why do ye chide with me” (Meribah)? “and wherefore do ye tempt the Lord” (Massah)? For in the same things and words wherein they chode with Moses they tempted the Lord. And hence the same word, of chiding, striving, contending, or provoking, is used in this matter towards the Lord Numbers 20:13, ψָ ?αεּ ΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ, “they strove” (or “chode”) “with the LORD.”Secondly, This matter, as a thing exceedingly remarkable, is often called over and remembered again in the Scripture. Sometimes on the part of the people; and that,1. To reproach and burden them with their sins, as Deuteronomy 9:22, “And at Massah ye provoked the LORD to wrath;” and sometimes,2. To warn them of the like miscarriages, Deuteronomy 6:16, “Ye shall, not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.” So also in the 95th Psalm, from whence the apostle takes these words. Again, it is remembered as an instance of the faithfulness of Levi, who clave to God in those trials: Deuteronomy 33:8,“And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy Holy One, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah.”The mercy likewise that ensued in giving them waters from the rock is frequently celebrated, Deuteronomy 8:15, Psalms 78:15-16; Psalms 105:41, Nehemiah 9:15. Moreover, in this rock of Horeb lay hid a spiritual Rock, as our apostle tells us, 1 Corinthians 10:4, even Christ, the Son of God, who, being smitten with the rod of Moses, or the stroke and curse of the law administered by him, gave out waters of life freely to all that thirst and come unto him. In this matter, therefore, is comprehended a great instance of providence and a great mystery of grace. But yet notwithstanding all this, although the especial denomination of the sin of the people be taken from that instance of Exodus 17, yet the expressions are not to be confined or appropriated only thereunto. For the particular provocation on which God sware against them that they should not enter into his rest fell out afterwards, Numbers 14, as we shall see in our progress. But this is eminently referred unto, —1. Because it was upon the very entrance of that course of provoking which they constantly persisted in until they were consumed;2. Because of the signal and significant miracles and works which God wrought thereon. ᾿Ενἐρήμῳ, αּ ?ξִּ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψ; — “in the desert,” or “wilderness,” namely, of Midian, where-into that people entered upon their coming through the sea. In their way towards Horeb, their fourth station was at Rephidim, where the things fell out before recounted. So they received refreshment in a type, from the spiritual Rock, some days before the giving of the fiery law. Οὗἐπείρασάν, ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψπִ ?ρּ ?εּ ?πִ ?ιis referred both to time and place as well as persons. We render οὗ here, “when,” — “ when your fathers tempted me;” and so ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψin the psalm; referring what is spoken to the time mentioned, or the day of temptation. So the Syriac, “in which day.”The Vulg. Lat..,” ubi,” “where,” that is in the desert, at Meribah or Massah. And this is the proper signification of the word. Nor is either οὗ or ποῦ, the interrogative, ever used in any good authors to denote time, but place only. “Where,” that is αּ ?ξִּ ?γְ αָּ ?ψ, in the wilderness, where they tempted God and saw his works forty years. Οἱπατέρεςὑμῶν, ΰֲ ?αεֹ ?ϊֵ ?ιλֶ ?ν; — “your fathers,” or “forefathers;” πρόγονοι, “progenitors,” 2 Timothy 1:3. So is πατέρες often used, and ΰֲ ?αεֹ ?ϊ most frequently; although in one place ψΰִ ?ωֹׁ ?πִ ?ιν be added: ΰֲ ?αεֹ ?ϊָ ?νδָ ?ψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πִ ?ιν, Jeremiah 11:10; — the first springs and heads of any nation or family, — the whole congregation in the wilderness, whose posterity they were.᾿Εδοκίμασὰνμε, αְּ ?ηָ ?πεּ ?πִ ?ι; — “proved me.” This word is seldom used in an ill sense, as the former is almost continually. αָּ ?ηַ ?οis to have experience, upon search, investigation, and trial, Psalms 139:23. The experience, therefore, that they had of the power of God upon their temptations, is that which by this word is intended. ‘They “proved me” and found by trial that I was in the midst of them.’ Καὶει῏δοντὰἔργαμου, βּ ?νΰּ ?ψָ ?ΰεּ τָ ?ςֲ ?μִ ?ι; — “and saw my works.” “And saw my work,” in the psalm. βַּ ?νis rendered by καί. It signifies “also,” “moreover,” somewhat above a mere conjunction; and so doth καί, most frequently “quinetiam.” Some suppose it may be here taken for “etse” “etiam,” “although.” ‘They tempted me, and proved me, “although they saw my works.”’And so these words are placed as an aggravation of their sin in tempting of God, distrusting of him, after they had had such experience of his power and goodness, in those mighty works of his which they saw. But the order of things also seems to be intended. First they tempted God, — “They tempted me.” Then they had an experience of his power, — “They proved me;” and that by the production of his mighty works which they saw. For generally all the works of God in the wilderness, whether of mercy or judgment, were consequents of, or ensued upon the people’s tempting of him. Such was his bringing water out of the rock, and sending of quails and manna. The people murmured chode, strove, tempted; then the power of God was manifested and the works were wrought which they saw. were the judgments that he wrought and executed on Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; and on the spies that brought up an evil report on the land, with those that adhered unto them. This order and method of things is here expressed. They tempted God by their complaints, repinings, murmurings, seditions, unbelief, weariness of their condition, with impatient desires and wishings after other things. Hereupon they had frequent trials of the power, care, and faithfulness of God; as also of his holiness, and indignation against their sins. All these were made manifest in the mighty works of providence, in mercies and judgments which he wrought amongst them, and which they saw. They had them not by report or tradition, but saw them with their own eyes, which was a great aggravation of their unbelief. Jarchi refers this to the works of God in Egypt only; but this is contrary to our apostle, although they are not to be excluded: Numbers 14:22, “They have seen my glow, and my miracles” (my glorious works), “which I did in Egypt, and in the wilderness.”Τεσσαράκονταἔτη, — “forty years.” Here the apostle finisheth the sense of the words, referring them to what goes before: ‘They saw my works forty years.’The psalmist as was before observe, placeth these words in the beginning of the next verse, and makes them to respect the season of God’s indignation against them for their sins; ΰψְ ?αָּ ?ςִ ?ινωָׁ ?πָ ?δ, — “forty years was I grieved.” By the apostle, the space of time mentioned is applied unto the people’s seeing of works of God; by the psalmist, to God’s indication against them. And these things being absolutely commensurate in their duration, it is altogether indifferent to which of them the limitation of time specified is formally applied; and the apostle shows it to be indifferent, in that in the 17th verse of this chapter he plies the space of time unto God’s being grieved with them, as here unto the people’s sin: “With whom was he grieved forty years?’Only, it may be, the apostle made this distinction of the words to intimate, that the oath of God against the entering of that people into his rest was not made after the end of forty years, as the order of the words in the psalm seems to import: “Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they We not known my ways: unto whom I sware in my that they should not enter into my rest.” They seem to intimate, that God thus sware in his wrath after he had been grieved with them forty years. But they do but seem so: really they only declare that it was the same people with whom he was grieved concerning whom he sware; for the oath of God here intended is that mentioned, Numbers 14:20-23. The people falling into a high sedition and murmuring, upon the report of the spies that were sent to search the land, the Lord sware by himself that that whole generation should wander forty years in that wilderness, until they were all consume. Now, this was upon the next year after their coming up out of Egypt, and after which the forty years of their prorations and God’s indignation ensue. But these things, as to time, were of the same duration. The people came out of Egypt, and entered into the wilderness in the first month of the year. At the end of the fortieth year from their coming out of Egypt, the eleventh month of it, is issued the history of three of the books of Moses, — Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers. In the last month of that year Moses reviewed and repeated the whole law, the dealings of God, and sins of the people, as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy. About the end of that month, as is probable, he died, and was lamented thirty days, or all the first month of the forty-first year. After which, about three or four days, the people prepared to pass over Jordan, under the conduct of Jos 1:11. This was the space of time mentioned, containing as wonderful issues and successes of things as ever befell the church of God in the like space of time. Every year in the whole forty was full of instances of the people’s sins, provocations, temptations, and unbelief; and every year also was filled with tokens of God’s displeasure and indignation, until the close of the whole dispensation came, wherein that generation that came out of Egypt under Moses was consumed, and the indignation of God rested in their consumption. And it is not unlikely but that the apostle minds the Hebrews of this space of time granted unto their forefathers in the wilderness after their coming up out of Egypt, with their abuse of it, because an alike space of time was now, in the patience of God, allotted unto the whole church and people of the Jews, between the preaching of Christ and that wasting destruction that was to come upon them. And according to this type it fell out with them; for, as after their forefathers, who came up under Moses out of Egypt were consumed in forty years in the wilderness, a new church, a new generation, under the conduct of Joshua, entered into the rest of God; so within forty years after the preaching of spiritual deliverance unto them, which was rejected by them, that whole generation was cut off in the wrath of God, and a new church of Jews and Gentiles, under the conduct of the true Joshua, enters into the rest of God. Διὸπροσώχθισα, — “Wherefore I was grieved.” The apostle here alters the tenor of the discourse in the psalmist, by interposing a reference unto the cause of God’s being grieved with the people, in the word διό, “wherefore;” that is, because of their manifold temptations and provocations, not cured, not healed, although for so long a season they beheld his works. They continued in the same kind of sins on the account whereof God was first provoked, and sware against their entering into the land. For, as we have before observed, the oath of God passed against them at the beginning of the forty years; but they abiding obstinately in the same sins, the execution of that oath had respect unto all their provocations during the whole forty years. Προσώχθισα, “I was grieved.” This word is supposed peculiar unto the Hellenistical Jews, nor doth ,it occur in any other author, but only in the Greek version of the Old Testament. Nor is it used by the LXX. in any place to express χιθ, the word here used in the original, but they render it by κάμνω, ἐκτήκω, and κοπέω. In the New Testament it is only in this place, and thence transferred into the psalm. It is generally thought to be derived from ὄχθη or ὄχθος, “the bank of a river, a rising hill or ridge by the water’s side.” Thence is ὀχθέω, “to be offended,” to bear a thing difficultly, with tediousness and vexation, so as to rise up with indignation against it, like the ground that riseth against the waters. Προσοχθίζω is the same, with an addition of sense, “to be greatly grieved.” And this word, “to be grieved,” is ambiguous even in our language: for it either is as much as “dolore affici,” to be affected with sorrow and grief, or a being wearied, accompanied with indignation; as we say, such or such a thing is grievous, — that is, “grave,” “molestum,” or “troublesome.” And so is the word here used, “grieved,” that is burdened, and provoked, offended. So Jerome: “Displicuit mihi generatio ista,” “displeased me.” “Pertuli eam, sed non sine taedio,” — “I bare them, but not without wearisomeness.” Symmachus and Aquila render the original word by δυσαρεστέομαι,” to be displeased.”χεּ ?θΰָ ?χεθּ is a word often used, and of an ambiguous signification, — “to cut off,”.” to contend,” “to abominate,” (hence by the Arabic it is rendered “cursed them,”) to be “divided with trouble, offense, weariness, and grief.” It is commonly in the feminine gender, and joined with πτְ ?ωִׁ ?ι, “my soul,” or ηιָ ?ι, “my life.” This is the intendment of it: The appointed time of God’s patience was worn out with their continued provocations, so that he was wearied with them, and weary of them, — he could bear them no longer. The Vulgar Latin in some copies reads, “Proximus fui huic generationi,” — “I was near to this generation.” And so are the words still in some of the Roman offices. Some think that countenance is given hereto by the sense of the word προσώχθισα, which may signify “accedere” or “proximate ad ripam animo hostili,” — “ to draw near to a shore, a bank, with a hostile mind.” Now, it doth not denote only that particular provocation, when God in an especial manner entered his caveat against them that they should not enter into his rest, seeing not only the psalmist in this place, but also our apostle, Joshua 1:17, directly refers it to the frame of his mind towards them during the whole forty years. He was wearied by them, and grew weary of them.Τῇγενεᾷἐκείνῃ, “that generation;” αְּ ?γεֹ ?ψ, “in the generation,” — that is, “with that generation.” γּ ?εֹ ?ψis an age of man, or rather the men of one age: Ecclesiastes 1:4,” One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh,” — that is, the men of one age. See Deuteronomy 32:7. So is γενεή, as in Homer’s Iliad, 6:146: —Οἵηπερφύλλωνγενεή, τοιήδεκαὶἀνδρῶν.And when it is taken for “aetas” or “seculum,” it doth not primarily intend a duration of time, but the persons living in that time. Herodotus, in Euterpe, reckons thirty years to a γενεά, a “generation.” So doth Plutarch also in De Defect. Oraculorum. The generation here denotes no limited season, but com-priseth all the persons that came up out of Egypt above twenty years of age, who all died within the space of forty years afterwards.᾿Αεὶπλανῶνταιτῇκαρδίᾳ, “They always err in heart;” ϊֹּ ?ςֵ ?ιμֵ ?αָ ?αδֵ ?νςν,“They are a people erring in heart.” The words of the psalmist are somewhat changed by the apostle, but the sense is absolutely the same, for, taking the people to be sufficiently signified, he adds a word to denote the constant course of their provocations, — “ always,” on all occasions, in every trial. Not in any one condition did they give glory to God, neither in their straits nor in their deliverances, neither in their wants nor in their fullness, but continually tempted and provoked him with their murmurings and unbelief. ςνϊֹּ ?ςֵ ?ιμֵ ?αָ ?αδֵ ?ν, “Populus errantes corde,” or “errantium corde;” that is, “populus vecors,” — “ a foolish, unteachable people.” ϊָּ ?ςָ ?δ is most usually “so to err as to wander out of the way:” Isaiah 53:6; Genesis 37:15; Proverbs 7:25. And in Hiphil, it is “to cause to err or wander,” “to seduce,” “to draw aside:” Hosea 4:12; Isaiah 19:13. And it is properly rendered by πλανάω and πλανάομαι, which have both a neuter and active signification, — “ to err,” “to wander,” and “to seduce” or “draw aside :” whence πλάνος is “erro,” “vagabundus,” “a wanderer,” “a vagabond;” and also “deceptor,” “seductor,” “impostor,” “a seducer,” “a deceiver,” or “impostor.” In both which senses the Jews blasphemously applied it unto our Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 27:63. The words, then, denote not a speculative error of the mind, a mistake or misapprehension of what was proposed unto them, — in which sense the terms of error and erring are most commonly used, — but a practical aberration or wandering by choice from the way of obedience made known unto them; and therefore they are said “to err in their heart,” τῇκαρδίᾳ. For though that be commonly taken in the Scripture for the entire principle of moral operations, and so compriseth the mind and understanding, yet when an immediate respect is had unto duties and sins, it hath an especial regard to the affections and desires of the heart; so that to “err in heart,” is, “through the seductions and impulsions of corrupt affections, to have the mind and judgment corrupted, and then to depart from the ways of obedience.”Αὐτοὶδὲοὐκἔγνωσαντὰςὁδούςμου, — “and they have not known my ways;” εְ ?δֵ ?νμֹ ?ΰιָ ?ψְ ?ςεּ γְ ?ψָ ?λָ ?ι. The apostle renders εְ by δέ, an adversative, “but;” which is frequently used for καὶ, “and,” as it is rendered by ours. Yet an opposition may also be intimated, “They have not known.” It is said before that they “saw the works of God,” which were parts of his “ways;” and his laws were made known unto them. Of these two parts do his ways consist, — the ways of his providence, and the ways of his commands; or the ways wherein he walketh towards us, and the ways wherein he would have us walk towards him. And yet it is said of this people, that “they knew not his ways.” As we said, therefore, before concerning their error, so we must now say concerning their ignorance, that it is not a simple nescience that is intended, but rather an affected dislike of what they did see and know. It seems to be made up of two parts: — First, They did not so spiritually and practically know the mind, will, and intention of God in them, as thereon to believe in him,’to trust him, and to honor him. This is the knowledge of God which is required in the law and promised in the covenant. Secondly, In that light and knowledge which they had of the ways of God, they liked them not, they approved them not, they delighted not in them. And this is the constant intention of that word to “know,” where the object of it is God, his ways, or his will. ῾Ωςὤμοσαἐντῇὀργῇμου, — “so I sware in my wrath;” ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰּ ?πִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ι. The use of the word ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ is so various, as that it may denote either the persons spoken unto or the reason of the things spoken. The Vulgar Latin in some copies reads in this plate, “quibus,” “to whom,” as though it had taken ὡς for οἷς, but commonly, “sicut;” ὡς is often put for ὥστε, “quapropter,” “so that.” So Beza, “whereupon,” “for which cause” or “reason,” — the consideration of the state, condition, and multiplied miscarriages of that people that came out of Egypt.“I sware.” Of the oath of God and his swearing we must deal afterwards expressly. The declared unalterable purpose of God about the dying of that people in the wilderness, expressed in the way of an oath, is that which is intended. And God is said to swear in his wrath, because he declared that purpose of his under a particular provocation. The whole matter is recorded, Numbers 14:21-23, and Numbers 14:28-35,“But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt, and in the wilderness, have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it... Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you: your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, doubtless ye shall not come into the land concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun. But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. But as for you, your carcasses, they shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, (each day for a year,) shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years; and ye shall know my breach of promise. I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.”We have here the especial occasion of this swearing of God. The whole fabric of the ark and tabernacle being finished, the worship of God established, the law and rules of their polity being given unto them, and a blessed frame of government in things sacred and civil set up amongst them, their military camp, charge, and order in marching, to avoid emulation and confusion, being disposed, all things seemed to be in, a great readiness for the entrance of the people into the promised land. Whereas- they were but a confused multitude when they came out of Egypt, God had now formed them into a beautiful order both in church and state. This he insists on in his dealings with them, Ezekiel 16. Why should they now stay any longer in that wilderness, which was neither meet to entertain them nor designed for their habitation? Wherefore, to prepare a way for their entrance into Canaan, spies are sent by God’s direction, with excellent instructions, to search out the land, Numbers 13:17-20. Upon their return, the peevish, cowardly, unbelieving multitude, terrified with a false report which they made, fall into an outrageous repining against God and sedition against their ruler.Hereupon the Lord, wearied as it were with their continued provocations, and especially displeased with their last, whereby they had, what lay in them, frustrated his intentions towards them, threatened to consume the people as one man, Numbers 14:12; but Moses, pleading with him the interest of his own name and glory, prevailed to divert the execution of that commination. And yet so great was this provocation, and so absolutely had the people of that generation discovered themselves to be every way unfit to follow the Lord in that great work, that, to show the greatness of their sin, and the irrevocableness of his purpose, he sware with great indignation concerning them, in manner and form above declared. Εἰεἰσελεύσονται, — “if they shall enter.” So in the Hebrew, ΰִ ?νΰּ ?ιְ ?αֹ ?ΰεּ ?ο, — “if they shall enter.” So, frequently in the place of Numbers from whence the story is taken. The expression is imperfect, and relates to the oath of God wherein he sware by himself. As if he had said, ‘Let me not live,’or ‘not be God, if they enter;’which is the greatest and highest asseveration that so they should not do. And the concealment of the engagement is not, as some suppose, from a πάθος, causing an abruptness of speech, but from the reverence of the person spoken of. The expression is perfectly and absolutely negative. So Mark 8:12, with Matthew 16:4; 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Kings 20:10.Εἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου, — “into my rest.” The pronoun “my” is taken either efficiently or subjectively. If in the first way, the rest that God would give this people is intended; — ‘They shall not enter into the !and which I promised to give unto Abraham and his seed, as a state of rest, after all their wanderings and peregrinations upon my call and command.’Or it may be expounded subjectively, for the rest of God himself; that is, the place wherein he would fix his worship and therein rest. And this seems to be the proper meaning of the word “my rest;” that is, ‘the place where I will rest, by establishing my worship therein.’Hence this was the solemn word of blessing at the moving of the ark of God, “Arise, O LORD, into thy rest;” so Psalms 132:8, 2 Chronicles 6:41. “A place for the Louis, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob,” Psalms 132:5. So he calls his worship his rest and the place of his rest, Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 66:1. And the Targumist renders these words, “Into the rest of the house of my sanctuary:” as he speaks elsewhere, “This is my rest for ever;” which place is cited by Rashi on these words. [4][4] VARIOUS . — Instead of the clause, οὗἐπείρασάν... ἐδοκίμασάνμε, as it stands above, Tischendorf reads ου῏ἐπείρασανοἱπατέρεςὑμῶνἐνδοκιμασία./ Lachmann concurs with him; and the manuscripts quoted in support of this reading are such as A B C D E, C D E inserting με after ἐπείρασαν. Both of these critics, moreover, read ταύτῃ instead of ἐκείνῃ. . — Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Ernesti, Bleek, etc., connect all the quotations, Isaiah 66:7-11, under the government of καθώς, as the protasis, of which Isaiah 66:12 is the opodosis. Schlichting, Cappellus, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Klee, and Ebrard, understand καθώς... ἅγιον as a parenthesis, and the citations as dependent upon the preceding διό. . — Καὶει῏δον, “although they saw.” — De Wette. —ED. Hebrews 3:7-11. — Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation, in the wilderness: where your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their hearts; but my ways they have not known. So sware in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest. The exhortation is here pursued which was engaged into at the beginning of the chapter, and which after some diversion is returned unto at the close of the sixth verse. The argument whereby it is confirmed and carried on in these words is taken “ab eventu pernicioso,” from the pernicious event of the alike disobedience in others, which the Hebrews are dehorted from. And this the apostle shows by an eminent instance, or the induction of an example to that purpose. And this was such as those to whom he wrote knew to be so as it was by him reported; which they had especial reason to attend unto and consider, which had formerly been recommended to them, and which was purposely designed to be monitory unto them in their present condition: which things render an example cogent and effectual. Known it was to them, as being recorded in the Scripture, wherewith they were acquainted; and it was likewise of near concernment unto them, so deserving their consideration, inasmuch as it was their own progenitors or forefathers who so miscarried as to be therein proposed unto them for an example of an evil to be avoided. It had also, after the first recording of it in the history of the times wherein it fell out, Numbers 14, been resumed and recommended unto their most diligent consideration, Psalms 95. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ In the close of this chapter the apostle makes application of the example which he had produced out of the psalmist unto his present purpose; namely, to dehort the Hebrews from that sin which in them would answer unto the unbelief and disobedience of their forefathers, from the pernicious and destructive event which befell them thereon. And it must be still remembered that he presseth on them the consideration of that season of trial which they were then under, and which directly answered unto that time of trial which their fathers had in the wilderness And there are three parts of that discourse of the apostle which ensueth unto the end of this chapter: — First, An exhortation, built upon what he had before laid down and given evidence of, with confirmation unto it by the example produced out of the psalmist, Hebrews 3:12-14.Secondly, An especial consideration and improvement, unto the end aimed at, of sundry parts of the example insisted on, Hebrews 3:15-18; and therein many enforcements of the exhortation laid down are contained. Thirdly, A general conclusion is drawn out of his whole previous discourse, and laid down as the ground of his future progress, Hebrews 3:19. The first part of this discourse comes now under consideration in the ensuing words:— Hebrews 3:12-14. — Βλέπετε, ἀδελφοὶ, μήποτεἔσταιἔντινιὑμῶνκαρδίαπονηρὰἀπιστίας, ἐντῷἀποστῆναιἀπὸΘεοῦζῶντος·᾿Αλλὰπαρακαλεῖτεἑαυτοὺς, καθ᾿ἑκάστηνἡμέραν, ἄχριςοὗτὸσήμερονκαλεῖται, ἵνασκληρυνθῇτιςἐξὑμῶνἀπάτῃτῆςἀμαρτίας. ΜέτοχοιγὰργεγόναμεντοῦΧριστοῦ, ἐάνπερτὴνἀρχὴντῆςὑποστάσεωςμέχριτέλουςβεβαίαςκατάσχωμεν.Μήποτε. Ποτέ is omitted or neglected in many translations, as the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic; “ne sit,” “that there be not,” “let there not be.” Vulg. Lat., “ne forte,” “lest haply;” with respect unto the uncertainty of the event; some, “ne quando,” “ne ullo tempore,” “lest at any time,” “that at no time,” with respect unto the season of such event. ῎Εντινιὑμῶν, “in aliquo vestrum,” so the Vulg. Lat. Ar.; “in ullo vestrum,” Beza, more properly; so we “in any of you.” αֵּ ?ΰπָ ?ωׁ ξֵ ?πְ ?λεּ ?ο, “in homine ex vobis,” “in a man,” “in any man of you.” Arab., “in corde ullius vestrum,” “in the heart of any of you;” taking in the word “heart” out of the next clause which there it supplies by adding “wickedness,” “the wickedness of unbelief.”Καρδίαπονηρὰἀπιστίας, “cor malum incredulitatis; so the Vulg. Lat., — a an evil heart of unbelief.” μֵ ?αָ ?ΰαִּ ?ιωָׁ ?ΰγְּ ?μָ ?ΰξְ ?δַ ?ιְ ?ξַ ?ο“cor malum quod non fidele sit,” “an evil heart that is not faithful” or “believing.” Others, “cor malum et incredulum,” “an evil and unbelieving heart.” ᾿Εντῷἀποστῆναι. Ar., “in discedere.” Vulg. Lat., “dicedendi.” Beza, “ut desciscatis.” Properly “descisco” is “to depart unlawfully,” “to withdraw wickedly;” that is, to apostatize from an engagement of duty. Syr., εְ ?ϊֶ ?τְ ?ψְ ?χεּ ?ο“and you should withdraw,” or “draw back.”Παρακαλεῖτε. Vulg. Lat., “adhortamini vosmetipsos,” “exhort yourselves.” Eras., “vos invicem,” to the same purpose. Beza, “exhortamini alii alios,” “exhort one another:” as we also. Syr., ΰֶ ?μָ ?ΰαְּ ?ςεּ ξֵ ?οπַ ?τְ ?ωְׁ ?λεּ ?ο, “sed postulate ab anima vestra,” “but ask” (or “require”) “it of your soul;” that is, of yourself. Tremel., “sed examinate vos ipsos,” “but examine yourselves;” that is, by inquiry. This expresseth somewhat another duty as to the manner of its performance, but to the same purpose. Καθ᾿ἑκάστηνἡμέραν. Arias, “per unumquemque diem.” Vulg. Lat., “per singulos dies,” “every day;” that is, “sigillatim,” “separately and distinctly considered, Syr., λֻּ ?μְ ?δεּ ?οιַ ?εְ ?ξָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “omnibus diebus,” “always.” Beza, “quotidie;” that is, as ours, “daily,” “every day.”῎Αχριςοὗσήμερονκαλεῖται. Vulg. Lat., “donec hodie cognominatur;” Arias, “usque quo;” Beza, “quoad dies appellatur hodiernus,” — “whilst it is called the present day, to-day.” ςγξΰָ μιַ ?εְּ ?ξָ ?ΰγְּ ?ξֶ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?ψֵ ?ΰιַ ?εְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?ΰ, “until the day which is called to-day,” or, “this day.” It is uncertain what day is intended by that translator. It seems to be the day of death; which answers the “omnibus diebus” before; that is, “hujus vitae,” “all the days of this life.” ῞Ιναμὴσκληρυνθῇἐξὐμῶν. Vulg. Lat., “ut non obduretur quis ex vobis;” Beza, “nequis ex vobis;” — “lest any of you be hardened.” The Ethiopic adds, “that there be none that may say that any one of them is hardened in any sin.”᾿Απάτῃ is rendered by some “deceptio,” by some “seductio,” — “a seducing deceit.”’Rhemists, “that none of you be obdurate with the fallacy of sin;” most darkly and corruptly. ΜέτοχοιγεγόναμεντοῦΧριστοῦ, “Christi participes facti, effecti sumus,” Beza; “consortes.” Syr., ΰֶ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?μַ ?θַ ?ο, “commixti sumus Christo,” — “we are immixed with Christ;” that is, as I suppose, “united unto him.” Ethiop., “we are as Christ.”᾿Εάνπερ. Vulg. Lat., “si tamen;” but πέρ is not exceptive. Beza, “si modo,” “if so be.” The Syriac takes no notice of it; nor we in our translation, “if.”᾿Αρχὴντῆςὑποστάσεως. Vulg. Lat., “initium substantiae ejus;” adding” ejus” to the text and corrupting the sense. Beza, “principium illud quo sustentamur,” — “that beginning” (or “the beginning”)” of that whereby we are supported.” We, “the beginning of our confidence.” Rhemists, “yet so as if we keep the beginning of his substance firm.” Castalio, “hoc argumentum ab initio ad finem usque,” — “ this argument” (or “evidence”) “from the beginning unto the end.” Syr., “if from the beginning unto the end we abide in this firm substance” or “foundation.” Ethiop, “if we persevere to keep this new testament.” All to the same purpose. Hebrews 3:12-14. — Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing [wickedly] from the living God. But exhort one another [yourselves] daily [every day] whilst it is called To-day; lest any of you [among you] be hardened through the [seducing] deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if so be we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end. In these three verses there are three things in general proposed by the apostle: — First, An exhortation unto the avoidance of an evil, even that which it is his principal design to caution them against, and to dissuade them from, Hebrews 2:12.Secondly, A proposal of one useful means whereby they may be assisted in its avoidance, Hebrews 2:13.Thirdly, An enforcement of the exhortation from that evil, and unto the use of that means, from sundry considerations, is added, Hebrews 2:14.In the FIRST of these we may consider what is included in it, namely, —1. The dependence of this exhortation on the discourse foregoing.2. The compellation used by the apostle in this renovation of an especial address unto the Hebrews, “Brethren.”3. The duty he exhorts them unto; and that,(1.) As to the act of it, “Take heed;”(2.) “As to the persons concerned, “Lest there be in any of you;” (3.) As to object of it, or the evil dehorted from, “An evil heart of unbelief;” which is further described by its effects, “In departing from the living God.”, 1. The means of the prevention of the evil dehorted from is presented, Hebrews 2:13; and this in general is by exhortation against it, “Exhort:” which hath a treble qualification, —(1.) As to the persons by whom it is to be performed or the means used, “One another;”(2.) The season of its performance, which also includes the manner of it, “Every day;”(3.) With a limitation of that season, “Whilst it is called Today.”2. An especial enforcement of this preventive duty from the danger of their condition, which would be increased by a neglect thereof. And this is described, —(1.) From the cause of it, “The deceitfulness of sin;”(2.) From its tendency and effects, “Lest any be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” THIRDLY, There is a general enforcement of the whole, both as to the evil to be avoided and the means to be used for that purpose; and this is taken from their state and condition on supposition of the avoidance of the one and observance of the other, Hebrews 2:14. And this is, —1. Expressed, “For we are partakers of Christ;” and,2. Declared as to its dependence on the preceding exhortation, “If so be we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.”In the exhortation proposed, in the first place, there is included, — 1. A dependence on the discourse foregoing. Some suppose a hyperbaton in the words, and that this “take heed” depends immediately on the “wherefore” which is in the beginning of Heb 2:7, as was intimated on that place. So the following words are introduced only as an instance to enforce the exhortation by. In this sense the reference here is to be taken immediately from the authority of Christ over his house, and the necessity of our perseverance to the securing of our interest in that house, as Hebrews 2:5-6; “Wherefore, take heed, brethren.” But the truth is, the matter of this exhortation is educed so directly and immediately out of the foregoing example, that we must in it own a respect thereunto; for the words are a plain inference from that discourse, though the note of illation be omitted. As if the apostle had said, ‘Seeing it is thus, seeing our forefathers, who were our types, and are proposed for an example unto us, did so miscarry under a dispensation of God representing that which he exerciseth now towards us, let us take heed.’This is the dependence of the words. 2. The apostle returning unto the Hebrews with an especial address and exhortation, renews his former affectionate compellation, “Brethren.” This hath been spoken unto, Hebrews 2:1 of this chapter, where the reader may find the reason of it., and what is contained in it. Only the cause wherefore he repeats it again seems to be, that it might appear that he had no commotion of spirit upon him in his pressing the severe instance and example insisted on. A minister must be ἐπιεικής, 1 Timothy 3:3, “meek,” “patient,” not easily provoked; μὴοῤγίλος, Titus 1:7, “not soon angry” with his flock, or any of them. And tenderness, gentleness, demonstrations of love and care towards them with whom we have to do, secretly soften them, and open their ears and hearts to let in a word of instruction and exhortation. ῾Οἥλιοςτόνἄνεμουἐνίκησε. Besides, he obviates any suspicion that might arise as though he insinuated a fear of such an evil in them, and might make them think that he had hard thoughts of them. By this appellation he removes all such jealousies, and lets them know that the best of saints had need be cautioned sometimes against the worst of evils. 3. The manner of the performance of the duty exhorted unto, and,(1.) The act of it, is expressed in the first word, βλέπετε, “Take heed.” βλέπετε is firstly and properly “to see” and “behold,” as that is an act of sense; then “to take heed,” or “beware,” an act of the mind; — by an easy translation, first “video,” then “caveo.” And when it is used for “to see” as an act of sense, it commonly hath respect unto expectation, either of some good to be received, or of some inconvenience to be watched against. And because men look out or about them to beware of dangers, the word is used for “to take heed” or “beware.” In this sense it is often used in the New Testament, yea, so far as I have observed, it is peculiar unto the sacred writers; especially it is frequently used by our apostle, as 1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 10:18; Philippians 3:2; Ephesians 5:15; Colossians 2:8. And sometimes it is used transitively affecting the object, merely for “to consider:” 1 Corinthians 1:26, βλέπετετὴνκλῆσινὑμῶν, — “ Consider your calling;” 1 Corinthians 10:18, βλέπετετὸν᾿Ισραὴλκατὰσάρκα, — “Consider Israel according to the flesh.” Sometimes it hath a reciprocal pronoun joined with it, βλέπετεἑαυτούς, 2 John 1:8, “Consider” or “look well to yourselves.” Sometimes it is used absolutely, as here, and signifies to beware of somewhat; but in this sense it hath often rip, joined with it; as Mark 8:15, ΒλέπετεἀπὸτῆςζύμηςτῶνΦαρισαίων: which in Matthew 16:6 is προσέχετε, “take heed of” (beware of) “the leaven of the Pharisees.” And ἀπό is sometimes omitted, Philippians 3:2, βλέπετετοὺςκύνας, βλέπετετοὺςκακοὺςἐργάτας, βλέπετετὴνκατατομήν, and so of the rest; — “Take heed of dogs, take heed of evil workers, take heed of the concision,” ‘that ye neither join with them nor be hurt by them.’This is here the use of the word; “care,” “heedfulness,” “circumspection with respect to danger and opposition, and those imminent or near,” is that which the word imports: whence observe that, —Obs. 1. There is need of great care, heedfulness, watchfulness, and circumspection, for a due continuance in our profession, to the glory of God and advantage of our own souls. A careless profession will issue in apostasy open or secret, or great distress, Matthew 13:5-6, Son 3:1; Son 3:5. Our course is a warfare; and those who take not heed, who are not circumspect in war, will assuredly be a prey to their enemies. Be their strength never so great, one time or other they will not avoid a fatal surprisal.And there is a necessity of this heedful attendance in us, from the manifold duties that, in all things and at all times, are incumbent on us. Our whole life is a life of duty and obedience. God is in every thing to be regarded by us. So that we are to be attentive unto our duty on all occasions, Psalms 16:8; Genesis 17:1. If we fail in matter or manner, what lies in us we spoil the whole; for “bonum oritur ex integris, malum ex quolibet defectu.” Any one defect is enough to denominate an action evil; but unto that which is good there must be a concurrence of all necessary circumstances. See Ephesians 5:15-16. And who is sufficient for these things? God alone by his Spirit and grace can enable us hereunto. But he works these things by us as well as in us, and gives heedful diligence where he gives success.But it is with especial reference unto difficulty, oppositions, dangers, temptations, that this caution is here given us to be cautious. And who can reckon up the number or dispose into order these things, and that whether we consider those that constantly attend us or thee that are occasional? Among oppositions, snares, and dangers, that we are constantly exposed unto, and which without heedfulness we cannot avoid, the apostle here instanceth in one, namely, that of “an evil heart of unbelief,” which must be spoken unto. And he giveth an instance in those that are occasional, Ephesians 5:15-16, “Walk circumspectly,… because the days are evil.” There is an especial evil in the days wherein we live, which we cannot avoid without great circumspection. Now this taking heed consisteth, —[1. In a due consideration of our danger. He that walks the midst of mares and serpents, and goes on confidently, without consideration of his danger, as if his paths were all smooth and safe, will one time or other be entangled or bitten. Blind confidence in a course of profession, as if the whole of it were a dangerless road, is a ruining principle, 1 Peter 1:17; Proverbs 28:14; “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished,” Proverbs 22:3. It is the highest folly not to look out after dangers, and which usually ends in sorrow, trouble, and punishment. Fear is necessary in continual exercise; not a fear of distrust or diffidence, of anxious scrupulosity, but of care, duty, and diligence. Continually to fear dangers in all things, brings a useless, perplexing scrupulosity, where men’s principle of duty is only a harassed, convinced conscience, and the rule of it is the doctrines and traditions of men. But where the principle of it is the Spirit of grace, with all this fear there is liberty; and where the rule of it is the Word, there is safety, peace, and stability. Men at sea that are in the midst of rocks and shelves, and consider it not, will hardly avoid a shipwreck. Livy tells us that Philopoemen, that wary Grecian commander, wherever he went, though he were alone, he was still considering all places that he pained by, how an enemy might possess them and lay ambushes in them to his disadvantage, if he should command an army in those places. Hereby he became the most wary and expert captain of his age. So should a Christian do: he should always consider how, where, by what means, his spiritual adversaries may ensnare or engage him, and so either avoid them or oppose them; and not be like the simple, pass on heedlessly and be punished, Ephesians 6:11-12, etc. [2. In a due consideration of the especial nature of those and dangers that we are exposed unto. It is not enough that in general we know and reckon on it that we are obnoxious unto dangers, but we must learn what are the especial dangers, as things are circumstanced in our lives, callings, ways, times, and seasons, that are apt easily to beset us. To know and continually ponder their nature and advantages, this is wisdom, the greatest wisdom we can exercise in the whole course of our walking and profession, 1 Peter 5:8. He that takes heed in this will not likely fail in any other instance. But here custom, security, false-pleasing, confidence of our own strength, negligence, and sloth, all put in to delude us And if we are here imposed on, that we weigh not aright the nature and efficacy of our own peculiar snares and temptations, we assuredly at one time or another fail and miscarry in the course of our obedience. This was David’s wisdom when “he kept himself from his own iniquity,” Psalms 18:23. God would have us cast all our care about earthly things on him, but be watchful ourselves, through his grace, about spiritual. But we are apt to fail on both hands. [3. It is so to heed them as to endeavor to avoid them, and that in all their occasions, causes, and advantages, in their whole work and efficacy. We are not only to consider them when they assault us, but to watch against all ways whereby they may so do. This is the duty of a man that stands armed on his guard. He is very regardless of his enemy who never seeks to avoid him but when he sees him or feels him. Men will consider the lion’s walk, so as not without good means of defense to be found in it. The lion is in all the especial oppositions we are exercised with. We had need continually to be “fenced with iron and the staff of a spear,” as 2 Samuel 23:7, and yet to avoid them what we are able. God expresseth his great dislike of them that “walk contrary, to him,” as we have rendered the words, Leviticus 26:21, εְ ?ΰִ ?νϊֵּ ?μְ ?λεּ ςִ ?ξִּ ?ιχֶ ?ψִ ?ι; — ‘If you walk with me at a peradventure, or at all adventures, carelessly, negligently, without due consideration of your duty and your danger,’— this God will not bear. [4. Consider them so as to oppose them. And this consisteth in these things: — 1st. In being always ready armed and standing on your guard, Ephesians 6:13; Mark 13:37; 2 Samuel 23:7.2dly. In calling in help and assistance, Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:16.3dly. In improving the supplies granted us with faith and diligence, Hebrews 12.And these are some of the things that belong unto this duty; and they are but some of them, for it is diffused through the whole course of our profession, and is indispensably required of us, if we would abide in the beauty and glory of it unto the end. And therefore the negligence and sloth of many professors can never enough be bewailed. They walk at all adventure, as if there were no devil to tempt them, no world to seduce, ensnare, or oppose them, no treachery in their own hearts to deceive them. And hence it is that many are sick, and many are weak, and some are fallen asleep in sin. But what our Savior said to all of old, he says still to us all, “Watch,” Mark 13:37.(2.) There are the persons concerned in this duty, Μήποτεἔσταιἔντινιὑμῶν, — “Lest there be in any of you.” Μήποτε is somewhat more emphatical than the “lest,” whereby alone we render it. “Ne forte,” say some translations, — “Lest perchance,” with respect unto a dubious event. Others,” quando,” — “Lest there be at any time,” “lest so, that there should be,” ἔντινιὑμῶν, “in any of you.” The apostle doth not seem in these words strictly to intend every individual person, as if he had said, ‘ Let every one of you look to himself and his own heart, lest it be so with him;’but he speaks unto them collectively, to take care that there be none such amongst them, — that none be found amongst them with such a heart as he cautions them against. And this, consequently, falls on every individual; for where all are spoken unto, every one is concerned. The same kind of expression is used to the same purpose, Hebrews 12:15-16 ,᾿Επισκοποῦντεςμήτιςὑστερῶν, — “Watching,” overseeing mutually, “with diligence, lest any” among you “fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau.” Here the caution is evidently given unto the whole church, and the duty of the whole is expressed thereon. So is it likewise in this place, as appears from the direction that he gives for the right performance of this duty, in and by mutual watchfulness and exhortation, in the next verse. This, then, is proposed,[1. To the whole church, to the whole society, and consequentially to every member thereof; so that we may hence observe, — Obs. 2. Godly jealousy concerning, and watchfulness over the whole body, that no beginnings of backsliding from Christ and the gospel be found amongst them, is the duty of all churches of believers.He that first put in an exception to this rule was the first apostate from God, who did it to cover a former sin. δַ ?ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ψΰָ ?ηִ ?ιΰָ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ιּ ?says Cain, Genesis 4:9, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” — ‘Is it my duty to look after him, to take care of him, or what becomes of him?’God proposed the question so unto him as it was apt in its own nature to lead him to confession and repentance. But he was now hardened in sin, and having quarrelled with God and slain his brother, he now casts off all the remaining dictates of the law of nature, accounting that one brother is not bound to take care of the welfare of another. Mutual watchfulness over one another by persons in any society is a prime dictate of the law of our creation, which was first rejected by this first murderer; and every neglect of it hath something of murder in it, 1 John 3:11-12; 1 John 3:15. In a church relation the obligation unto this duty is ratified by institution. Upon the officers of the church it is incumbent by the way of office; on all believers, as members of the church, in a way of love: Leviticus 19:17, “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.” He that doth not watch over his brother to prevent his sin, or recover him from it, as much as lies in him, he hates him, and is so far a murderer. And the necessity of this duty is expressed in the word used to declare it, and the manner of its usage: δεֹ ?λֵ ?ηַ ϊּ ?εֹ ?λִ ?ιηַ ?— “rebuking thou shalt rebuke him;” that is, plainly and effectually, and that with such rebukes as consist in arguings, reasonings, and pleadings, to bring on a conviction. So the word signifies, and is used as to the pleadings or reasonings of men with God to prevail with him: Job 13:3, “Surely I would speak to the Almighty, I desire δεֹ ?λֵ ?ηַ ΰֶ ?μΰּ ?ΰֵ ?μ,” “to reason” (argue, plead) “with God, until I can prevail with him.” And it is used of God’s pleading with men, to bring them to conviction, Isaiah 1:18, εְ ?πִ ?εָּ ?λְ ?ηָ ?δμְ ?λεΰּ ?πָ ?ΰ— “Go to” (or “come now”), “and let us plead together.” So that an effectual dealing with a brother about sin is included. And this is enforced in the latter clause of the words, ηֵ ?θְ ?ΰεְ ?μִ ?ΰֹ ?ΰּ ?ϊִ ?ωָּׁ ?ΰςָ ?μָ ?ιε; which may well be rendered, “And thou shalt not bear iniquity for him,” — that is, make thyself guilty of his sin, by not reproving him. And for that jealousy which is to accompany this watchfulness, and the effects of it, our apostle gives in an example in himself, 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, “I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:… for I fear,” (μήπως, as here μήποτε,) “lest by any means… your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” This belongs to their watch, as they watch for the souls of their people, “as they who must give account,” Hebrews 13:17. The discharge of this duty will be required of them on the account of their office, and that when, I fear, some will be hard put to it for an answer. For the Scripture is full of threatenings and denunciations of sore judgments against those that shall be found neglective herein. But doth this excuse other believers, members of churches, from a share and interest in this duty? No, doubtless, unless it renders them Cains, — that is, transgressors against the light of nature, and who, as to the institutions of Christ, manifest themselves not to be members of the same mystical body with them that really believe. For in the observation of this and the like duties of their common interest doth the preservation of that body consist. Christ is the head, “from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in love,” Ephesians 4:16. Every joint, every part in this mystical body that receives influences of life from Christ, the head, and so holds of him, is to work effectually, and to give out the supplies which it receives from Christ, unto the preservation, increase, and edification of the whole. There is, indeed, a causeless suspicion that some are apt to indulge unto, instead, of this watchful jealousy. But this is the bane of churches and of love, as that is the preservation of them both. The apostle placeth ὑπόνοιαςπονηρας, “evil surmises,” or “suspicions,” among the works of “men of corrupt minds,” 1 Timothy 6:4, and that deservedly; but this godly, watchful jealousy, is that which he commends unto others in the example of himself. And whatever appearance they may have one of the other, they may be easily distinguished. Jealousy is a solicitous care, proceeding from love; suspicion, a vain conjecturing, proceeding from curiosity, vanity, or envy. He that hath the former, his heart is ruled by love towards them concerning whom he hath it. From thence he is afraid lest they should miscarry, lest any evil should befall them; for love is the willing of all good unto others, that they may prosper universally. Suspicion is an effect of curiosity and vanity of mind; whence commonly there is somewhat of envy, and secret self-pleasing in the miscarriages of others, mixed with it, — a fault too often found amongst professors. And this vice puts forth itself in vain babbling and unheedful defamations; whereas the other works by love, tenderness, prayer, and mutual exhortation, as in the next verse. Again, this jealous watchfulness hath for its end the glory of Christ and his gospel, with the good of the souls of others, This is that which the apostle aims to ingenerate and stir up in the Hebrews, as is evident from his discourse; when vain suspicion hath no end but the nourishing of the lusts from whence it doth proceed. The foundation whereon this duty is built is the common concernment of all believers in the same good or evil, which are the consequents of men’s abiding in Christ or departing from him, in reference whereunto this jealous watch is to be ordered. “Take heed lest there be among you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” The good that will ensue on the avoidance of this evil is twofold: the glory of Christ, and the salvation of the souls of them who make profession of his name. And have we not a concernment in these things? Is it not our concernment that Christ be glorified by the professed subjection of the souls of men unto him, and their perseverance therein? that his name, his grace, his power, be glorified, in the holiness, fruitfulness, and stability in profession, of all that are called by his name? If we are not concerned in these things, if we are not deeply concerned in them, we are none of his. In like manner, are we not concerned that the members of the same body with us should be kept alive, kept from putrefying, from being cut off and burned before our eyes? Are we not concerned that an eye doth not go out, that an arm doth not wither, that a leg be not broken, yea, that a finger be not cut? If it be so, we are not ourselves members of the body. The like may be said of the evil that ensues on the sin of apostasy, which in this duty we labor to obviate and prevent. That which principally of this kind might be insisted on, is the troublesome, defiling infection wherewith apostasy in any is attended; which our apostle speaks unto, Hebrews 12:15. The failing of one is commonly the infection and defiling of many. There is a filthy leaven in apostasy, which if not carefully heeded may leaven the whole lump. Ofttimes also it springs from or accompanied with some word of error that eats like a gangrene. “Principiis obsta” is the great rule in these cases. And the duty spoken unto is one signal means of the prevention of this evil. And herein lies our concernment; as also in the preventing of that punishment that may befall the whole for the sins of some, Joshua 22:18; Joshua 22:20. And it is the defect which is in this and the like kind of duties which manifests and makes naked that miserable degeneracy which Christians in general, in these latter evil days, are fallen into. Who almost hath any regard unto them? Instead of these fruits of spiritual love, men for the most part follow “divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.” The practical duties of Christianity are amongst many derided. To watch over one another, to warn, to exhort one another, are looked on as things, if possible, beneath contempt. And it is a shame to mention or report the ways and means of dealing with and about the sins of men, which by some are substituted in the room of those appointed in the gospel unto their utter exclusion. But the rule is stable, and will in due time, through the strength of Christ, prevail against the lusts of men.Obs. 3. [2. It is the duty of every individual believer to be intent on all occasions, lest at any time, or by any means, there should be found in him “an evil heart of unbelief.”This, as was showed, follows on the former, and is a necessary consequence of it. But this so directly falls in with what will be offered from the next clause that thereunto we refer it. (3.) The evil thus earnestly cautioned against is expressed,[1. In the principle of it, and that is, Καρδίαπονηρὰτῆςἀπιστίας: and, [2. In the work or effect of that principle, in these words, ᾿ΕντῷἀποστῆναιἀπὸΘεοῦζῶντος.[1. The principle of the evil is “an evil heart of unbelief.” What is meant by καρδία, “the heart,” in the sense wherein it is here used, was declared on the verses preceding; what is meant by πονηρά, “evil,” shall be showed in its proper place. In special, it is said to be an evil heart τῆςἀπιστίας, — of unbelief;” that is, say most, ἄπιστος, “cor malum et incredulum,” “an evil heart, and incredulous,” or “unbelieving,” — an evil and unbelieving heart. So the genitive case of the substantive is put for the adjective, — ἀπιστίας for ἄπιστος, by a Hebraism not unusual. In this sense “unbelieving” is either exegetical, declaring what is meant by the “evil heart” in this place, even an unbelieving heart; or it is additious, and so a heart is signified which in general is evil, and in particular unbelieving. But there seems to me to be more in this expression; and that ἀπιστίας here is “genitivus efficientis,” — denoting the principal efficient cause rendering the heart so evil as that it should “depart from the living God.” Καρδίαἀπιστίας, then, “a heart of unbelief,” is more than καρδίαἄπιστος, “an unbelieving heart;” for this latter word is sometimes used to express a defect in believing, and not unbelief absolutely. So John 20:27, Μήγίνουἄπιστος, ἀλλὰπιστός, — “Be not unbelieving, but believing.” They are the words of Christ unto Thomas, who, though he failed in his faith, yet was not absolutely without faith. I confess the word is generally used in Scripture to express a negative unbeliever, or an infidel; but there is something peculiar in this expression, “A heart of unbelief,” — that is, under the power of it, principled by it in its actings. What this unbelief is, and how the heart is rendered πονηρά, “evil,” thereby, we must now inquire.As for unbelief, it is usually distinguished into that which is negative and that which is privative. 1st. Negative unbelief is whenever any man or men believe not, or have not faith, although they never had the means of believing granted unto them. For when men believe not, they are unbelievers, whether they have had any means of believing or no, or whether their unbelief be culpable or no, whatever may be the nature or degree of its demerit. So the apostle calls him an unbeliever who comes in accidentally to the assembly of the church, who never heard the word preached before, 1 Corinthians 14:23-24. In this sense, all those persons and nations who have never had as yet the gospel preached unto them are infidels, or unbelievers; that is, they are so negatively, — they believe not, but yet cannot be said to have in them “an evil heart of unbelief.” 2dly. It is privative, when men believe not, although they enjoy the means of faith or believing. And herein consists the highest acting of the depraved nature of man. And it is on many accounts the greatest provocation of God that a creature can make himself guilty of. For it is, as might be manifested, an opposition unto God in all the properties of his nature, and in the whole revelation o£ his will Hence the gospel, which is a declaration of grace, mercy, and pardon, though it condemns all sin, yet it denounceth the final con-detonation of persons only against this sin:“He that believeth shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned,” Mark 16:16.Now this privative unbelief is twofold: — (1st.) In refusing to believe when it is required;(2dly.) In rejecting the faith after it hath been received(1st.) The first is, when the object of faith, or that which is to be believed, is according unto the mind of God, and in the way of his appointment proposed unto men; when sufficient evidence is given unto the truth and goodness of what is so proposed; and when the authority is made known on which faith is required; yet they refuse to believe. For these three things, — a revelation of the things to be believed made known in the way of God, sufficient evidence given unto the truth proposed, and a just assertion of the authority of God requiring faith and obedience, — do render the unbelief of men privative. Now, as this hath its root in the natural darkness, blindness, and depravedness of the minds of men, so it is educed and acted not without new sinful prejudices, and stubbornness of the will, refusing to attend unto and consider the evidences that are given unto the truth proposed, or the goodness and excellency of the things themselves contained in the propositions of truth; nor without signal effects of hardness of heart, love of sin and pleasure, keeping men off from the obedience required. Some instances may clear these particulars: — [1st.] The root of this unbelief is in the original depravation of our natures, with that spiritual impotency and enmity to God wherein it doth consist. There is such an impotency in us by nature, that no man of himself, by his own strength, can believe, can come to Christ. So himself informs us, John 6:44, “No man,” saith he, “can come to me, except the Father draw him;” — that is, none can believe unless they are in an especial manner “taught of God,” as he explains himself, John 6:45. Again, by nature that “carnal mind” is in all men, which is “enmity against God,” which is “not subject unto his law, neither indeed can be,” Romans 8:7. Hereunto maybe referred all that is spoken about the death of men in sin, their blindness and distrust, their alienation from God and obstinacy therein. This is the root and remote cause of all unbelief. Men in the state of nature neither can nor will believe the gospel; but, — [2dly.] Besides this general cause of unbelief, when it comes unto particular instances, and the gospel is proposed unto this or that man for his assent and submission unto it, there is always some especial corruption of mind or will, voluntarily acted, if the soul be kept off from believing; and on the account thereof principally and not merely of original impotency and enmity against God, is the guilt of unbelief reflected upon the souls of the sinners. There is the same fundamental remote cause of unbelief in all that refuse the gospel; but the next immediate proper cause of it is peculiar to every individual unbeliever: — First, some are kept off from believing the gospel by inveterate prejudices in their minds, which they have taken in upon corrupt principles and interests. This shut up of old most of the Jews under their unbelief. They had received many prejudices against the person of Christ, which on all occasions they expressed; and so were offended at him and believed not. That he was poor, that he came out of Galilee, that the rulers and teachers of the church rejected him, were their pleas against him. So also they had against his doctrine, and that principally on two false principles; — one of justification by the works of the law, as our apostle directly declares, Romans 9:31-32; Romans 10:3; the other, of the perpetuity or unchangeableness of the institutions of Moses, with which the apostle deals in this epistle. And these prejudices arose partly from their pride in seeking after righteousness by the works of the law, and partly from a corrupt desire of earthly things, riches, dominion, and wealth, which they expected with and by their Messiah, whereof I have treated elsewhere at large. These were in many the immediate causes of their unbelief, as is everywhere manifest in the gospel. And so is it with many at all times. Prejudices against the preachers of the gospel on sundry accounts, and against their doctrine, as either useless, or false, or unintelligible, or somewhat they know not what, which they do not like, keep them off from attending to the word and believing. See John 5:44.Secondly, An especial obstinacy of will from those prejudices offereth itself in this matter. So our Savior tells the Pharisees, John 5:40, “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.” It is not the perverseness and obstinacy that is in the wills of all men by nature that our Savior here intendeth, but an especial perverseness in them, arising out of an especial envy unto and hatred of him and his doctrine. Hence they did not only not receive him, — which might be charged on their natural impetency, — but they put forth a positive act of their wills in refusing and rejecting him. And on this account the guilt of men’s unbelief is absolutely resolved into their own wills. And whether it be discovered or no, this is the condition with many in all times and seasons.Thirdly, Love of sin is with some the immediate cause of their actual unbelief: John 3:19,“This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.”The light of the gospel is brought unto a place or people; they come so near it as to discover its end and tendency; but so soon as they find that it aims to part them and their sins, they will have no more to do with it. And on this account doth condemnation follow the preaching of the gospel, though its own proper end be salvation and that only. And this is the common way of the ruin of souls: they like not the terms of the gospel, because of their love of sin; and so perish in and for their iniquities. Fourthly, Stupid ignorance, arising from the possessing of the minds of men with other things, inconsistent with the faith and obedience of the gospel, through the craft and subtilty of Satan, is another cause hereof. So our apostle tells us, 2 Corinthians 4:4, that“the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”It is when the minds of men are beamed into with the light of the gospel that they do believe; for by that light, is faith produced. How is this hindered, how is it obstructed? It is by the darkness and blindness of their minds. What darkness is this, — that which is natural and common unto all? No, but that which is in a peculiar manner brought and reflected on the minds of some men by the craft and deceits of the god of this world; that is, through his temptations and suggestions, he so fills and possesses their minds with the things of this world (whence he is here peculiarly called “the god of this world”, that they are kept in a stupid and brutish ignorance of spiritual things, And this keeps them off from believing. These are a few of the many instances that might be given of the immediate causes of their privative unbelief, which consists in the rejecting or not receiving the truths of the gospel, when they are proposed in a due manner unto the minds of men. And this fully clears the holiness and righteousness of God in his judgments against final and impenitent unbelievers to whom the gospel is preached; for as that impotency which is in them naturally is culpable, — and it is no excuse for them for not believing because of themselves they could not so do, seeing it is by their own default that they are brought into that condition, — so every one in his own person who believeth not doth, by a voluntary act of his will, reject the gospel, and that on such corrupt principles as none can deny to be his sin. (2dly.) There is an unbelief that consists in a rejection of the truth of the gospel after that it hath been admitted, acknowledged, and professed.Some, after they have been convinced of the truth, and made profession of it, yet, through the temptations of the world, the corruption of their own hearts, love of sin, or fear of persecution, do suffer their convictions to wear off, or do cast them out, and reject the faith they have owned. Hereof is frequent mention made in the gospel, and no less frequent caution given against it. And this in general is the highest aggravation of this sin. For although the former kind of privative unbelief will certainly prove destructive to them that continue in it, and it may be said that this can do no more, yet this hath two great evils attending it that the other hath no concernment in. The first is, the difficulty that there is in being recovered out of this condition. He who hath already withstood the efficacy of the only remedy for his distempers, who hath rejected and despised it, what can cure him? This he who never received the gospel, be he never so bad or sinful, is not obnoxious unto. He hath not as yet, as it were, made a trial of what it is; and is free from that contempt cast upon it which is done by the other, who declares that he hath made trial of it, and valueth it not. This, on many reasons, renders his recovery difficult, almost impossible. Again, There is a degree of this unbelief which puts a soul absolutely into an irrecoverable condition in this world. For wherein-soever the formality of the sin against the Holy Ghost that shall not be pardoned doth consist, yet this is the matter of it, and without which it is impossible that any one should be guilty of that sin. There must be a renunciation of truth known and professed, or the guilt of that sin cannot be contracted. Now this, be they never so wicked, they are free from who never received, admitted, or professed the truth. The sin against the Holy Ghost is a sin peculiar unto them who have made profession. And from this ariseth an especial aggravation of their punishment at the last day. So the apostle Peter determines this matter: “It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them,” 2 Peter 2:21.Again, This unbelief in rejecting the gospel is either notional and practical, or practical only. [1st.] If it be notional it will also be practical. If men once reject their profession of the truth of the gospel, quenching their light into it and understanding of it, their practice of sin will be answerable thereunto. Renegadoes from the gospel are the greatest villains in the world. Neither do men voluntarily renounce the light, but to give themselves up to the deeds of darkness. [2dly.] It may be practical only. So is it in them who “profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate,” Titus 1:16,— men who walk in some kind of profession, yet “their end is destruction,” and that because “their god is their belly, and their glory is their shame, who mind earthly things,” Philippians 3:19. The corruptions of such men do absolutely prevail over their convictions, and the power of sin in their wills and affections casts off all influencing light from their minds or understandings. Such men as these, although they do not in words deny the truth of the gospel, yet they yield no obedience unto it. They neither expect any good from its promises, nor fear any great evil from its threatenings, which formerly had made some more effectual impressions upon them. And this is the condition of unspeakable multitudes in the world. Now, the unbelief here intended by the apostle is this privative unbelief, consisting in the rejection of the truth of the gospel after it. hath been received and professed. And this also may be considered two ways: — [1st.] Initially, as to some degrees of it; [2dly.] As it may be finished and completed.Of these our apostle treateth severally and distinctly. Of the former in this place, and Hebrews 4:11-13, Hebrews 12:15-16; of the latter, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-27. The first consists in any declension of heart from Christ and the gospel. This may be in various degrees and on several accounts. The latter is a total renunciation of the gospel, of which we spake before. It is the former that the apostle here intends, and therein a prevention of the latter: and therefore concerning it we must consider two things: —[1st.] Wherein it consists, or what are the ways of its entrance into and prevailing upon the minds of men. [2dly.] By what means it renders the heart evil when it is brought under the power thereof. [1st.] It consists in the soul’s receiving impressions from arguments and reasonings against profession, in the whole or any degrees of it. Satan is and will be casting “fiery darts” at the soul, but when the “shield of faith” is held up constantly and steadfastly, they are immediately quenched, Ephesians 6:16; yea, it is the work of faith to arm the soul on all hands, that assaults make no impression upon it. If that fail, if that faint, more or less they will take place. And when or wherein the soul is brought but to parley with an objection, then and therein unbelief is at work, whether it be as unto a particular fact or as unto our state. It was so with our first parents in the very entry of their treaty with Satan, in giving a considering audience unto that one question, “Hath God said so?” Our great Pattern hath showed us what our deportment ought to be in all suggestions and temptations. When the devil showed him “all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,” to tempt him withal, he did not stand and look upon them, viewing their glory, and pondering their empire, though he was fully assured that after all he could despise and trample upon the offer, and him that made it; but instantly, without stay, he cries, “Get thee hence, Satan,” and further strengthens his own authority with a word of truth, which was his rule, Matthew 4:10. Innumerable are the inclinations, objections, temptations, that lie against the profession of the gospel, especially in times of difficulty, particularly against steadfastness and preciseness in profession. That the whole of it be laid aside, or the degrees of it be remitted, is the great design of Satan, the world, and the flesh. To hearken unto what Satan suggests, though but under a pretense of seeing what is in it, to reason with the world, to consult with flesh and blood, contains the first actings of unbelief towards corrupting the heart in order unto a departure from God.[2dly.] It consists in or acts itself by a secret dislike of something, notionally or practically, in the gospel. This was a common thing in the hearers of our Savior. They disliked this or that in his doctrine or teaching, and that sometimes in things concerning faith, sometimes in things concerning obedience. So did those with whom he treated, John 6. Whilst he taught them in general of the “bread of God that came down from heaven,” they were pleased with it, and cried, “Lord, evermore give us this bread,” John 6:34; but when he began to acquaint them in particular that he himself was that bread, that his flesh was meat, and his blood was drink, — that is, that they were the spiritual nourishment of the souls of men, especially as given for them in his death, — they began to be offended and to murmur, they disliked it, crying, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” John 6:60-61. And what was the effect of this dislike? Plain and open apostasy: John 6:66, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” And whence did this dislike and murmuring arise? It was merely the acting of their unbelief, as our Lord declared, John 6:63-64, My words, which you so dislike, are spirit and life, “but there are some of you that believe not.” You pretend exceptions against my words, apprehended in your gross and carnal manner, but the true reason of the dislike of them is your own unbelief. God, saith he, hath not as yet given faith unto you; for I told you before, that “no man can come unto me” (that is, believe in me and the gospel) “except it were given unto him of my Father” (John 6:65); and in this doth your unbelief act itself.’This was in matter of faith; and we have an instance unto the same purpose in the matter of obedience. The young man mentioned, Matthew 19, had a great respect unto the teaching of the Lord Christ, for he comes unto him to be instructed in the way to eternal life. And this he did with so much zeal and sincerity, according to his present light, that our Savior approved them in him; for it is said he looked on him and “loved him,” Mark 10:21. And he likes his first lesson or instruction, according to his understanding of it, very well; but when the Lord Jesus proceeded to make a particular trial of him in an especial instance, bidding him sell what he had and give it to the poor, and follow him, this he liked not, but went away sorrowful, Mark 10:21-22. Now, there are three things in the gospel and the profession of it about which unbelief is apt to act itself by this dislike; which if not obviated, will prove a beginning of turning away from the whole: — First, The purity and spirituality of its worship; secondly, The strictness and universality of its holiness or obedience; and, thirdly, The grace and mystery of its doctrine. First, It acts itself in dislike against the purity, simplicity, and spirituality of its worship. This was that wherein our apostle had principally to do with the Jews. They were apt, all of them, to admire the old, glorious, pompous worship of the temple, and so to dislike the naked simplicity of gospel institutions. And in like manner was he jealous over the Corinthians,“lest they should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ,” 2 Corinthians 11:3;that is, in the worship of God as instituted and appointed by him. This was always a great offense unto all unbelievers, Hence the Pagans of old objected unto the Christians, that they had a religion, or a worship of God, without temples, altars, images, or pompous ceremonies; whence they looked on them as mere atheists. And this dislike of the purity and simplicity of the gospel worship is that which was the rise of, and gave increase or progress unto the whole Roman apostasy. And this is that which, through the unbelief of men, keeps the gospel in other nations under so much reproach, contempt, and persecution at this day. Men like not the plain, unspotted institutions of Christ, but are pleased with the meretricious Roman paint, wherewith so great a part of the world hath been beguiled and infatuated. Secondly, The severity and universality of obedience which it requireth is another thing that unbelief prevails to put forth dislike against. It makes use of the flesh to this purpose. Something or other it would be gratified in, within doors or without, or at least be spared, and not in all things pursued as the gospel requires. To be always, and in all things, private and public, personal and in all relations, mortified, crucified, and denied, to have no rest given unto it, the flesh likes it not; and unbelief makes use of its aversation to bring the whole soul into a dislike of that doctrine whereby all this is required. Thus Peter tells us of some that “turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them,” 2 Peter 2:21. He gives us not only the nature of the sin of them whom he blames, — that they turn away from the commands of Christ in the gospel; but he gives us also the reason why they do so, — it is because of their holiness. They turn aside from the “holy commandment.” Many professors have been wearied out with an observance of that holiness which this profession doth require. Hence commonly there are most apostates from the strictest ways of profession. The more universally holiness is pressed, the more weary will prevailing unbelief make men of their ways.Thirdly, It worketh accordingly with respect unto the grace and mystery of the gospel. Of old time it prevailed with many to look upon the whole of it as folly. The “preaching of the cross” was “foolishness” unto them that believed not; that is, the saving of sinners by the substitution of Christ in their room, and the atonement he made by his death and blood-shedding, was so. Now, this being a matter of great importance, I shall crave a little to digress from our immediate work and design, whilst I demonstrate that a secret dislike of the principal mysteries of the gospel is the original and cause of most of the degeneracies, backslidings, and apostasies that are found amongst professors in these latter days. Our apostle tells us that the “preaching of the cross” was “foolishness to them that perished,” 1 Corinthians 1:18; and they perished merely on that account, — it was foolishness unto them, they liked not the mystery of it, they saw no wisdom in it. And this he said with respect unto Jews and Gentiles, as is manifest in that place. To confirm this, I shall instance in some of the principal heads of the doctrine of the gospel, and show how unbelief prevails with men to dislike them, to reject them, and to look on them as folly.(First,) And the first is this, — That Jesus of Nazareth, poor and contemptible as he was in the world, generally esteemed by the men of those days wherein he lived to be a seducer, a glutton, a blasphemer, a turbulent person, hated of God and man, being taken as a thief, and hanged upon a tree, and so slain by the consent of the world, Jews and Gentiles, as a malefactor, was the Son of God, the Savior of the world, and is both Lord and Christ. This is the beginning of the gospel, which the apostle preached to the Jews and Gentiles, Acts 2:22-24,“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up.”That is, ‘This Jesus of Nazareth which we preach, him whom you remember well enough, he was among you but the other day, and preached unto you, and wrought signs and miracles among you; and you may further remember him by an infallible token, for with wicked hands you crucified and slew him.’‘Well, and what of this Jesus whom we slew and crucified?’‘Why,’saith the apostle, ῾ἀσφαλῶςγινωσκέτω, “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ,”’ Acts 2:36. ‘Him! who is that? an appearance of the eternal Word dispensation of grace appearing in him? the Light of God in man?’‘No, no; but τούτοντὸν᾿Ιησοῦνὅνὑμεῖςἐσταυρώσατε, — “that same Jesus whom ye crucified.” That same man whom about eight weeks ago you crucified, him hath he made “both Lord and Christ;” or in his resurrection and exaltation declared so to be.’And this the Holy Ghost lays a sure foundation of in his expression of his incarnation and birth. The angel tells Mary his mother, Συλλήψῃἐνγαστρὶ, Luke 1:31, “Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,” — conceive him by the power of the Most High, and bear him after the manner of women. And then, Luke 1:35, Τὸγεννώμενονἅγιον, etc., “That holy thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” That “holy thing” was the child which she conceived, afterwards called Jesus of Nazareth. And it was termed a “holy thing,” because it was ἀνυπόστατον, not a person of itself, as conceived by her, had not a personal subsistence in, by, and of itself, but subsisted in the person of the Son of God; on which account it was called “The Son of God.” And when he was born, the angel tells the shepherds, that that day was born “a Savior, Christ the Lord,” Luke 2:11; who, he tells them in the next verse, was βρέφοςἐσπαργανωμένονκείμενονἐντῇφάτνῃ, “the infant that was wrapped in swaddling-clothes, and placed in the manger.” To this purpose do the apostles declare themselves again: Acts 3:13-15, “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead.”Still they direct them to the man whom they saw, and knew, and dealt wickedly and injuriously withal. And this man, he tells them, this Christ, must be received in the heavens “until the restitution of all things,” when he shall come again, Acts 3:19-21. So himself lays this as the foundation of all his preaching, John 8:24, “If,” saith he, “ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins,” — ‘That I, Jesus of :Nazareth, that speak unto you, and converse with you, am the Messiah, the Savior of the world, you shall die and perish for evermore.’This, I say, is one, and one of the first fundamental principles of the gospel; and I shall a little manifest how unbelief dislikes this principle, and by that dislike prevails with men unto an apostasy from the gospel itself.I might insist upon the great instance hereof in the nation of the Jews, unto whom he was sent first and in an especial manner; but I have done this at large in the first part of our Prolegomena unto this work, whereunto I refer the reader. Only we may mind him how this was fore-expressed concerning them by the prophet Isaiah 53:2,“He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.”They could not see or discern any thing in him for which they should receive him, or believe in him, as to the end for which he was sent of God. As Hiram, king of Tyre, when he saw the cities which Solomon had given him, they displeased him, and he called them “Cabul,” and so he rejected them, 1 Kings 9:13; so did the Jews, when they came to see the Lord Christ, they were displeased with him, and reproaching him with many opprobrious terms, utterly rejected him; under the power of which unbelief they yet reject him. I might also insist on the pagans of old, who derided the crucified God of the Christians; but I will leave them under the conquest which the gospel obtained against them. Mention also might be made of the Gnostics, and other ancient heretics, with their endless genealogies and fables, making him to be only an appearance of a man; and though himself said he was a man, and his friends said he was a man, and God himself saith he was a man, and that he “sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,” though he lived and’died a man, yet they would not acknowledge him so to be. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ There is some difficulty about these verses, namely, whether they appertain unto and depend upon the discourse foregoing, or whether they are the beginning of another, on which the exhortation in the first verse of the next chapter doth depend. Chrysostom, with the Greeks that follow him, as Theophylact and OEcumenius, asserts the latter. And therefore they suppose a hyperbaton in the words, and that all that discourse which is between the 15th verse of this chapter and the 1st of the next is an occasional digression; as if the sense of the apostle ran to this purpose: ‘Seeing it is said, Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation; let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.’But there is no necessity of such a long trajection of the sense, nor of feigning the hyperbaton intimated. The genuine sense and proper contexture of the apostle’s discourse requires their connection with what went before. And the exhortation in the first verse of the next chapter is taken from what he immediately after argueth and proveth. And I shall not insist upon the division of the chapters, which is arbitrary and of no authority. I shall therefore, in the first place, rightly state the coherence of these discourses, and then proceed to the exposition of the words. Three things the apostle hath stated in his preceding arguing and exhortation: — First, The evil which he would have the Hebrews carefully to avoid under the preaching of the gospel unto them, or their hearing of the voice of God; and that is the “hardening of their hearts.”Secondly, The cause hereof, which he persuades them diligently to obviate; which is the “deceitfulness of sin.”Thirdly, The effect and consequent of that evil; which is apostasy, or a “departing from the living God.”Hereunto he subjoins one special means for the prevention of this evil in its causes and consequents; and that is mutual exhortation. Now, whereas he had drawn all the parts of his discourse from an example recorded in Moses, and resumed by David in the Psalms, with an intimation that it was by the Holy Ghost in him put over unto the use of the church under the gospel, and therein in an especial manner of the present Hebrews, he returns to show, that his discourse was fully warranted from that example as recorded originally by Moses, and repeated by the Holy Ghost in the Psalms. Moreover, there were yet remaining some circumstances of the example insisted on, which the Holy Ghost would have us observe for our instruction, which lay not in the way of his former discourse to collect and observe. These here he gathereth up, and in them gives a great confirmation to the grounds and reasons of his exhortation. This is his general design. The parts of his discourse are as followeth: — 1. He calls over the example and his own improvement of it summarily again, to lay it as a foundation of what he had further to infer from it, Hebrews 3:15. 2. He makes a tacit comparison between them who came out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses, which part of it is expressed, and those who were then called to the profession of the gospel, which is implied, Hebrews 3:16.3. The former sort he expressly distributes into two kinds. The first whereof he describes,(1.) By their sin: —[1. In general, they hardened their hearts and provoked God, Hebrews 3:16. [2. In particular, this their sin was their unbelief, Hebrews 3:18-19. (2.) By the respect that God had towards them, which also is twofold: —[1. That he was “grieved” with them. [2. That he “sware in his wrath” against them, Hebrews 3:17-18. (3.) By their punishment, which in like manner is expressed two ways: —[1. Positively, that “their carcasses fell in the wilderness,” Hebrews 3:17. [2. Negatively, that “they did not enter into God’s rest,” Hebrews 3:18-19. By all which instances the apostle manifests that his exhortation of them from this example was well founded therein, especially seeing the psalmist had in a spirit of prophecy prepared it for the use of those days and these; for justly ought they to be jealous over themselves, lest any of them should fall into the like sin, and fall by the same punishment. 4. He manifests that he doth not insist only on the danger of the sin dehorted from, and the penalty annexed unto it, as though the nature of this example were merely comminatory or threatening; but he declares also, partly expressly and partly by just consequence, the blessed success which they obtained who fell not into the sins of infidelity and apostasy from God; and so strengthens his exhortation from the promises of God and his faithfulness in them. This he doth in these words, “Howbeit not all that came out of Egypt,” Hebrews 3:16; that is, [all] did not provoke God; which is but one head of the antithesis between the two several sorts mentioned, which is to be understood and preserved in all the other instances. As if he should have said, ‘Some on the other side “hardened not their hearts,” “provoked not God,” but believed and obeyed his voice; hence God was “not angry with them,” “sware not against them,” their “carcasses fell not in the wilderness,” but they “entered into the rest of God.” And thus will it be with them who shall continue to believe and obey the gospel.’ 5. He adds a general conclusion, as the sum of what he had evinced out of the words of the psalm; which also he intended further to improve, as he doth in the next chapter, Hebrews 3:19.Hebrews 3:15-19. — ᾿Εντῷλέγεσθαι·Σήμερον, ἐὰντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούσητε·μὴσκληρύνητετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν, ὡςἐντῷπαραπικρασμῷ. Τινὲςγὰρἀκούσαντεςπαρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ᾿οὐπάντεςοἱἐξελθόντεςἐξΑἰγύπτουδιὰΜωυσέως. Τίσιδὲπροσώχθισετεσσαρακόνταἔτη; οὐχὶτοῖςἁμαρτήσασιν, ὧντὰκῶλαἕπεσονἐντῇἐρήμῳ; Τίσιδὲὤμοσεμὴεἰσελεύσεσθαιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσιναὐτοῦ, εἰμήτοῖςἀπειθήσασι; Καὶβλέπομεν, ὅτιοὐκἠδυνήθησανεἰσελθεῖνδι᾿ἀπιστίαν.Some few differences there are amongst translations; such as may, some of them, give light into the sense of the words may be remarked. Hebrews 3:15. — ᾿Εντῷλέγεσθαι. Beza, “interim dum dicitur,” — “in the meantime, while it is said.” “Interim dum,” are not amiss supplied, if that be the sense of the words which generally is supposed so to be. Erasmus, “in quod dicitur,” — “ in this that is said,” or, “whereas it is said;” which suited unto the trajection of the words supposed by the Greeks before mentioned. Syriac, ΰֵ ?ιλַ ?πֹ ?ΰγַּ ?ΰξִ ?ιψ, “sicut dictum est,” — “as it is said,” respecting repetition of the testimony, “again.” Arias, “in dici,” that is, “in dicendo,” — “in saying;” so the Arabic, Vulgar Lat., “dum dicitur;” and so we, “while it is said.” I had rather, for reasons after to be mentioned, render the words, “whereas it is said;” which also is the proper sense of ἐντῷλέγεσθαι, — the infinitive with a preposition being often to be construed by the subjunctive mood. ᾿Εντῷπαραπικρασμῷ. Beza and the Vulg. Lat., “quemadmodum in exacerbatione,” — “as in that provocation;” expressing the article which Erasmus and most translators omit: neither is it needful to be expressed, it being a mere repetition of the words, and not a reference unto them, that the apostle hath hand. Syriac, “harden not your hearts to provoke him,” or “that you provoke him,” “to anger,” “execrate him;” respecting the sin feared in them, when it is the past sin of their forefathers that is intended. Ethiopic, “Because he saith, To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, for they provoked him who heard.” Hebrews 3:16. — Τινὲςγὰρἀκούσαντεςπαρεπίκραναν. The Syriac begins here the interrogatory part of this discourse: “For who are they that when they have heard provoked him?” But τινὲς is indefinite, and not interrogative, as the following words manifest, for the process is not by a redditive pronoun, but an exceptive adverb.ΔιὰΜωυσέως, αְּ ?ιַ ?ψξψּ ?ωֵׁ ?η— “By the hands of Moses;” a frequent Hebraism for guidance or conduct.Hebrews 3:17. — Τίσιδὲπροσώχθισε; Beza, “quibus infensus fuit?” — “with whom he angry,” or “provoke?” Vulg. Lat., “infensus est,” in the present tense; which he blamed by Erasmus, and corrected by Vatablus and Arias, as that which guards what was long since past. Arabic, as before, “whom did he curse?” Syr., “who were a weariness to him?’Of the ground of which variety spake before, on Hebrews 3:10. ῞Ωντὰκῶλαἔπεσον. Beza, “quorum artus conciderant,” — “whose members fell;” Vulg. Lat., “quorum cadavera prostrata sunt,” — “whose carcasses were cast down;” Erasmus, “quorum membra;” Syr., εְ ?βַ ?ψְ ?ξַ ?ιְ ?δεּ ?ο, — “and their bones:” whose members, bodies, bones, carcasses, fell in the wilderness. Of the proper signification of the word I shall speak afterwards.Hebrews 3:18. — Εἰμὴτοῖςἀπειθήσασι. Beza and Erasmus, “nisi iis qui non obe-dierunt,” — “but unto them who obeyed not.” Arias, “si non incredulis,” — “not unto the unbelievers.” Vulg. Lat., “iis cui increduli fuerunt;” which our Rhemists rends, “but unto them which were incredulous.” Syr., “qui non acquieverunt,” “qui assensum non praebuerunt,” — “who gave not assent,” that is, to the word or voice of God which they heard. [9] [9] VARIOUS . — It is evident, even from the train of thought, that the true reading is τίνες, τίσι, and not, with (Ecum., Theoph., Luther, Calvin, Orotius, etc., τινὲς, τισί, “only some.” The author could infer only from the universality of sin in the time of Moses that the Israelites entered not into their rest, and therefore that the promise still awaited its fulfillment; he could not have inferred this from the fact that “only some had sinned at that time, and had been punished.” So far Ebrard; in which view he agrees with Griesbaeh and Tischendorf, who both point these clauses interrogatively. . — ᾿Αλλά, in a series of questions, and standing at the head of a question, means veto, porto. It serves to connect and give intensity to the interrogation. So here; ἀλλά, truly, indeed, certe. The meaning is, ‘Might I not ask, Did not all who came out of Egypt rebel?’— Stuart. . — ᾿Απειθ. Disobedient. — Conybeare and Howson. Καὶβλέπομεν. We see then, or, thus we see. — Stuart, Turner. — ED. Hebrews 3:19. — Whereas it is said, Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.The introduction unto the ensuing dispute is in these first words, ᾿Εντῷλέγεσθαι, “Whilst it is said;” so we, after the Vulgar Latin, and sundry other interpreters, “dum dicitur,” or to that purpose, as was observed. Thus these words are a reintroduction of the former exhortation; and therefore some supply ὑμῖν or ἡμῖν, unto them, “to you,” or “to us,” — Whilst it is said to you” (or “us”), “To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts:” and so this exhortation is enforced, with new considerations, unto the end of the chapter. But this seems not to be the meaning of the apostle, and so not the due connection or construction of the words. For the same exhortation being before laid down from the psalmist, and applied unto the Hebrews, Hebrews 3:7-8, with a full improvement of it in the verses following, it is not reasonable to think that he should immediately again repeat it, and that in the same words, only somewhat more obscurely expressed. For in this way the meaning of the words must be, ‘While it is day with you, while you enjoy the season that is so called, harden not your hearts.’But this is far more clearly expressed, Hebrews 3:13, — “Exhort one another DAILY, while it is called To-day,” with respect to what was before spoken, Hebrews 3:7-8. Other, therefore, as Erasmus, render the words by “In hoc quod dicitur,” — “In this that,” or, “Whereas it is said.” And so a new exhortation should be intended, whose application, after a digression in a long hyperbaton unto the end of this chapter, is laid down in the first verses of the next. But this sense also we rejected in opening the general design of these verses. The words, therefore, are to be taken simply and absolutely, so as to indicate a repetition of the former testimony, and its improvement unto some further ends and purposes. ᾿Εντῶ῏λέγεσθαι, γּ ?ΰξִ ?ιψ, “Whereas it is said,” — ‘Whereas these words are used in the psalmist, and are recorded for our instruction.’And herein the apostle intends, — 1. Not only the repetition of the precise words here mentioned, but by them calls over again the whole story that depends upon them, which is usual in such quotations. Out of the whole he intends now to take new observations unto his purpose in hand; for there are yet remaining some particular circumstances of the matter of fact insisted on of great importance, and much conducing unto his design, and to the establishment of the conclusion that he lays down, Hebrews 3:19, which the apostle, in his first view of the words, had not yet considered or improved, as not lying in the way of his discourse then in hand. For their sakes doth he give this review unto the whole.2. As of the story, so of his own exhortation upon it, the apostle lays down these words as a recapitulation, which gives influence unto the process of his discourse, — “For some,” saith he, “when they had heard, did provoke,” Hebrews 3:16. As if he had said, ‘Consider what hath been spoken, that the same befall not you as did them who provoked and perished.’And we may see hence, —Obs. 1. That every circumstance of the Scripture is instructive. The apostle having before urged the authority of the psalm, and the example recorded in it unto his purpose, here he again resumes the words before insisted on, and from sundry circumstances of them, with the matter contained in them, further argues, reasons, and carrieth on his exhortation. For he considers, — 1. Who they were that sinned and provoked God; wherein he observes that it was “some” of them, and not absolutely all who came out of Egypt: which how useful it was unto his purpose we shall afterwards declare.2. What became of them who so sinned. “Their carcasses,” saith he, “fell in the wilderness;” which circumstance doth not a little set forth the indignation of God against their sin, and his severity against their persons.3. He presseth in particular the consideration of the oath of God, and manifests its exact accomplishment, that none who shall fall under the same condition may ever expect or hope for an escape. Lastly, From the consideration of the whole, he collects what was evidently the direct and especial sin that procured so great a destruction, and peremptorily excluded that people out of that rest of God, namely, their “unbelief.’ These are the παραλειπόμενα that the apostle gathers up in these verses, which, belonging unto the subject he insisted on, fell not before orderly under his consideration.Obs. 2. God hath filled the Scripture with truth.Whence one said well, “Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum,” — “I reverence the fullness of the Scriptures.” Psalms 138:2, “He hath magnified his word above all his name;” or made it more instructive than any other way or means whereby he hath revealed himself. For not only doth the whole Scripture contain the whole counsel of God, concerning his own glory and worship, our faith, obedience, and salvation, but also every parcel of it hath in it such a depth of truth as cannot by us be perfectly searched into. Psalms 119:18, “Open thou mine eyes,” saith the psalmist, “that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” There are wonderful things in the word, if God be pleased to give us light to see it. It is like a cabinet of jewels, that when you pull out one box or drawer and search into it, you find it full; pull out another, it is full; and when you think you have pulled out all, yet still there are some secret recesses in the cabinet, so that if you search further you will find more. Our apostle seems to have drawn out all the boxes of this cabinet, but making a second search into the words, he finds all these things treasured up, which he had not before intimated nor touched upon. It was said by some of old, that the “Scripture hath fords where a lamb may wade, and depths where an elephant may swim.” And it is true in respect of the perspicuity of some places, and the difficulty of others. But the truth is also, that God hath in his grace and wisdom so ordered its concernments, that, — 1. What from the nature of the things themselves, which are suited unto the various states, conditions, and apprehensions of the minds of men;2. What from the manner of their expression, on which a character of divine wisdom is impressed;3. What from the authority of God putting itself forth in the whole and every particular; 4. What from its being not only “propositio veritatis,” but “vehiculum gratiae;” many, most, yea, all the particular places of it and passages in it, are such as through which a lamb may wade safely, and an elephant swim without danger of striking against the bottom. Let any lamb of Christ come, in that order, with that reverence unto the reading or hearing the word of God (the Scripture itself I mean) which is required, and he will find no place so dark or difficult but that it will yield him that refreshment which is suited unto him and safe for him, and something of God he will obtain; for either he will find his graces excited, or his mind enlightened, or his conscience peculiarly brought into a reverence of God. And let the wisest, the most learned and experienced person, that seems like an elephant in spiritual skill and strength amongst the flock, come to the plainest place, to search out the mind and will of God in it, if he be humble as well as learned, — which if he be not he is not wise, — he will scarce boast that he hath been at the bottom of it, and hath perfectly comprehended all that is in it, seeing whatever we know, “we know but in part.” And they may all of them, elephants and lambs, meet at the same passages of this river that makes glad the city of God, these waters of rest and quietness, Psalms 23:2, where the lambs may wade safely, and the elephants swim together. The poorest of the flock, in the right use of means, may take enough for themselves, even suitable direction and refreshment, from those very places of Scripture whose depths the learnedest guides of the church are not able to sound or fathom. Not only in several places, but in the same place, text, or testimony of Scripture, there is food meet for the several ages of Christians, whether babes and children or strong men; with light and direction for all sorts of believers, according to the degrees of their own inward light and grace. It is like manna, which, though men gathered variously according to their strength and appetite, yet every one had that proportion which suited his own eating. When a learned man, and one mighty in the Scriptures, undertakes the consideration of a place of Scripture, and finds, it may be, in the issue, that with all his skill and industry, with all his helps and advantages, though attended in the use of them with fervent prayer and holy meditation, he is not able to search it out unto perfection, let him not suppose that such a place will be of no advantage unto them who are not sharers in his advantages, but rather are mean and unlearned; for they may obtain a useful portion for themselves where he cannot take down all. If any one look on this river of God like behemoth on Jordan, “trusting that he can draw it up into his mouth,” or take up the whole sense of God in it, he of all others seems to know nothing of its worth and excellency. And this ariseth, as was observed, principally from the things themselves treated of in the Scripture. For, divine and spiritual truths having God not only as their immediate fountain and spring, but also as their proper and adequate object, there is still somewhat in them that cannot be searched out unto perfection. As he said, “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?” Job 11:7, ϊִּ ?ξְ ?φָ ?ΰςַ ?γΰּ ?ϊַּ ?λְ ?μִ ?ιϊωַׁ ?γַּ ?ι, — “find him out to a perfect comprehension,” or “to a consummation of knowledge,” that it should be perfect. This neither the nature of God nor our condition will admit of. We do at best but “follow after,” that we may in our measure “apprehend that for which we also are apprehended of Christ Jesus,” Philippians 3:12. And these things are so tempered by divine wisdom unto the faith and light of believers, and therein unto the uses of their consolation and obedience, that something hereof is plainly exhibited to every spiritual eye: always provided that their search and inquiry be regulated according to the will of God, in a due use of the means; for to this purpose not only the private endeavors of men are required, but the use also of the public ministry, which is ordained of God to lead men gradually into continual further acquaintance with the will of God in the Scripture. Some think that it belongs unto the fullness of the Scripture that each place in it should have various senses, — some say three, some four. But this, indeed, is to empty it of all fullness; for if it have not everywhere one proper determinate sense, it hath none at all. This it hath; but the things which the words of it are signs of and are expressed by, are so great, deep, and mysterious, and have such various respects unto our light, faith, and obedience, as that it is unsearchably instructive unto us. “The commandment is exceeding broad,” Psalms 119:96, ψְ ?ηָ ?αָ ?δξְ ?ΰֹ ?γ; — the word used to express the wideness of the sea, Psalms 104:25, βָּ ?γεֹ ?μεּ ?ψְ ?ηַ ?αιָ ?γַ ?ιִ ?νδַ ?ιּ ?ν, — “The great sea,” that hath “wide and large arms,” which it stretcheth out to comprehend the whole earth. So doth the command widen and stretch out its arms, to comprehend the whole church of God, to water it and to make it fruitful God having enstamped his authority and wisdom upon it, every concernment of it, every consequence from it, every circumstance reported in it, hath its authority in and upon the consciences of men for the end whereunto it is designed. Hence we may observe, that in the quotations of testimonies out of the Old Testament in the New, it is very seldom that the principal aim and intendment of any place is insisted on, but rather some peculiar specialty that is either truly included in the words or duly educed by just consequence from them. And this may teach men what diligence they ought to use in searching and studying of the Scripture. Slight, inadvertent considerations will be of little use in this matter. Especially is this incumbent on them whose duty and office it is to declare and expound them unto others. And there is amongst many a great miscarriage in these things, and that both in some that teach, and some that only privately read or meditate on the word. Some men preach with very little regard to the Scripture, either as to the treasury and promptuary of all the truth they are to dispense, or as to the rule whereby they are to proceed. And some are ready to coin notions in their own minds, or to learn them from others, and then attempt to put them upon the Scripture. or obtain countenance from thence unto them: and this is the way of men who invent and vent false opinions and groundless curiosities, which a previous due reverential observance of the word might have delivered them from. And some again, and those too many, superficially take up with that sense of the words which obviously presents itself unto their first consideration, which they improve to their own purpose as they see cause. Such persons as these see little of the wisdom of God in the word; they enter not into those mines of gold; they are but passengers, they do not “stand in the counsel of God, to hear his word,” Jeremiah 23:22. It is certain that the diligent search into the Scriptures which is commended unto us, which the worth of them and the things contained in them requires, and which that fullness and comprehension of truth that is in them doth make necessary, is by most neglected. And the same may be observed in multitudes of commentators and expositors. They express things otherwise one than another, but for the most part directly the same. Seldom any one ventures into the deep one step beyond what he sees his way beat before him, and, as he supposes, his ground secure; though a diligent inquirer may often find the most beaten path either to turn away from the fountain, or at least to end and fail before it comes there. I would not speak any thing to encourage men in bold adventures, groundless conjectures, and curious pryings into things hidden, secret, and marvelous; but it is humble diligence, joined with prayer, meditation, and waiting on God for the revelation of his will, in the study of the Scripture, upon the account of the fullness of its treasury, and the guiding, instructive virtue wherewithal its concerns are accompanied, that I would press after. And hence I am persuaded that the church of God hath, through his care and faithfulness, had great advantage from their opposition unto the truth who, to countenance their own errors, have searched curiously into all the concernments of the words of many testimonies given unto the truth. For though they have done this to their own destruction, yet “out of this eater there hath come forth meat;” for they have not only given an. occasion unto, but imposed a necessity upon us to search with all diligence into every concernment of some most material passages in the Scripture, and that to the clearing of the truth and the stablishing of the minds of many. That which I would press from these considerations, grounded on the precedent before us, wherein the apostle, from sundry latent circumstances of the text, draws out singular useful observations in reference unto our faith and obedience, is, that our utmost diligence, especially in them who are called unto the instruction of others, is required in this neglected, yea despised work of searching the Scriptures. And as a consequent of the neglect hereof, I cannot but say that I have observed a threefold defect amongst sundry teachers, that was in general intimated before; as, first, When men scarce at any time make use of the Scripture in their preaching any further than to make remarks and observations on the obvious sense of any place, neither entering themselves, nor endeavoring to lead their hearers into the secret and rich recesses of them. And secondly, which is worse, When men without the Scripture design their subjects, and project the handling of them, and occasionally only take in the words of the Scripture, and that guided more by the sound than the sense of them. And thirdly, which is worst of all, When men by their own notions, opinions, curiosities, and allegories, rather draw men from the Scripture than endeavor to lead them unto it. The example of our great apostle will guide us unto other ways of proceeding in our work. Hebrews 3:16. — For some, when they heard [the word], provoked; howbeit not all who came out of Egypt by Moses. The intention of the apostle in this and the ensuing verses, as hath been observed, is to confirm his preceding exhortation from the example proposed unto them, and that on the consideration of the various events that befell their forefathers in the wilderness, with respect, on the one hand, unto the promises and threatenings of God, and on the other, to their faith and disobedience. To this end, in this verse he makes a distribution of the persons who came forth of Egypt under the conduct of Moses, and heard the voice of God in the wilderness: — They all “came out of Egypt,” they all “heard” the voice of God; howbeit all did not “provoke,” hut only “soma” Two things, then, are affirmed of them all in general; — First, That they “all came out of Egypt by Moses;” Secondly, That they all “heard” the voice of God. And the limitation respects one instance only, — some of these all “provoked,” and some did not, The first thing in general ascribed unto them is, that they “came out of Egypt by Moses.” A few words, but comprehensive of a great story; a work wherein God was exceedingly glorified, and that people made partakers of greater mercies and privileges than ever any before them from the foundation of the world: the pressing whereof upon the minds and consciences of the people is one main end of the Book of Deuteronomy. Moses sums up much of it, Deuteronomy 4:34 : “Did ever God assay to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God hath done for you?”“Tantae molis erat Judaeam condere gentem.”And besides the other circumstances that the apostle expressly insists upon, this is mentioned here to intimate what obligation was on this people to attend unto the voice of God, in that he brought them up out of Egypt; and therefore it pleased God to preface the whole law of their obedience with the expression of it, “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,” Exodus 20:2.ΔιὰΜωυσέως, “By Moses.” “By the hand of Moses,” saith the Syriac. That is, either under his conduct and guidance, or through the prevalency of the miraculous works which God wrought by him. Both these senses the prophet expresseth, Isaiah 63:11-12 :“Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him? that led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?” Both the conduct of Moses, and the miracles that God wrought by him, are comprised in their coming up “by Moses.” And, by the way, it may be observed, that in this preparation and consultation, as it were, about new mercies to be bestowed on that people, there are several persons in the Deity introduced treating about it, and calling to remembrance their former actings towards them. He that speaks is the person of the Father, whose love and compassion are celebrated, Isaiah 63:7-9, as they are everywhere peculiarly ascribed unto that person. And he that is spoken of, and as it were inquired after to appear again in the work of their salvation, which peculiarly belongs unto him, he is called the “Angel of his presence,” Isaiah 63:9, and the LORD himself, Isaiah 63:14; that is, the person of the Son, unto whom the actual deliverance of the church in every strait doth belong, and he is therefore here, as it were, inquired after. And with reference unto this work by Moses it is said, “And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved,” Hosea 12:13.And this belongeth unto the whole people, none excepted. Secondly, This also is ascribed to them, that they “heard:” for whereas it is said, “Some, when they heard, provoked,” it is not meant that some only heard, and provoked; but of them that heard, some only provoked. What they heard was declared before, — the voice of God, as it is said, “To-day, if ye will hear his voice.” And this may be taken either strictly, for the heating of the voice of God at the giving of the law on mount Sinai, when the whole congregation heard χεֹ ?μεֹ ?ϊ, those voices of God in thundering and dreadful agitations of the mount wherewith it was accompanied, and the voice of God himself whereby the law was pronounced, — that is, an audible voice framed for that purpose by the ministry of angels; or it may be taken more largely, for a participation in all those instructions which God granted unto them in the wilderness. There seems, indeed, to be an especial respect unto the giving of the law, though not merely the promulgation of the ten words on Sinai, but the whole system of precepts and ordinances of worship that attended; for therein “they were evangelized, even as we,” Hebrews 4:2. And also, their hearing is spoken of as that which was past (“ When they had heard”) before their provoking, which yet signally happened in the second year after their coming out of Egypt. This, then, was the voice of God which they heard. The sin which is appropriated unto some of them who thus “came out of Egypt,” and “heard,” is that παρεπίκραναι, they “provoked,” — that is, God, whose voice, or word, or law they heard. The meaning of this word, and the nature of the sin expressed by it, have been spoken to before. I shall add one place that explains it: Hosea 12:14, ΰֶ ?τְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?νϊַּ ?ξְ ?ψεּ ?ψַ ?ινδִ ?λְ ?ςִ ?ιν, “Ephraim hath provoked bitternesses;” that is, very bitterly. Great provocations have a “bitterness” in them, as the word here denotes, which causeth God to loathe the provokers. By these considerations doth the apostle enforce his exhortation before insisted on, and show the necessity of it. This is, that they would diligently attend unto the word of the gospel, and steadfastly continue in the profession thereof. ‘For,’saith he, ‘when the people of old heard the voice of God in that dispensation of his law and grace which was suited unto their condition, some of them provoked him; whereas they may do so also who hear his voice in the dispensation of the gospel, therefore doth it highly concern them to take care that this be not the event of their mercy therein.’ Lastly, The apostle adds expressly a limitation, with respect to the persons who heard and provoked: “Howbeit not all.” In his preceding discourse he had expressed the sin and punishment of the people indefinitely, so as at first view to include the whole generation in the wilderness, without exception of any. Here, out of the story, he puts in an exception of some even of them who came up out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses. And there are three sorts of persons who lay claim to an interest in the privilege: — 1. Those who, being under twenty years of age, were not numbered in the wilderness of Sinai, in the second year after their coming up out of Egypt, Numbers 1:1-3; for of those that were then numbered there was not a man left, save Caleb and Joshua, when the people was numbered again in the plains of Moab by Moses and Eleazar, Numbers 26:63-64. These are they who died because of their provocation; those who before were under twenty years old being now the body of the people that was numbered.2. The tribe of Levi: for the threatening and oath of God were against all of them that were numbered in the wilderness of Sinai, Numbers 14:29, and the account is accordingly given in of the death of the numbered ones only, Numbers 26:63-64; but in the taking of that first muster-roll Moses was expressly commanded not to take the number of the Levites, Numbers 1:47-49. However, I much fear, by the course of the story, that the generality of this tribe fell also.3. Caleb and Joshua; and it is certain that these are principally, if not solely intended. Now, the reason why the apostle expresseth this limitation of his former general assertion is, that he might enforce his exhortation with the example of them who believed and obeyed the voice of God, and who thereon both enjoyed the promises and entered into the rest of God; so that he takes his argument not only from the severity of God, — which at first view seems only to be represented in his instance and example, — but also from his faithfulness and grace, which are included therein. And we may now a little further consider what is contained in these words for our instruction; as, — Obs. 1. Many hear the word or voice of God to no advantage, but only to aggravate their sin.Their hearing renders their sin provoking unto God, and destructive to their own souls. “Some, when they heard, provoked.” Daily experience is a sufficient confirmation of this assertion. The word of God is preached unto us, the voice of God sounds amongst us. As our apostle speaks, Hebrews 4:2, “Unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them;” and that with many advantages on our part. They heard the gospel indeed, but obscurely, and in law language, hard to be understood; we have it plainly, openly, and without parables, declared unto us. They heard the voice of him that spake on earth; we, his who speaks from heaven. But what is the issue of God’s thus dealing with us? Plainly, some neglect the word, some corrupt it, some despise it, — few mix it with faith, or yield obedience unto it, The dispensers of it may for the most part take up the complaint of the prophet, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?” Isaiah 53:1.And unto many, after their most serious and sedulous dealing with them in the name of God, they may take up the apostle’s close with the unbelieving Jews, Acts 13:41, “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish.” Most of them unto whom our Savior preached perished. They got nothing by hearing his doctrine, through their unbelief, but an aggravation of their sin and the hastening of their ruin. So he told Capernaum and the rest of the towns wherein he had wrought his miracles, and to whom he preached the gospel. His presence and preaching for a while brought them into a condition above that of Jerusalem, — they were “lifted up unto heaven;” but their unbelief under it brought them into a condition worse than that of Sodom, — they were “brought down to hell,” Matthew 11:21-24. It is, I confer, a great privilege, for men to have the word preached unto them and to hear it, Psalms 147:19-20; but privileges areas men use them. In themselves they are of worth and to be prized; but unto us they are as they are used. Hence the gospel becomes unto some “a savor of death unto death,” 2 Corinthians 2:16. Yea, Christ himself, in his whole ministry, was“a stone of stumbling and rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” Isaiah 8:14, Luke 2:34.And the enjoyment of any part of the means of grace is but a trial. And when any rest therein they do but boast in the putting on of their harness, not knowing what will be the end of the battle. And let none mistake unto whom the word of God comes, as it did unto this people in the wilderness. They are engaged; and there is no coming off but conquerors, or ruined. If they receive it not, it will be the aggravation of their sins, the eternal destruction of their souls. The reasons why it will do so I have insisted on in the exposition of Heb 2:1-3.Obs. 2. In the most general and visible apostasies of the church, God still preserves a remnant unto himself, to bear witness unto him and for him by their faith and obedience: “They provoked; howbeit not all.”They were indeed many who provoked, but not all A few they were, but yet some there were who inherited the promise. The professing church in, the world was never nearer ruin than at this time. Once, had Moses stood out of the way, had he not with all his might of faith and zeal abode in the breach, God had disinherited them all, and utterly destroyed them, and reserved him only for a new stock or spring, Exodus 32:9-14; Psalms 106:23. God had indeed at this time a great secret people, in the children of that generation; but the visible professing church consisted principally in the men that were numbered, — and it is not to be supposed that their wives were much behind their husbands in their murmuring, being more naturally than they, in straits and difficulties, prone to such miscarriages, by reason of their fears. And, “quantillum abfuit,” how near was this whole church to destruction! how near to apostasy! How many soever retained their faith, only Caleb and Joshua retained their profession. When God of old brought a flood upon the world for their wickedness, the professing church, that had been very great and large in the posterity of Seth, was reduced to eight persons, and one of them a cursed hypocrite. And once Elijah could see no more in Israel but himself. There were indeed then seven thousand latent believers, but scarce another visible professor. And it is not hard to imagine how little true faith, regularly professed, there was in the world when Christ was in the grave. And under the fatal apostasy foretold in the Revelation, those that “kept the testimony of Jesus” are reduced to so small a number as that they are spoken of under the name of “two witnesses.” But yet in all these hazardous trials and reductions of the number of professors, God always hath maintained, and ever will, a remnant, true, faithful, pure, and undefiled, unto himself- This he hath done, and this he will do, — 1. To maintain his own kingdom in the world. Satan, by his temptations and the entrance of sin, had greatly defaced the beauty, glory, and order of that kingdom which God first erected in the world, to be governed by the law of creation. But God still retains his sovereignty and authority in it and over it, in all its disorder, by his all-disposing providence; but that he might lose nothing by this attempt of his adversary, as not in power or interest, so neither in honor or glory, he erected in the first promise a new kingdom of grace. Unto this kingdom he gives his Son to be the head, — “the head over all things to the church,” Ephesians 1:22; and it unto him, to have therein an “everlasting dominion,” enduring through all ages, so that of the increase of his rule and government therein there should be no end, Isaiah 9:7. Now, this kingdom cannot be thus preserved, unless some be always, by real saving grace, and the profession of it, kept and maintained as subjects thereof. The kingdom of providence, indeed, under all its alterations, is natural unto God, and necessary. It implies a contradiction that there should be a creature, and God not the sovereign Lord of it. But this kingdom of grace depends on the purpose and faithfulness of God. He hath taken upon himself the continuance and preservation of it unto the end. Should it at any time totally fail, Christ would be a king without a kingdom, a head without a body, or cease to be the one and the other. Wherefore God will secure some, that neither by the abuse of their own liberty, nor by the endeavors of the gates of hell, shall ever be drawn off from their obedience. And this God, in his grace, power, and faithfulness, will effect, to make good his promises unto Christ, which he multiplied unto that purpose from the foundation of the world. 2. Should all faith utterly fail in the earth, should all professors provoke God and apostatize from him, all gracious intercourse between the Holy Spirit and mankind in this world would be at an end. The work of the Spirit is to convert the souls of men unto God, to sanctify them to be temples for himself to dwell in, to guide, teach, lead, and comfort them, by supplies of his grace. Suppose, then, that no saving grace or obedience should be left in the earth, this work of the Spirit of God must utterly fail and cease. But this consisteth not with his glorious immutability and power: he hath undertaken a work, and he will not faint in it, or give it over one moment, until it be accomplished, and all the elect brought unto God. If, therefore, the natural children of Abraham fail, he will out of the stones and rubbish of the Gentiles raise up a living temple unto God, wherein he may dwell, and provide a remnant for him on the earth. 3. God will do this for the work that he hath for some of his in all ages and seasons to do in the world. And this is great and various. He will have some always to conflict with his adversaries and overcome them, and therein give testimony to the power of his grace and truth. Could sin and Satan drive all true grace, faith, and obedience out of the world, they would complete their victory; but so long as they have any to conflict withal, against whom they cannot prevail, themselves are conquered. The victory is on the other side, and Satan is sensible that he is under the curse. Wherever true faith is, there is a victory, 1 John 5:4. By this doth God make his remnant as a “brazen wall,” that his enemies shall fight against in vain, Jeremiah 15:20. Be they, therefore, never so few, they shall do the work of God, in conquering Satan and the world through the “blood of the Lamb.”4. God will always have a testimony given to his goodness, grace, and mercy. As in the ways of his providence he never “left himself without witness,” Acts 14:17, no more will he in the ways of his grace. Some he will have to give testimony to his goodness, in the calling, pardoning, and sanctifying of sinners; which who shall do if there be none on earth made partakers of that grace? They are proper witnesses who testify what they know and have experience of. And lastly, God will always have a revenue of especial glory out of the world in and by his worship. And this also must necessarily cease and fail, should not God preserve to himself a remnant of them that truly fear him. And if this be the way of God’s dealing, we may see what becomes sometimes of that which the Papists make a note of the church, — namely, number and visibility. He that would choose his party by tale would scarce have joined himself with Caleb and Joshua, against the consent of about six hundred thousand men, who cried out to stone them because they were not of their mind. God’s way, indeed, is always to preserve some; but sometimes his way is to reserve but a few, — as we have seen in sundry instances before mentioned. Again, It is evident from whence it is that the church of God hath passed through so many trials, hazards, and dangers, and yet hath not to this day at any time utterly been prevailed against. It escaped of old when Cain slew Abel; when “all flesh had corrupted its ways,” and God brought the flood upon ungodly men, it escaped then in the family of Noah; as it did afterwards in that of Abraham; so it did in the wilderness by the fidelity of Moses, Caleb, and Joshua. Since the establishment of the Christian church, it is known what dreadful opposition it hath been exercised withal Once the world groaned, admiring to see itself surprised into Arianism; afterwards all “wondered after the beast,” and none were suffered to live that received not his mark, — a high renunciation of the authority of Jesus Christ. Yet from the jaws of all these hazards, these deaths, hath the church been preserved, and triumphed against all oppositions. God hath undertaken its preservation, and he will make it good to the uttermost. He hath given the Lord Christ power and authority to secure his own interest and concerns in the earth. And he sends the Spirit to convert and sanctify his elect, and will so do until the consummation of all things. A thread of infinite wisdom, care, and faithfulness, hath run along in this matter from the beginning hitherto, and it shall not be cut off or broken. And this may also give us satisfaction and security for the future as to that remnant of Jacob which lies in the midst, in the bowels of many nations, — it shall be preserved. He spake proudly who encouraged the pilot in a storm with “Caesaris fortunam vehis,” — “Fear not, thou carriest the fortune of Caesar;” which, though not then, yet soon after failed him. Believers are engaged in a bottom that hath Christ in it, and his interest, and the faithfulness of God, to secure its safe arrival in the harbor of eternal rest and peace. There is at this day a dreadful appearance of an opposition to the city of God. Paganism, Mohammedanism, Popery, Atheism, with sundry gross heresies, are in combination, as it were, against it, The contribution also of strength and craft which they have from the lusts and worldly interests of men is incredible. But yet we see that in the midst of all these storms and fears the Lord is pleased to preserve a remnant to himself, neither themselves nor their adversaries knowing how; and upon the grounds mentioned he will assuredly continue to do so to the end. Obs. 3. God lays a few, a very few ofttimes, of his secret ones in the balance against the greatest multitude of rebels and transgressors.They that provoked God were about six hundred thousand men, and upon the matter two only opposed them. But, in the language of the Holy Ghost, all that great multitude were but “some,” — some, not “all;” the principal part was preserved in those who were obedient. They were his portion, his inheritance, his jewels, dear to him as the apple of his eye, and deservedly preferred unto the greatest heap of chaff and rubbish. In the two next verses the apostle proceedeth to evince the necessity and enforce the use of his preceding exhortation, from the circumstances of the example insisted on; and this he doth by way of interrogation. He proposeth in them questions on the matter of fact, and answers them from what is either directly expressed, or undeniably included in the words insisted on. Hebrews 3:17-18. — But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?The kind of arguing here used by the apostle is not simply interrogatory, but it is that which is said to be by interrogation and subjection; that is, when a question is drawn, and an answer substituted out of the same matter; which hath such an efficacy for conviction and persuasion, that the great Roman orator seldom omits it in any of his orations. And it is so especially when the question proposed is “interrogatio rei,” an inquiry into a matter of fact; and the answer returned is “interrogatio λέξεως,” in form of speech an interrogation, but really an answer. Such is the apostle’s manner of arguing here. The interrogation, Hebrews 3:17, “With whom was he grieved forty years?” is “interrogatio rei;” and the answer returned is in an interrogatory form of speech, — “Was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness?” The words of the interrogation were explained on Hebrews 3:10, whereunto the reader is referred. In this repetition of them, the design of the apostle is to fix on the minds of the Hebrews the consideration of the people’s sin, and God’s dealing with them thereon. The answer unto this first inquiry consists in a double description of them with whom God was so long grieved or displeased, — First, By their sin, “Was it not with them that sinned?” Secondly, By their punishment, “Whose carcasses fell in the wilderness.”And we may consider first what is included, and then what is expressed in this answer. For the first, It is plainly included that God was not thus displeased with them all. Let not any apprehend that God took a causeless distaste at that whole generation, and so cast them off and destroyed them promiscuously, without distinction. As they were some only, and not all, that provoked; so it was with some only, and not all, that God was displeased. And two things do thence necessarily ensue to his purpose and advantage: — First, That his exhortation is enforced by showing that it was not an ordinary promiscuous event that befell their fathers in the wilderness, but that they passed under a distinguishing dispensation of God towards them, according to their deportment, as they also were like to do.Secondly, That they might also consider that with those who sinned not, who provoked not, God was not displeased, but according to his promise they entered into his rest; which promise in a more excellent sense still remains for their benefit, if they were not disobedient.The First thing expressed in the words, or the first part of the description of them with whom God was displeased, is their sin: “Was it not with them that sinned?” Their sin is first mentioned in general, and then the particular nature of it is afterwards declared. There were three sorts of sins that the people were guilty of in the wilderness: — 1. They were universally guilty of personal sins in their distinct capacities. And these may justly be supposed to be great and many. But these are not they which are here intended; for if in this sense God should mark iniquity, none could stand, Psalms 130:3. Neither were they free from sins of this nature who are here exempted from being objects of God’s displeasure.2. Especial provocations, wherein great numbers of the people were engaged, but not the whole congregation. Such was the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with their accomplices, who were many and great, even “two hundred and fifty princes, famous in the congregation, men of renown,” Numbers 16:2; the idolatry and adulteries of Peor, which infected many of the princes and people, with the like instances.3. General sins of the whole congregation; which consisted in their frequent murmurings and rebellions, which came to a head as it were in that great provocation upon the return of the spies, Numbers 14, when they not only provoked God by their own unbelief, but encouraged one another to destroy those two persons, Joshua and Caleb, who would not concur in their disobedience: “All the congregation bade stone them with stones,” Numbers 14:10. This distinction was observed by the daughters of Zelophehad in their address for an inheritance among their brethren:“Our father,” say they, “died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin,” Numbers 27:3.They acknowledge him guilty of personal sins, and deny not but that he joined in the general provocation of the whole congregation, but only that he had a hand in those especial provocations which God fixed an eminent mark of his displeasure upon, by cutting off the provokers with fearful, sudden, and signal judgments; whereas others were gradually consumed by death in a natural way. But it is this last kind of sin, in the guilt whereof the whole congregation was equally involved, that the apostle intends in this expression, “Was it not with them that sinned?” Observe, — Obs. 1. God is not displeased with any thing in his people but sin; or, sin is the only proper object of God’s displeasure, and the sinner for sin’s sake: ‘With whom was he displeased, but with them that sinned?’ I need not set up my candle in the sun of this truth. I wish it were as seriously considered practically as it is confessed and acknowledged notionally. Every revelation of God, by his word or works, bears witness hereunto; and every man hath that witness hereof in himself as will not admit him to doubt of it. The nature of God, the law of God, the light of conscience, the sense that is in all of a judgment, at present fixed, and certainly future, testify unto it. And doubtless great is the power of sin and the craft of Satan, which prevail with most to continue in sin, notwithstanding this uncontrollable conviction. Obs. 2. Public sins, sins in societies, are great provocations of God.It was not for their private and personal sins that God was thus provoked with this people, but for their conspiracy, as it were, in sin. The reasons hereof are manifest, and I shall not insist upon them. God help cities and nations, especially such as hear the voice of God, well to consider it, and all of us, to take heed of national prevailing sins! Secondly, The apostle describes these persons by their punishment: “Whose carcasses fell in the wilderness.” Κῶλα, — how variously this word is rendered by translators I have showed before. That which the apostle intendeth to express, is the words of God unto the people, Numbers 14:29 : τִ ?βְ ?ψֵ ?ιλֶ ?ναַּ ?ξִּ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψδַ ?ζֶּ ?διִ ?τְ ?μεּ; — “In this wilderness shall your carcasses fall.” Which is emphatically repeated, Numbers 14:32, τִ ?βְ ?ψֵ ?ιλֶ ?νΰַ ?ϊֶ ?νιτְּ ?μεּ αַ ?ξִּ ?γְ ?αָּ ?ψδַ ?ζֶּ ?δ; — “Your carcasses, you, shall fall in this wilderness.” ΰϊֶּ ?ν, “you,” is emphatically added, as to apply the threatening to their persons immediately, so to show them it should be their lot and not their children’s, as they murmured; as also to express a πάθος and indignation in the delivery. τֶ ?βֶ ?ψּ ?is from τָ ?βַ ?ψ, to be “weary,” “faint,” “cold,” “frigore enecari” (whence is that word), “slothful.” Thence is τֶ ?βֶ ?ψ, “peger,” “a dead carcass,” a thing cold, without life, heat, or motion. It is used sometimes for the carcass of a beast, commonly called πְ ?αֵ ?μָ ?δ, “That which is fallen,” so Genesis 15:11; most frequently for the carcasses of men. Elias Levita supposeth that it denotes only the carcasses of wicked men. And indeed it is most commonly, if not always, so used. See Amos 8:3; Isaiah 14:19; Isaiah 34:3; Isaiah 66:24; Jeremiah 33:5; Ezekiel 43:9. There seems to be an exception unto this observation of Elias, from Jeremiah 41:9 : “And the pit whereinto Ishmael cast λָּ ?μΰּ ?τβְ ?ψֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ινΰֵ ?ϊ,” — “all the carcasses of the men whom he slew.” But whether this be of force against the observation of Elias I know not. Those men might be wicked for aught that appears in the text. Now, this word the LXX. render sometimes by σῶμα, “a body,” Genesis 15:11; σῶμανεκρόν, “a dead body,” Isaiah 37:36; — sometimes by νεκρός, “a dead person,” 2 Chronicles 20:25, Jeremiah 33:5; πτῶμα, “cadaver,” “a carcass,”Ezekiel 6:5; but most frequently by κῶλον, the word here used by the apostle, as Numbers 14:29; Numbers 14:32-33, the place here referred unto. Κῶλον is a “member,” “membrum,” or “artus;” which words are of the same importance and signification; and the whole compages of them is the same with the body. As Tydeus in Statius, Theb. 8:739: —“— — Odi artus, fragilemque hunc corporis usum.”And the same author again, of Agylleus, ibid. 6:841: — “Luxuriant artus, effusaque sanguine laxo Membra natant.”Hence interpreters promiscuously render the word here by “membra” or “artus.” Κῶλα are principally “crura” and “lacerti;” the greater members of the body, arms, legs, and thighs, whose bones are greatest and of longest duration. In the singular number, therefore, it signifies not the whole body, but some distinct member of it; and thence it is translated into the use of speech, and denotes a part of a sentence, a sub-distinction. But κῶλα, in the plural number, may denote the whole carcass. I suppose the τְ ?βָ ?ψִ ?ιν, or “carcasses” of the people, may here be called their κῶλα, their “members” or their “bones,” as Suidas renders the word; because probably in those great plagues and destructions that befell them, their rebellious carcasses were many of them left on the ground in the wilderness, where consuming, their greater bones lay scattered up and down. So the psalmist complains that it befell them at another season: Psalms 141:7,“Our bones are scattered at the grave’s mouth, as when one cutteth and cleaveth wood upon the earth.”In such a work, pieces of the hewed or cleft wood will lie scattered up and down, here and there, in some places covering the earth, — so did their bones; and said to be at the mouth of the grave, because the opening of the earth is that which gives a grave to the carcasses of men. The appearance and spectacle hereof the Roman historian represents in the carcasses, or bones rather, of the legions cut off by Herminius in Germany with Quintilius Varus, and left in the open field, when six years after Germanicus brought his army to the same place: — “In medio campi albentia ossa (κῶλα) ut fugerant, ut restiterant, disjecta vel aggerata; adjacebant fragmina telorum, equorumque artus,” Tacit. Ann., lib. 1:; —“In the midst of the field, bones grown white, scattered or heaped, as they had fled, or resisted; by them lay pieces of broken weapons, with the members of horses.” A great and sore destruction or judgment this is accounted amongst men, and therefore is it made a representation of hell, Isaiah 66:24,“They shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”Some of the Jews refer these words to the victory they fancy that they shall have against Gog and Magog, when they come to fight against their Messiah. It is literally much more true concerning the believing Gentiles, whose calling is expressly foretold and prophesied of in the foregoing verses, who saw the severe judgment of God on the unbelieving Jews, when, in the fatal destruction of their city and temple, their carcasses were truly cast out on the earth, and were “an abhorring unto all flesh.” But here is also a representation of the final judgment of the last day, and everlasting punishment of the wicked; whereunto some of the words are applied, Mark 9:44; which the Targum on the place also applies them unto. The casting out, therefore, of carcasses to be beheld and abhorred is a sore judgment. And the Jews suppose that all those who died under God’s displeasure in the wilderness were shut out of heaven or the world to come, Tractat. Sanhed. Perek. 10. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ THIS chapter is of the same nature and carrieth on the same design with that foregoing. That contained an exhortation unto faith, obedience, and perseverance, enforced by an instance in the pernicious event or punishment which befell them who were guilty of sin contrary unto those duties. And this was done by the exposition and application of a prophetical testimony, suggesting an example of God’s dealing with unbelievers formerly. Now, whereas in the words of the psalmist there is not only a moral example proposed unto us, but a prophecy also is interwoven therein concerning the rest of God in Christ by the gospel, and our duty thereon, the apostle proceeds to expound, improve, and confirm his exhortation from the scope, design, and words of that prophecy. Wherefore, in the beginning of this chapter he resumes his exhortation, in an immediate coherence with and dependence upon what he had before discoursed. Hence some think that the first verse of this chapter is unduly cut off and separated from that foregoing, whereunto it doth belong; yea, some, as we intimated before, that this discourse of the apostle doth immediately succeed unto the 14th verse (Hebrews 3:14) of the preceding chapter, that which ensueth being a digression to be included in a parenthesis. But, as was said, the words of the psalmist containing a representation of a moral example from things past in the church, and a prophetical description of the future state and condition of the church, the apostle having made use of the former or moral example, in the preceding discourses, arguings, expostulations, and exhortations, here entereth upon the exposition and improvement of the latter, or the words of the psalmist, with reference unto their prophetical prospect towards the times of the gospel, and the instruction which was laid up for the use of those times in the example that he had insisted on. Herein, — 1. He proposeth the duty which he aimeth to press upon those Hebrews, as that which is required in the words of the psalmist, from the example represented in them; with an especial enforce-merit of it, from the consideration of the sin and punishment of them whose example is proposed, which followeth thereon, Hebrews 4:1-2.2. He vindicates the foundation of his exhortation, by showing that the “rest” which the psalmist speaks of, and which he persuades them to endeavor an entrance into, and to take heed that they fail not, or come not short of, was yet remaining to be enjoyed, Hebrews 4:3; as being neither the rest of God from the works of creation, with the sabbatical rest which ensued thereon, Hebrews 4:4-6; nor yet the rest of Canaan, which Joshua brought the people into, Hebrews 4:7-8; but a spiritual rest, which remained for believers to enjoy, Hebrews 4:8-10. 3. Hence he resumes his exhortation with respect unto his explication and vindication of the prophetical testimony by him produced, Hebrews 4:11.4. This he again strengtheneth by a double argument or consideration: —(1.) In a way of caution, by proposing unto them the nature of the word of God wherein they were concerned, Hebrews 4:12-13. (2.) In a way of encouragement from the priesthood of Christ, whereby this rest was procured for believers; and therein makes a transition to the declaration and exposition of that priesthood, with the effects and consequents of it, in the six ensuing chapters. Φοβηθῶμενου῏ν, μήποτε, καταλειπομένηςἐπαγγελίαςεἰσελθεῖνεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσιναὐτοῦ, δοκῇτιςἐξὑμῶνὑστερηκέναι. Καὶγάρἐσμενεὐγγελισμένοι, καθάπερκάκεῖνοι·ἀλλ᾿οὐκὠφέλησενὁλόγοςτῆςἀκοῆςἐκείνους, μήσυγκεκραμένοςτῇπίστετοῖςἀκούσασιν.Hebrews 4:1. — Φοβηθῶμενου῏ν, “timeamus ergo,” “metuamus igitar,” — more properly, “let us fear, therefore.”Καταλειπομένηςἐπαγγελίας. Vulg. Lat., “ne forte.” Rhem., “lest; perhaps,” — as though it in. tended the uncertainty of the event;. Beza and Eras., “ne quando,” “lest at any time.” Ours omit the force of ποτέ, “lest.” If it have an especial signification, it respects the several seasons or occasions which in the “fear” enjoined we ought to have regard unto.Καταλειπομένηςἐπαγγελίας. Vulg. Lat.,” relicta pollicitatione:” “pollicitatio” being an improper word in this matter, all modern translators have changed it into “promissio.” Rhem., “forsaking the promise.” But the words in the V. L. are capable of another sense, — namely, “a promise being left.” Beza and Eras., “derelicts promissione;” which determines the sense, “the promise being left,” “forsaken,” “neglected:” accordingly the Ethiopic, “let us not reject his command.” The Syriac otherwise, with respect to the continuance of a promise, γַּ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ΰλָּ ?γχַ ?ιָּ ?νξεּ ?μְ ?λָ ?πָ ?ΰ— “ne forte stante promissione,” “ne forte dum star promissio,” — “lest whilst the promise standeth,” “continueth,” or” is firm,” namely, of entering into rest. This is followed by the Arabic, “whereas a certain promise remaineth.” Of this difference in sense we must treat in our exposition of the words. Εἰσελθεῖνεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσιναὐτοῦ. See Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 3:18.Δοκῇτιςἐξὑμῶνὑστερηκε.ναι. Vulg. Lat., “existimetur aliquis e vobis deessc.” Rhem., “some of you be thought to be wanting.” “Deesse” neither expresseth the meaning of the original word nor hath any proper sense in this place, as both Erasmus and Beza observe. Arias, “defici,” “fail.” Δοκῇ: Eras., Bee., “videatur,” “should seem” or “appear;” more properly than “existimetur;’it referring to the persons spoken unto, and their deportment, not the opinion or judgment of others concerning them. ῾Υστερηκέναι: Eras., “frustratus fuisse,” “to have been frustrated;” that is, in his hopes, expectations, profession, or of entering. Men wilt be deceived, if they hope to enter into God’s rest and yet neglect his promise; which is the sense he takes the words in. Bees, “fuisse per tarditatem exclusus;” endeavoring to express the precise signification of the word he somewhat obscures the sense, — “to have been excluded from it by keeping behind,” by slowness, in not going forward. Δοκῇτιςἐξὑμῶν: The Syriac, ΰֶ ?πֶ ?ωׁ ξְ ?πλεּ ?οπֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊְּ ?λַּ ?η, “a man should be found amongst you;” omitting that sense of the word δοκῇ which many expositors insist on, as we shall see. Arab., “any one of you should think.” Υστερηκέναι: Syr. fills up the sense, γְ ?τָ ?ΰֵ ?ωׁ ξֵ ?ογַּ ?μְ ?ξֵ ?ςַ ?μ, “that should cease from entering,” or “fail of entering.” Ours, “seem to come short of it,” properly. Hebrews 4:2. — Καὶγάρἐσμενεὐγγελισμένοι. Vulg. Lat., “etenim et nobis nunciatum est.” Erasmus,” annunciatum est.” Rhem., “for unto us it was denounced.” Improperly all of them, nor is” denounce” any way significant in this matter. Beza, “etenim nobis evangelizatum est.” Ours, “for unto us was the gospel preached,” and so the word signifies: “etenim sumus evangelizati,” “for we are evangelized;” of which construction afterwards. Syr., “nunciature eat;” more properly, “evangelizatum est,”” the gospel is,” or “was preached.”῾Ολόγοςτῆςἀκοῆς. Vulg. Lat., “sermo auditus.” Rhem., “the word of hearing;” taking “auditus” for a substantive and not a participle, which also the original requireth. Eras., “non profuit illis audisse sermonem,” “it profited them not to have heard the word.” Ours, “the word preached.” Syr., γּ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ςεּ ξֵ ?μְ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “the word which they heard.” Of the meaning of the phrase of speech used in the original we shall treat afterwards. Μήσυγκεκραμένος. The Complutensian copy, which is followed by sundry vulgar editions, reads συγκεκραμένους, making this word agree with “those that heard,” and not with λόγος, “the word” that was heard. And this reading is followed by the Arabic and Ethiopic translations. Συγκεκραμένος: Vulg. Lat., “admistus;” Eras., “cure fide conjunctus;” Beza, “contemperatus;” — ali to the same purpose, “mixed,” “joined,” “tempered,” with faith.Τῇπίστει. “Fide,” “cure fide,” “fidei,” — “with faith,” “unto the faith.” Τοῖςἀκούσασιν. Vulg. Lat., “fidei exiis quae audiverant.” Rhem., “with faith of those things which they heard;” referring τοῖς to the things heard, and not to the persons hearing; but that ἀκούσασιν will not bear. [1][1] VARIOUS . — Συγκεκραμέν. Instead of the Attic form, some codices have συγκεκερασμένος, which Ebrard deems the true reading is the reading of codices A B C D, as also of several important versions. Recent commentators, with the exception of Ebrard, prefer the latter; in which ease the sense would be, “because they were not united in the faith with those who obeyed.” . — Καταλ. ἐπαγγ. The promise being contemned. — Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Gerhard. That no one appear to remain behind the promise which is still left. — Cramer, Ernesti. That no one show himself as too late, theft a promise is still with us. — Bleek, Olshausen, Stuart. Lest while thee promise to be.fulfilled, any of you imagine that he has come too late. — Schottgen, Baumgarten, Schulz, Wahl, Bretschneider, Ebrard. — ED. Hebrews 4:1-2. — Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any of you should seem at any time to come short [to fail]. For unto us was the gospel preached, even as unto them [we were evangelized even as they]; but the word of hearing did not profit them, being not mixed with faith in them that heard.These two verses, as they may and do contain an improvement of the example and inferences made from it, as expressed in the preceding chapter, so withal and principally the apostle gives the Hebrews a further demonstration that what he had insisted on was of near concernment unto them, and that their condition was therein represented. For they might be apt to say, ‘What have we to do with the people in the wilderness, with the promise of entering into Canaan, or with what the psalmist from thence exhorted our fathers unto of old, who were still held under the same dispensation?’ But saith the apostle, ‘These things belong unto you in an especial manner; for besides that you may in the example proposed see evidently what you are to look for and expect from God, if you fall into the same sin which he therein expresseth his severity against, so the things treated of in the psalm are a prophetical direction designed for your especial use in your present condition.’ The way in particular which the apostle insists on to press these things upon them is, — 1. By exhorting them to that duty and those considerations which are the just consequents of the things by him proposed unto them;2. By manifesting that their concernment in those things did afford him a just foundation of his exhortation. The exhortation is contained in the first verse, and the confirmation of it in the second.Hebrews 4:1. — And there is, Hebrews 4:1, —1. The frame of spirit expressed which the apostle exhorts the Hebrews unto, on the consideration of what he had minded them of, and of their interest therein,-” Let us therefore fear.” 2. A supposition on which the exhortation to this duty and frame is founded, — “A promise being left of entering into rest.”3. The evil to be prevented by attendance unto the duty proposed, — “Lest any of you should seem to come short of it,” Whether this be an evil of sin or of punishment shall be afterwards inquired into.Hebrews 4:2. — There ensues in the second verse a confirmation of what is in the first proposed, and that, —1. On the account of a parity in condition between us and those from whom the example is taken, — “Unto us was the gospel preached, even as unto them.”2. On the account of the evil success of them in that condition, with the reason thereof, — “But the word preached did not profit them, because it was not mixed with faith in them that heard.”Our way being thus prepared, we may open the words in particular as they lie in the context. Φοβηθῶμενου῏ν. Ου῏ν, “therefore.” An illative, manifesting the deduction of the present exhortation from the preceding discourse and example. We have now several times observed that the apostle is constant unto this method, namely, of educing new exhortations immediately out of arguments doctrinally proposed and confirmed. This makes his discourse nervous, and his exhortation efficacious; shutting up the minds of them with whom he deals, leaving them no place unto evasion or tergiversation. And herein, unto the weight and authority of his words, he adds the reasonableness of his inferences, and from both concludes the necessity of the duty which he proposeth. Φοβηθῶμεν, — “Let us fear.” The noun φόβος, and the verb φοβέομαι, are used in the New Testament to express all sorts of “fears” and “fearing;” such are natural, civil, sinful, and religious fear. They are therefore of a larger extent, and more various use, than any one radical word in the Old Testament.The fear here intended is religious, relating to God, his worship, and our obedience. And this is fourfold: — First, Of terror. Secondly, Of diffidence. Thirdly, Of reverence. Fourthly, Of care, solicitousness, and watchfulness. And concerning these, I shall first show what they are, or wherein they consist, and then inquire which of them it is that is here intended: — First, There is a fear of dread and terror; and this respecteth either,1. God; or, 2. Other things, wherein we may be concerned in his worship: —1. Of God. And this is either expressive of,(1.) The object, the thing feared, or God himself; or,(2.) The subject, or person fearing, the frame of heart in him that feareth: —(1.) Fear respects the object of fear, that which we do fear: “Knowing therefore τὸνφόβοντοῦΚυρίου,” 2 Corinthians 5:11, — “the fear of the Lord,” or the “terror,” as we render it; that is, how great, dreadful, holy, and terrible he is. Hence Jacob calls God, τηַ ?γιִ ?φְ ?ηַ ?χ, Genesis 31:42; Genesis 31:53, — the “Fear of Isaac,” or him whom Isaac served, worshipped, feared. And τηַ ?γ, when it respects the subject, denotes that kind of fear which hath greatness, dread, and terror for an object; whereas they express a reverential fear by ιִ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ. This fear the apostle hath respect unto, Hebrews 12:28-29 : “Let us serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire.” The fear of dread and terror in God, requires the fear of reverence in us, in all that we have to do with him. A respect hereunto is expressed by sinners, Isaiah 33:14, and Micah 6:6-7.(2.) Fear expresseth that frame of heart and spirit which is in men towards an object apprehended dreadful and fearful. And this also is twofold: —[1. A consternation and dread of spirit, on the apprehension of God as an enemy, as one that will punish and avenge sin. This is ψָ ?ςַ ?γ, which is joined with τμָּ ?φεּ ?ϊ, Psalms 60:6, “a trembling horror.” This befell Adam upon his sin, and that inquisition that God made about it, Genesis 3:10; and Cain, Genesis 4:13. Such a consideration of God as would beget this frame in him Job often deprecates, Job 9:34; Job 23:6. And the same is intended in the places above cited, Isaiah 33:14; Micah 6:6-7. Something hereof befell them of old who, upon the apprehension that they had seen God, concluded that they should die. They had a dread which fell on them from an apprehension of his excellency and holiness, and terrified them with thoughts that they should be consumed. And this fear, in its latitude, is a consternation of spirit, on an apprehension of God’s greatness and majesty, with respect unto present or future judgments, — when the mind is not relieved by faith in the reconciliation made by Jesus Christ, — weakening, disheartening, and alienating the heart from God.[2. An awful fear of God’s greatness and holiness, with respect unto deserved and impendent judgments in this world. This fear may befall believers, and be at some seasons their especial duty. This David expresseth, Psalms 119:120, “My flesh trembleth for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy judgment.” And elsewhere on the same account he declares that “fearfulness and trembling laid hold on him,” Psalms 55:5. So Habakkuk expresseth his condition under the like apprehension, Habakkuk 3:16, “When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself.” And this fear of dread and terror, thus qualified, is both good and useful in its kind. And this is that which Joshua labors to ingenerate in the minds of the people, Joshua 24:19-20. And of great use it is to the souls of men, both before and after their conversion unto God. Of a fear of awe and reverence in general, with respect unto the greatness and holiness of God, we shall treat afterwards. 2. There may be a fear of dread and terror in our way of obedience, which may respect other things. Such are the oppositions and difficulties which we do or may meet withal, either from within or without, in our course, which may incline us to despondency and despair. This in particular befell David, when, notwithstanding the promise of God to the contrary, he concluded that “he should one day perish by the hand of Saul,” 1 Samuel 27:1. This the Scripture expresseth by ηָ ?ϊַ ?ϊ, which we render “to be dismayed,” Joshua 1:9, “Be not terrified, nor be thou dismayed.” The word signifies “to be broken;” and when applied unto the mind, it denotes “to be sore terrified, so as to sink in courage and resolution;” which we well press by being “dismayed,” — to be broken and weakened in mind, through a terror arising from the apprehension of oppositions, difficulties, and dangers. It is ascribed unto men when God strikes a terror into them, or when they are terrified with their own fears, Isaiah 30:31, Jeremiah 10:2, — a consternation and horror of mind; and ςָ ?ψַ ?φ, a word of the same signification, is often joined with it. This fear, therefore, arising from a discouraging, terrifying apprehension of dangers and oppositions, weakening and disenabling the soul to make use of due means vigorously in the discharge of its duty, can have no place here; yea, it is directly contrary to and inconsistent with the end aimed at by the apostle. And this is the first sort of fear that any way respects our religious obedience unto God. See Isaiah 8:12-13; Isaiah 51:12-13; Matthew 10:28.Secondly, There is a fear of distrust and diffidence, or a fear arising from or accompanied with a distrust of the accomplishment of God’s promises, at least as to our interest in them. This is a defect in faith, and opposite unto it. This was the fear which ruined the Israelites in the wilderness. Being discouraged through their difficulties, “They believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation,” Psalms 78:22. And this cannot be here charged on us as our duty. A fluctuation and hesitation of mind about the promises’of God, or the event of our condition in a course of sincere obedience, is not required of us, nor accepted from us. For no duty is acceptable with God but what is not only consistent with faith, but also proceedeth from it. The same faith that works by love, works also by delight; and it casts out this fear of distrust and diffidence. And no fear can be our duty but what is a fruit and effect of it. Believers do not receive “the spirit of bondage again to fear,” Romans 8:15; nay, it is that which Christ died to deliver us from, Hebrews 2:14-15. But it may be considered two ways; —1. As it partakes of the nature of diffidence, in opposition to faith and liberty, and so it is utterly to be rejected;2. As it partakes of the nature of godly jealousy, and is opposed to security, and so it may be cherished, though it be not here intended.Thirdly, There is a fear of reverence, — a reverential fear of God. This is that which most commonly is intended by the name of the “fear of God,” both in the Old Testament and the New. And it is not an especial duty, suited unto some seasons and occasions, but that which concerns us in our whole course, in all our ways and actings. Sometimes it is taken subjectively, for the internal reverential frame of our hearts in all wherein we have to do with God; and sometimes objectively, for the worship of God itself. So is the nature of it expressed, Deuteronomy 28:58,“Observe the words of this law, that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD.” The glorious and dreadful majesty of God is the object of it and motive unto it, which gives it the nature of reverence. And the way whereby it is exercised and expressed is a due observation of the worship of God according to the law. But neither is this that which is peculiarly intended, as not being more incumbent on us in one season than another, on one account than another. Fourthly, There is a fear of circumspection, care, and diligence, with respect unto the due use of the means, that we may attain the end proposed unto us. This some would confound with a fear of diffidence, dread, and terror, with respect unto the uncertainty of the end; but it is quite of another nature. And as that is everywhere condemned in us, so this is no less frequently commended unto us: Romans 11:20, “Be not high- minded, but fear.” Philippians 2:12, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” 1 Peter 1:17, “Pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.” Proverbs 28:14, “Happy is the man that feareth alway;” that is, with this fear of watchfulness, diligence, and spiritual care. But as to the other it is affirmed, that” God hath not given us the spirit of fear,” 2 Timothy 1:7, or of bondage, through diffidence and uncertainty of the event of our obedience. Now, the acting of the soul in and about the use of means is ascribed unto fear, when the mind is influenced by a due apprehension of the threatenings and severity of God against sin, they being the way whereby we are delivered from being obnoxious unto them. Thus Noah, when God had denounced his judgments against the old world, although they were not yet seen, did not appear in any preparation made for them, yet believing that they would be inflicted accordingly, εὐλαβηθείς, “being moved with fear, he prepared an ark,” Hebrews 11:7. Apprehending the severity of God, believing his threatening, his mind was influenced into that fear which put him with diligence on the use of those means’whereby he and his family might be saved and preserved. It will, from these considerations, be plainly evidenced what that fear is which is here enjoined and prescribed unto us, An instance and example of God’s severity against unbelievers is laid down and proposed unto our consideration by the apostle in his preceding discourse. In this example of God’s dealing with them of old, he declares also that there is included a commination of dealing with all others in the same manner, who shall fall into the same sin of unbelief with them. None may flatter themselves with vain hopes of any privilege or exemption in this matter. Unbelievers shall never enter into the rest of God. This he further confirms in these two verses, though his present exhortation be an immediate inference from what went before: “Wherefore let us fear.” How must we do this? with what kind of fear? Not with a fear of diffidence, of doubting, of wavering, of uncertainty as to the event of our obedience. This indeed may, this doth, befall many, but it is enjoined unto none; it is a fruit of unbelief, and so cannot be our duty. Neither can it be that which was intimated in the second place under the first head, namely, a dread and dismayedness of mind upon a prospect of difficulties, oppositions, and dangers in the way. This is the sluggard’s fear, who cries, “There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets.” To expel and cast out this fear, as that which weakens and disheartens men in their profession, is one of the especial designs of the apostle in this epistle. Nor is it that general fear of reverence which ought to accompany us, in all wherein we have to do with God. For this is not particularly influenced by threatenings and the severity of God, seeing we are bound always so to “fear the LORD and his goodness;” nor is this fear required of us, as was said, more at one season than another. It remains, therefore, that the fear here intended is mixed of the first and the last of those before mentioned. And so two things are included in it: — First, An awful apprehension of the holiness and greatness of God, with his severity against sin, balancing the soul against temptation. Secondly, A careful diligence in the use of means, to avoid the evil threatened unto unbelief and disobedience And the right stating of these things being of great moment in our practice, it must be further cleared in the ensuing observations. As, — Obs. 1. The gospel, in the dispensation thereof, is not only attended with promises and rewards, but also with threatenings and punishments. This, for the substance of it, hath been already spoken unto, on Hebrews 2:2-3.Obs. 2. Gospel comminations ought to be managed towards all sorts of professors promiscuously, be they true believers, temporary, or hypocrites. So they are here proposed by the apostle unto the Hebrews without exception or limitation, and amongst them were persons of all the sorts mentioned. But this also will be comprised under the third proposition; namely, that, —Obs. 3. Fear is the proper object of gospel comminations, which ought to be answerable to our several conditions and grounds of obnoxiousness unto those threatenings. This is that which the apostle presseth us unto, on the consideration of the severity of God against unbelievers, peremptorily excluding them out of his rest, after they had rejected the promise. “Let us,” saith he, “therefore fear.” What fear it is that in respect unto believers is here intended hath been declared. We shall now inquire how far and wherein the minds of men ought to be influenced with fear from gospel threatenings, and of what use that is in our walking with God. For there is, as was said, a threatening included in the example of God’s severity towards unbelievers, before insisted on. And unto that the apostle hath a retrospect in this exhortation; as well as he hath also a regard to the present promise, whose consideration ought to have the same influence on the minds of men, as shall be declared. Gospel threatenings are distinguished first with respect to their objects, or those against whom they are denounced or to whom they are declared, and also with respect to their own nature or the subject-matter of them. Of the persons intended in them there are three sorts: — 1. Such as are yet open or professed unbelievers. 2. Such as make profession of the faith, profess themselves to believe, but indeed do not so in a due and saving manner; who also admit of many respective considerations. 3. True believers.For the subject-matter of them, they may be referred unto these two general heads: — 1. Such as express displeasure to be exercised in temporary things. 2. Such as denounce everlasting wrath and punishment. According to this distribution we may consider what is or ought to be their influence on the minds of men with respect unto the fear which we inquire about.1. Some gospel comminations respect, firstly, properly, and directly, professed unbelievers, as such, and so continuing. As the sum of all promises is enwrapped in those words, “He that believeth shall be saved,”Mark 16:16, so that of all these threatenings is [enwrapped] in those that follow, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” An alike summary of gospel promises and threatenings we have, John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”And threatenings of this nature are frequently scattered up and down in the New Testament. See Romans 2:8-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10; 1 Peter 4:17-18. And these threatenings may be so far called evangelical, inasmuch as they are proper to the gospel, and distinct from all the threatenings of the law. The law knows no more of gospel threatenings than of gospel promises. The threatenings of the law lie against sinners for sins committed; the threatenings of the gospel are against sinners for refusing the remedy provided and tendered unto them. They are superadded unto those of the law; and in them doth the gospel, when rejected, become “death unto death,” 2 Corinthians 2:16, by the addition of that punishment contained in its threatenings unto that which is contained in the threatenings of the law. Now the end of these threatenings, — (1.) On the part of Christ, the author of the gospel, is the manifestation of his power and authority over all flesh, with his holiness, majesty, and glory, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10.(2.) On the part of the gospel itself, —[1. A declaration of the necessity of believing; [2. Of the worth and excellency of the things proposed to be believed; [3. Of the price and esteem which God puts upon their acceptance or refusal, — and in all, the certain and infallible connection that is between unbelief and eternal destruction; [4. The vindication of it from contempt, 2 Corinthians 10:6.(3.) On the part of unbelievers, to whom they are denounced, the end and design of them is to ingenerate fear in them: —[1. A fear of dread and terror, with respect unto the authority and majesty of Christ, their author; [2. A fear of anxiety, with respect unto their present state and condition; [3. A fear of the punishment itself to be inflicted on them. And these things do well deserve a more full handling, but that they are not here directly intended. 2. Gospel threatenings may be considered with respect unto all sorts of unsound and temporary believers. For, besides that this sort of persons, continuing such, do and will finally fall under the general threatenings against unbelief and unbelievers, there are peculiarly two sorts of threatenings in the gospel that lie against them: —(1.) Such as respect their present, and,(2.) Such as respect their future condition.(3.) Of the first sort are those severe intimations of anger and displeasure which our Lord Jesus Christ gave out unto sundry members of the churches in the Revelation, notwithstanding the profession that they made. He discovers their hypocrisy and falseness under all their pretences, and threatens to cut them off if they repent not, Revelation 2:14-16; Revelation 2:20-23; Revelation 3:1-3; Revelation 3:15-18. And this duty is always incumbent on them to whom the dispensation of the gospel is committed, namely, to declare these threatenings unto all that may be found in their condition. For not only may they justly suppose that such there are, and always will be, in all churches, but also many do continually declare and evidence themselves to be in no better state. And the discovery hereof unto them by the word is a great part of our ministerial duty. (2.) There are such as respect their future condition, or threatenings of eternal wrath and indignation with especial regard unto that apostasy whereunto they are liable. It is manifest that there are such comminations denounced against deserters, apostates, such as forsake the profession which they have made; which we shall have occasion to speak unto in our progress, for they abound in this epistle. Now these, in the first place, respect these unsound professors of whom we speak. And this for two ends: —[1. To deter them from a desortion of that profession wherein they are engaged, and of that light whereunto they have attained; for although that light and profession would not by and of themselves eternally save them, yet, — 1st. They lie in order thereunto, and engage them into the use of those means which may ingenerate that faith and grace which will produce that effect; 2dly. The deserting of them casts them both meritoriously and irrecoverably into destruction.[2. To stir them up unto a consideration of the true state and condition wherein at present they are. Men may as well fail in their profession, or come short of that grace which they own, Hebrews 12:15, as fall from that profession which they have made. And these threatenings are denounced against the one miscarriage as well as the other.The general end of these gospel comminations, with respect unto these unsound professors, is fear. Because of them they ought to fear. And that,— (1.) With a fear of jealousy as to their present condition. The consideration of the terror of the Lord declared in them ought to put them on a trembling disquisition into their state, and what their expectations may be.(2.) A fear of dread as to the punishment itself threatened, so far as they fall under conviction of their being obnoxious thereunto.3. Gospel threatenings may be considered as they respect believers themselves; and in that sense we may consider what respect they have unto God, and what unto believers, with what is the proper effect of them designed of God to be accomplished in their spirits.There is a difference between the promises and threatenings of the gospel; for the promises of God are declarative of his purposes unto all believers that are “called according to his purpose,” Romans 8:28-31. The threatenings are not so to all unbelievers, much less to believers; but they are means to work the one sort from their unbelief, and to confirm the other in their faith. Only, they are declarative of God’s purposes towards them who have contracted the guilt of the unpardonable sin, and declare the event as to all finally impenitent sinners.(1.) They have a respect unto the nature of God, and are declarative of his condemning, hating, forbidding of that sin which the threatening is denounced against. It is an effectual way to manifest God’s detestation of any sin, to declare the punishment that it doth deserve, and which the law doth appoint unto it, Romans 1:32. (2.) They have respect unto the will of God, and declare the connection that is, by God’s institution, between the sin prohibited and the punishment threatened; as in that word, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” God by it declares the infallible connection that there is, by virtue of his constitution, between infidelity and damnation. Wherever the one is final the other shall be inevitable. And in this sense they belong properly to believers; that is, they are to be declared and preached unto them, or pressed upon their consciences; for, — [1. They are annexed to the dispensation of the covenant of grace, as an instituted means to reader it effectual, and to accomplish the ends of it. The covenant of works was given out or declared in a threatening: “The day that thou eatest, thou shalt die;” but in that threatening a promise was included of life upon obedience. And the covenant of grace is principally revealed in a word of promise; but in that promise a threatening is included, in the sense and to the purposes before mentioned. And, as we have showed before, these threatenings are variously expressed in the gospel. And they are of two sorts: — 1st. Such as whose matter in the event hath no absolute inconsistency with the nature and grace of the covenant. Such are all the intimations of God’s severity to be exercised towards his own children, in afflictions, chastisements, trials, and desertions. For although these things and the like, in respect of their principle and end, belong unto love and grace, and so may be promised also, yet in respect of their matter, being grievous, and not joyous, afflictive to the inward and outward man, such as we may and ought to pray to be kept or delivered from, they are proposed in the threatenings annexed to the dispensation of the covenant. See Psalms 89:30-33; Revelation 2:3. And this sort of threatenings is universally and absolutely annexed to the dispensation of the covenant of grace, both as to the manner of their giving and the matter or event of them. And that because they are every way consistent with the grace, love, and kindness of that covenant, and do in the appointment of God tend to the furtherance of the obedience required therein. 2dly. Such as, in respect of the event, are inconsistent with the covenant, or the faithfulness of God therein; as the comminations of eternal rejection upon unbelief or apostasy, which are many. Now these also belong to the dispensation of the covenant of grace, so far as they are declarative of the displeasure of God against sin, and of his annexing punishment unto it; which declaration is designed of God and sanctified for one means of our avoiding both the one and the other. And whatever is sanctified of God for a means of delivery from sin and punishment, belongs to the dispensation of the covenant of grace. [2. This denouncing of threatenings unto believers is suited unto their good and advantage in the state and condition wherein they are in this world; for believers are subject to sloth and security, to wax dead, dull, cold, and formal in their course. These and many other evils are they liable and obnoxious unto whilst they are in the flesh. To awake them, warn them, and excite them unto a renewal of their obedience, doth God set before them the threatenings mentioned. See Revelation 2:3. [3. The proper effect of these threatenings in the souls of believers, whereby the end aimed at in them is attained and produced, is fear, — “Let us therefore fear.” Now, what that fear is, and therein what is the especial duty that we are exhorted unto, may briefly be manifested from what hath been already laid down: — 1. It is not an anxious, doubting, solicitous fear about the punishment threatened, grounded on a supposition that the person fearing shall be overtaken with it; that is, it is not an abiding, perplexing fear of hell-fire that is intended. We are commanded, indeed, to fear him who can cast both body and soul into hell, Luke 12:4-5; but the object assigned unto our fear is God himself, his severity, his holiness, his power, and not the punishment of hell itself It is granted that this fear, with a bondage frame of spirit thereon, doth and will often befall believers. Some deserve, by their negligence, slothfulness, unfruitful walking, and sinful ways, that it should be no better with them. And others also walking in their sincerity, yet by mason of the weakness of their faith, and on many other accounts, are ofttimes detained in such a bondage state and condition, as to fear with dread and terror all the day long. This, therefore, is ofttimes a consequent of some of God’s dispensations towards us, or of our own sins; but it is not anywhere prescribed unto us as our duty, nor is the ingenerating of it in us the design of any of the threatenings of God; for, — (1.) This is contrary unto the end of all other ordinances of God; which are appointed to enlighten, strengthen, and comfort the souls of believers, rote bring them to constant, solid, abiding peace and consolation, It cannot be, therefore, that at the same time God should require that as a duty at their hands which stands in a full contrariety and opposition to the end assigned by himself unto all his ordinances whereby he communicates of himself and his mind unto us. See Romans 8:15; 2 Timothy 1:7.(2.) This fear is no effect or fruit of that Spirit of life and holiness which is the author of all our duties, and all acceptable obedience unto God. That this is the principle of all new-covenant obedience, of all the duties which, according unto the rule and tenor thereof, we do or ought to perform unto God, is evidently manifest in all the promises thereof. Now this fear of hell, — that is, as that punishment lies in the curse of the law, — neither is nor can be a fruit of that Spirit, given and dispensed in and by the gospel; for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,” 2 Corinthians 3:17.(3.) This kind of fear is not useful unto the confessed end of God’s threatenings, namely, to excite and encourage men unto diligence and watchfulness in obedience. For if this were its nature and tendency, the more it is heightened as to its degrees, the more effectual would it be unto its proper end. But we see, on the contrary, that in those in whom it hath been most prevalent it hath produced effects utterly of another nature. So it did in Cain and Judas, and so it doth constantly, where it is absolutely prevalent. It appears, then, that its own proper effect is to drive them in whom it is from God; and when it befalls any believers in any degree, it is the efficacy of the Spirit of grace in other fruits of it which prevents its dangerous effects. We may add unto what hath been spoken, that this fear is directly opposite to the life of faith, being indeed that bondage for fear of death which the Lord Christ died to deliver believers from, Hebrews 2:15; this is that fear which perfect love casts out, 1 John 4:18.2. There is a watchful, careful fear, with respect unto the use of means; and this is that which is here intended, and which is Our duty, on the consideration of the threatenings of God and instances of his severity against sinners. And this will appear by the consideration of what is required unto this fear, which are the things that follow: — (1.) There is required hereunto a serious consideration of the due debt of sin and the necessary vindication of God’s glory. This is that which is directly in the first place presented unto us in the threatenings of the gospel, and ought in the first place to be the object of our faith and consideration. This we have evinced to be the nature of divine comminations namely, to declare that it is the “judgment of God, that they which commit such sin are worthy of death;” that “the wages of sin is death;” and that this depends on the holiness of God’s nature, as well as on the constitution and sanction of his law, Romans 1:32; Romans 6:23. Here may we see and know the desert of sin, and the concernment of the glory and honor of God in its punishment, — the end why God originally gave the law with fire, and thunderings, and terror. An instance hereof we have in Noah, when he was warned of God concerning the deluge that he was bringing on the world for sin, — “ being moved with fear he prepared an ark,” Hebrews 11:7. A due apprehension of the approaching judgment due unto sin, and threatened by God, made him wary, — εὐλαβηθείς, he was moved from hence, by this careful fear, to use the means for his own deliverance and safety. This, therefore, is the first ingredient in this fear.(2.) There belongs unto it a due consideration of terror, and majesty of God, who is the author of these comminations, and who in them and by them doth express unto us those glorious properties of his nature. So our apostle adviseth us to “serve God with reverence sad godly fear,” bemuse he is “a consuming fire,” Hebrews 12:28-29. The consideration of his infinitely pure and holy nature ought to influence our hearts unto fear, especially when expressed in a way meet to put a peculiar impression thereof upon us. Threatenings are the beamings of the rays of the holiness of God in them. And this the same apostle intends, when he gives an account of that “terror of the Lord” which he had regard unto in dealing with the souls of men, 2 Corinthians 5:11; that is, “how dreadful a thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God.” This also influenceth the fear required of us.(3.) A conviction and acknowledgment that in the justice and righteousness of God the punishments threatened might befall us. So was it with the psalmist: Saith he,“If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” Psalms 130:3;and again, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified,” Psalms 143:2.Without a due consideration hereof, the mind will not be subdued into that contrite and humble frame which in this matter is required. (4.) An abhorrency of sin, as on other reasons, so also with respect unto its proper end and tendency, represented in the threatenings of God. There are many other reasons whereon sin is and ought to be everlastingly abhorred; but this is one, and that such a one as ought never to be neglected. God hath, as we have showed, declared in his threatenings what is the desert of sin, and what will be its event in the sinner, if continued in. This ought always to be believed and weighed, so that the mind may be constantly influenced unto an abhorrency of sin on that account, namely, that it ends in death, in hell, in the eternal indignation of God. (5.) The nature of this fear, as discovering itself in its effects, consists principally in a sedulous watchfulness against all sin, by a diligent use of the means appointed of God for that purpose. This is the direct design of God in his comminations, namely, to stir up believers unto a diligent use of the means for the avoidance of the sin declared against; and to this purpose are they sanctified and blessed, as a part of the holy, sanctifying word of God. This, therefore, is that which the fear prescribed unto us is directly and properly to be exercised in and about. What is the mind, aim, and intention of God, in any of his comminations, either as recorded in his word, or as declared and preached unto us by his appointment It is this and no other, that considering the “terror of the Lord,” and the desert of sin, we should apply ourselves unto that constancy in obedience which we are guided unto under the conduct of his good Spirit, whereby we may avoid it. And hence followeth, — (6.) A constant watchfulness against all carnal confidence and security.“Thou standest by faith,” saith the apostle; “be not high-minded, but fear,” Romans 11:20.And whence doth he derive this caution? From the severity of God in dealing with other professors, and the virtual threat contained therein: “For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee,” verse 21. This fear is the great preventive of carnal security; it stands upon its watch to obviate all influencing of the mind by the sloth, or negligence, or other lusts of the flesh; or by pride, presumption, elation of heart, or other lusts of the spirit. And therefore this fear is not such a dread as may take a sudden impression on believers by a surprisal, or under some especial guilt contracted by them, but that which ought to accompany us in our whole course, as the apostle Peter adviseth us. “See,” saith he, “that ye pass the time of your sojourning here in fear,” 1 Peter 1:17.And it being undoubtedly of great importance unto us, I have the longer insisted on it; and shall now proceed with the remaining words. Μήποτεκαταλειπομένηςἐπαγγελίας. The intention of these words is variously apprehended by interpreters; neither will they of themselves, absolutely considered, give us a precise and determinate sense. By some it is reported to this purpose: ‘Seeing God hath left a promise unto us now under the gospel.’And this sense is followed by our translators, who, to make it plain, supply “to us” into the text. This way, the caution intended in the words, expressed in μήποτε, “lest,” or “lest at any time,” is transferred to the end of the sentence, with respect unto the evil of the sin that we are cautioned against. And this must be supposed to be the natural order of the words: “Seeing there is a promise left unto us of entering into the rest of God, let us fear lest any of us seem to come short.” And this sense is embraced by sundry expositors. Others take the words to express the evil of the sin that we are cautioned against, whereof the following clause expresseth the punishment, or what will befall men on a supposition thereof; as if the apostle had said, ‘We ought to fear, lest, the promise being left (or forsaken), we should seem to come short of entering into the rest of God.’For this was the punishment that befell them of old who rejected the promise; and this way the sense is carried by most expositors. The difference comes to this, whether by καταλειπομένης, the act of God in giving the promise, or the neglect of men in refusing of it, be intended. Καταλείπω is of an ambiguous signification.. Sometimes it is used for “desero,” “negligo,” to “desert,” “neglect,” or “forsake” in culpable manner. Frequent instances of this sense occur in all authors. And if that sense be here admitted, it confines the meaning of the words unto the latter interpretation; “Lest the promise being forsaken” or “neglected.” And the sin intended is the same with that, Hebrews 2:3, Τηλικαὺτηςἀμελήσαντεςσωτηρίας, “Neglecting so great salvation.” Sometimes it is no more than “relinquo;” which is a word ἐκτῶνμέσων, of a middle or indifferent signification, and is ofttimes used in a good sense. To leave glory, riches, or honor to others that come after us, is expressed by this word. Καταλείπειντὴνδόξαν, is to leave glory unto posterity. So Demosthen. contra Mid., Εἰσφέρωνἀπὸδόξηςὧνὁπατήρμοικατέλειπε· — “The glory of the things which my father left unto me.” And Budaeus observes, that καταλείπειν absolutely is sometimes as much as “haeredem instituere,” “to make” or “leave an heir;” opposed to παραλείπειν, — for παραλείπεινἐνταῖςδιαθήκαις is “to pass any one by in a testament” without a legacy or share in the inheritance. Hence καταλεὶμμα is “residuum,” “quod reliquum est,” “reliquiae,” Romans 9:27. So is “a remnant,” Romans 11:5. Thus the apostle renders δִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, 1 Kings 19:18, which is “to leave a remnant,” “to leave some remaining,” by κατέλιπον, Romans 11:4. See Acts 15:17. In this sense the word may here well denote the act of God in leaving or proposing the promise unto us; — a promise remaining for us to mix with faith. I see not any reason so cogent as should absolutely determine my judgment to either of these senses with a rejection of the other; for whether soever of them you embrace, the main design of the apostle in the whole verse is kept entire, and either way the result of the whole is the same. Each of them, therefore, gives a sense that is true and proper to the matter treated of, though it be not evident which of them expresseth the peculiar meaning of the words. I shall therefore represent the intention of the apostle according to each of them. In the first way, this is the sum of the apostle’s exhortation: ‘The promise that was made unto the people of old as to their entrance into the rest of God, did not belong absolutely and universally unto them alone, as is manifest from the psalm where it is called over, and as will afterwards be made to appear. This promise, for their parts, and as to their concern in it, they disbelieved, and thereby came short of entering into the promised REST. The same promise, or rather a promise of the same nature, of entering into the rest of God, remaining, continuing, and being proposed unto us, the same duties of faith and obedience are required of us as were of them. Seeing, therefore, that they miscarried through contumacy and unbelief, let us fear lest we fall into the same sins also, and so come short of entering into the rest now proposed unto us.’ In the second way, what is said in the former exposition to be expressed in the words is taken to be granted, supposed, and included in them; namely, that a promise of entering into the rest of God is given unto us no less than it was to them of old, which is further also confirmed in the next verse. On this supposition, caution is given to the present Hebrews, lest neglecting, rejecting, despising that promise, through unbelief, they fall short of the rest of God, under his righteous indignation and judgments; as if the apostle had only said, ‘Take heed, lest, by your unbelief rejecting the promise, you fall short of the rest of God.’ I shall not absolutely determine upon either sense, but do incline to embrace the former, upon a threefold account: — 1. Because the apostle seems in these words to lay down the foundation of all his ensuing arguments and exhortations in this chapter; and this is, That a promise of entering into the rest of God is left unto us now under the gospel. On this supposition he proceeds in all his following discourses, which therefore seems here to be asserted.2. The last clause of the words, “Lest any of you should seem to come short of it,” doth primarily and directly express the sin, and not the punishment of unbelievers, as we shall see afterwards; the promise, and not the rest of God, is therefore the object in them considered.3. The apostle, after sundry arguments, gathers up all into a conclusion, Hebrews 4:9, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God;” where the word ἀπολείπεται (of the same root with this) is used in the sense contended for in the first interpretation.This, therefore, I shall lay down as the import of these words, — ‘There is yet on the part of God a promise left unto believers of entering into his rest.’ “Of entering into his rest.” What is this rest, this rest of God, the promise whereof is said to “be left unto us,” — that is, unto them to whom the gospel is preached, — is nextly to be inquired into. Expositors generally grant that it is the rest of glory which is here intended. This is the ultimate rest which is promised unto believers under the gospel. So they who are in glory are said to “rest from their labors,” Revelation 14:13, and to have “rest,” 2 Thessalonians 1:7, — the rest of believers in heaven, after they have passed through their course of trials, sufferings, faith, and obedience, in this world. This rest they take it for granted that the apostle insists on throughout this chapter, and they make a supposition thereof the ground of their exposition of the several parts of it, regulating the whole thereby. But I must take the liberty to dissent from this supposition, and that upon the reasons following: — First, The “rest” here proposed is peculiar to the gospel and the times thereof, and contradistinct unto that which was proposed unto the people under the economy of Moses; for whereas it is said that the people in the wilderness failed and came short of entering into rest, the rest promised unto them, the apostle proves from the psalmist that there is another rest, contradistinct unto that, proposed under the gospel. And this cannot be the eternal rest of glory, because those under the old testament had the promise thereof no less than we have under the gospel; for with respect thereunto doth our apostle in the next verse affirm that “the gospel was preached unto them, as it is unto us,” — no less truly, though less clearly and evidently. And this rest multitudes of them entered into. For they were both “justified by faith,” Romans 4:3; Romans 4:7-8, and had the “adoption of children,” Romans 9:4; and when they died they entered into eternal rest with God. They did, I say, enter into the rest of God; that is, at their death they went unto a place of refreshment under the favor of God: for whatever may be thought of any circumstances of their condition, — as that their souls were only in “loco refrigerii,” in a place of refreshment, and not of the enjoyment of the immediate presence of God, — yet it cannot be denied but that they entered into peace, and rested, Isaiah 57:2. This, therefore, cannot be that other rest which is provided under the gospel, in opposition to that proposed under the law, or to the people in the wilderness.Secondly, The apostle plainly carrieth on in his whole discourse an antithesis consisting of many parts. The principal subject of it is the two people, — that in the wilderness, and those Hebrews to whom the gospel was now preached. Concerning them he manageth his opposition as to the promises made unto them, the things promised, and the means or persons whereby they were to be made partakers of them, namely, Moses and Joshua on the one hand, and Jesus Christ on the other. Look, then, what was the rest of God which they of old entered not into, and that which is now proposed must bear its part in the antithesis against it, and hold proportion with it. Now that rest, as we have proved, whereinto they entered not, was the quiet, settled state of God’s solemn worship in the land of Canaan, or a peaceable church-state for the worship of God in the land and place chosen out for that purpose. Now, it is not the rest of heaven that, in this antithesis between the law and the gospel, is opposed hereunto, but the rest that believers have in Christ, with that church-state and worship which by him, as the great prophet of the church, in answer unto Moses, was erected, and into the possession whereof he powerfully leads them, as did Joshua the people of old into the rest of Canaan. Thirdly, The apostle plainly affirms this to be his intention, for, Hebrews 4:3, he saith, “For we which have believed do enter into rest.” It is such a rest, it is that rest which true believers do enter into in this world; and this is the rest which we have by Christ in the grace and worship of the gospel, and no other. And thus the rest which was proposed of old for the people to enter into, which some obtained, and others came short of by unbelief, was a rest in this world, wherein the effects of their faith and unbelief were visible; and therefore so also must that be wherewith it is compared. And this consideration we shall strengthen from sundry other passages in the context, as we go through with them in our way. Fourthly, Christ and the gospel were promised of old to the people as a means and state of rest; and in answer unto those promises they are here actually proposed unto their enjoyment. See Isaiah 11:1-10; Isaiah 28:12; Psalms 72:7-8, etc.; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 2:2-4; Genesis 5:29; Matthew 11:28; Isaiah 66; Luke 1:70-75. This was the principal notion which the church had from the foundation of the world concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, or the state of the gospel, namely, that it was a state of spiritual rest and deliverance from every thing that was grievous or burdensome unto the souls and consciences of believers. This is that which the people of God in all ages looked for, and which in the preaching of the gospel was proposed unto them.Fifthly, The true nature of this rest may be discovered from the promise of it; for a promise is said to remain of entering into this rest. Now, this promise is no other but the gospel itself as preached unto us. This the apostle expressly declares in the next verse. The want of a due consideration hereof is that which hath led expositors into their mistake in this matter; for they eye only the promise of eternal life given in the gospel, which is but a part of it, and that consequential unto sundry other promises. That promise concerns only them who do actually believe; but the apostle principally intends them which are proposed unto men as the prime object of their faith, and encouragement unto believing. And of these the principal are the promise of Christ himself, and of the benefits of his mediation. These sinners must be interested in before they can lay claim to the promise of eternal life and salvation. Sixthly, The whole design of the apostle is not to prefer heaven, immortality, and glow, above the law and that rest in God’s worship which the people had in the land of Canaan, for none ever doubted thereof, no, not of the Hebrews themselves; nay, this is far more excellent than the gospel state itself: but it is to set out the excellency of the gospel, with the worship of it and the church-state whereunto therein we are called by Jesus Christ, above all those privileges and advantages which the people of old were made partakers of by the law of Moses, This we have already abundantly demonstrated; and if it be not always duly considered, no part of the epistle can be rightly understood. The rest, therefore, here intended is that rest which believers have an entrance into by Jesus Christ in this world. This being the rest here proposed, as promised in the gospel, our next inquiry is into the nature of it, or wherein it doth consist. And we shall find the concernments of it reduced into these five heads: — First, In peace with God, in the free and full justification of the persons of believers from all their sins by the blood of Christ: Romans 5:1, “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God;” Ephesians 1:7, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” This is fully expressed, Acts 13:32-33; Acts 13:38-39,“We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again... Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”The whole of what we contend for is expressed in these words, The promise given unto the fathers, but not accomplished unto them, is no other but the promise of rest insisted on. This now is enjoyed by believers, and it consists in that justification from sin which by the law of Moses could not be attained. This, with its proper evangelical consequents, is the foundation of this rest. Nor is it of force to except, that this was enjoyed also under the old testament; for although it was so in the substance of it, yet it was not so as a complete rest. Neither was it at all attained by virtue of their present promises, their worship, their sacrifices, or whatever other advantage they had by the law of Moses; but by that respect which those things had to the gospel Justification, and peace with God thereon, are properly and directly ours; they were theirs by a participation in our privileges, “God having ordained some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect,” Hebrews 11 ult. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Many have variously reasoned and conjectured about the coherence of this part of the apostle’s discourse with that which immediately goeth before. It is not my way to propose the interpretations or analyses of others, much less to contend about them, unless necessity for the vindication of some important truth do require it of me. That, therefore, which in the words and design of the apostle seems to be most natural and genuine, as to the coherence of his discourse, I shall alone explain and confirm. The work here engaged in is evidently to explain and improve the testimony cited out of David in the foregoing chapter. His purpose, also, is to draw out of it whatever was enwrapped in it by the wisdom of the Holy Ghost for the instruction of these Hebrews; which could not be clearly understood by them under the old testament, as designed for their peculiar use and direction now under the dispensation of the gospel Having, therefore, declared unto them the danger of unbelief, by laying down graphically before them the sin and punishment of others, in and from the words of the psalm, he proceeds from the same words and example to give them encouragements unto faith and obedience; but withal foreseeing that an objection might be raised against the very foundation of his arguments and exhortations, he diverts to the removal of it, and therein wonderfully strengthens, carrieth on, and confirmeth his whole purpose and design. The foundation of the whole ensuing discourse lies in this, that there is a promise left unto us of entering into the rest of God, verse 1. This, therefore, we ought to take heed that we come not short of by unbelief. Hereunto the Hebrews might object (as was before observed) that they were not now any way concerned in that promise; for consider whatever is said of the rest of God in the Scripture, and it will appear that it doth not belong unto us, especially not what is said of it in the psalm insisted on. The rest of the land of Canaan, and the rest of the Sabbath, are so called; but these are already past, or we are in the present enjoyment of them, so that it is to no purpose to press us to enter into rest. The removal of this objection the apostle here designs from the words of David, and therein the establishment of his present exhortation. He manifests, therefore, that besides those mentioned there was yet another rest remaining for the people of God, and that directed unto in the words of the psalmist. This he proves and evinceth at large, namely, that there was a spiritual rest yet abiding for believers, which we are called and obliged to seek an entrance into. This, in general, is the design and method of the apostle’s discourse in this place. In this third verse three things are laid down: — First, An assertion comprising the whole intendment of the apostle, in these words, “For we which have believed do enter into rest.”Secondly, A proof of that assertion from the words of the psalmist,” As he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest.”Thirdly, An elliptical entrance into a full confirmation of his assertion, and the due application of his proof produced unto what he had designed it: “Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.”Hebrews 4:3. — Εἰσερχόμεθαγὰρεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσινοἱπιστεύσαντες, καθὼςεἴρηκεν·῾Ωςὤμοσαἐντῇὀργῇμου·Εἰεἰσελεύσονταιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου·καίτοιτῶνἔργωνἀπὸκαταβολῆςκόσμουγενηέντων.The words need little explication. Εἰσερχο.μεθαγάρ. One old manuscript reads εἰσερχώμεθαου῏ν, of which afterwards. Vulg. Lat., At., “ingrediemur;” Rhemists, “shall enter;” Eras., Beza, Syr., “ingredimur,” “introimus,” — “do enter.” The word is in the present tense; and though in that form it may sometimes be tendered by the future, yet here is no necessity why it should so be. “Do enter.”Οἱπιστεύσαντες. Vulg. Lat., “qui credidimus;” Arias, “credentes;” Syr., “qui credimus;” — “who do believe,” “who have believed.”Of the following words, see Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 3:18.Καίτοι, “et quidem,” “and truly;” Beza, “quamvis,” “although;” Eras., “quanquam;” so the Syriac.Απὸκαταβολῆςκο.σμου. Ar., “a fundatione mundi,” “from the foundation of the world;” Syr., “from the beginning of the world;” Beza, “a jacto mundi fundamento,” properly; which we can no way render but by “from the foundation of the world.” Γενηθέντων, “genitis,” “factis,” “perfectis,” — “made,” “finished,” “perfected.” [2][2] . — Ebrard takes a peculiar view of the last clause of this verse: “It is self-evident that the works here are antithetically opposed to faith. It is surprising how all critics should have supposed that the works of God are here meant, and especially hisworks of God are here meant, and especially his works of creation.” — ED. Hebrews 4:3. — For we do enter into rest who have believed; as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.The assertion laid down in the entrance of the verse is FIRST to be considered; and therein, — First, The causal connection, γάρ, “for.” Now this, as we have showed, doth not refer precisely to any particular passage foregoing. Only it makes way to the further improvement of the whole design of the apostle; which use of that particle we have before observed: ‘The promise, threatening, example, duty, treated of, belong unto us; and this appears from hence, that we are entered into rest who have believed.’Secondly, The subject of the proposition, or persons spoken of, are οἱπιστεύσαντες, “who have believed.” The persons included in the verb εἰσερχόμεθα, regulating also this participle, are transferred over unto it in the translation, “we who have believed.” Believing in general is only mentioned; the object of it, or what we believe, is implied, and it is to be taken from the subject-matter treated of. Now this is the gospel, or Christ in the gospel. This is that which he proposeth unto them, and which he encourageth them in from his own example. With respect hereunto men in the New Testament are everywhere termed πιστεύοντες, πίστοι, or ἄπιστοι, believers,” or “unbelievers:” ‘We who have believed in Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel.’Εἰσερχόμεθα. We observed before that one old manuscript reads Εἰσερχώμεθαου῏ν, “Let us therefore enter;” making it answer unto Φοβηθῶμενου῏ν, Hebrews 4:1, “Let us fear, therefore;” and Σπουδάσωμενου῏ν, Hebrews 4:11, “Let us therefore labor.” But the sense in this place will not admit of this reading, because of the addition of οἱπιστεύσαντες, “who have believed.” The Vulgar Latin renders it “ingrediemur,” in the future tense; which sense is allowed by most expositors. But that which induced them to embrace it was a mistake of the rest here intended. The word expresseth a present act, as a fruit, effect, or consequent of believing. That it is which in a spiritual way answers unto the Israelites entering into the land of Canaan under the conduct of Joshua. Wherefore this entering, this going in, is an allusion taken both in general from the entrance that a man makes into his land or house to take possession of it, and in particular, unto the entrance of the Israelites which were not rebellious or disobedient into the land of Canaan. Εἰςτὴνκατάπαυσιν, “into that rest,” the promised rest. What the rest here intended is hath been declared on the first verse of this chapter; but because the right stating hereof is the basis on which the whole ensuing exposition of the apostle’s discourse is founded, and the hinge on which it turns, I shall further confirm the interpretation of it before laid down, principally with such reasons as the present text doth suggest. This rest, then, we say, firstly and principally, is that spiritual rest of God, which believers obtain an entrance into by Jesus Christ, in the faith and worship of the gospel, and is not to be restrained unto their eternal rest in heaven. Suppling, then, what hath been argued on the first verse, I add, —First, That the express words here used do assign a present entrance into rest unto them that do believe, or have believed: Εἰσερχόμεθα, — “We do enter in.” It may be said, and it is confessed that the present tense doth sometimes express that which is instantly future; as some think it may be proved from Luke 22:20, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, τὸὑπὲρὑμῶνἐκχυνόμενον,” — “which is shed for you.” So also is the same word used, Matthew 26:28. The Vulgar Latin renders the word in each place “effundetur,” “shall be shed” (or “poured out”) “for you,” with respect unto the death of Christ, which was shortly to ensue. I will not deny, as was said, but that the present tense is sometimes put for the future, when the thing intended is immediately to ensue; but yet it is not proved from this place. For our Savior speaks of the virtue of his blood, and not of the time of shedding it. It was unto them, in the participation of that ordinance, as if it had been then shed, as to the virtue and efficacy of it. But ἔρχεται, seems to be put for ἐλεύσεται, John 4:21, “is come,” for “shall come” speedily; and ὁἐρχόμενος is sometimes “he that is to come.” But whenever there is such an enallage of tenses, the instant accomplishment of the thing supposed future is intended; which cannot be said with respect unto eternal rest in heaven. So this change is not to be supposed or allowed, but where the nature of the thing spoken of doth necessarily require it. This tense is not to be imposed on the places where the proper signification of a word so timed is natural and genuine, as it is in this place. It is here, then, plainly affirmed that believers do here, in this world, enter into rest in their gospel-state. Secondly, The apostle is not primarily in this place exhorting sincere believers unto perseverance, that so at last they may be saved, or enter into eternal rest; but professors, and all to whom the word did come, that they would be sincere and sound in believing. He considers them in the same state with the people in the wilderness when the promise was proposed unto them. Their faith then in it, when they were tried, would have given them an immediate entrance into the land of Canaan. Together with the promise, there was a rest to be instantly enjoyed on their believing. Accordingly, considering the Hebrews in the like condition, he exhorts them to close with the promise, whereby they may enter into the rest that it proposed unto them. And unto perseverance he exhorts them, as an evidence of that faith which will give them an. assured entrance into this rest of God; as Hebrews 3:14, “We are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.”Thirdly, The rest here intended is that whereof the land of Canaan was a type. But there were no types of heaven absolutely as a future state of glory. But both the land and all the institutions to be observed in it were types of Christ, with the rest and worship of believers in and by him. They were “shadows of things to come, the body whereof was Christ,” Colossians 2:17. The whole substance of what was intended in them and represented by them was in Christ mystical, and that in this world, before his giving up the kingdom unto the Father at the end, that God may be all in all. Our apostle, indeed, declares that the most holy place in the tabernacle and temple did represent and figure out heaven itself, or the “holy place not made with hands;” as we shall see at large afterwards, Hebrews 9:6-12. But there heaven is not considered as the place of eternal rest and glory to them that die in the Lord, but as the place wherein the gospel-worship of believers is celebrated and accepted, under the conduct and ministration of our high priest, the Lord Jesus Christ; which office ceaseth when his saints are brought into glory. The rest, therefore, here intended being that which was typed out and represented by the land of Canaan, is not the rest of heaven, but of that gospel-state whereinto we are admitted by Jesus Christ. Hereof, and not of heaven itself, was the whole Mosaical economy typical, as shall elsewhere be at large demonstrated.This, therefore, is the sense and importance of the apostle’s assertion in this verse, ‘We who have believed in Jesus Christ, through the gospel, have thereby an admittance and entrance given unto us into that blessed state of rest in the worship of God which of old was promised,’Luke 1:69-73. It remains only that we inquire into the nature of this rest, what it is and wherein it doth consist. Now this we have done also already on the first verse; but the whole matter may be further explained, especially with respect unto the principal consideration of it. And this is, on what account this gospel-state is called God’s rest, for so it is in this verse, “If they shall enter into my rest.”First, It is the rest of God upon the account of the author of it, in whom his soul doth rest. This is Jesus Christ, his Son. Isaiah 42:1, “Behold,” saith God the Father of him, “my servant, whom I uphold; ψִ ?φְ ?ϊָ ?δπַ ?τְ ?ωִׁ ?ιαְּ ?ηִ ?ιψִ ?ι,” “mine elect; my soul delighteth (resteth) in him.” Matthew 3:17, “This is my beloved Son, ἐνᾧεὐδόκησα,” ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰּ ?ηֶ ?τְ ?φִ ?ιαεֹ. Both the words contain more than we can well express in our language. The full satisfaction of the mind of God, with that delight and rest which answer the propensity of the affections towards a most suitable object, is intended in them. The same with that of Pro 8:30, “I was by him, as one brought up with him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him.” In which words the infinite, intimate affection and mutual satisfaction between the Father and the Son are expressed. Now God is said to rest in Christ on a twofold account.1. Because in him, in the glorious mystery of his person as God and man, he hath satisfied and glorified all the holy properties of his nature, in the exercise and manifestation of them. For all the effects of his wisdom, righteousness, holiness, grace, and goodness, do center in him, and are in him fully expressed. This is termed by our apostle, ῾ΗδόξητοῦΘεοῦἐνπροσώτῳ᾿ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ, 2 Corinthians 4:6; — “The glory of God, in the face” (or “person”) “of Jesus Christ;” that is, a glorious representation of the holy properties of the nature of God is made in him unto angels and men. For so “it pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell,” Colossians 1:19; that he might have “the pre-eminence in all things,” verse 18, especially in the perfect representation of God unto the creation. Yea, the “fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily,” Colossians 2:9, in the union of his person, — the highest and most mysterious effect of divine wisdom and grace, 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 1:11-12. In this sense is he said to be “the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15; which though it principally respects his divine nature, yet doth not so absolutely, but as he was incarnate. For an image must be in a sort a spectacle, and represent that which in itself is not seen, which the divine nature of the Son, essentially the same with the Father’s, doth not do. God doth, maketh, worketh all things for himself, Proverbs 16:4; that is, for the satisfaction of the holy perfections of his nature in acts suitable unto them, and the manifestation of his glory thereon. Hence in them all God in some sense doth rest. So when he had finished his works in the creation of the world, he saw that they were “good,” — that is, that they answered his greatness, wisdom, and power; and he rested from them, Genesis 2:2. Which rest, as it doth not include an antecedent lassitude or weariness, as it doth in poor finite creatures, so it doth more than a mere cessation from operation, namely, complacency and satisfaction in the works themselves. So it is said, Exodus 31:17, that “on the seventh day God rested, and was refreshed;” which expresseth the complacency he had in his works. But this rest was but partial, not absolute and complete; for God in the works of nature had but partially acted and manifested his divine properties, and some of them, as his grace, patience, and love, not at all But now, in the person of Christ, the author of the gospel, who is “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” God doth absolutely and ultimately rest, and that in the manifestation of all his glorious properties, as hath been declared. Hence, in the sacrifices that were typical of him it is said ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ψֵ ?ιηַ δַ ?πִּ ?εηֹ ?ηַ ειָּ ?ψַ ?η, Genesis 8:21, “God smelled a savor of rest,” as prefiguring that and foregoing it, wherein he would always rest; for, — 2. As in the person, so also in the work of Christ, doth God perfectly rest, — namely, in the work of his mediation. He so rests in it, that as it needeth not, so he will never admit of any addition to be made unto it, any help or assistance to be joined with it, for any ends of his glory. This is the design of our apostle to prove, Hebrews 10:5-7. God designed the sacrifices of the law for the great ends of his glory in the typical expiation of sin; but he manifested by various means that he did never absolutely rest in them. Ofttimes he preferred his moral worship before them; ofttimes he rebuked the people for their carnal trust in them, and declared that he had appointed a time when he would utterly take them away, Hebrews 9:10. But as to the mediation and sacrifice of Christ things are absolutely otherwise. Nothing is once named in competition with it; nay, the adding of any thing unto it, the using of any thing with it to the same end and purpose,’is, or would be, ruinous to the souls of men. And as for those who will not take up their rest herein, that accept not of the work that he hath wrought, and the atonement that he hath made, by faith, there remains no more sacrifice for their sin, but perish they must, and that for ever. Two ways there are whereby God manifesteth his absolute rest in the person and mediation of Christ: — (1.) By giving unto him “all power in heaven and in earth” upon his exaltation. This power, and the collation of it, we have discoursed of on the first chapter. It was as if God had said unto him, ‘My work is done, my will perfectly accomplished, my name fully manifested, — I have no more to do in the world: take now, then, possession of all my glory, — sit at my right hand; for in thee is my soul well pleased.’ (2.) In the command that he hath given unto angels and men, to worship, honor, and adore him, even as they honor the Father; whereof we have elsewhere treated. By these ways, I say, doth God declare his plenary rest and soul-satisfaction in Jesus Christ, the author of this gospel rest, and as he is so.Secondly, It is God’s rest, because he will never institute any new kind or sort of worship amongst men, but only what is already ordained and appointed by him in the gospel. God dwells among men in and by his solemn worship: Exodus 25:8, “Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” God dwells in the place of his worship, by it. Hence, when he fixed his worship amongst the people for a season in the land of Canaan, he called it his rest. Thence was that prayer on the motions of the ark, “Arise, O LORD, into thy rest, thou, and the ark of thy strength,” Psalms 132:8; 2 Chronicles 6:41 : which was the principal thing aimed at in all God’s dealings with that people, the end of all his mighty works, Exodus 15:17. And in this worship of the gospel, the tabernacle which he hath made for himself to dwell in, the sanctuary which his hands have established, is again with men, Revelation 21:3. He hath in it set up again the tabernacle of David, so that it shall fall no more, Acts 15:16. This worship he will neither add to, nor alter, nor take from; but this is his rest and his habitation amongst men for ever. He is pleased and satisfied with it by Christ.Thirdly, God also is at peace with the worshipers, and rests in them. He sets up his tabernacle amongst men, that he may “dwell amongst them, and be their God, and that they may be his people,” Revelation 21:3; and herein “he rejoiceth over them with joy, and resteth in his love,” Zephaniah 3:17. Thus the whole work of God’s grace in Christ being accomplished, he ceaseth from his labor, and entereth into his rest.I have added these things to show that it is God’s rest which believers do enter into, as it is here declared. For the nature of the rest itself, as it is by them enjoyed, it hath fully been opened on the first verse, and need not here be again insisted on. And this is that rest which is principally intended both here and in the whole chapter. It is not, indeed, absolutely intended, or exclusively unto all other spiritual rests, or to an increase and progress in the same kind; but it is principally so: for this rest itself is not absolute, ultimate, and complete, but it is initial, and suited to the state of believers in this world. And because it hath its fullness and perfection in eternal rest, in the immediate enjoyment of God, that also may seem to be included therein, but consequentially only. There remains, for the full explication of this assertion of the apostle, only that we show what it is to enter into this rest. And these two things may be observed to that purpose: — 1. That it is an entrance which is asserted. 2. That it is but an entrance.1. It is an entrance, which denotes a right executed. There was a right proposed in the promise, and served therein for believers indefinitely. But it is not executed, nor is possession given but by believing. “A rest remaineth for the people of God,” — that is, in the promise; and “we who have believed do enter into it.” It is faith which gives us “jus in re,” a right in possession, an actual, personal interest, both in the promises and in the rest contained in them, with all the privileges wherewith it is attended.2. It is but an entrance into rest, —(1.) Because the rest itself is not absolute and complete, as we have declared. Look to what is past, what we are delivered and secured from, and it is a glorious rest. Look unto what is to come, and it is itself but a passage into a more glorious rest. It is an “abundant ministration of an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” 2 Peter 1:11.(2.) Because we meet with contests and oppositions in this state: as the Israelites after they had passed over Jordan, and, according to the promise, were entered into the rest of God, yet had great work to do in securing and preserving the possession which they had taken by faith; yea, they had great enemies to contend withal and to subdue. Much diligence and wisdom were yet to be used for their settlement And it is not otherwise with us as to our entrance into the rest of God in this world. We have yet spiritual adversaries to conflict withal; and the utmost of our spiritual endeavors are required to secure our possession, and to carry us on to perfection. Obs. 1. The state of believers under the gospel is a state of blessed rest; it is God’s rest and theirs.So much was necessary to be spoken concerning the nature of this rest in the opening of the words, that I shall treat but briefly on this observation, though the matter of it be of great importance. God created man in a state of present rest. This belonged unto that goodness and perfection of all the works of his hands which God saw in them, and blessed them thereon. And as a token of this rest did God institute the rest of the seventh day; that man, by his example and command, might use and improve the state of rest wherein he was made, as we shall see afterwards. Now, this rest consisted in three things: — 1. Peace with God; 2. Satisfaction and acquiescency in God; 3. Means of communion with God.All these were lost by the entrance of sin, and all mankind were brought thereby into an estate of trouble and disquietment. In the restoration of these, and that in a better and more secure way and manner, doth this gospel-state of believers consist. First, Without it our moral state, in respect of God, is an estate of enmity and trouble. There is no peace between God and sinners. They exercise an “enmity against God” by sin, Romans 8:7; and God executeth an enmity against them by the curse of the law, John 3:36. Hence nothing ensues but trouble, fear, disquietment, and anguish of mind. The relief that any find, or seem to find, or pretend to find, in darkness, ignorance, superstition, security, self-righteousness, false hopes, will prove a refuge of lies, a covering too short and narrow to hide them from the wrath of God, which is the principal cause of all trouble to the souls of men. All this is removed by the gospel; for, “being justified by faith, we have peace with God,” Romans 5:1. Jesus Christ therein is “our peace, who hath reconciled us unto God by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby,” Ephesians 2:14; Ephesians 2:16.And as for the law, which is the means and instrument whereby God gives in trouble to the souls of men, the power and curse whereof constitute them in a state of unrest and trouble, he hath undergone the curse of it, Galatians 3:13, and fulfilled the righteousness of it, Romans 8:3; whence the covenant of it is abolished, Hebrews 8:13, and the condemning power of it is taken away, 1 Corinthians 15:56-57. The benefit of all which grace being communicated to believers in and by the gospel, they are instated in peace with God; which is the foundation and first part of our rest, or our interest in this rest of God.Secondly, There is in all men, before the coming of the gospel, a want of an acquiescency and satisfaction in God. This is produced by the corrupt principle and power of sin, which having turned off the soul from God, causeth it to wander in endless vanities, and to pursue various lusts and pleasures, seeking after rest which always flies from it. This is the great, real, active principle of unrest or disquietment unto the souls of men. This makes them “like a troubled sea, which cannot rest.” The “ignorance that is in them alienates them from the life of God,” Ephesians 4:18. And their fleshliness or sensuality fills them with a dislike and hatred of God; for “the carnal mind is enmity against God,” Romans 8:7-8. And the “vanity of their minds” leads them up and down the world after “divers lusts and pleasures,” Ephesians 4:17. And is there, can there be, any peace, any rest in such a condition? But this also is moved by the gospel; for its work is to destroy and ruin that power of sin which hath thus turned off the soul from God, and so again to renew the image of God in it, that it may make him its rest. This is the effect of the gospel, to take men off from their principle of alienation from God, and to turn their minds and affections unto him as their rest, satisfaction, and reward; and other way for these ends under heaven there is none. Thirdly, Unto peace with God, and acquiescency in him, a way of intercourse and communion with him is required, to complete a state of spiritual rest. And this also, as it was lost by sin, so it is restored unto us in and by the gospel. This our apostle discourseth of at large in the ninth and tenth chapters of this epistle, whither we refer the consideration of it.But yet I must acknowledge that the truth insisted on is liable to some important objections, which seem to have strength communicated unto them both from the Scriptures and from the experience of them that do believe. Some of the principal, therefore, of them, as instances of the rest, must be removed out of the way. And it will be said, — 1. ‘That the description given us of the state of believers in this world lies in direct contradiction to our assertion; for doth not our Savior himself foretell all his disciples that “in this world they shall have trouble;” that they should be “hated,” and “persecuted,” and “slain?” See John 15:19 -16:2, 33. And did not the apostles assure their hearers that “through much tribulation they must enter into the kingdom of God?” Acts 14:22.Hence it is the notation of believers, “them that are troubled,” to whom future rest is promised, 2 Thessalonians 1:7. And when they come to heaven, they are said to “come out of great tribulation,” Revelation 7:14; yea, they are warned not to think strange of “fiery trials,” the greatest, the highest imaginable, as that which is the common lot and portion of all that believe in Jesus, 1 Peter 4:12. And do not, have not believers in all ages found this in their own experience to be their state and condition? And is it not the very first lesson of the gospel, for men to “take up the cross,” and to “deny themselves” in all their desires and enjoyments? And how can this be esteemed to be an estate of rest, which, being denominated from the greater part of its concernments and occurrences, may be called a state of trouble or tribulation, which is directly contrary to a state of rest? (1.) It is not difficult to remove this objection. Our Lord Jesus Christ hath done it for us, in these words of his to his disciples,“In the world ye shall have trouble; but in me ye shall have peace,” John 16:32.The rest we treat of is spiritual; God’s rest, and our rest in God. Now spiritual, inward rest, in and with God, is not inconsistent with outward, temporal trouble in the world. We might go over all those things wherein we have manifested this gospel-rest to consist, and easily evince that no one of them can be impeached by all the troubles that may befall us in this world; but our apostle hath summarily gone through with this work for us: Romans 8:35-39, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?..... Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”The sum of all is this, that no outward thing, no possible opposition, shall prevail to cast us out of that rest which we have obtained an entrance into, or impede our future entrance into eternal rest with God. (2.) Moreover, one part of this rest whereinto we are entered consists in that persuasion and assurance which it gives us of eternal rest, wherewith believers may support their souls under their troubles, and balance all the persecutions and afflictions that they meet withal in this world. And this also our apostle directs us unto, 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 :“For which cause,” saith he,” we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”That persuasion which we have in this gospel-state of an assured enjoyment of eternal, invisible things, an “eternal weight of glory,” casts out of consideration all the momentary sufferings which in this world we may be exposed unto. As our peace with God by Christ, our interest in him, our communion with him, and acceptance in our worship through the blood of Jesus, the spiritual freedom and liberty of spirit which we have through the Holy Ghost in all that we have to do with him, and the like spiritual mercies, wherein this rest doth consist, can neither be weakened nor impaired by outward troubles; so it supplies us with such present joy, and infallible future expectation, as enable us both to glory in them and triumph over them, Romans 5:3-5. Yea, —(3.) Further, God is pleased so to order and dispose of things, that this rest is never more assured, more glorious and conspicuous, than when those who are entered into it are under reproach, trouble, and sufferings, upon the account of their profession of it. So saith the apostle, 1 Peter 4:14,“If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.”Whatever may befall us of evil and trouble upon the account of the gospel, it adds unto that blessed state of rest whereinto we are entered; for therein “the Spirit of glory and of God resteth on us.” There is more in the words than that one expression should serve merely to explain the other, as if he had said, ‘The Spirit of glory, that is, of God;’nor is it a mere Hebraism for the glorious Spirit of God; but the especial work of the Spirit of God in and upon believers in such a season is intended. ‘He shall work gloriously in them, and by them; supporting, comforting, and powerfully enabling them to maintain and preserve their souls in that rest whereinto they are called.’This state of rest, therefore, cannot be impeached by any outward troubles. 2. ‘But it seems not inwardly and spiritually to answer the description that hath been given of it; for,(1.) There are many true believers who all their days never come to any abiding sense of peace with God, but are filled with trouble, and exercised with fears and perplexities, so that they go mourning and heavily all their days. These find it not a place of rest.(2.) There are no believers but are exercised with continual troubles from the remainders of sin yet abiding in them. These keep them in a continual conflict, and make their lives a warfare, causing them to cry out and complain because of their trouble, Romans 7:24. And it may be said, How can these things consist with a state of rest?Some few distinctions will clear our way also from the cumbrance of this objection. As, — (1.) It is one thing to be in a state of rest, another to know that a man is so. Believers are by faith instated in rest, and have every one of them “peace with God,” being “reconciled unto him by the blood of the cross;” but as to what shall be the measure of their own understanding of their interest therein, this is left to the sovereign grace and pleasure of God. (2.) There is a difference between a state of rest in general and actual rest in all particulars. A state of rest, denominated from all the principal concernments of it, may admit of much actual disquietment, whereby the state itself is not overthrown or changed, nor the interests of any in it disannulled. And the contests of indwelling sin against our spiritual rest are no other.(3.) There is a difference between a state itself and men’s participation of that state. This gospel-state in and of itself is an estate of complete peace and rest; but our participation of it is various and gradual. Rest in it is provided, prepared, and exhibited; this we receive according to our several measures and attainments.(4.) Let it be remembered that our whole interest in this rest is called our entrance; we do enter, and we do but enter: we are so possessed as that we are continually entering into it; and this will admit of the difficulties before insisted on without the least impeachment of this state of rest.Obs. 2. It is faith alone which is the only way and means of entering into this blessed state of rest. “We who have believed do enter.”This is that which all along the apostle both asserteth and proveth. His whole design, indeed, is to manifest, by testimonies and examples, that unbelief cuts off from, and faith gives an entrance into, the rest of God. Only, whereas it is evident that the unbelief which cut them off of old, did produce and was attended with disobedience, — whence, as we observed, the apostle expresseth their sin by a word that may signify either the one or the other, the cause or the effect, unbelief or disobedience, — so the faith which gives us this admission into the rest of God, is such as produceth and is accompanied with the obedience that the gospel requireth. But yet neither doth this obedience belong to the formal nature of faith, nor is it the condition of our entrance, but only the due manner of our behavior in our entering. The entrance itself depends on faith alone; and that both negatively, so that without it no entrance is to be obtained, whatever else men may plead to obtain it by; and positively, in that it alone effects it, without a contribution of aid or strength in its so doing from any other grace or duty whatever. This is not a purchase for silver or gold to prevail for, as men may buy a rest from purgatory: works of the law, or of supererogation, if they might be found, will not open this way unto us; it is faith alone that gives this entrance: “We which have believed do enter into rest;” which is the apostle’s assertion in this place. The SECOND thing in these words is the proof produced by the apostle in the confirmation of the foregoing assertion. And this lies in the next part of the verse: “As he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest.” The exposition of these words, absolutely considered, we have passed through on the former chapter. Our present inquiry is only into their use in this place. And it is evident that they are intended by the apostle for a confirmation of what he had before affirmed. But yet it is certain, that this at the first view they do not seem to do. For how is it proved that “we who believe do enter into rest,” because God sware concerning others, that “they should not so do?” This difficulty we must remove by a due application of these words unto the apostle’s purpose. The words may be considered two ways. 1. Logically, merely as to the rational and artificial form of the argument in them2. Theologically, as to their force and intention according to the analogy of faith. And both ways we shall find the apostle’s intention and assertion evinced by them.For the First, the apostle’s argument depends upon a known rule, namely, that unto immediate contraries, or things immediately contrary one to another, contrary attributes may be certainly ascribed: so that he who affirms the one at the same time denies the other; and on the contrary, he that denies the one affirms the other. He that says, ‘It is day,’doth as really say it is not night as if he had used these formal words. Now, the proposition laid down by the apostle in proof of his assertion is this, ‘They who believed not did not enter into God’s rest; for God sware that they should not, and that because they believed not. Hence it follows inevitably, in a just ratiocination, that they who do believe do enter into that rest.’ Supposing what he hath already proved, and intends further to confirm, namely, that the promise belongs unto us as well as unto them, — the promise is the same, only the rest is changed; and supposing also what he hath already fully proved, namely, that the enjoying of the promise, or entering into rest, depends on the mixing of it with faith, or believing; and his proof that those who do believe do enter into rest, because God hath sworn that those who believe not shall not enter, is plain and manifest. For, the promise being the same, if unbelief exclude, faith gives entrance; for what is denied of the one is therein affirmed of the other. Some expositors of the Roman church do greatly perplex themselves and their readers in answering an objection which they raise to themselves on this place. For say they, ‘By the rule and reason of contraries, if unbelief alone exclude from the rest of God, — that is, the glory of God in heaven, — then faith alone gives admission into glory.’This they cannot bear, for fear they should lose the advantage of their own merits. And they are incompetent to salve their own objection. For the rule they respect will inevitably carry it, that in what sense soever unbelief excludes, faith gives admission. But the truth is, that both their objections and their answers are in this place importune and unseasonable; for it is not the rest of glory that is here intended, and that faith alone gives us admission into a gospel-state of rest, they will not deny. And here by the way we may take notice of the use of reason, or logical deductions, in the proposing, handling, and confirming of sacred, supernatural truths, or articles of faith. For the validity of the apostle’s proof in this place depends on the certainty of the logical maxim before mentioned, whose consideration removes its whole difficulty. And to deny this liberty of deducing consequences, or one thing from another, according to the just rules of due ratiocination, is quite to take away the use of the Scripture, and to banish reason from those things whereto it ought to be principally employed. Secondly, The words may be considered theologically; that is, by other rules of Scripture, according to the analogy of faith. And thus the force of the apostle’s proof springs out of another root, or there lies a reason in the testimony used by him taken from another consideration. And this is from the nature of God’s covenant with us, and the end thereof. For whereas the covenant of God is administered unto us in promises and threatenings, they have all of them the same end allotted to them, and the same grace to make them effectual. Hence every threatening includes a promise in it, and every promise hath also the nature of a threatening in its proposal. There is a mutual inbeing of promises and threatenings in reference unto the ends of the covenant. God expressing his mind in various ways, hath still the same end in them all. The first covenant was given out in a mere word of threatening: “The day thou eatest thou shalt die.” But yet none doubteth but that there was a promise of life upon obedience included in that threatening, yea, and principally intended. So there is a threatening in every promise of the gospel. Whereas, therefore, there is a great threatening, confirmed with the oath of God, in these words, that those who believe not should not enter into his rest; there is a promise included in the same words, no less solemnly confirmed, that those who do believe should enter into rest: and thence doth the apostle confirm the truth of his assertion. From what hath been discoursed we may observe, that, — Obs. 3. There is a mutual inbeing of the promises and threatenings of the covenant, so that in our faith and consideration of them they ought not utterly to be separated.Wherever there is a promise, there a threatening in reference unto the same matter is tacitly understood. And wherever there is a threatening, that is no more than so, be it never so severe, there is a gracious promise included in it; yea, sometimes God gives out an express threatening for no other end but that men may lay hold on the promise tacitly included. The threatening that Nineveh should perish was given out that it might not perish. And John Baptist’s preaching that the axe was laid to the root of the trees was a call to repentance, that none might be cut down and cast into the fire. And the reasons hereof are, — 1. Because they have both of them the same rise and spring. Both promises and threatenings do flow from, and are expressive of the holy, gracious nature of God, with respect unto his actings towards men in covenant with himself. Now, though there are distinct properties in the nature of God, which operate, act, and express themselves distinctly, yet they are all of them essential properties of one and the same nature; and what proceeds from them hath the same fountain. So declaring his nature by his name, he ascribes that unto his one being which will produce contrary effects, Exodus 34:6-7. That he is “gracious, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin,” he expresseth in and by his promises; that he “will by no means clear the guilty,” but “visit iniquity,” he presseth by his threatenings. They do both of them but declare the actings of the one holy God, according to the distinct properties of his nature, upon distinct objects. This is the foundation of that mutual inbeing of promises and threatenings whereof we discourse.2. Both of them, as annexed to the covenant, or as the covenant is administered by them, have the same end. God doth not design one end by a promise, and another by a threatening, but only different ways of compassing or effecting the same end. The end of both is, to increase in us faith and obedience. Now, this is variously effected, according to the variety of those faculties and affections of our souls which are affected by them, and according to the great variety of occasions that we are to pass through in the world. Faith and obedience are principally in our minds and wills; but they are excited to act by our affections. Now, these are differently wrought upon by promises and threatenings, yet all directing to the same end. The use of divine threatenings is, to make such a representation of divine holiness and righteousness to men, as that, being moved by that, an affection suited to be wrought upon by the effects of them, they may be stirred up unto faith and obedience. So Noah, upon God’s warning, that is, his threatening the world with destruction, being “moved with fear, prepared an ark,” Hebrews 11:7; which our apostle instanceth in as an effect of his faith and evidence of his obedience. The threatenings of God, then, are not assigned unto any other end but what the promises are assigned unto, only they work and operate another way. Hereon faith coming unto the consideration of them, finds the same love and grace in them as in the promises, because they lead to the same end.3. Again, threatenings are conditional; and the nature of such conditions is, not only somewhat is affirmed upon their supposal, and denied upon their denial, but the contrary unto it is affirmed upon their denial; and that because the denial of them doth assert a contrary condition. For instance, the threatening is, that he who believeth not shall not enter into the rest of God. Upon a supposition of unbelief, it is affirmed herein that there shall be no entrance into rest. Upon the denial of that supposal, not only it is not averred that there shall be no such entrance, but it is also affirmed that men shall enter into it. And this because the denial of unbelief doth include and assert faith itself, which plainly gives the threatening the nature of a promise, and as such may it be used and improved.4. The same grace is administered in the covenant to make the one and the other effectual. Men are apt to think that the promises of the gospel are accompanied towards the elect with a supply of effectual grace to render them useful, to enable them to believe and obey. This makes them hear them willingly, and attend unto them gladly. They think they can never enough consider or meditate upon them. But as for the threatenings of the gospel, they suppose that they have no other end but to make them afraid; and so they may be freed from the evil which they portend, they care not how little they converse with them. As for any assistance in their obedience to be communicated by them, they do not expect it. But this is a great mistake. Threatenings are no less sanctified of God for the end mentioned than promises are; nor are they, when duly used and improved, less effectual to that purpose. God leaves no part of his word, in its proper place, unaccompanied with his Spirit and grace; especially not that which is of so near a concernment unto his glory. Hence many have had grace administered unto them by threatenings, on whom the promises have made no impression: and this not only persons before conversion, for their conviction and humiliation, but even believers themselves, for their awakening, recovery from backsliding, awe and reverence of God in secret duties, encouragement in sufferings, and the like. Now, from what hath been spoken, it follows that faith, being duly exercised about and towards gospel threatenings, yea, the most severe of them, may find the sane love and the same grace in them as in the most sweet and gracious promises. And there can be no reason why men should dislike the preaching and consideration of them, but because they too well like the sins and evils that are the condition of their execution. We shall now proceed to the opening of the last clause of this verse, wherein the apostle illustrates and confirms the truth of the proof he had produced, by evincing that he had made a right application of the testimony used to that purpose. For proving that those who believe under the gospel do enter into rest, from these words of the psalmist, “If they shall enter into my rest,” it was incumbent on him to manifest that the rest intended in these words had respect unto the rest of the gospel, which was now preached unto all the Hebrews, and entered into by all that believed. Whereas, therefore, a rest of God is mentioned in that testimony, he proceeds to consider the various rests that, on several accounts, are so called in the Scripture, “the rests of God.” From the consideration of them he concludes, that after all other rests formerly enjoyed by the people of God were past, there yet remained a rest for them under the Messiah, which was principally intended in the prophetical words of David. This is the design of his ensuing discourse, which here he makes an entrance into with some seeming abruptness, or at least with an elliptical phrase of speech, in these words, “Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” Καίτοι. Some render it “et quidem,” “and truly;” some “quamvis,” and “quanquam,” “although;” some “seal,” “but;” the Syriac, γְּ ?μַ ?ΰ, “quia ecce,” or “et ecce, “and behold.” The addition of the particle τοι to the conjunction causeth this variety. And καίτοι, is variously used and variously rendered out of other authors; which I should not mention, as seeming too light a matter here to be insisted on, but that various interpretations do often depend on the different acceptation of these particles. The common use of it is “quamvis:” so is it here rendered by Erasmus and Beza, who are followed by ours, “although.” So Demosthenes, Καίτοιτόγεαἰσχρὸνὁμοίως,”Quam vis et id similiter turpe, — Although that be dishonest in like manner.” What this exception intends shall be afterwards declared.Τῶνἔργων, “the works;” that is, of God’s creation: the works of the creation. So the Syriac, ςֲ ?αָ ?γַ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιγַּ ?ΰμָ ?δָ ?ΰ— “the works of God himself;” that is λָּ ?μξְ ?μַ ?ΰλְ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψαָּ ?ψָ ?ΰΰַ ?μֹ ?ϊִ ?ινμַ ?ςֲ ?ωִׂ ?εֹ ?ϊ, — “all his work that God created and made,” or that he designed to make in that first creation.Γενηθέντων, “perfectis,” — “ were perfected,” or “finished.” Syr, δֲ ?εַ ?ε, “fuerunt,” or “facts sunt,” — “ were,” or “were made.” “Genitis,” “being born,” from ΰֵ ?μֶּ ?δϊεֹ ?μְ ?γεֹ ?ϊ, Genesis 2:4; or “created,” “finished,” “perfected,” from ειְ ?λֻ ?μεּ, Genesis 2:1, — “were finished.” The end of ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ, “he made.” There was, in the creation, God’s design, μςֲ ?ωׂ ?εֹ ?ϊ, to “make all things;” according thereunto, αָּ ?ψָ ?ΰ or ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ, he “created” or “made;” the end whereof was ιְ ?λֻ ?μεּ, they “were finished.” For the apostle in these words applies the first throe verses of the second chapter of Genesis to his own purpose.The season of the whole is added, ἀπὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου, “a jacto mundi fundamento,” “a jactis mundi fundamentis,” “ab institutione mundi,” “a constitutione mundi,” — “from the foundation of the world.” Syr., γֵ ?ςָ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ΰξֵ ?οωׁ ?εּ ?ψָ ?ιֵ ?δ, — from the beginning of the world.” Καταβολή is properly “jactus ex loco superiore,” a casting of any thing from above, thither where it may abide. Hence Chrysostom on Ephesians 1:3, on thesame word: ῾Ωςἀπότινοςὕψουςκαταβεβλημένονμεγάλουαὐτὸνδεικνὺς· — the founding of the word comes from above, from the power of God over all. The word is but once in the New Testament applied unto any other purpose, Hebrews 11:11; but frequently in that construction here used, καταβολὴκόσμου. See Matthew 13:35, Luke 11:50; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8. Twice with πρό, that is, “before,” Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20, “Before the foundation of the world;” else with ἀπό, “from” it, denoting the beginning of time, as the other doth eternity. “Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” I do acknowledge that these words, as they relate to the preceding and ensuing discourses of the apostle, are attended with great difficulties; for the manner of the ratiocination or arguing here used seems to be exceedingly perplexed. But we have a relief against the consideration of the obscurity of this and the like passages of holy writ; for the things delivered obscurely in them, as far as they are needful for us to know or practice, are more fully and clearly explained in other places. Nor is there the least semblance that any thing contained in this place should have an inconsistency with what is elsewhere declared. The principal difficulties lie in the discovery of the especial design of the apostle, with the force of the arguments, reasons, and testimonies, whereby he confirmeth his purpose; — that is, that we may clearly discern both what it is which he intends to prove and how he proves it; for the sense of the words is obvious. These are the things that we are to inquire into, with what spiritual skill and diligence God is pleased to impart. And here, because the words under consideration do give an entrance into the whole ensuing discourse, I shall on them lay down the general principles of it, which I would desire the reader a little to attend unto, and afterwards to consider how they are severally educed from the particular passages of it: — First, It is evident that the apostle here engageth into the confirmation of what he had laid down and positively asserted in the foregoing verses. Now this is, ‘That there is yet, under the gospel, a promise of entering into the rest of God left or remaining unto believers; and that they do enter into that rest by mixing the promise of it with faith.’This he declares, and the declaration of it was useful unto and necessary for these Hebrews. For he lets them know, as hath been showed, that, notwithstanding their enjoyment of the rest of Canaan, with the worship and rest of God therein, which their forefathers fell short of by their unbelief, they were now under a new trial, a new rest being proposed unto them in the promise. This he proves by a testimony out of the 95th psalm. But the application of that testimony unto his purpose is obnoxious unto a great objection. For the rest mentioned in that psalm seems to be a rest long since past and enjoyed, either by themselves or others; so that they could have no concernment in it, nor be in any danger of coming short of it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The next verse gives the reason of the preceding mention of the works of God and the finishing of them. blow this was not for their own sakes, but because of a rest that ensued thereon, — the rest of God, and a day of rest as a token of it, and a pledge of our interest therein, or entrance into it. That such a rest did ensue he proves by a testimony taken from Genesis 2:2-3, “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” The rest of God himself is intended solely neither in this place of Genesis nor by our apostle, although he repeats only these words, “And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” But the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day, that is, the institution of it to be a day of rest unto man, and a pledge or means of his entering into the rest of God, is that which is also aimed at in both places. For this is that wherein the apostle is at present concerned. Hebrews 4:4. — Εἴρηκεγάρπουπερὶτῆςἑβδόμηςοὕτω·ΚαὶκατέπαυσενὁΘεὸςἐντῆςἡμέρᾳτῇἐβδὸμῃἀπὸπάντωντῶνἔργωναὐτοῦ.Εἴρηκε, “dixit,” “said;” the nominative case is not expressed: ‘The Scripture hath said.’This is a usual form of speech in the New Testament: John 7:38, Καθὼςει῏πενἡγραφή, John 7:42. But most frequently the speaking of the Scripture is expressed by λέγει, John 19:37, Romans 4:3; Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; Romans 11:2, Galatians 4:3, James 4:5 : sometimes by λαλεῖ, Romans 3:19; here by εἴρηκε: all the words used in the New Testament to express speaking by. For it is not dead and mute, but living and vocal, even the voice of God to them who have ears to hear. And speaking is applied unto it both in the preterperfect tense, “hath said,” “hath spoken,” John 7:38; John 7:42, to denote its original record; and in the present tense, to signify its continuing authority. Or, it may be that τίς should be here supplied, “A certain man said;” for our apostle hath already used that form of speech in his quotation, Hebrews 2:6, Διεμαρτύρατοδὲπουτίς, — “One testifieth in a certain place.” Or, “He hath said;” that is, God himself, the Holy Ghost, whose authority in the Scripture in all this discourse and debate we rely upon. Or it is taken impersonally, for “dicitur,” “It is said.” Που, “alicubi,” “in quondam loco,” — “somewhere,” “in a certain place.” The Syriac omits this που. Arab., “in a certain section.” Περὶτῆςεβδόμης. Translators generally, “de die septimo,” — “of the seventh day.” The Syriac, ςַ ?μωַׁ ?αָּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ— “concerning the Sabbath. Οὕτω or οὕτως, — “so,” “after this manner.” But there is little of difficulty in or difference about the translation of these words.Hebrews 4:4. — For he spake in a certain place [somewhere] of the seventh day on this manner, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.The verse hath two parts: the one expressing the manner of the introduction of an intended testimony; the other containing the testimony itself. The first is in these words: “For he spake in a certain place concerning the seventh day.” Γάρ, “for,” a note of illation, showing that in the ensuing words the apostle designed the proof of what he had elliptically expressed in the verse foregoing; the importance whereof we have before declared. The sum is, that there was a rest of God and his people, and a day of rest, from the foundation of the world; which was not the rest here mentioned by the psalmist. “For he saith.”Εἴρηκε. “he spake,” or “said.” Who or what this refers unto hath been showed already.Που, “somewhere,” “in a certain place.” As he allegeth not’his author expressly, no more doth he the particular place where the words are recorded. He only refers the Hebrews to the Scripture, which was the common acknowledged principle of truth between them, which he and they would acquiesce in, and wherein they were expert. Especially were they so in the books of Moses; and particularly in the history of the creation of the world, whence these words are taken. For this was their glory, that from thence they were in the clear light of the original of the universe, which was hidden in darkness from all the world besides. Περὶτῆςἑβδόμης. This is the subject concerning which the ensuing testimony is produced. Generally the words are rendered, “de die septima,” or “de septima;” — “of the seventh day.” Only the Syriac, as was observed, renders it “of the Sabbath day;” and this not unduly, as expressing the intention of the place. For ἑβδόμη, “the seventh,” may be used either naturally and absolutely for the seventh day, ἡἡμέραἡἑβδόμη, as it is expressed in the words following, “the seventh day,” that is from the beginning of the creation, wherein the first complete returning course of time was finished, after which a return is made to the first day again; or, it may be used τεχνικῶς, “artificially,” as a notation of a certain day peculiarly so called; or as the name of one day, as most nations have given names to the weekly course of days, For at that time ἡἑβδόμη, “the seventh,” was the name whereby the Hellenists called the Sabbath day. So it is always termed by Philo, as others have observed; which also gives evidence unto the writing of this epistle originally in the Greek tongue. So in the gospel, μίασαββάτων, “one,” or “the first of the week,” is the notation of the Lord’s day; and it is the Sabbath which the apostle is speaking of. And this respects both the rest of God, and the rest appointed for us thereon. For the proof hereof is that which he now and in these words designs. He proves that, under the law of creation, God did rest when he had finished his work, made way for his creatures to enter into his rest, and gave them a day as a pledge thereof. Οὕτω, “on this wise,” or “to this purpose;” so it may be rendered, either as precisely denoting the words reported, or as respecting the substance and design of them, “thus,” or “to this purpose.”Secondly, The testimony itself ensues: “And God rested the seventh day from all his works.” The words, as was observed, are taken from Genesis 2:2. But the apostle intends not only to use the words by him cited, but in them he directs us to the whole passage whereof they are a part. For it would not answer his purpose to show merely that God rested from his works, which these words affirm; but his aim is to manifest, as hath been now often observed, that thereon there was a rest provided for us to enter into, and a day of rest appointed as a pledge thereof. And this is fully expressed in the place directed unto; for God upon his own rest “blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” We shall open the words as far as is needful, and then consider what is confirmed by them. ΚατέπαυσενὁΘεός, “God rested.” The apostle adds ὁΘεός, “God, from the beginning of the verse, ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινεַ ?ιְ ?λַ ?μ, “and God finished;” for afterwards it is only, “he rested,” — ειִ ?ωְׁ ?αֹּ ?ϊ, “et requievit.” A cessation from work, and not a refreshment upon weariness, is intended. God is not weary: he was no more so in the works of creation than he is in the works of providence. Isaiah 40:20, “The Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not, neither is weary.” He laboreth not in working; and therefore nothing is intended in this word but a cessation from operation. And this fully satisfies the sense of the word. But yet, Exodus 20:11, it is said, ειָּ ?πַ ?η; which signifies such a rest or resting as brings refreshment with it unto one that is weary. There may, therefore, an anthropopathy be allowed in the word, and rest here be spoken of God with allusion unto what we find in ourselves as to our refreshment after labor. This is thus expressed for our instruction and example; though in God nothing be intended but the cessation from exerting his creating power to the production of more creatures, with his satisfaction in what he had already done. And in this word, ειִּ ?ωְׁ ?αֹּ ?ϊ, lies the foundation of the “Sabbath,” both name and thing. For as the name ωׁ ?αָּ ?ϊ, is from this ιִ ?ωְׁ ?αֹּ ?ϊ, here first used, so herein also lie both the occasion and foundation of the thing itself. So in the command, “Remember the Sabbath day, to sanctify it: six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work;” the reason of the command ensues, εְ ?ιεֹ ?νδַ ?ωְּׁ ?αִ ?ιςִ ?ιωַׁ ?αָּ ?ϊμַ ?ιδָֹ ?εδΰַ ?μֹ ?δֶ ?ικָ, for the seventh day is the sabbath to the Lord thy God:” that is, “his rest” was on that day, on the account whereof he commands us to keep a day of rest. Hence our apostle in this place expresseth our rest., or day of rest under the gospel, by σαββατισμός, “a sabbatism;” of which afterwards.God rested ἐντῇἡμέρᾳεβδόμῃ, “on that seventh day,” — δַ ?ωְּׁ ?αִ ?ιςִ ?ιαּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν. The translation of the LXX. hath a notable corruption in it about the beginning of this verse in Genesis; for whereas it is said that God finished his work “on the seventh day,” it saith that God did so “on the sixth day:” and the mistake is ancient, and general in all copies, as also followed by some ancient translations, as the Samaritan and the Syriac. The occasion of this corruption was to avoid a pretended difficulty in the text, seeming to assert that God rested on the seventh day, and yet that he finished his work on that day. Besides, the story of the creation doth confine it to six days, and so more. But this expression, “He finished his work on the seventh day,” seems to denote the continuance of his operation on that day; and indeed the Jews have many odd evasions, from an apprehension of a difficulty in this place. And Jerome thinks, though very unduly, that from this expression in the original they may be pressed with an argument against their sabbatical rest. But there is a double resolution of this difficulty, either of them sufficient for its removal, and both consistent with each other. The first is, that the Hebrew word, by the conversive prefix having a sense of what is past given unto it, may well be rendered by the preterpluperfect tense. And so it is by Junius: “Cure autem perfecisset Deus die septimo opus suum quod fecerat, quievit;” — “And when God had perfected his work, on the seventh day he rested.” Thus the seventh day is not expressed as a time wherein any work was done, but as the time immediately present after it was finished. And “finis operis non est ipsum opus;” — “the term, end, or complement of a work, is not the work itself.” Again, the word here used, λָ ?μָ ?δ, doth not properly signify “to work” or “effect,” but “to complete,” “perfect or accomplish” ξְ ?μַ ?ΰλְ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψςָ ?ωָׁ ?δειְ ?λַ ?μ; — “Had perfected his work that he had made.” So that on the seventh day there was no more work to do. By this discourse the apostle seems only to have proved that the works were finished, and that God rested, or ceased from his work, on the seventh day. But this seemeth not to answer his intention, for he treats not absolutely about the rest of God (for that would not have been to his present purpose), but such a rest as his obedient creatures might enter into, whereof that rest of God was the foundation, — such as the rests were which he afterwards mentions in the land of Canaan, and under the gospel. Wherefore in this quotation he includes the sense of the whole words before laid down, namely, that upon and because of the rest of God on the seventh day, he sanctified and blessed that day to be a day of rest unto them that worship him, and a pledge of their entering into rest with him. Here, therefore, the command and appointment of the seventh day to be a Sabbath, or a day of rest unto men, from the foundation of the world, is asserted, as hath been proved elsewhere. This, then, is the sum of what is here laid down, namely, that from the beginning, “from the foundation of the world,” there was a work of God, and a rest ensuing thereon, and an entrance proposed unto men into that rest, and a day of rest as a pledge thereof, given unto them; which yet was not the rest intended by the psalmist, which is mentioned afterwards, as in the next verse. Before we proceed, according to our designed method, we may take notice of the ensuing observations: — Obs. 1. Whatever the Scripture saith in any place, being rightly understood and applied, is a firm foundation for faith to rest upon, and for arguments or proofs in the matter of God’s worship to be deduced from. Thus the apostle here confirms his own purpose and intention. His aim is to settle the judgment of these Hebrews in things pertaining to the worship of God; and to supply them with a sufficient authority which their faith might be resolved into. This he doth by referring them to a certain place of Scripture, where the truth he urgeth is confirmed. For, as I have showed before, he designed to deal with these Hebrews, not merely upon his apostolical authority, and the revelations that he had received from Jesus Christ, as he dealt with the churches of the Gentiles, but on the common principles of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which were mutually acknowledged by him and them. And a great work it was that he had undertaken, namely, to prove the abolishing of the worship of the Old Testament, and the introduction of a new kind of worship in the room of it, from testimonies of the Old Testament itself; — a matter, as of great appearing difficulties in itself, so exceedingly suited to the conviction of the Jews, as utterly depriving them of all pretences for the continuance in their Judaism. And this, through the especial wisdom given unto him and skill in holy writ, he hath so performed as to leave a blessed warranty unto the church of Christ for the relinquishment of the whole system of Mosaical worship, and a rock for the obstinate Jews to break themselves upon in all ages. And this should encourage us, — 1. To be diligent in searching of the Scriptures, whereby we may have in readiness wherewith at all times to confirm the truth and to stop the mouths of gainsayers; and without which we shall be easily tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine.2. Not to fear any kind of opposition unto what we profess in the ways and worship of God, if we have a word of truth to secure us, namely, such a word of prophecy as is more firm than a voice from heaven. It is utterly impossible that, in things concerning religion and the worship of God, we can ever be engaged in a cause attended with more difficulties, and liable to more specious opposition, than that was which our apostle was now in the management of. He had the practice and profession of the church, continued from the first foundation of it, resolved into the authority of God himself as to its institution, and attended with his acceptation of the worshippers in all ages, with other seeming disadvantages, and prejudices innumerable, to contend withal; yet this he undertakes on the sole authority of the Scriptures, and testimonies to his purpose thence taken, and gloriously accomplisheth his design. Certainly whilst we have the same warranty of the word for what we avow and profess, we need not despond for those mean artifices and pretences wherewith we are opposed, which bear no proportion to those difficulties which by the same word of truth have been conquered and removed. For instance, what force is there in the pretense of the Roman church, in their profession of things found out, appointed, and commanded by themselves, in comparison of that of the Hebrews for theirs, begun and continued by the authority of God himself? And if this hath been removed and taken away by the light and authority of the Scriptures, how can the other, “hay and stubble,” stand before it? Obs. 2. It is to no purpose to press any thing in the worship of God, without producing the authority of God for it in his word. Our apostle takes no such course, but still minds the Hebrews what is spoken in this and that place to his purpose. And to what end serves any thing else in this matter? is there any thing else that we can resolve our faith into, or that can influence our consciences into a religious obedience? and are not these things the life and soul of all worship, without which it is but a dead carcass and an abomination to God and them that are his? Obs. 3. What the Scripture puts an especial remark upon is especially by us to be regarded and inquired into.Here the apostle refers to what was in a peculiar manner spoken concerning the seventh day; and what blessed mysteries he thence seduceth we shall endeavor to manifest in our exposition of that part of his discourse wherein it is handled. These things being thus fixed, we may with much brevity pass through the remaining verses wherein the apostle treats of the same subject. Unto what, therefore, he had affirmed of God’s entering into his rest upon the finishing of the works from the foundation of the world, he adds, — Καὶἐντούτῳπάλιν·Εἰεἰσελεύσονταιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου.Καὶἐντούτῳ, “and in this,” or “here,” ἐντούτῳ ?/ τῷψαλμῷ, “in this psalm:” or τόπῳ, “in this place;” that is, in the place of Scripture under consideration and exposition, namely the 95th Psalm, or the words of the Holy Ghost by David therein. The expression is elliptical, and the sense is to be supplied from the beginning of the fourth verse: “For he spake in a certain place; and again he speaks in this place.”Πάλιν, “again;” that is, after he had said before that upon the finishing of his works God rested the seventh day, and blessed it for a day of rest unto his creatures, he (that is, the same Holy Ghost) says yet again, upon another occasion, “If they shall enter into my rest.”Hebrews 4:5. — And in this again, If they shall enter into my rest.“If they shall enter into my rest.” We have showed before that from these words, not absolutely considered, but as used and applied in the discourse of the psalmist, he proveth that there is yet a promise of entering into rest remaining to the people of God. This is included in them, as they are taken from the historical record in Moses and prophetically applied in David. And this he takes here for granted, namely, that an entrance into the rest of God for some is intended in those very words whereby others were excluded. His present argument is from the time and place when and where these words were spoken, which include a rest of God to be entered into. Now this was in the time of Moses, and in the wilderness; so that they cannot intend the sabbatical rest from the foundation of the world. ‘For the works,’saith he, ‘were finished in six days, and the seventh day was blessed and sanctified for a day of rest,’as Moses testifieth, Genesis 2:1-3. This rest was tendered unto and entered into by some from the foundation of the world. It must, therefore, of necessity, be “another rest” that is spoken of by the psalmist, and which the people were afresh invited to enter into, as afterwards he more clearly asserts and proves. And they who deny a sabbatical rest from the beginning, do leave no foundation for nor occasion unto the apostle’s arguments and discourse; for if there were no such rest from the foundation of the world, what need he prove that this in David was not that which, on this supposition, was not at all? This, therefore, is his purpose in the repetition of this testimony, namely, to show that the rest mentioned therein was not that which was appointed from the beginning of the world, but another, whose proposal yet remained. So then there was another rest of God besides that upon the creation of all, as is evident from this place, which he further confirms in the next verse. And we may hence learn, that, — Obs. Many important truths are not clearly delivered in any one singular testimony or proposition in the Scripture, but the mind of God concerning them is to be gathered and learned by comparing of several scriptures, their order and respect unto one another.Considering, as the apostle here doth, what is said τοὺ, and what again ἐντούτῳ, what in one place, and what in another, then comparing them together with their mutual respect, with the due use of other means, we shall, under the conduct of God’s Spirit and grace, come to an acquaintance with his mind and will. The heathens saw and acknowledged that all truth lies deep. And the wise man adviseth us to dig and search after it as after gold and silver and precious atones. Now, the deep mine of all spiritual truth is in the word of God: here must we search for it if we intend to find it. And one principal way and means of our search is, the comparing together of divers places treating concerning the same matter or truth. This by some is despised, by the most neglected; which causeth them to know little and mistake much in the holy things of God. Having thus removed an objection that might arise against the new proposal of a rest of God distinct from the sabbatical rest, which was appointed from the foundation of the world, and manifested that although there was in the state of nature, or under the law of our creation, a working and rest of God, and a rest for men to enter into, and a day set apart as a pledge of that rest, yet this was not the rest which he now inquired after, — the apostle in this and the following verses proceedeth to improve his testimonies already produced to a further end, namely, to prove that although after the original rest now mentioned there was a second rest promised and proposed unto the people of God, yet neither was that it which is proposed in this place of the psalm, but a third, that yet remained for them, and was now proposed unto them, and that under the same promises and threatenings with the former; whence the carriage and issue of things with that people with respect thereunto is greatly by us to be considered. Hebrews 4:6. — ᾿Επεὶου῏νἀπολείπεταίτιναςεἰσελθεῖνεἰςαὐτὴν, καὶοἱπρόΤερονεὐαγγελισθέντεςοὐκεἰσῆλθονδι᾿ἀπείθεια·᾿Επεὶου῏ν, “quoniam igitur,” — “seeing therefore,” “whereas therefore;” or as Beza,” quia, igitur,” — “therefore,” “because.” The words are the notes or signs of an inference to be made from what was spoken before, or a conclusion to be evinced from what follows after.᾿Απολείπεται, “superest,” “reliquum est;” impersonally, “it remaineth.” The word may have respect unto the form of the argument, or to the matter of it. In the first way, it denoteth what he hath evinced by his former reasonings and testimonies, namely this, “that some must enter into rest;” which way the words look as expressed in our translation: in the latter, it intendeth no more but that there are some yet to enter into rest, or this work of entering into the rest of God yet remaineth. Neither is this difference so great as that we need precisely to determine the sense either way. Τιναςεἰσελθεῖνεἰςαὐτὴν, “quosdam introire in earn,” “ut aliqui introeant in eam;” “that some enter into it.” The Syriac changeth both the words and sense in this place: ξֶ ?θεּ ?μδָ ?λִ ?ιμγִּ ?ΰιϊηֲ ?εָ ?ΰΰַ ?ϊְ ?ψָ ?ΰγֵּ ?ΰπָ ?ωׁ ΰַ ?πָ ?ωׁ πְ ?ςεּ ?μμֵ ?δּ; “seeing therefore there was a place into which any man might enter,” or “every man,” — “a man,” “man.” It seemeth precisely to respect the land of Canaan, as that rest whereinto some may, do, or must enter; whereas the apostle is proving that it was not that, but another. Arab., “seeing some remain that must enter into it.”Καὶοἱπρότερονεὐαγγελισθέντες. Vulg. Lat., “quibus prioribus annunciatum est;” that is, πρώτοις: it refers the word to the persons, and not to the thing or the preaching itself. Rhem., “and they to whom first it was preached,” instead of “they to whom it was first preached.” Πρότερον, “prius,” “first;” not absolutely, but with respect unto what follows.The remainder of the words have been opened before. Hebrews 4:6. — Whereas, therefore, it remaineth that some enter into it, and those to whom it was first preached [who were first evangelized] entered not in, because of unbelief, [or disobedience.]The words contain an assertion, and a particular assumption from it, The assertion is, that “some must” (or “shall”) “enter into the rest of God.” This he concludes as evinced and proved by his former arguments and testimonies. And this is not the rest of God and the Sabbath from the foundation of the world; for express mention is made afterwards, and on another occasion, of another rest of God, whereinto an entrance was to be obtained. This he proves from those words of the psalmist, as cited out of Moses, “If they shall enter into my rest.” For although he cites the words immediately out of the psalm, yet he argues from them as first recorded in Moses; for he proves in the next verse that David intends another rest than that which was before spoken of, although typically included in the former. So the words prove that there is yet a remaining entrance into a rest of God. Not as if these particles, ΰִ ?ν and εἰ, used here, had in the same place a contrary signification, and might be interpreted negatively or affirmatively, “If they shall,” that is, ‘they shall not,’— for that was the intention of the words towards them concerning whom they were first spoken, — and, “They shall enter,” ‘some shall,’as the apostle applies them; but that a promise is included in every conditional threatening, as we have before declared. The sense of these words, then, is, ‘That from what hath been spoken, it is evident that some must yet enter into another rest of God besides that which was in the Sabbath appointed from the foundation of the world.’ Secondly, He assumes that those to whom that rest was first preached “entered not in, because of their disobedience.” It is manifest whom the apostle intends in these words, namely, those who came out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses, whose sin and punishment he had so fully expressed in the foregoing chapter. Now to these was the rest of God first declared, they were first evangelized with it And hereby the apostle shows what rest it is that he intends, namely, not absolutely the spiritual rest of the promise, for this was preached and declared unto believers from the foundation of the world; but it was the church rest of the land of Canaan, that was first preached unto them; — that is, the accomplishment of the promise, upon their faith and obedience, was first proposed unto them; for otherwise the promise itself was first given to Abraham, but the actual accomplishment of it was never proposed unto him, on any condition. Into this rest they entered not, by reason of their unbelief and disobedience, as hath been at large declared on the third chapter, which the apostle here refers unto. This, therefore, is the substance of this verse: Besides the rest of God from the foundation of the world, and the institution of the seventh-day Sabbath as a pledge thereof, there was another rest for men to enter into, namely, the rest of God and his worship in the land of Canaan. This being proposed unto the people of old, they entered not into it, by reason of their unbelief. And in proportion unto what was declared before, concerning the rest of God after the finishing of his works from the foundation of the world, we may briefly consider what this rest was, which those to whom it was first proposed entered not into. For it is not observed that they entered not into it to manifest that the same rest which they entered not into did still remain for those that now would enter into it by faith; for the apostle plainly proves afterwards that it is another rest that he treats of, and that although some did enter into that rest under the conduct of Joshua, yet there was still another rest besides that prophesied of in the psalm: but this is called over in the pursuit of his former exhortation, that we should take heed lest we come short of the rest proposed unto us, as they came short of that which was then proposed unto them. We may therefore here consider what was that rest which God calls “his rest;” and which he invited them to enter into, and what did concur in the constitution of it. And these things, although they have been mentioned before, must here be laid down in their proper place. First, This being a rest of God, there must be some work of God preceding it, with respect whereunto it is so called. Now this was the mighty work of God in erecting the church-state of the Israelites, compared unto his work in the creation of heaven and earth, whereby he made way for the first state of rest before mentioned, Isaiah 51:15-16; and this it everyway answered unto. And this work of God had two parts; or two sorts of works concurred thereunto: — 1. Such as were preparatory unto it, namely, the works that he wrought for the delivery of the people out of Egypt. These were effected “by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great terrors,” Deuteronomy 4:34. These things of dread and terror answer the creation of the first matter, which was “void, and without form.”2. Perfective of it, in the giving of the law with all its statutes and ordinances, and the whole worship of God to be observed among that people. This was the especial and particular forming of the church into such a state as wherein God might rest, Ezekiel 16:8-13, answering the six days’work, wherein God made and formed all kind of creatures out of the first created, informed [that is, formless] mass. For as on their finishing God looked on them, and saw that they were “good,” and declared them so to be, Genesis 1.; so upon the erection of this church-state and disposition of the people, he saw that it was good, and declared it so to be: Ezekiel 16:14, “Thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty; for it was perfect, through my honor that I put upon thee.”So was the work of the creation of that church-state, the generation of these heavens and earth, and all the host of them, finished. Secondly, This thing done, God rests or enters into his own rest: “He and the ark of his strength arose, and entered into his rest,” in answer to his rest after his finishing of the works of the first creation, Psalms 132:8. The settlement of his worship, and the typical representation of his presence among the people therein, shadowing out his glorious presence in Him in whom the fullness of the Godhead was to dwell bodily, he calls it “his rest,” and “his own rest.” And hereon ensued a double rest proposed to the people: — 1. A spiritual rest in God, as having entered into a special covenant with them. Upon God’s rest on the creation, men were invited to enter into God’s rest as the God of nature, upon the terms and according unto the law of creation; but by sin this rest was rendered useless and unprofitable unto all mankind, and the covenant itself lost all its power of bringing men unto God. But now, in this erection of a new church-state among the posterity of Abraham, the foundation of it was the promise made unto Abraham, which contained in it the substance of another covenant, whereinto God through Jesus Christ would enter and rest therein; whereon he invites them by faith and obedience to enter into it also, into the rest of God.2. There was a pledge of this spiritual rest proposed unto the people; and this was the land of Canaan, and the quiet possession thereof, and exercise of the worship of God therein. By this and their respect unto it God tried their faith and obedience as to that spiritual rest which, as it were, lay hid under it. And herein it was that they failed, whose example is proposed and considered in this chapter.Thirdly, God’s rest after the creation of the world at first was on the first seventh day; which he therefore “blessed and sanctified,” that it might be a pledge and token both of his own acquiescency in his works and in the law of obedience that he had assigned unto them all; as also unto men of that eternal rest which was in himself prepared for them, upon the observance of that law whose institution he himself rested in, and also that they might have an especial time and season solemnly to express their faith and obedience. And this day he again, for the same ends, renewed unto the people of Israel, and that without any change of it, both because the time was not yet come wherein the great reformation of all things was to be wrought, and because the first covenant, whereunto that day’s rest was annexed, was materially revived and represented anew unto that people. And this day of rest, or the institution of the seventh-day Sabbath in the church of the Jews, is necessarily included in this verse: for without the consideration of it this rest doth not answer the rest of God before insisted on, and which is the rule and measure of all that follow; for therein there was a day of rest, which is mentioned synecdochically for the whole rest of God, in these words, “For one speaking of the seventh day;” and therefore our apostle, in his next review of this testimony, doth not say there was another rest, but only that “another day” was determined, which extends both to the general season wherein the rest of God is proposed to any, as also to the especial day, which was the visible pledge of the rest of God, and whereby the people might enter into it, as in the ensuing words will be made manifest. This, then, is that which the apostle hath proved, or entered upon the proof of, towards his main design in these verses, — namely, that there being a rest of God for men to enter into, and this not the rest of the land of Canaan, seeing they who had it proposed and offered first unto them did not enter into it, there must be yet that other rest remaining which he provokes the Hebrews to labor for an entrance into. And the ground of his argument ties herein, in that the rest of Canaan, although it was a distinct rest of itself, yet it was typical of that other rest which he is inquiring after, and the good things of this new rest were obscurely represented unto the people therein; so that by rejecting that rest they rejected the virtue and benefits of this also. And we may hence observe, that, — Obs. 1. The faithfulness of God in his promises is not to be measured by the faith or obedience of men at any one season, in any one generation, or their sins whereby they come short of them, nor by any providential dispensations towards them.The people in the wilderness having a promise proposed unto them of entering into the rest of God, when they all failed and came short of it, there was an appearance of the failure of the promise itself. So they seem themselves to have tacitly charged God, when he denounced the irrevocable sentence against their entering into the land of promise: for after the declaration of it he adds, “And ye shall know my breach of promise,” Numbers 14:34; which is a severe and ironical reproof of them. They seem to have argued, that if they entered not, God failed in his promise, and so reflected on his truth and veracity. ‘That,’saith God, ‘shall be known when you are utterly destroyed;’(for then it was that it should be accomplished.) ‘Ye shall know that it is your sin, unbelief, and rebellion, and not any failure on my part.’ Our apostle manageth a great argument on this subject in another place. Upon the preaching of the gospel, it was seen that, the Gentiles being called, the generality of the Jews were rejected, and not taken into a participation of the benefits thereof. Hence there was an appearance that the promise of God unto the seed of Abraham, and the faithfulness of God therein, were failed. This objection he proposeth to himself by way of anticipation, Romans 9:6, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.” The “word of God” intended is the word of promise, as is declared, verse 8. This seemed to fail, in that the seed of Abraham were not universally, or at least generally, made partakers of it. ‘It is not so,’saith he; ‘the promise is firm and stable, and hath its effect, notwithstanding this appearing failure.’Thereon he proceeds at large in the removal of that objection, by manifesting that in the fleshly seed of Abraham the promise was effectual, according to the eternal counsel of God and his purpose of election. And thus it frequently falls out among the people of God. Having, it may be, made some undue applications of promises unto themselves; it may be, misinterpreted or misunderstood them; or, it may be, supposed that they were in a greater forwardness towards their accomplishment than indeed they were; upon their own personal trouble, or calamities of the whole church, they have been ready at least to expostulate with God about the truth and stability of his promises. See Psalms 116:11; 1 Samuel 27:1; Jeremiah 12:1; Habakkuk 1:2-4; Habakkuk 1:13. The greatness of their troubles, and the urgency of their temptations, cast them art such expressions, The psalmist gives one corrective to all such Failings, Psalms 77:10,“I said, This is my infirmity; but I will remember the years of the right hand of the Most High;”— ‘All my troublesome apprehensions of God’s dispensations, and the accomplishment of his promises, are fruits and effects of my own weakness. To relieve me against them for the future, I will consider the eternity, and power, and sovereignty of God; which will secure me from such weak apprehensions.’And to help us in the discharge of our duty herein, we may take the help of the ensuing observations and rules: — Obs. 2. 1. The promises of God are such as belong only to the grace of the covenant, or such as respect also the outward administration of it in this world. Those of the first sort are always, at all times, actually fulfilled and made good unto all believers, by virtue of their union unto Christ, whether themselves have the sense and comfort of that accomplishment in their own souls at all times or no; but of this sort of promises we do not now treat peculiarly. Besides these, there are promises which respect the outward administration of the covenant, under the providence of God in this world. Such are all those which concern the peace and prosperity of the church, in its deliverance out of trouble, the increase of light and truth in the world, the joy and comfort of believers therein, with others innumerable of the like importance; and it is those of this kind concerning which we speak. Obs. 3. 2. Some, yea, many promises of God, may have a full accomplishment when very few know or take notice that so they are, — it may be none at all.And this falls out on sundry reasons; for, — (1.) Such things may, in the providence of God, fall out in and with the accomplishment of them, as may keep men from discerning and acknowledging of it. Great wisdom and understanding were ever required to apprehend aright the accomplishment of such promises as are mixed with God’s dispensations in the affairs of this world, Revelation 13:18; nor was this wisdom ever attained in any age by the generality of professors. Thus, when God came to fulfill his promise in the deliverance of his people from Egypt, he suffered at the same time their bondage and misery to be so increased that they could not believe it, Exodus 5:21-23. See Exodus 4:31, compared with Exodus 6:9. Believers, according to their duty, pray for the accomplishment of the promise of God, it may be in their great distress. God answers their desires, But how? “By terrible things in righteousness,” Psalms 65:5. It is “in righteousness” that he answers them; that is, the righteousness of fidelity and veracity in the accomplishment of his promises. But withal he sees it necessary, in his holiness and wisdom, to mix it with such “terrible things” in the works of his providence as make their hearts to tremble; so that at the present they take little notice of the love, grace, and mercy of the promise. There are many wonderful promises and predictions in the Revelation that are unquestionably fulfilled. Such are those which concern the destruction of the Pagan-Roman empire, under the opening of the six seals, Revelation 6. Yet the accomplishment thereof was accompanied with such terrible things, in the ruin of nations and families, that very few, if any one individual person, took notice of them, at the time when they were under their completion. (2.) It so falls out from the prejudicate opinions that men may and oftentimes do conceive concerning the sense and meaning of the promises, or the nature of the things promised. They apprehend them to be one thing, and in the event they prove another; which makes them either utterly reject them, or not to see their accomplishment. So was it in the exhibition or coming of the Lord Christ in the flesh, according to the promise. The Jews looked for it, and longed after it continually, Malachi 3:1-2. But they had framed a notion of the promise and the thing promised unto themselves which was no way answered thereby. They expected he should come in worldly honor, power, and glory, to satisfy them with peace, dominion, wealth, and prosperity; but he comes quite in another manner, and for other ends: hence they received him not, nor would at all believe the promise to be fulfilled when it had its exact and complete accomplishment. It may be so with others. They may misunderstand the promises, and look for such things by them as are not indeed intended in them. So many men miscarry, when they overlook the true spiritual importance and intention of prophetical promises, to take up with the carnal things which in the letter they are shadowed out by. (3.) Unbelief itself hides the accomplishment of promises from the eyes of men. So our Lord Christ, speaking of his coming to avenge his elect, adds unto it, “Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” Luke 18:8. Men will not apprehend nor understand his work through unbelief.And this one consideration should teach us great moderation in our judgments concerning the application of promises, prophecies, and predictions, unto their seasons. I am persuaded that many have contended (thereby troubling themselves and others) about the seasons and time wherein some prophecies are to be fulfilled, which have long since received their principal accomplishment, in such a way as those who now contend about them think not of. Such are many of those which are by some applied unto a future estate of the kingdom of Christ in this world, which were fulfilled in his coming and erection of his church. And whereas many of that nature do yet doubtless remain upon record, which shall be accomplished in their proper season, yet when that is come, it may possibly very little answer the notions which some have conceived of their sense and importance. Experience also hath sufficiently taught us that those computations and conjectures at the times of fulfilling some promises which seem to have been most sedate and sober, have hitherto constantly disappointed men in their expectations. That God is faithful in all his promises and predictions; that they shall every one of them be accomplished in their proper season; that the things contained in them and intended by them are all of them fruits of his love and care towards his church; that they all tend unto the advancement of that glory which he hath designed unto himself by Jesus Christ; are things that ought to be certain and fixed with us. Beyond these we ought to be careful, (1.) That we affix no sense unto any promise which we conceive as yet unaccomplished, that is,[1. In any thing unsuited to the analogy of faith, — like these who dreamed of old of such a promised kingdom of Christ as wherein all the Mosaical worship and rites should be restored; [2. That debaseth spiritual promises unto carnal lusts and interests, — like them who, in the foregoing age, under a pretense of filling up Christ’s promised kingdom, gave countenance thereby unto their own violence, rapine, and filthiness: (2.) That we be not peremptory, troubling our own faith and that of others about the future accomplishment of such promises as probably are fulfilled already, and that in a sense suited to the analogy of faith and tenor of the new covenant:(3.) That in such as wherein we have a well-grounded assurance that they are yet to be fulfilled, we wait quietly and patiently for the salvation of God; not making our understanding of them the rule of any actions for which we have not a plain warranty in the prescription of our duty in other places of Scripture.Obs. 4. 3. Some promises of God, as to their full accomplishment, maybe confined unto some certain time and season, although they may have, and have, their use and benefit in all seasons; and until this is come there can be no failure charged, though they be not fulfilled.Thus was it with the great promise of the coming of Christ before mentioned. It was given out from the foundation of the world, Genesis 3:15, and in the counsel of God confined to a certain period of time, determined afterwards in the prophecies of Jacob, Daniel, Haggai, and otherwise. This all the saints of God were in expectation of from the first giving of the promise itself. Some think that Eve, upon the birth of Cain, — concerning whom she used these words, “I have obtained a man from the LORD,” which they contend should be rendered, “the man the LORD,” — did suppose and hope that the promise of the exhibiting of the blessing Seed was accomplished. And if they looked for him on the nativity of the first man that was born in the world, it is very probable that their hearts were frequently made sick, when their hopes were deferred for four thousand years. See Genesis 5:29; Genesis 49:18, compared with Luke 2:30, Exodus 4:13. And many a time, no doubt, they were ready to call the truth of the promise, and therein the faithfulness of God, into question. Great desires they had, and great expectations, which were frustrated. Hence our Savior tells his disciples, that “many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which they saw, and saw them not,” Matthew 13:17. They desired, hoped, prayed, that the promise might be fulfilled in their days; which yet it was not. Hence our apostle tells us that “these all died in faith, not having received the promise,” Hebrews 11:13; that is, not the accomplishment of it. Yet this their disappointment did not in the least shake the stability of the promise; for although it was not yet actually fulfilled, yet they had benefit from it, yea, life and salvation by it. And this God hath provided, in reference unto those promises whose actual accomplishment is confined unto a certain season, which a present generation shall not be made partakers of: — there is that grace and consolation in them, for and unto them that do believe, that they have the full benefit of the merciful and spiritual part of them, when they are utterly useless to them who have only a carnal expectation of their outward accomplishment. Thus, that other promise made unto Abraham, for the delivery of his posterity out of thraldom, was limited to the space of four hundred years, Genesis 15:13-14. Very probable it is that the Israelites, during their bondage in Egypt, were utterly unacquainted with the computation of this time, although they knew that there was a promise of deliverance; for, as it is most likely they had lost the tradition of the revelation itself, or at least knew not how to state and compute the time, so did God order things that they should depend on his absolute sovereignty, and neither make haste nor despond. And yet, doubtless, through the delay they apprehended in the accomplishment of the promise, some of them fell into one of these extremes, and some of them into the other; — the first way the children of Ephraim seem to have offended, “whom the men of Gath who were born in the land slew,” when “they came down to take away their cattle,” 1 Chronicles 7:21. Probably these sons of Ephraim would have been entering upon Canaan, and spoiling of the Amorites before the appointed and full time came; and they perished in their undertaking. Others again, no doubt, in their great distresses and anguish of soul, were exercised with many fears lest the promise had utterly failed. But there was no alteration in God or his word all this while. This made the holy men afterwards have a great respect unto the set time of the fulfilling of promises, when by any means it was infallibly discovered, and then to fix themselves to such duties as might be meet for their season. So the psalmist prays that “God would arise and have mercy upon Zion, because the time to favor her, yea, the set time,” the time fore-designed and appointed, “was come,” Psalms 102:13. And when Daniel understood, by the books of Jeremiah the prophet, that the time of the fulfilling of the promise for returning the captivity of Judah was at hand, he set himself to prayer, that it might he done accordingly, Daniel 9:2-3; Daniel 9:17. But what shall men do inreference unto such promises, when they know not by any means the set time of their accomplishment?Ans. Believe, and pray; and then take the encouragement given, Isaiah 60:22, “I the LORD will hasten it in its time.” It hath its appointed time, which cannot be changed; but if you will consider the oppositions that lie against it, the unlikelihood and improbability of its accomplishment, the want of all outward means for it, upon faith and prayer it shall be hastened. Thus in the days of the gospel there are signal promises remaining concerning the calling of the Jews, the destruction of Antichrist, the peace and glory of the churches of Christ. We know how men have miscarried in these things: some have precipitately antedated them, some unwarrantably stated the times of them; whose disappointment and their own unbelief and carnal wisdom have brought the generality of men to look no more after them, and either to think that the promises of them are failed, or that indeed such promises were never made, — wherein unbelief hath found very learned advocates. But it is certain that there are periods of time affixed unto these things. “The vision of them is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie; though it tarry,” and be delayed beyond the computation of some, and the expectation of all, yet “wait for it, because it will surely come.” It will not tarry one moment beyond the time of old prefixed unto it, as Habakkuk 2:3. In the meantime God hath given us certain directions, in general computations of the times to come; from whence yet the most diligent inquirers have been able to learn nothing stable and certain, but that the time must needs be long from the first prediction, and that it is certainly stated for its accomplishment in the counsel of God. The rule, therefore, confirmed by these instances, duly considered, may evidence the stability of God’s promises, notwithstanding the intervening of cross providential dispensations. Obs. 5. 4. There are many promises whose signal accomplishment God hath not limited unto any especial season, but keeps it in his own will to act according to them towards his church as is best suited to his wisdom and love. Only there is no such promise made but God will at one time or other verify his word in it, by acting according to it, or fulfilling of it. And God hath thus disposed of things, —(1.) That he may always have in a readiness wherewith to manifest his displeasure against the sins of his own people;(2.) That he may have wherewith to exercise their faith; and,(3.) To encourage them to prayer, expectation, and crying unto him in their distresses.Thus setting aside the promises that are limited unto a certain period of time, there are enough of these promises at all times to satisfy the desires and prayers of the church. When God hath limited his promises to a certain season and time, let the men of that age, time, and season, be what they will, “the decree will bring forth,” and the faithfulness of God requires the exact accomplishment of such determinate promises. Thus the promise of the coming of Christ being limited and determined, he was to come, and he did come accordingly, whatever was the state with the church, which was as bad as almost it could be in this world; so that one of themselves confessed not long after, that if the Romans had not destroyed them, he thought “God would have sent fire upon them from heaven, as he did on Sodom and Gomorrah.” But then was Christ to come, according to the time fore-appointed, and then he did come amongst those murderers. So God had limited the time of the bondage of Abraham’s posterity unto four hundred and thirty years. When that time was expired, the people were wicked, unbelieving, murmuring, and no way prepared for such a mercy; yet in the “very same night” whereunto the promise was limited they were delivered. But now as to their entrance into Canaan, God left the promise at a greater latitude. Hence they are brought to the very door and turned back again, by reason of their sins and unbelief; and yet the promise of God failed not, as it would have done had they not been delivered from the Egyptians at the end of four hundred and thirty years, whatever their sins or unbelief were. And of this sort, as was said, there are promises recorded in the Scripture innumerable; and there is not one of them but shall at one time or other be accomplished. For although, as to their accomplishment at this or that season, they depend much upon the faith, repentance, and obedience of the church, yet they have not absolutely a respect unto that condition that shall or may never be performed, that so they should come to be utterly frustrated. God, therefore, doth by them try and exercise the faith of his people in this or that age, as he did those in the wilderness by the promise of entering into rest; but yet he will take care, in the administrations of his grace, that his church at one season or another shall be made partaker of them, that his word do not fall to the ground. Obs. 6. 5. Some concerns of the glory of God in the world may suspend the full and outward accomplishment of some promises for a season.Thus there are many promises made to the church of deliverance out of afflictions and persecutions, and of the destruction of its adversaries. When such occasions do befall the church, it may and ought to plead these promises of God, for they are given and left unto it for that purpose. But yet it often falls out that the fulfilling of them is for a tong time suspended. God hath other ends to accomplish by their sufferings than are yet brought about or effected. It is needful, it may be, that his grace should be glorified in their patience, and the truth of the gospel be confirmed by their sufferings, and a testimony be given to and against the world. It may be, also, that God hath so ordered things, that the straits and persecutions of the church shall tend more to the furtherance of the gospel and the interest of Christ than its peace and tranquillity would do. And in such a season God hath furnished his people with other promises, which they ought to “mix with faith,” and which shall be accomplished. Such are those of his presence with them, abiding by them, owning and supporting of them, comforting them in their distresses, and of ordering all things to their good and satisfaction. Besides, they have relief and consolation in the goodness, faithfulness, and tenderness of God, in those other promises whose fulfilling and performance he hath reserved unto his own sovereignty. Herein in all their tribulation do they rejoice, as Abraham did in his foresight of the day of Christ, then so many generations distant. And the consideration of these rules will evidence that neither the sons of men, nor any other troubling intervenings of providence, can any way shake the truth and stability of the promises of God. And we may hence learn, — (1.) In any condition wherein we judge ourselves to be called to plead any promises of God, and to have an expectation of their accomplishment, not to make haste. This is the great rule given the church in reference unto the greatest promise that ever was given unto it, “He that believeth shall not make haste,” Isaiah 28:16. A promise of the sending of Christ is given in the words foregoing: “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation.” This might well raise up a great expectation in the hearts of the people in their distressed and troublous condition. But, alas! this was not actually fulfilled until many generations after. Here patience is required. “He that believeth shall not make haste;” that is, impatiently press after the future accomplishment of the promise, unto the neglect of present duties. So are we all apt to do. When our condition is grievous and burdensome, and there are promises on record of better things for them that fear God, we are apt to give place to impatient desires after them, unto the neglect of present duties. The same advice is given us in reference unto any providences of God wherein his church is concerned that fall under any promises. Such are those before mentioned about Antichrist and his destruction; with respect unto them also we are to wait, and not make haste, Habakkuk 2:3. We see how many occasions there may be of retarding the actual accomplishment of promises. Our wisdom and duty therefore is, to leave that unto his sovereign pleasure, and to live upon his truth, goodness, and faithfulness in them. They shall all be “hastened in their appointed time.” I could easily instance in evils great and fatal that would ensue on our miscarriage in this thing. I shall name that which is the greatest amongst them. This is that which puts men upon irregular ways to partake of the promise; which when they fail in, as God will blast such ways, they begin to question, yea, to disbelieve the promise itself. (2.) Again; when the accomplishment of promises seemeth to be deferred, we are not to faint in our duty. The benefit and advantage which we have in and by the accomplishment of promises is not the sole end why they are given unto us of God; but he intends in and by their proposal unto us to try and exercise all our graces, — our faith, patience, obedience, and submission unto him. So he dealt with those Israelites in the wilderness, proposing unto them the promise of entering into rest, he tried them how they would trust him, and cleave unto him, and fully follow after him. Failing herein, they came short of the promise. So God deals with us; he will exercise and prove us, whilst we are waiting for the actual performance of the promise. Now, if we find this deferred beyond our hopes, and it may be our fears, and we do begin to faint, as though the promise itself did fail, it is the readiest way to cause us to come short of it, Something of this nature befell the father of the faithful himself. He had received the great promise, that “in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.” Many years after this he was childless, until his own body was in a manner dead, and so was Sarah’s womb also. The hope that he had remaining was above hope, or all rational appearing grounds of it, This once put him so to it as that he cried, “Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless?” All this while God was bringing him to his foot, training him up to obedience, submission, and dependence upon himself. When, therefore, we consider of any promises of God, and do not find that we are actually possessed of the things promised, nor do know when we shall be so, our duty is to apply ourselves unto what in our present station is required of us. We may see and learn the love and goodness that is in every promise, what grace and kindness it proceeds from, what faithfulness it is accompanied withal; which is the sum of what the saints under the old testament had respect unto in the promise of the Messiah. Moreover, what God requires at our hands, what patience, waiting, submission, we must be searching into. These, I say, and the like, are our duties in this case; and not to faint, or charge the Lord unjustly, all whose ways are mercy and truth, and all whose promises are firm and steadfast. Πάλιντινὰὁρίλειἡμέραν, Σήμερον, ἐνΔαβὶδλέγων, μετὰτοσοῦτονχρόνον, καθὼςεἴρηται, σήμερονΈἐὰντῆςφωνῆςαὐτοῦἀκούσητε, μὴσκληρύνητετὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν.Some MSS. for εἴρηται, “said,” or “spoken,” read προείρηται, “forespoken,” or “foretold.” Μετὰτοσοῦτονχρόνον, “post tantum tempus,” or “temporis,” as the Vulg. Lat.; that is, “tantum temporis spatium elapsum,” “aider so great a space of time past.” Syr., “from after so much time;” and adds, “as it is said above that David said.”Πάλιν, “again.” It may denote either the repetition of an old act, or the introduction of a new testimony. Our apostle often useth this word on this latter occasion. So he doth several times, Hebrews 1. And here it may seem to be so applied: ‘“Again,” to confirm further what hath been spoken.’But it doth rather express in this place the repetition of the thing spoken of, and is to be joined in construction with “he limiteth:” ‘After the determination, limiting, or appointing the day before mentioned, the day of rest, — that is, the rest itself, and a “certain day” for the representation of it and entering into it, with all that concerned is and fell out about it, both at the beginning of the world, and also at the entrance of the people into Canaan, — “again he limiteth,” or “he limiteth again.”’῾Ορίζει, “he limiteth;” — that is, absolutely God doth so, whose authority alone in these things is the rule of our faith and obedience; particularly the Holy Ghost, this limitation being made in the Scriptures, which were given by his immediate and peculiar inspiration, 2 Peter 1:21. “Limiteth;” that is, either describes or defineth it in a prophetical prediction, or determineth and appoints it by an authoritative institution. He describes it in itself, and appoints it unto us. The word may comprise both, and we have no ground to exclude either.Τινὰἡμέραν, “a certain day;” that is, another determinate day, in answer to the days forementioned, and whose season was now elapsed and past. It is certain that the apostle doth principally intend to evince the new rest of God under the gospel, and to persuade the Hebrews to secure their entrance into it, and possession of it. But he here changeth his terms, and calls it not a “rest,” but proposeth it from the psalmist under the notion of a “day.” And this he doth because he had before proved and illustrated the rest of God, from the day that was set apart as a pledge and means of it, as also because he designs to manifest that there is another day determined, as a pledge and representation of this new rest, or as an especial season for the enjoyment of the privileges thereof. Σήμερον. The day he intends is that which in the psalmist is called ηιּ ?εֹ ?ν, o r σήμερον, “to-day.” The former day he called ἐβδόμην, “the seventh day.” This was the day of rest from the foundation off the world unto the giving of the law, as also under the law itself; but now there is to be “another day,” expressive of the other rest promised. The seventh day from the beginning of the creation was separated to this purpose, with respect unto the rest proposed to man in the state of innocency, and the typical rest promised to the People under the law; but this new, spiritual rest in Christ by the gospel, is to have “another day” to express and declare it. Thus is σήμερον, “to-day,” in the psalmist, left at liberty to be any day in the prophecy, but limited to the first by the resurrection of Christ. “Again, he limiteth a certain day,” called σήμερον, “today.”ΛέγωνἐνΔαβίδ, “speaking in David,” who was the person by whom this matter was revealed to the church, in a psalm that he composed by divine inspiration for that purpose. And “David” may be here taken properly for the person of David himself; and so this expression declares the way and manner whereby he came to reveal this thing. It was from the speaking of the Holy Ghost in him, whereby he was ὑπὸΠνεύματοςἁγίουφερόμενος, 2 Peter 1:21, — acted by him to receive and deliver hisinspirations. So the apostle by ἐν renders the intention of the Hebrew α.He spake in them; as David of himself, ψεּ ?ηַ ιְ ?ηָֹ ?εδγִּ ?αֶּ ?ψΰּ ?αִּ ?ι, 2 Samuel 23:2, — “The Spirit of the LORD spake in me.” And so our apostle, in the beginning of this epistle, “God spake ἐντοῖςπροφήταις, and ἐνΥἱῷ,” — “in the prophets, and in the Son.” So, as was said, the words not only express the revelation itself, but the manner of it also. The Holy Ghost spake in them whom he employed as his instruments; using their minds, tongues, and pens, for the receiving and declaring his sense and words, without leaving any thing unto their own inventions and memories. So David adds in the foregoing place, εּ ?ξִ ?μָּ ?ϊεֹ ςַ ?μΰּ ?μְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?πִ ?ι, — “He spake in me, and his word was upon my tongue.” Or, secondly, the name “David” may be taken by a metonymy for the psalm itself, whereof he was the penman: “Speaks in the psalm which David wrote.” Thus not his inspiration of David is intended, or his speaking in his person, but the continued speaking of the Holy Ghost unto the church in that psalm, as in and by all other Scriptures: for the Scripture is the voice of God, and he always speaks unto us thereby; and itself is said to speak, because of God’s speaking in it. Μετὰτοσοῦτονχρόνον, “after so long a time,” namely, spent and bygone. The date of this time is to be taken from the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, or from the second year after, when the spies were sent to search the land, and all that ensued thereon, which our apostle hath so considered and improve. From thence to the time of David was about five hundred years: so that our apostle might well call it τοσοῦτονχρόνον, “so long a time,” or so great a space of time.The remaining words of this verse have been opened before. [3][3] VARIOUS READING. — Lachmann and Tisehendorf insert προείρηται in the text, as undoubtedly the true reading; Griesbach marks it as a reading of great value. . — The words καθὼςπροείρηται connect grammatically with λέγων, and indicate that the words had already been cited, Hebrews 3:7; Hebrews 3:15. Others take the first σήμερον as the object of λέγων, “inasmuch as in David he calls it (the day), a to-day.” Others, as Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bleek, take σήμερον, as apposition to ἡμέραντινά, “he defines again a day, a to-day.” This entire treatment of σήμερον is modern. — Ebrard. — ED. Hebrews 4:7. — He limiteth a certain day again, saying in David, To- day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.The design of the apostle in these words, is to confirm what he hal before asserted about a new rest, and new day of rest, now remaining for the people of God to enter into and to possess. And there are three things considerable in them: — 1. The proposition of his argument, wherein its strength lies; 2. An enforcement of it from a considerable circumstance; 3. The confirmation of it, by an introduction of the divine testimony from whence it is taken: —1. His argument lies in this, that after the constitution of the sabbatical rest from the beginning of the world, and the proposition of the rest of Canaan to the people in the wilderness, God, besides them, hath “limited,” determined, designed another “certain day,” which was neither of the former. This must needs, therefore, be “another day;” and that can be no other but the day of the gospel. And, as we observed before, he calls it not merely a “rest,” but a “day;” that it may fully and in all particulars answer the rests before insisted on, that were types and shadows of it.2. His enforcement of this argument is taken from the circumstance of time, when this day was limited and determined. Had the words here recorded been spoken at or near the time when the people’s entering into the other typical rest of Canaan was under consideration, they might have been thought to have pertained thereunto, and to have contained an exhortation unto them to make use of their season. But now, whereas God speaks these words, wherein a day of rest is limited, so long a space of time after, namely, five hundred years or thereabouts, it cannot be but that another day of rest must be intended in them; and therefore there is still a promise remaining of entering into the rest of God, which we must take heed that we come not short of by unbelief and disobedience. 3. He confirms his proposition by repeating the divine testimony which it is built upon, “As it is said, To-day, if ye will hear his voice.” Much use hath the apostle made of these words in these chapters It is only one word of them that he now builds on, namely, “to-day,” whence he educeth the great mysteries of a gospel rest, and the answering of it both to the rest under the old testament and the day whereby it was expressed. Sundry doctrinal observations may be hence taken, namely, from the manner of the expressions here used; the matter hath been spoken unto already. Obs. 1. In reading and hearing the Scripture, we ought to consider God speaking in it and by it unto us. “He saith;” that is, God saith, or more especially the Holy Ghost. He both spake “in David,” in the inspiration of that psalm; and “by David,” or in the psalm, he speaks unto us. This alone will give us that reverence and subjection of soul and conscience unto the word of God which are required of us, and which are necessary that we may have benefit and advantage thereby. In that kind of careless and “way-side” deportment whereby men enjoy or hear the word and immediately lose it, this is not the least evil, that they do not sufficiently consider whose word it is, and who speaks immediately unto them. Our apostle commends the Thessalonians, that they “received the word, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” 1 Thessalonians 2:13. They considered whose word it was, and whilst the apostle spake to their outward ears, they attended unto God speaking to their hearts; which made them receive it in a due manner, with faith and obedience. So God promiseth to look graciously unto him that “trembleth at his word,” Isaiah 66:2; which flame of heart proceedeth atone from a due consideration of its being his. Customariness, negligence, and sloth, are apt to spoil us of this frame, of this grace, and so to deprive us of the benefit of the word. And to prevent this, God doth not only preface what he speaks with “Thus saith the LORD,” but ofttimes adjoins such of his attributes and excellencies as are suited to beget an awe and reverence in our hearts, both of him that speaketh and of that which is spoken. See Isaiah 30:15; Isaiah 57:15. Let a man but consider that it is God, the great and holy one, that speaketh unto him in his word, and it cannot but excite in him faith, attention, and readiness unto obedience; as also work in him that awe, reverence, and trembling, which God delighteth in, and which brings the mind into a profiting frame.And this concerns the word preached as well as read. Provided, — 1. That those that preach it are sent of God; 2. That what is preached be according to the analogy of faith; 3. That it be drawn from the written word; 4. That it be delivered in the name and authority of God.Obs. 2. Divine inspiration, or the authority of God speaking in and by the penmen of the Scripture, is the ground and foundation of our faith, that which gives them authority over our consciences and efficacy in them. This hath been argued elsewhere.Obs. 3. The holy Scripture is an inexhaustible treasury or repository of spiritual mysteries and sacred truths. And, —Obs. 4. Many important truths lie deep and secret in the Scripture, and stand in need of a very diligent search and hard digging in their investigation and for their finding out.These two propositions are nearly related, and do both arise from the same consideration of the text. How many deep and mysterious truths, and those of great importance and of signal use, hath our apostle found out in the words of the psalm produced by him! and how doth he here, by stating aright the true intention of one single word or expression, — and that gathered from the consideration of all its circumstances, as by whom it was spoken, when it was spoken, and to what purpose, — make the eminent conclusion we have insisted on! And these things are for our instruction. First, it is hence collected, That the holy Scripture is an inexhaustible treasury or repository of spiritual mysteries and sacred truths. We had never known what had been in the Old Testament had it not been for the New, and the Spirit of it, Luke 24:45; and we should never know fully what is in the New Testament, were it not for heaven and glory, where “we shall know even as we are known,” 1 Corinthians 13:12. It may be some will say, they can see none of these stores, can find little or nothing of the riches pretended here to be laid up. It may be so; for this treasure is such as men can see little of it, if they have not a guide and a light. Let a treasury that is made deep, or closely immured, be filled never so full with gold and precious things, yet if you turn a man into it in the dark, he can see nothing that is desirable, but rather feel a horror and a fear come upon him. The Jews have at this day the Old Testament, wherein a great part of this treasure is contained, and they have a general faith that it is full of mysteries and truths; but being utterly destitute of the Spirit and all heavenly light, they see nothing of it, but search for I know not what ridiculous fancies, rather than sacred mysteries, in the words and letters of the book. This account our apostle gives, 2 Corinthians 3:14-15,“Their minds are blinded, for until this day remaineth the veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.”Poor creatures! they put a veil when they read the Scripture upon their hats or their heads, but there is one indeed upon their hearts; whence their minds are blinded, that they can discern no part of the mysterious treasures that are laid up therein. It is by the Spirit of Christ and light of the gospel that this veil of darkness and blindness is taken away. Wherefore, to make the truth of what we have asserted the more evident, we may consider that the whole counsel of God, concerning all his ways and works that are outwardly of him, is contained in this book, Acts 20:27. If a wise man, and of great experience in the world, should commit,— if Solomon had committed all his counsels, all the effects of his wisdom unto writing, it would be, it would have been justly valued, and much inquired into. But here we have all the counsel of the infinitely wise God himself concerning his ways and works. To give some instances hereof: —1. Here is expressed and contained the mystery of his love, grace, wisdom, righteousness, and holiness, in Christ Jesus. Now what heart can search into the bottom of these things, what mind can fully receive or comprehend them, what tongue can express them, — the things which God himself delighteth in, and which the angels desire to bow down and look into? This he calls the “riches of his grace, wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence,” Ephesians 1:7-8; the “mystery of his will,” Ephesians 1:9; the “riches of glory,” verse 18; the “exceeding riches of his grace,” Ephesians 2:7; the “mystery which from the beginning of the world was hid in him,” but by the gospel is manifested unto “principalities and powers in heavenly places,” even “the manifold wisdom of God,” Ephesians 3:9-10. These riches, these treasures, these mysterious truths, are rather by us to be admired and adored than fully comprehended in this life; yet here are they deposited, revealed, declared, and laid up safe, for the use, instruction, and edification of the church in all ages. Some men pass by the door of this treasury, and scarce deign to look aside towards it. There is nothing that they do more despise. Some look into it superficially and cursorily, and see nothing in it that they can much delight in or desire to know more of. But humble, believing souls, whom God by his Spirit leads into the secret stores of divine truth, they behold the riches of God, admire his bounty, and take out for their own use continually. Whilst the mystery of this love and grace is contained in the Scripture, it may well be esteemed a treasure rich and absolutely inexhaustible; and our beholding of it, our acquaintance with it, make us partakers of it, 2 Corinthians 3:18.2. There is in it the whole counsel of God concerning his own worship, and the whole of that obedience which he requires of us that we may come to be accepted with him here, and to the eternal enjoyment of him in glory. For “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works,” 2 Timothy 3:16-17.‘Here is all,’say some; ‘Here is enough,’say most: and I am sure that whoever walketh according to this rule, mercy and peace shall be on him, as on the whole Israel of God. This increaseth the riches of this treasury. Here we may find all that God would have us do that we may please him, — all that he requires of us in this world, our whole duty with reference unto eternity. Here is our guide, our rule, ready to direct us in all stated duties, on all occasions and emergencies; so that nothing can befall us, nothing can be required of us in the worship of God, in the course, ways, and actions of our lives, but what we may have here light, guidance, and direction for. It is the word of his wisdom, will, and grace, who made us these souls, and who foreknew every thought that would be in them to eternity, and hath secretly laid up in his word that which shall suit and answer unto every occasion of all that believe in him. Whence one cried out of old, “Adoro plenitudinem Scripturarum,” — “I adore the fullness of the Scripture;” in which posture of holy admiration I desire my mind may be found whilst I am in this world. 3. There is in it a glorious discovery of the eternal being or nature of God, with its glorious essential excellencies, so far as we are capable of an encouraging contemplation of them in this world. It is true, that the being, nature, and properties of God, may be known by the light of nature, and from the consideration of those works which are the certain product of his power and goodness. But how dark, weak, obscure, and imperfect, is that discovery, in comparison of that which is made unto us in the word! Of many things indispensably necessary to be known of God, it knows nothing at all, as of the eternal existence of the one individual nature of God in three persons; and what it doth teach, it doth so marvellous unevenly, unsteadily, and darkly. Consult the writings of them who have most improved the light of nature in their disquisitions after the being and nature of God, who have most industriously and curiously traced the footsteps of nature towards its eternal spring and fountain. Men they were, wise, learned, sagacious, contemplative almost to a miracle, and wonderfully skillful to express the conceptions of their minds in words suited to intimate their senses, and to affect the readers. But when and where they are in the highest improvement of their reason, their fancies most raised, their expressions most reaching, generous, and noble, bring it all to one leaf of divine revelation, expressed by a poor illiterate shepherd or a fisherman, and you shall quickly find their candle before this sun first to lose its rays and lustre, then its light, and lastly utterly to expire as useless. Hence our apostle fears not to declare, that even in their disquisitions after God, “they waxed vain in their imaginations,” and that “their foolish hearts were darkened,” Romans 1. But in his word it is that God hath made that revelation of himself wherein the souls of men may fully acquiesce; upon it hath he left an impression of all his excellencies, that we might learn to “glorify him as God.” And what stores of truth are needful to this purpose, who can express? 4. The souls of them that believe are carried by it out of this world, and have future eternal glories presented unto them. Here are they instructed in the hidden things of immortality; which is darkness itself unto them who are destitute of this guide. It is true, we have but a very low and obscure comprehension of the things of the other world; but this is from our weakness and imperfection, and not out of any defect in their scriptural revelation. There we are told that “we shall be ever with the Lord,” “like him, seeing him as he is,” “beholding his glory,” in “mansions” of rest and blessedness, receiving a reward in “a crown of glory that fadeth not.” If we know but little of what is in these things, as we do but very little; if we cannot comprehend them, nor fill our minds steadfastly with them, it is, as was said, from our own weakness and imperfection; the truth and excellency of them are stored in this sacred treasury. Now, how large, how extensive and unsearchable, must that repository of mysterious truths be, wherein all these things, with all the particulars whereinto they branch themselves, all the whole intercourse between God and man in all ages, and always, are laid up and stored! O heavenly, O blessed depositum of divine grace and goodness! I confess, some think it strange that this one book, and that whereof so great a part is taken up in genealogies, histories, and laws, antiquated as to their original use, should contain all sacred spiritual truth; and therefore they have endeavored to help it with a supply of their own traditions and inventions. But they do not consider the hand whereby these things are stored. They are laid up in God’s method, wrapped up in his words, which, in infinite wisdom, he hath given a capacity unto to receive and contain them all. Those “secrets of wisdom are double unto what can be comprehended,” Job 11:6. Hence, although every humble soul may learn and receive from it what is absolutely sufficient for itself on all occasions, with respect to its own duty and eternal welfare, yet the whole church of God, neither jointly nor severally, from the beginning to the end of the world, have been, are, or shall be, able to examine these stores to the bottom, and to find out perfectly all the truths, in all their dimensions, concerns, and extent, that are contained herein. From hence the truth of our second proposition is evident, namely, That many important truths lie deep and secret in the Scripture, standing in need of very diligent search in their investigation and for their finding out. And the reason why in this place I insist on these things, is not so much to explain the sense of it as to vindicate the way of our apostle’s arguing and citing of testimonies out of the Scripture, with his exposition and explication of them; which some in our days are not afraid nor ashamed to charge with obscurity and perplexity, not understanding what the nature of these things doth require. And thus shall we find it in this place. And many instances of the like nature may we meet withal in this epistle; wherein the obscurity of the apostle is not to be blamed, but his wisdom admired. Hence is the direction and command of our Savior, John 5:39, ᾿Ερευνᾶτετὰςγραφάς, — “Search the Scriptures;” dig into them, accomplish a diligent search, as 1 Peter 1:11, Acts 17:11, — as men seek after rubies, silver, and gold, as the wise man expresseth it, Proverbs 2:3-5; Proverbs 3:14-15. The sum of these words is, — Without humility, industry, prayer, and diligence, proceeding from desires, it is in vain to think of obtaining divine wisdom. They that search for silver and hid treasures go about it with inflamed desires, pursue it with unconquerable and unwearied industry, and rejoice in them when they are found, Matthew 13:44. And David describeth his blessed man to be one that “delighteth in the law of the LORD, and meditateth in it day and night,” Psalms 1:2. So God expressly commanded Joshua:“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night,” Hebrews 1:8,—that is, constantly and diligently; making it manifest that great and sedulous inquiry is to be made after the mind and will of God therein. And this carried David to pray that God would “open his eyes, that he might behold wondrous things out of his law,” Psalms 119:18.It must be when men take a transient view of the Scripture, in their own light and strength, that they can see no great nor excellent thing in it, Hosea 8:12; but he who in the light of God, his eyes being opened thereby, searcheth deeply and attentively into it, shall find “wondrous” or marvelous “things in it,” excellent and glorious things, that others are not acquainted withal, and be made wiser than others thereby.That which we are therefore to inquire into, for our own advantage, is the ways and means whereby a due search may be made into the Scriptures, and what is necessarily required thereunto, so that we may not fail of light and instruction. And they are, amongst others, these that follow: — 1. A peculiarly humble frame of spirit, which is teachable. As there is no grace that is either more useful unto our own souls or more acceptable with God than humility, 1 Peter 3:4, so it is in an especial manner required asa qualification in them who would be instructed in the mind of God out of his word. So the promise is, Psalms 25:9, “The meek will he guide in judgment; and the meek will he teach his way;” — ςֲ ?πָ ?ειִ ?ν, that is, the humble and contrite ones. And it is the same that is twice expressed in that psalm by “fear” Psalms 25:12,“What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose;”Psalms 25:14,“The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.”Now, these promises of instruction in “judgment,” or the ordinances of God, in his “way,” his “covenant,” and of the communication of his “secret counsel” (that is, ρεֹ ?γιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ, “the secret counsel of the LORD”), are not given merely unto such as are personally “meek” and “humble,” but unto such as bring meekness and humility, self-diffidence and submission of soul, unto the word in their studying of it, Isaiah 28:9, Psalms 131:2. In Job 28, there is a great inquiry made after wisdom; it is sought for amongst men “in the land of the living,” by mutual converse and instruction, Job 28:13; and in the “depths of the sea,” Job 28:14, among the secret works of nature; but “it is hid close from all living.” What then shall a man do? lie down and utterly despair? No; saith he, Job 28:28, “Unto man he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” This is the only way to attain it, for such only God will teach. Hence are we enjoined to “receive with meekness the ingrafted word,” James 1:21. When men come to the reading and studying of the Scriptures in the confidence of their own skill, wisdom, parts, learning, and understanding, God scorneth to teach them, he “beholds them afar off.” The fruits and effects of this state of things, in the pride of men, and the severity of God in giving them up to darkness and blindness, we may behold every day. Hence that came to pass of old which is yet observable, mentioned by our apostle, 1 Corinthians 1:26-27. And sometimes none presume more in this kind than those who have as little reason as any to trust to themselves. Many an illiterate person hath an arrogance proportionable unto his ignorance, 2 Peter 3:16. And hence sundry from whom it was expected, on the account of their condition, that they should be very humble and lowly in mind in their reading of the word, have been discovered in the issue, by their being given up to foolish and corrupt errors, to have had their minds filled with pride and self-conceit; without which they would not have been so. This is the great preparation for the soul’s admittance into the treasury of sacred truths: Go to the reading, hearing, studying of the Scripture, with hearts sensible of your own unworthiness to be taught, of your disability to learn, ready to receive, embrace, and submit unto what shall be made known unto you, — this is the way to be taught of God. And in this way if you learn not so much as others, yet that which you do learn shall be of as much use, benefit, and advantage unto you, as theirs shall be who attain unto the greatest degrees of spiritual light and knowledge. The word, thus inquired into, will be as manna to them that gathered it, Exodus 16:18.2. Earnest prayer for the guidance, direction, assistance, and illumination of the Holy Ghost, to enable us to find out, discern, and understand, “the deep things of God.” Where this is neglected, whatever we know, we know it not as we ought. David’s prayer was, as we observed before, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law,” Psalms 119:18.This opening of our eyes is the immediate work of the Holy Ghost. Without this we shall never be able to discern the wondrous, mysterious things that are in the word of God, 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:6. The Lord Christ promiseth that “the Comforter shall teach us all things,” John 14:26; and, as “the Spirit of truth, guide us into all truth,” Hebrews 11:13. And although there may be somewhat peculiar in these promises unto the apostles, namely, to guide them by extraordinary inspiration and revelation, yet also there is grace promised in them to all his disciples, that they also shall be guided into the truth by the word through his instruction; for, as he tells all believers that “his Father will give the Holy Spirit unto them that ask him of him,” so John tells them that “they have an unction from the Holy One,” 1 John 2:20, “which abideth in them, and teacheth them all things,” 1 John 2:27, — that is, which God would have them know in their stations, and which are needful for them. That this is the only way whereby we may come to know the things of God, the great and wondrous things of God laid up in the word, our apostle discourseth at large, 1 Corinthians 2. The “natural man,” he tells us, — that is, such an one as hath not the help and assistance of the Spirit of God, — cannot receive the things that are of God, 1 Corinthians 2:14. He can neither find them out himself, nor own them when they are discovered by others. But “the Spirit searcheth the deep things of God,” 1 Corinthians 2:10. Many of the things of God in the Scripture are “very deep,” so that they cannot be discovered but by the help of the Spirit of God; as he shows they are to believers, 1 Corinthians 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 2:15-16. And to this purpose are we directed to pray by the example of our apostle, Ephesians 1:16-20; Ephesians 3:16-19; Colossians 2:2. Near what is the work of the Holy Spirit in this matter, by what way and means he leads us to the knowledge and acknowledgment of sacred truths, how he guides and directs us into the discovery of the sense and meaning of God in his word, shall, if God will and I live, be handled apart in another discourse, [4] and shall not therefore be now insisted on. But this is the great and principal rule, which is to be given unto those who would find out the mind of God in the Scripture, who would search out the mysterious truths that are contained in it, and would be kept from errors in their so doing, and that both to understand things aright for their own advantage, and interpret the word aright for the advantage and edification of others: Let them be earnest, diligent, constant, fervent in their supplications and prayers, that God, according to his promise, would graciously send his Holy Spirit, to guide, lead, instruct, and teach them, to open their understandings, that they may understand the Scriptures, as our Lord Jesus did for the disciples by the way, and to preserve them from mistakes and errors. Unless we have this guidance we shall labor to little purpose in this matter; yea, woe be to him who leans to his own understanding herein! [5] And these prayers ought to be, — [4] See “Causes, Ways, and Means of Understanding the Word of God,” in volume 4 of the author’s works. — ED. [5] In his edition of this work, Dr. Wright very properly transfers the three lines which follow, from their place, in the original edition, at the close of the fifth particular under the next division. We adopt his emendation, as obviously required by the subject of these lines, which have evidently a connection with the paragraph above. — ED. (1.) A constant part of our daily supplications;(2.) Brief elevations of soul unto God, whenever occasionally or statedly we read the word, or hear it;(3.) Solemn or appointed seasons.3. Endeavor, in all inquirings into the word, to mind and aim at the same ends which God hath in the giving and granting of it unto us. Then do we comply with the will of God in what we do, and may comfortably expect his gracious assistance. Now, in general God had a fivefold end in granting this inestimable privilege of the Scripture unto the church: —(1.) That it might be such a revelation of himself, his mind and will unto us, as that we might so know him as to believe in him, fear him, love him, trust in him, and obey him in all things. This is the great and principal end of the Scripture, Deuteronomy 29:29. Without this, all things concerning God and our duty, since the entrance of sin, are wrapped up in darkness and confusion, as is manifest at this day in all nations and places left destitute of it. And this, therefore, is to be our principal aim in our study of the Scripture. That we may know God as he hath revealed and declared himself; that we may come to an acquaintance with him by a rule and light infallible, given us by himself for that purpose, that so in all things we may glorify him as God, and live unto him, is the first thing which in this matter we ought to aim at. And a due consideration hereof will be exceeding useful and effectual to curb the vanity and curiosity of our minds, which are apt to turn us aside towards corrupt, unprofitable, and sinister ends. (2.) Another end of God was, that we might have a safe rule and infallible guide for the due performance of all the duties, towards himself and one another, which he requires of us in the whole course of our obedience, 2 Timothy 3:15-17. God hath, in infinite wisdom, treasured up in this book every thing that, either for the matter or manner of its performance, is any way necessary for us to know or do, that we may be wise unto salvation, and thoroughly furnished for every duty that he requireth at our hands. And here lies our next end. We come to the Scripture to learn these things; and nowhere else can we so learn them as to attain either assurance and peace in our souls, or so perform them as that they should be acceptable unto God. This mind, therefore, ought to be in us, in all wherein we have to do with the Scriptures. We go to them, or ought so to do, to learn our own duty, to be instructed in the whole course of our obedience, in what God requires of us in particular. With this design we may go on and prosper. (3.) God hath given us his word to guide and direct us in our ways under all dispensations of his providence, that we sin not against him, nor hurt or damage ourselves, Psalms 119:24. The providences of God towards us, as to our course in this world, do oftentimes bring us into great straits and difficulties, so that we know not well how to steer our course, so as neither to sin against God, nor to prejudice or ruin ourselves without just and cogent reasons. God hath given us his word to counsel us in this matter; and by a diligent attendance unto it we shall not fail of blessed guidance and directions, Here we ought to seek it; and here we may find it, if we seek in a due manner. (4.) The Scriptures are given us of God to administer unto us consolations and hope in all our distresses and tribulations, Romans 15:4; Psalms 119:92. In them hath God graciously treasured up whatever is useful or needful to this purpose. Whatever be our distresses, fears, disconsolations, as to what hath, doth, or may befall us in this world, God hath designed a relief under it and against it in his word. That we may be always furnished with this blessed and precious provision, ought to be one end also that we aim at in our considerations of it. (5.) God hath done this, that he might give us infallible assurance of eternal life when we shall be here no more, with some prospect into the glories of it and foretastes of its sweetness, 2 Timothy 1:10. This as we stand in need of, so the constant fixing of our eye upon it as our utmost end, will be a safe and blessed guidance unto us in our whole course. These are the ends of God in giving us his word, and these ought to be ours continually in our search into it; and the want hereof, whilst some have indulged their fancies in the pursuit of unuseful notions and speculations, hath caused them to err from the truth. 4. They that would search the Scriptures to find out the sacred truths that lie hid in them, ought to take care that they entertain no corrupt lusts in their hearts or minds; which will certainly refuse to give admittance unto spiritual truth when it is tendered unto them. Hence is that advice of the apostle James 1:21. They that will “receive the word” so as to have it an “ingrafted word,” to effect in them the work and end whereunto it is designed, must “cast out all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.”Fleshly and corrupt lusts indulged unto in the hearts and minds of men Will make their most industrious search into the Scripture of no advantage to themselves Love of sin will make all study of the Scripture to be mere lost labor. Hearts pure and undefiled, minds serene and heavenly, so far as by the grace of God we can attain to them, are required to this work. And it ought to be one great motive unto an endeavor after them, that we may be the more able to discern the mind of God in his word. 5. Sedulity and constancy in this duty are great helps to a profitable discharge of it. When men read the word but seldom, so that the things of it are strange to them, or not familiar with them, they will be continually at a loss in what they are about. This is that which the wise man directs us unto, Proverbs 7:1-4. Constant reading and meditation on the word will create a familiarity between our minds and it, when occasional diversions only unto it will make an estrangedness between them. Hence our apostle commends it in his Timothy, that “from a child he had known the holy Scriptures,” 2 Timothy 3:15; whereby being made familiar unto him, he was much assisted in the right understanding and use of them. And there is not any thing in our walking before God that is more acceptable unto him. For this expresseth somewhat of that reverence which we ought to have of the greatness and holiness of Him with whom we have to do. The Jews’ frontispiece to their great Bible is that saying of Jacob upon the vision of God that he had at Bethel, “How dreadful is this place! This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.” So ought we to look upon the word, with a holy awe and reverence of the presence of God in it. Our faith and dependence on him, with our valuation of the knowledge of his mind and will, are hereby expressed; and hereby also do we give glory to him. 6. In our search after truth our minds are greatly to be influenced and guided by the analogy of faith. He that “prophesieth,” — that is, interpreteth Scripture, — must do it κατὰτὴνἀναλογίαντῆςπίστεως, Romans 12:6; according,” say we, “to the proportion of faith.”There is a harmony, an answerableness, and a proportion, in the whole system of faith, or things to be believed. Particular places are so to be interpreted as that they do not break or disturb this order, or fall in upon their due relation to one another. This our apostle calls ὑποτύπωσινὑγιαινόντωνλόγων, 2 Timothy 1:13, — a fixed, and as it were an “engraved form of sound, wholesome, or healing words or doctrines,” or a summary of fundamental truths; ὑγιαινούσαδιδασκαλία, — “the sound doctrine of the gospel,” Hebrews 4:3. And this, probably, is that which he intends by his μόρφωσιςεὐσεβείvας, Hebrews 3:5, a “form” or “delineation of godliness,” in the doctrines of it; which many may have, who, as we say, are orthodox and sound in the faith, who yet in their hearts and lives deny the power of it. This “proportion of faith,” this “form of sound words,” is continually to be remembered in our inquiry after the mind of God in any particular place of the Scripture; for all the Scripture is from the same spring of divine inspiration, and is in all things perfectly consistent with itself. And the things that are of greatest importance are delivered in it plainly, clearly, and frequently. Unto these the sense of every particular place is to be reduced; none is to be assigned unto it, none to be pretended from it, that falls in upon any of the truths elsewhere clearly and fully confirmed. For men to come to a place of Scripture, it may be dark and obscure in itself, and, through I know not what pretences, draw a sense from it which is inconsistent with other doctrines of faith elsewhere plainly revealed, is openly to corrupt the word of God. And as indeed there is no place which doth not afford a sense fairly reconcilable unto the analogy of faith, so, if it do not appear unto us, we must sit down in the acknowledgment of our own darkness and ignorance, and not admit of any such sense as riseth up in contradiction thereunto. Want of a due attendance unto this rule is that which hath produced the most pestilent heresies in the church. Thus the Papists, taking up these words, “This is my body,” without a due consideration of the analogy of faith about the human nature of Christ, the spirituality of the union and communion of believers with him, the nature of sacramental expressions and actions, which are elsewhere evidently declared, by which the interpretation, according to the apostle’s rule, is to be regulated and squared, have from them fancied the monstrous figment of their transubstantiation, absolutely destructive of them all. It is the known way of the Quakers amongst ourselves, if they can get any one single text of Scripture which, in the sound of the words, or on any other account, seems to favor some fancy they have a mind unto, instantly they take it up, not once considering whether it do not dissolve the whole proportion of faith, and overthrow the most fundamental articles of Christianity: so from the outward sound of that one text, John 1:9, “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” they fear not to take up a pretended sense of them, destructive to what is taught about the nature of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit, of faith, grace, conversion to God, plainly and evidently in a thousand other places. Our apostle doth not so; for although he deduces great and mysterious truths out of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, yet they are such as answer the whole system of divine revelation, and have a due place and order in the “form of sound words.”7. A due consideration of the nature of the discourse wherein any [dark?] words are used, tends much to give light into their sense and importance. And the discourses in the Scripture may be referred materially to four general heads; for they are either historical, or prophetical, or dogmatical, or hortatory. And for the way or form of writing used in them, it is in general either proper and literal, or figurative and allegorical, as is the whole book of Canticles, and many other parts or passages in the Scripture. Now these things are duly to be weighed by them who intend to dig deep into this mine of sacred truth. But particular directions in reference unto them are too many here to be insisted on. 8. The proper grammatical sense of the words themselves is duly to be inquired into and pondered. This principally respects them who are able to pursue this search after truth in the original languages. Others also may have much help by comparing parallel places, even in translations; whence the proper sense or usual acceptation of any words may be learned. And of this nature many other particular rules might be added, which are by others commonly insisted on, and therefore may be here omitted.This that hath been spoken may serve, as for the reproof of some, so for the direction of others. Whence is it that some receive so little benefit by their studying of the Scripture, at least in their pretending so to do? Alas ! their manifold miscarriages are manifest unto all. Without diligence, without humility, without watching unto prayer, they go in the confidence of their own strength and abilities to search and expound it; which is to attempt the opening of brazen doors without a key, and the digging of mines for hid treasures with men’s nails and fingers. It is true there are sundry things that are common to the Scripture, as it is a writing consisting of propositions and reasonings, with all other writings; an apprehension and understanding of many of these lieth obvious to every superficiary reader: but to come to a clear understanding of the secrets of the mind of God, and mysteries of his will, this is not to be attained without the sedulous, diligent use of the means before mentioned. And what guidance lies in them, and other particular rules to the same purpose, is, though in great weakness, looked after in this Exposition. In this verse the apostle gives a further confirmation unto his argument by a particular application of it unto the especial matter in hand. Herewithal he removeth or preventeth an objection that might probably be raised against one part of his discourse. And the preventing of such objections as whereunto what we affirm and teach is at first view liable, is as needful as the raising of objections which possibly would never come to the minds of our hearers or readers is needless and foolish. Εἰγάρ, “for if;” αὐτούς, that is, the people of old, those of whom he hath treated, particularly the new generation that entered Canaan.Κατέπαυσεν. The apostle in this chapter useth this word both in a neutral and active signification. Hebrews 4:4, ΚατέπαυσενὁΘεός, “God rested;” here, “caused them to rest,” “given them rest.” Beza, “in requiem collocasset;” Arias, “requiem praestitisset.” The word properly, and usually in other authors, signifies “finem imponere,” “cessare facere;” “to put an end,” or “to make to cease,” as rest puts an end to labor. So the word is used, Hebrews 4:10, Κατέπαυσενἀπὸτῶνἔργων, “Hath ceased from his works.” ᾿Ιησοῦς, “Jesus,” — that is, Joshua; and by so calling him, the apostle also declares what was the true Hebrew name of Jesus Christ, which the Greeks express by “Jesus.” His name was originally δεֹ ?ωֵׁ ?ςַ, “Hoshea;” the same with that of Hosea the prophet, Hosea 1:1. Then when he went to espy out the land his name was changed by Moses into ιְ ?δεֹ ?ωֻׁ ?ςַ “Jehoshuah,” Numbers 13:16. It is true, in the writing over the story of those times he is called Jehoshua before, as Exodus 17:9; but it is most probable that Moses now, by divine direction, changed his name, when he went to view that land whither he was to conduct the people, and writing the story of these things afterwards, he used the name whereby he was then called. Some of those who had most imbibed the Chaldee dialect or tongue during the captivity changed this name into ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ςַ, “Jeshua,” Ezra 2:2, Nehemiah 3:19; though the prophets Haggai and Zechariah retain the name of Jehoshua, Haggai 1:1; Haggai 2:2; Haggai 2:4, Zechariah 3:1. Now all these names are from the same root, and of the same signification. From δεֹ ?ωִׁ ?ιςַ ?in Hiphil (for in Kal the verb is not found), is ιֵ ?ωֵׁ ?ς, “Jesha,” “salus,” — ”health,” “help,” “salvation.” Thence are δεֹ ?ωֶׁ ?ςַ, “Hoshea;” ιְ ?ηεֹ ?ωֻׁ ?ςַ, “Jehoshua;” and ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ςַ, “Jeshua;” — “that is, σωτήρ, “salvator,” “sospitator,” “liberator;” though Cicero affirms that the Greek word cannot be expressed by any one proper Latin word. “Salvator” is coined for that purpose, — “a savior.” Now, as persons on great occasions had their names as to their signification wholly changed, as when in the Old Testament Jacob was called Israel, and Solomon, Jedidiah; and in the New Testament Simon was called Peter, and Saul was called Paul; and divers had double names occasionally given them, as Esther and Hadassah, Daniel and Belteshazzar: so God was pleased sometimes to change one letter in a name (not without a mystical signification): so the name of Abram was changed into Abraham, by the interposition of one letter of the name of God; and that of Sarai into Sarah, by an addition of the same, Genesis 17:5; Genesis 17:15 : so here the name of Hoshea is changed into Jehoshua, by the addition of one of the letters of the name of God, increasing the signification; and this name was given him as he was a type of Christ, and the typical savior or deliverer of the people. The name of ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ςַ, “Jeshua,” from the Chaldee dialect, prevailed at length in common use, being of the same signification with the other, namely, “a savior,” “one that sayeth.” Hence, when they came to converse with the Greeks, came the name of ᾿Ιησοῦς, or “Jesus.” For the Greeks called Hoshea, Ausis, and Nun his father, Naue, greatly corrupting the original names. But Hoshea and Jehoshua and Jeshua they called Jesus. In ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ςַ, “Jeshua,” they rejected the guttural ς as not knowing its right pronunciation, whereon ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ, “Jesu,” remained; and then in their accustomed way they added the terminative sigma, and so framed ᾿Ιησοῦς, — as of ξָ ?ωִּׂ ?ιηַ, “Messiach,” by the rejection of η and the supplement of ς, they made Μεσσίας, “Messias.” Hence the name Jeshua being in common use for and of the same signification with Jehoshua, and that in the Greek pronunciation being turned into Jesus, that was the name whereby the Lord Christ was called: Matthew 1:21, Καλέσειςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ᾿Ιησοῦναὐτὸςγὰρσώσειτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶν· ?— “Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins.” It is plain that the reason of the name is taken from its signification of saving, — “he shall save,” be their savior; so that all the attempts that some have made to derive it from other words are vain and frivolous. And so also are theirs who would deduce the Greek name ᾿Ιησοῦς from ἰάω, ἰάσω, “to heal:” for ᾿Ιησοῦς is of no signification at all in the Greek tongue, it being only their man. ner of pronunciation of ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ςַ, “Jeshua,” which is “a savior;” which name was given to the Lord Christ because of the work he had to do. So also was it to this Jesus the son of Nun. The wickedness of the perfidious Jews in writing his name ιֵ ?ωׁ ?εּ, and the horrible abuse they make thereof, are known to the learned, and there is no need to acquaint others with them.Οὐκἃνπερὶἄλληςἡμέρας, “concerning another day.” The apostle having described the rest he discourseth of by the especial day of rest that was in the several estates of the church peculiarly to be observed, now by a synecdoche expresseth the whole rest itself and all the concernments of it by the name of a “day.” ᾿Ελάλει, “he would not have spoken;” that is, either God absolutely, or the Holy Ghost, whose immediate work the inspiration of the psalmist was, whose words these are.Μετὰταῦτα, “after these things;” the things which befell the people in the wilderness, and what they afterwards attained under the conduct of Joshua.Hebrews 4:8. — For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not after these things have spoken concerning another day.The confirmation of his principal assertion from the words of David, concerning the rest prepared and proposed in the gospel unto believers, is that which our apostle still insists on, as was declared. Hereon was his whole exhortation of the Hebrews founded, and hereinto was it resolved. And on the same truth depended all the reasonings and motives whereby he enforced his exhortation. This, therefore, was fully to be established and clearly vindicated. And that which, last of all, remained to his purpose was the removal of an objection which, among the Jews, it was evidently liable and obnoxious unto. And this he doth by the due stating of the time when those words were spoken which he had pleaded in evidence of his assertion. The objection laid down by way of anticipation is plain in the words; and it is this: ‘Although the people which came out of Egypt entered not into the rest of God that was promised, by reason of their unbelief and disobedience, as you have proved, yet the next generation, under the conduct of Joshua, went into and enjoyed the rest which they were excluded from. This, therefore, was the rest intended; which we being in the enjoyment of, what ground have you to propose another rest unto us?’This is the force of the objection. And two things are comprised in the apostle’s answer unto it: — First, A denial of the supposition on which the objection is founded. This is done virtually in the manner of the proposal of the objection itself: “For if Jesus had given them rest;” — that is, whatever be pretended and pleaded, he did not do so; that is, not that full and ultimate rest which in all these things God aimed at. Secondly, He gives the reason of this his denial; which is this, that five hundred years after, God in David, and by him, proposeth another rest, or another day of rest, and invites the people unto an entrance, after they were so long fully possessed of all that Joshua conducted them into; and whereas there was no new rest for the people to enter into in the days of David, and the psalm wherein these words are recorded is acknowledged to be prophetical of the days of the Messiah, it unavoidably follows that there is yet a rest and a day of rest remaining for the people of God, which he lays down as his conclusion in the verse ensuing. This interpretation of the words perfectly satisfieth the argument in hand; but yet I judge there is more in them than a mere answer unto the objection mentioned, though expositors look no farther. And this is, that the apostle also designs to teach the Hebrews that all those things which were spoken about the rest of God in the land of Canaan, and in Mosaical institutions, had not the reality or substance of the things themselves in them, Hebrews 10:1; so that absolutely neither did God rest nor were the people to look for rest in them. They had no other end nor use, but only to teach them to look out after and to prepare for that rest which was promised from of old; so that Joshua did not give them real rest, but only that which was a typical instruction for that season in what was to come. And therefore in David the same matter is carried still on, and direction is still given to look out after the rest to come. And we may learn hence, principally, that, —Obs. 1. There is no true rest for the souls of men but only in Jesus Christ by the gospel. Notwithstanding all that was done to and for the Israelites by Joshua, yet he gave them not rest, he brought them not into the full and complete rest of God; “God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” And the reasons hereof are: — First, because God himself resteth not in any thing else, and in his rest alone it is that we can find rest. It is in vain for us to seek for rest in that wherein God resteth not. We have seen that at the beginning, when he had created man, he entered into his rest, in that satisfaction which he took in the effects of his own power, wisdom, and goodness, Exodus 31:17. He provided likewise rest in himself for man, and gave him a day as a pledge of his entrance into it, Genesis 2:2. In this condition trouble and disquietment entered into the whole creation, by the sin and apostasy of Adam. God no more rested in the works of his hands, but cursed the earth, Genesis 3:17-18, made the whole creation subject to vanity, Romans 8:20, and revealed his wrath from heaven against the ungodliness of men, Romans 1:18. And hereof he hath in all ages since given signal instances; as in the flood of waters wherewith he drowned the old world, and the fire from heaven wherewith he consumed Sodom and Gomorrah. And of the same kind are those severe judgments by pestilences, famines, earthquakes, inundations, eruptions of subterraneous vapours, conflagrations, and the like; all testifying the indignation of God against the works of his own hands, because of the sin of man, to whom he had given them for a possession, and put them in subjection. For God had decreed from eternity to permit a disturbance by sin in the first order of things, that he might gather all things unto a head, with durable rest and peace, in Jesus Christ, Isaiah 42:1; Ephesians 1:10. Man hath also utterly lost his rest in that first rest of God; and though he several ways seeks after it, yet, like the unclean spirit cast out of his habitation, he can find none. Some seek it in the world, the pleasures and profits of it; some in the satisfaction of their sensual lusts; some in themselves, their own goodness and righteousness; some in superstition and vain ways of religious worship, invented by themselves, — some of them horrid and dreadful, Micah 6:6-7 : all in vain. Man hath lost his rest by falling off from God; and nothing will afford him the least quietness but what brings him to him again, which none of these ways will do. It is in and by Christ alone that our lost rest may be recovered. For, —Secondly, Other things will not give rest to the souls of men. A higher instance hereof we cannot have than in these Israelites. They had been for sundry ages in bondage unto cruel oppressors, who ruled over them with unparalleled severity and rage. Such, besides their hard and continual labor in the furnace, was that of their having their tender infants, the comfort of their lives and hope of the continuance of their name and race on the earth, taken from the womb and cruelly murdered. This they were now delivered from, and all their enemies subdued under them, until they set their feet upon the necks of kings. Who would not now think that this would give them rest? And so it did, outward rest and peace, until it was said that God gave them “rest on every hand.” And many yet in the like condition of bondage with themselves, shut up in the hands of hard and cruel rulers, are apt to think that a deliverance from that condition would give them perfect rest and satisfaction. But yet the Holy Ghost tells us that this did not give them rest; not that rest wherein they might ultimately acquiesce. Besides, whereas neither they nor their forefathers, for four hundred and thirty years, had ever had either house, or land, or possession, but wandered up and down in those places wherein they were strangers, and had not one loot’s breadth that they might call their own, but only a cave or two to bury them in when they were dead, they had now a whole plentiful country given unto them to inhabit and possess, a fruitful country, “a land flowing with milk and honey;” and therein cities which they had not walled, houses which they had not built, vineyards which they did not plant, with all sorts of riches and substance unspeakable. This might add unto their former satisfaction, especially being suddenly given, and flowing in upon them. And where there is wealth in abundance, and absolute liberty, what can be desired more, to give men rest? But yet it did not so. Yet further; whereas before they lived in a loose, scattered condition, without law or rule of their own, or amongst them, God had now gathered them into a firm, well- compacted political body, and given them a great and righteous law for the rule and instrument of their government, which all nations did admire, Deuteronomy 4:5-6. This, as it gave them glory and honor in the world, so it was a means of securing that wealth and liberty which they enjoyed. And where these three things are, there a people may be supposed to be at perfect rest; for liberty, wealth, and rule make up a state of rest in this world. But it was not so with them. Joshua gave them not rest. More than all this; God had established his glorious worship amongst them, intrusted them with his oracles and ordinances, and that whole system of religious honor which he would then accept in the world, Romans 9:4, All these things, with other mercies innumerable, they were made partakers of by and under the conduct of Joshua. And yet it is here plainly affirmed and proved that he did not give them rest; that is, the ultimate and chiefest rest which God had provided for his church and people in this world. Why, what was wanting hereunto? what was yet behind? That the apostle declares in this place. The promise was not yet fulfilled, the Messiah was not yet come, nor had finished his work, nor were the glorious liberty and rest of the gospel as yet exhibited and given unto them. It were easy to demon-strafe how all these things singly and jointly do come short of true rest; for notwithstanding all these, and in particular the highest of them, namely, the law and ordinances of worship, they had not spiritual liberty, rest, and peace, but were kept in a bondage frame of spirit, and laid up all their hopes and expectations in that which was not yet granted to them. So our apostle tells us that “the law made nothing perfect,” and that their sacrifices could never completely pacify their consciences, and therefore were continually renewed, with a remembrance of sin. It is Christ, then, alone, as declared in the gospel, in whom God doth rest, and in whom our souls may find rest. The reasons hereof may be taken from that description which we have given before of this gospel rest which the apostle insisteth on. It is surely, therefore, our wisdom, in our inquest after rest, — which, whether we take notice of it or no, is the main design of our lives, in all that we project or execute, — not to take up in any thing beneath him or without him. All those things, the enjoyments of the world, the righteousness of the law, the outward ordinances of divine worship, say openly and plainly unto us, that rest is not in them. If all these in conjunction had been satisfactory to that end, then had Joshua given the people rest, and there had been no mention of another day. Yea, whatever, lawfully used, they may have of rest in them, it is no rest in comparison of that which is to be obtained in Christ Jesus. Hence he invites us unto him under this very notion, of giving “rest unto our souls,” Matthew 11:28. And here, in him, there is no want, no defect, no disappointment, no fadingness, nothing that hinders those other things from giving complete rest unto men. He that rests in the world, or rests in himself, or rests in his own righteousness, or rests even in God’s ordinances, will never come to rest until he be deprived of all expectation from them and confidence in them. Obs. 2. The gospel church-state is a state of spiritual rest in Christ. This, for the substance of it, hath been handled at large before. I mention it now only for two ends: first, to show what we ought to look after in this gospel church-state, and under the enjoyment of gospel privileges; and then, secondly, to discover a little how men deceive themselves in this matter. First, This is that which distinguisheth our present church-state from that of theirs under the old testament: Joshua gave them all other things, only he gave them not rest, the rest of God; this is now the portion of them that believe; this all the children of the church are to look after. What is it, then, that men do seek after, or join themselves to the church of Christ upon the account of? What do they look for in, the worship, in the ordinances, in the ways of the church? If it be any thing but only to enter into the rest of God through Christ, they do but deceive themselves; whatever they take up in short hereof, they frustrate the whole counsel of God towards themselves in the gospel. Secondly, How many pretend to an interest in this gospel church-state, who plainly, openly, and visibly seek after their rest in other things, —many in their own duties, most in their lusts and the pleasures of the world! Where is the privilege of such persons as these above that of the Israelites under the conduct of Joshua? Can they say, that although in and under all the enjoyments before mentioned they obtained not rest, yet the Lord Christ hath given rest unto their souls in the gospel? Alas! they have no rest at all; and that which they do pursue is such as the gospel hath no concernment in. Did Christ come, think you, to give you rest in your lusts, in your sins, in your pleasures? God forbid; he came to give you rest from these firings in himself; which alone is the rest preached unto you. Obs. 3. It is a great mercy and privilege to have a day of and worship given unto us.The apostle doth not say here, that ‘after these things he speaks of another rest,’but of “another day;” for from the foundation of the world we were taught our rest in God by a day of rest given unto us. When by sin we forfeited our interest in that rest of God, he might justly have deprived all the world of the knowledge of the day of rest first appointed. And indeed, whilst he left his law standing, as a testimony of his holiness and a rule of his future judgment, but did not by any outward means press it on the consciences and practices of men, all knowledge of a day of rest was lost from amongst mankind, some few excepted, whom God took into his especial care. For to what purpose should they look after a day of rest, who had utterly lost all desires after and all interest in the rest of God itself? But when God would revive in men a hope and expectation of returning unto rest in and with himself, he recalls to their remembrance the day of rest which was at first appointed; but as he then led men into rest only typically, and in order to the representation of a future rest to be brought in, so he renewed unto them the remembrance of the day of rest typically also, that it might be a sign between him and them. But now, the rest of God being again established, he hath appointed unto us “another day,” as it is in the text, — a day of rest for the ends which have been often mentioned. And this is a great mercy and privilege; for, — 1. It is a pledge of our rest in God, which is the life, happiness, and blessedness of our souls. It is given us to this end and purpose that so it might be; which was the end of a day of rest from the foundation of the world, as hath been declared.2. It is a pledge of the recovery of this rest for us, and that it is not absolutely the same rest in God whereunto we were made, but another rest, a better and more sure. And therefore it is “another day” that is given unto us, and not the same day as of old. God kept the people under the law in an intermediate estate, between the duties of the old covenant and the promises of the new. This kept them to the precise day of the old covenant; for although virtually they were made partakers of that rest of God which is in Jesus Christ, yet the foundation and cause of it being not as yet laid and wrought, they were to content themselves with pledges of it as a thing to come, such as were their sacrifices and ordinances of worship, with the old day typically renewed. But to have another day, which could not be established but with respect to the works of Christ already wrought, and so to be a pledge of what was done before, this they could not have. This God hath reserved for us; and the day we now have being another day, is a pledge of rest already wrought out, and actually prepared. 3. It is given us as a means of entering into the rest of God. For hereon hath God ordained that the solemn declaration of his mind and will concerning his rest, and our entrance into it, should be made unto us. Hereon do we celebrate all that solemn worship of God whereby we express our faith concerning our rest in him, and by which, as means appointed for that end, we are admitted into that rest, and carried on gradually towards its full and eternal enjoyment. And these things the apostle further confirms. Having passed through his testimonies and arguments, the apostle in this and the following verse lays down both what he hath evinced in his whole disputation, as also the general foundation of it, in answer to the principles of his preceding discourse. Hebrews 4:9. — ῎ΑραἀπολείτεταισαββατισμὸςτῷλαῷτοῦΘεοῦ.῎Αρα, “itaque,” “igitur;” the common note of inferring a conclusion from any argument, whether inartificial or artificial, of both which sorts the apostle makes use in this place. Hereby, therefore, he would mind the Hebrews to attend both to what he was about to assert, and to the dependence of it on the former testimonies and arguments that he had pleaded and vindicated.᾿Απολείπεται, “relinquitur,” “superest,” — “it is left,” “it remains,” “it is evinced.” For this word may refer unto ἄρα, “therefore,” and be a part of the induction of the conclusion following. So the verb is to be taken impersonally, “it remaineth therefore,” or ‘this is that which we have proved.’In this sense ἀπολείπεται is the modification of the conclusion, and is not of the substance of it, or one of the terms of the proposition. And this exposition the Syriac version follows, reading the whole words, ξָ ?γֵ ?ιοχַּ ?ιָ ?νδεּ μְ ?ξַ ?ωְׁ ?αָּ ?ϊεּ μְ ?ςַ ?ξֵ ?δּ γּ ?ΰμָ ?ηָ ?ΰ; — “Wherefore it is certain that the people of God ought to sabbatize,” or “keep a sabbath,” — ‘This is certain, a truth that is proved and vindicated; so that the people of God may know their privilege and their duty.’The Ethiopic version renders the words somewhat strangely: “Is the priesthood of the people of God abrogated?” that is, it is not; so that standing still in the same peculiar relation to God as they did of old, when they were a royal priesthood, they ought still to attend unto his worship, and celebrate his ordinances, the great work of the day of their rest. Or ἀπολείπεται may refer unto σαββατισμός following, and be of a neutral signification: “A sabbatism” or “rest remaineth,” — ‘There is yet another rest remaining and abiding for the people of God to enter into, besides those before mentioned and discoursed of.’ “It remaineth;” that is, God hath prepared it, promised it, and invites us to enter into it. Σαββατισμός. This word is framed by our apostle from a Hebrew original, by the addition of a Greek termination; and so becomes comprehensive of the whole sense to be expressed, which no other single word in either would do. The original of it is the Hebrew ωָׁ ?αַ ?ϊ, which signifies “to rest;” and it is first used to express the rest of God after his works of the creation: Genesis 2:2, δωְּׁ ?αִ ?ιςִ ?ιεַ ?ιּ ?ωְׁ ?αֹּ ?ϊαַּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν; — “And he rested” (or “sabbatized”) “on the seventh day.” And this being so of old, the word is used by our apostle to show that the rest which he now asserts for the people of God is founded in the rest of God himself. If this it had not been, it might have been ἀνάπαυσις, “a rest” in general; it could not have been σαββατισμός, “a sabbatism,” a “sabbatizing rest,” for there is no foundation for any such name or thing but in the rest of God. From the rest of God, this word came to give name unto the day of rest appointed for men, Exodus 20:10-12. Because God ωָׁ ?αַ ?ϊ, “shabbath,” rested from his works, he blessed ιεֹ ?νηַ ?ωַּׁ ?αָּ ?ϊ, “iom hashshabbath,” “the day of rest,” the sabbath; which he would have us remember to keep. Now, our apostle having proved that the consideration of that original rest of God, as to its first ends and purposes, is removed, and consequently the day itself founded thereon, and another rest introduced, to be expressed in and by another day, he calls it a “sabbatism,” to express both the rest itself and the observation of another day likewise, as a pledge and token of that other rest of God, and of our spiritual interest therein. The word, then, doth not precisely intend either a day of rest or a spiritual rest, but the whole of our rest in God with respect unto his, and that day that is the token thereof comprised therein. [6][6] . — Σαζ. The celebration of a Sabbath. — Ebrard. A Sabbath-rest. — Boothroyd, De Wette, Tholuck, Craik. A Sabbath-rest, or, in extenso, a keeping of sabbatical rest. — Conybeare and Howson. A Sabbath-keeping. — Scholefield. — ED.Hebrews 4:9. — There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. And hereby the apostle completes the due analogy that is between the several rests of God and his people, which he hath discoursed of in this chapter. For as at the beginning of the world there was first the work of God and his rest thereon; which made way for a rest for his people in himself, and in his worship, by the contemplation of his works which he had made, and on whose finishing he rested; and a day designed, determined, blessed, and sanctified, to express that rest of God, — whence mention is made of those works in the command for the observation of that day, seeing the worship of God in and on that day consisted principally in the glorifying of God by and for those works of his, — as also to be a means to further men in their entrance into his eternal rest, whereunto all these things do tend; and this was the σαββατισμός of the people of God from the foundation of the world: and as at the giving of the law there was a great work of God, and his rest thereon, in the finishing of his work and the establishing of his worship in the land of Canaan; which made way for the people’s entering into his rest in that worship and country, and had a day assigned them to express the one and the other, and to help them to enter finally into the rest of God, — all which were types and shadows of the rest mentioned by David; and this was their σαββατισμός, or sabbatizing rest: so now, under the gospel, there is a sabbatism comprehensive of all these; for there was, as we shall see, a great work of God, and a rest of his own that ensued thereon; on this is founded the promise of rest, spiritual and eternal, unto them that do believe; and the determination of a new day, expressive of the one and the other, — that is, the rest of God, and our rest in him; which is the sabbatism that our apostle here affirms to remain for the people of God. And what day this is hath been declared, namely, the first day of the week. Now, besides the evidence that ariseth from the consideration of the whole context, there are two things which make it undeniably manifest that the apostle here proves and asserts the granting of an evangelical Sabbath, or day of rest, for the worship of God to be constantly observed. This, I say, he doth, though he doth not this only, nor separately: which whilst some have aimed to prove, they have failed of their aim, not being able to maintain a Sabbath rest exclusively, in opposition either to a spiritual or eternal rest; for so it is not here considered, but only in the manner and order before laid down. Now these are, First, the introduction of the seventh day’s rest into this discourse, and the mentioning of our gospel rest by the name of a “day.” Unless the apostle had designed the declaration of a day of rest now under the gospel, as well as a real spiritual rest by believing, there is no tolerable reason to be given of his mentioning the works of God and his rest, and his appointment of the old Sabbath; which, without respect unto another day, doth greatly obscure and involve his whole discourse. Again; his use of this word, framed and as it were coined to this purpose, that it might both comprise the spiritual rest aimed at, and also express a Sabbath-keeping or observation. When he speaks of our rest in general, he still doth it by κατάπαυσις; adding there was an especial day for its enjoyment. Here he introduceth σαββατισμός, which his way of arguing would not have allowed, had he not designed to express the Christian Sabbath. Secondly, He shows who they are to whom this sabbatism doth belong, who are to enter into this rest, to enjoy it, with all the privileges that do attend it; and these are ὁλαὸςτοῦΘεοῦ, — “the people of God.” Those of old to whom the rest of Canaan was proposed were the people of God, and God hath a people still; and wherever he hath so, rest is promised to them and prepared for them. These he had before described by their own grace and obedience, verse 3, “We who have believed do enter into rest.” Here he doth it by their relation unto God, and the privilege that depended thereon; they are the “people of God” that are interested in this sabbatism. And the apostle makes use of this description of them upon a double account: —1. Because their being of “the people of God,” that is, in covenant (for where a people is God’s people, he is their God, Hosea 2:23), was the greatest and most comprehensive privilege that the Hebrews had to boast of or to trust in. This was their glory, and that which exalted them above all nations in the world. So their church pleads with respect unto all others, Isaiah 63:19, “We are thine: thou never barest rule over them; thy name was not called on them;” — that is, they were never called the people of Jehovah, because never taken into covenant with him. This privilege whereunto they trusted, the apostle lets them know belongs as well to them that believe under the new testament as it did to them under the old. Abram was now become Abraham, “a father of many nations.” And as those who were his carnal seed of old were the people of God, so God had now a people in and of all those who were his children according to the faith. They may see, therefore, that they shall lose nothing, no privilege, by coming over to the gospel state by faith in Christ Jesus. Upon a new account they become “the people of God;” which interests them and their children in the covenant, with the seals and all the ordinances of it, even as formerly. For this name, “people,” doth not firstly respect individuals, but a collective body of men, with and in all their relations. Believers, not singly considered, but they and their seed, or their children, are this people; and where they are excluded from the initial ordinance of the covenant, I know not how believers can be called “the people of God.” 2. He proceeds further, and shows them that indeed this privilege is now transferred over from the old estate and Canaan rest unto them that shall and do enter into this rest of God under the gospel. Hence, instead of losing the privilege of being “the people of God” by faith in Christ, he lets them know that they could no longer retain it without it. If they failed herein, they would be no longer “the people of God;” and as a signification thereof, they would become “no people” at all. And so hath it fallen out with them. For ever since they ceased to be God’s people they have been “no people,” or enjoy no political rule and society in the world. Thus, then, “there remaineth a rest” (or “Sabbath-keeping”) “for the people of God.” But yet there is a considerable difficulty that ariseth against the whole design of the apostle: and this is, that this sabbatism of the people of God wanteth a due foundation in an especial work and rest of God. For as, if God had not done a new work, and rested in it, at the giving of the law and establishment of his worship, whereby a new world as it were was erected, there could have been no new rest for his people to enter into, but all must have regarded the rest that was from the foundation of the world; so, if there be not a new work and rest of God now wrought and entered into by him, there cannot be a new rest and a new day of rest for the people of God. This objection, therefore, the apostle removes, and manifests that there is a new blessed foundation of that rest which he now proposeth to the Hebrews, verse 10, as we shall see. For the present we may observe, that, — Obs. 1. Believers under the new testament have lost nothing, no privilege that was enjoyed by them under the old.Many things they have gained, and those of unspeakable excellency, but they have lost nothing at all. Whatever they had of privilege in any ordinance, that is continued; and whatever was of burden or bondage, that is taken away. All that they had of old was on this account, that they were the people of God. To them as such did all their advantages and privileges belong. But they were yet so the people of God as to be kept like servants, under the severe discipline of the law, Galatians 4:1. Into this great fountain-privilege believers under the gospel are now succeeded. And what was of servitude in reference unto the law is removed and taken away; but whatever was of advantage is continued unto them, as the people of God. This, I suppose, is unquestionable, that God making them to be “his people who were not a people,” would not cut them short of any privilege which belonged before to his people as such, Romans 9:25-26. Besides, the state of the gospel is an estate of more grace and favor from God than that under the law, John 1:17. The whole gospel is an ampliation of divine spiritual grace and favor to God’s people. So is it a better estate than that which went before, accompanied with “better promises,” more liberty, grace, and privileges, than it. Nothing, then, of this nature can be lost therein or thereby to believers, but all privileges at any time granted unto the people of God are made over to them that under the gospel are so. Let men but give one instance to this purpose, and not beg the matter in question, and it shall suffice. Moreover, God hath so ordered all things in the dispensation of his grace and institution of his worship, that Jesus Christ should have the pre-eminence in all. All things are gathered up unto a head in him. And is it possible that any man should be a loser by the coming of Christ, or by his own coming unto Christ? It is against the whole gospel once to imagine it in the least instance. Let it now be inquired whether it were not a great privilege of the people of God of old, that their infant seed were taken into covenant with them, and were made partakers of the initial seal thereof? Doubtless it was the greatest they enjoyed, next to the grace they received for the saving of their own souls. That it was so granted them, so esteemed by them, may be easily proved. And without this, whatever they were, they were not a people. Believers under the gospel are, as we have spoken, the people of God; and that with all sorts of advantages annexed unto that condition, above what were enjoyed by them who of old were so. How is it, then, that this people of God, made so by Jesus Christ in the gospel, should have their charter, upon its renewal, razed with a deprivation of one of their choicest rights and privileges? Assuredly it is not so. And therefore if believers are now, as the apostle says they are, “the people of God,” their children have a right to the initial seal of the covenant. Again, — Obs. 2. It is the people of God alone who have a right unto all the privileges of the gospel, and who in a due manner can perform all the duties of it.The rest of the gospel and all that is comprised in it, is for them, and for them only. All others who lay hand on them, or use them are “agri alieni invasores,” — wrongful invaders of the rights and enclosures of others; and” malae fidei possessores,” or do but unjustly possess what they have injuriously seized on. And the reason hereof is, because all gospel privileges are but adjuncts of and annexed unto the covenant of grace, and the administration of it. Without an interest in that covenant, none can attain the least right unto them; and this they alone have who are the people of God, for by that interest they become so. There is, therefore, great rapine and spoil committed upon the gospel and its ordinances in the world. Every one thinks he is born with a right to the chiefest of them, and cannot be excluded from them without the highest injustice. But ask some whether they are the people of God or no, and they will be ready to deride both name and thing. Custom, and an opinion received by tradition, hath put an esteem and valuation upon the enjoyment of the ordinances of the gospel. These, therefore, or their pretended right unto them, men will by no means forego, nor suffer themselves to be divested of them; but for the true, real, spiritual foundation and use of them, they are generally despised. But all may know that this is the method of the gospel, — first become the people of God, by entering into covenant with him in Jesus Christ, and all other spiritual mercies will be added unto you. Obs. 3. The people of God, as such, have work to do, and labor incumbent on them. Rest and labor are correlates; the one supposeth the other.Affirming, therefore, that there is a rest for them, it includes in like manner that they have work to do. What this is cannot here be declared in particular: none that knows in any measure what is their condition in themselves, what their station in the world, what enemies they have to conflict withal, what duties are continually incumbent on them, but knows there is work and labor required of them. Thus our Savior expresseth his approbation of his churches by, “I know thy works, and thy labor,” Revelation 2:2. The people of God dwell not as Laish, in security; nor are Sybarites, spending their time in sloth, luxury, and riot: but they are an industrious, working people; and I wish that those who profess themselves to be so were less industrious in earthly things, and more in heavenly; although I must say that those who are industrious heavenwards will not be altogether negligent or slothful in their stations in this world. But Christ calls men to work, sad that our portion in this world is intermixed withal.Obs. 4. God hath graciously given his people an entrance into rest during their state of work and labor, to sweeten it unto them, and to enable them for it.The state of sin under the law is a state of all labor, and no rest; for “there is no peace,” or rest, “to the wicked,” saith God, Isaiah 57:21. The future state of glory is all of rest, — all rest. The present state of believing and obedience is a mixed state, — partly of labor, partly of rest: of labor in ourselves, in the world, against sin, under affliction and persecution; of rest in Christ, in his love, in his worship, and grace. And these things have a great mutual respect unto one another. Our labor makes our rest sweet, and our rest makes our labor easy. So is God pleased to fill us, and exercise us; all to prepare us duly for eternal rest with himself. Obs. 5. Believers may and do find assured rest in a due attendance unto and performance of the duties of the gospel This is that which the apostle asserts and proves.Obs. 6. There is a weekly sacred day of rest appointed for believers under the gospel, as will appear from the next verse. ῾Ογὰρεἰσελθὼνεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσιναὐτοῦ, καὶαὐτὸςκατέπαυσενἀπὸτῶνἔργωναὐτοῦ, ὥσπερἀπὸτῶνἰδίωνὁΘεός.There is no difficulty in these words, nor difference in the translation of them. Hebrews 4:10. — For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his works, as God from his own.So are the words to be read. Speaking of the works of God, he calls them his ἳδια, “his own,” — ἀπὸτῶνἰδίων, “from his own;” and of the other compared with him, he says only τὰἔργααὐτοῦ, “his works:” somewhat otherwise than they are rendered in our version.Expositors generally apply these words unto believers, and their entering into the rest of God; whether satisfactorily to themselves or others, either as to their design, coherence, scope, or signification of particular expressions, I know not. Nor is it my way to oppose or confute the expositions of others, unless they are of such as wrest the Scripture to the confirmation of errors and heresies, or pervert the testimonies which in any texts or places are given unto important and fundamental truths of the gospel; such as we have met with many in our passage. But where things spoken or delivered are true with respect unto the analogy of faith, though they may not Be rightly or regularly deduced from this or that text in particular, yet they may have their use unto edification, through their conformity unto what is taught in other places; — in such cases I shall not contend with any, but with all humility propose my own thoughts and reasons to the consideration of them who are wise, learned, and godly. I am not, then, satisfied with the exposition mentioned of this place, but look upon it as that which neither suits the design of the apostle, nor can bear a tolerable sense in its particular application. For, first, supposing believers to be here intended, what are the works they are said to rest from? Their sins, say some; their labors, sorrows, and sufferings, say others; from these they rest in heaven. But how can they be said to rest from these works as God rested from his own? for God so rested from his as to take the greatest delight and satisfaction in them, to be refreshed by them: “In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed,” Exodus 31:17. He so rested from them as that he rested in them, and blessed them, and blessed and sanctified the time wherein they were finished. Indeed God’s rest from and upon his works, besides a mere cessation of working, consisted principally in the satisfaction and complacency that he had in them. But now, if those mentioned be the works here intended, men cannot so rest from them as God did from his; but they cease from them with a detestation of them as far as they are sinful, and joy for their deliverance from them as far as they are sorrowful. Now, this is not to rest as God rested. Again, when are men supposed to rest from these works? It cannot be in this world, for here we rest not at all from temptations, sufferings, and sorrows; and for that mortification of sin which we attain unto, we are to fight continually, “resisting even unto blood.” It must therefore be in heaven that they so rest; and this is affirmed accordingly. But this utterly excludes the rest in and of the gospel from the apostle’s discourse, and enervates it, so as that his whole present argument is nothing to his purpose, as we have showed before. It appears, therefore, that it is the rest of another that is here intended, even the rest of Christ from his works, which is compared with the rest of God from his at the foundation of the world; for, — First, The conjunction γάρ, “for,” which introduceth this assertion, manifests that the apostle in these words gives an account whence it is that there is a new sabbatism remaining for the people of God. He had proved before that there could be no such rest but what was founded in the works of God, and his rest that ensued thereon. Such a foundation therefore, he saith, this new rest must have; and it hath it. Now this is, and must be, in the works and rest of him by whom the church was built, that is Christ, who is God, as it is expressly argued, Hebrews 3:3-4. For as that rest which all the world was to observe was founded in his works and rest who built or made the world and all things in it; so the rest of the church of the gospel is to be founded in his works and rest by whom the church itself was built, that is Jesus Christ; for he, on the account of his works and rest, is also Lord of the Sabbath, to abrogate one day of rest and to institute another. Secondly, The apostle here changeth the manner of his expression; from the plural absolutely, “We who believe,” or virtually in the name of a multitude, “the people of God,” into that which is absolutely singular: ῾Οεἰσελθών “He that is entered.” A single person is here expressed; one on whose account the things mentioned are asserted. And of this change of phrase there can no reason be given, but only to signify the introduction of a singular person.Thirdly, The rest which he is said to enter into is called “his rest,” absolutely. As God, speaking of the former rest, calls it “my rest,” so this is the “my rest” of another, — “his rest,” namely, the rest of Christ. When the entering of believers into rest is mentioned, it is called either “God’s rest,” — “They shall enter into my rest;” or “rest” absolutely, — “We that believe do enter into rest:” but not ‘their rest,’or ‘our rest;’for it is not our own, but God’s rest whereinto we enter, and wherein we rest. The rest here is the rest of him whose it is, who is the author of it; that is, of Christ. Fourthly, There is a direct parallel in the whole verse between the works of the old creation and those of the new, which the apostle is openly comparing together.1. For the authors of them: Of the one it is said to be God, — “As God did from his;” that is, the Creator: of the other, “He,” αὐτός; ‘who is that He of whom we speak,’saith our apostle, ‘Hebrews 4:13,’— for in these words he makes also a transition to the person of Christ, allowing only the interposition of an applicatory exhortation, Hebrews 4:11.2. The works of the one and the other are expressed. The works of the Creator are ἴδιαἔργα, “his proper works,” “his own works,” the works of the old creation. And there are the works of him of whom he speaks, τὰἔρηααὐτοῦ, “his works;” those which he wrought in like manner as God did his own at the beginning, — that is, the work of building the church. For these works must answer each other, and have the same respect unto their authors or workers. They must be good and complete in their kind, and such as rest and refreshment may be taken in as well as upon. To compare the sins or the sufferings of men with the works of God, our apostle did not intend.3. There is the rest of the one and the other. And these must also have their proportion to one another. Now God rested from his own works of creation, — (1.) By ceasing from creating, only continuing all things by his power in their order, and propagating them to his glory.(2.) By his respect unto them or refreshment in them, as those which set forth his praise and satisfied his glorious design. And so also must he rest who is here spoken of.(1.) He must cease from working in the like kind. He must suffer no more, die no more, but only continue the work of his grace, in the preservation of the new creature, and orderly increase and propagation of it by the Spirit.(2.) In his delight and satisfaction which he taketh in his works, which Jesus Christ hath to the utmost. “He sees of the travail of his soul, and is satisfied,” and is in possession of that “glory which was set before him” whilst he was at his work.From what hath been spoken, I suppose it will appear plainly, to unprejudiced and impartial minds, that it is the person of Jesus Christ that is the subject here spoken of; and we shall confidently allow a supposition thereof to regulate our exposition of this verse. And there is considerable in it, — First, The person spoken of, ὁεἰσελθών, “He that is entered into his rest;” that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, the builder of the church, the author of the new creation. And this gives an account of the causal connection, “for:” “There remaineth a sabbatism now for the people of God, for Christ is entered into his rest.” Secondly, There are the works that this rest of his respects, which it is said he hath “ceased” or “rested from.” These words have been fully opened and declared on the third and fourth verses of the third chapter, whither we refer the reader. All that he did and suffered, from his incarnation to his resurrection, as the mediator of the new covenant, with all the fruits, effects, and consequents of what he so did and suffered, belong to these works. Thirdly, There is the rest that he entered into to be considered. Hereof we have seen before in general that there are two parts: —1. A cessation from his works; he hungered no more, was tempted no more, in a word, died no more. 2. A satisfaction in his works and the product of them. This Christ had in his; whence he says, upon a view of their effects,“The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage,” Psalms 16:6.Fourthly, His entrance into his rest is in like manner proposed unto us. Now this was not his lying down in the grave. His body, indeed, there rested for a while; but that was no part of his mediatory rest, as the founder and builder of the church. For, — 1. It was a part of his humiliation; not only his death, but his abode or continuance in the state of death was so, and that a principal part of it. For after the whole human nature was personally united unto the Son of God, to have it brought into a state of dissolution, to have the body and soul separated from each other, was a great humiliation. And every thing of this sort belonged to his works, not his rest.2. This separation of body and soul under the power of death was penal, part of the sentence of the law which he underwent. And therefore Peter declares that the pains of death were not loosed but in his resurrection, Acts 2:24 :“Whom God,” saith he, “hath raised up, loosing the pains of death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”Whilst he was held of it, he was under it penally. This therefore could not be his rest, nor any part of it; nor did he in it enter into his rest, but continued his work. Nor, secondly, did he first enter into his rest at his ascension. Then, indeed, he took actual possession of his glory, as to the full public manifestation of it. But to enter into rest is one thing, and to take possession of glory another. And it is placed by our apostle as a remote consequent of the Lord Christ’s being “justified in the Spirit,” when he entered into his rest, 1 Timothy 3:16. But this his entrance into rest was in, by, and at his resurrection from the dead. For, —1. Therein and then was he freed from the sentence, power, and stroke of the law, and discharged of all the debt of our sin, which he had undertaken to make satisfaction for, Acts 2:24.2. Then and therein were all types, all prophecies and predictions fulfilled, that concerned the work of our redemption. 3. Then indeed his work was done; I mean that which answered God’s creating work, though he still continueth that which answers his work of preservation. Then was the law fully satisfied, Satan absolutely subdued, peace with God made, the price of our redemption paid, and the whole foundation of the church gloriously laid in and upon his own person. Then “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”4. Then and therein was he “declared to be the Son of God with power,” Romans 1:4; God manifesting to all that this was he concerning and to whom he said, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” Acts 13:33. This might be further confirmed, but that, as I know, it is not much questioned. Therefore did the Lord Christ enter into his rest, after he had finished and ceased from his works, “on the morning of the first day of the week,” when he arose from the dead, the foundation of the new creation being laid and perfected. Here lieth the foundation of our sabbatizing, of the sabbatism that remains for the people of God. This reason doth the apostle give of it. He had before asserted it; and there remained no more for him to do but to manifest that as those other rests which were past, the one at the beginning of the world, the other at the giving of the law, had their foundation in the works and rests of God, whence a day of rest was given out to the church; so had this new rest a foundation in the works and rest of Christ, who built all these things and is God, determining a day for our use, in and by that whereon himself entered into his rest, — that is, the first day of the week. See hence, that, — Obs. 1. The whole church, all the duties, worship, and privileges of it, are founded in the person, authority, and actions of Jesus Christ.Obs. 2. The first day of the week, the day of the resurrection of Christ, when he rested from his works, is appointed and determined for a day of rest or Sabbath unto the church, to be constantly observed in the room of the seventh day, appointed and observed from the foundation of the world and under the old testament.This proposition, containing a truth of great importance, and greatly opposed by many on various accounts, that the full discussion of it may not too much interrupt the course of our exposition, is handled apart and at large, in exercitations to that purpose, whereunto the reader in this place is remitted. [7] [7] See volume 19, p. 261. In this verse we have a return made unto, and an improvement of the principal exhortation which the apostle had before proposed. In the first verse he laid it down in these words, “Let us fear, lest, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.” Here he declares how that fear there recommended is to act itself, or how it is to be improved and exercised. It appears, therefore, hence, what we observed before, namely, that it was not a fear of dread, terror, or doubting, that might weaken, discourage, or dishearten them, which he enjoined them; but such a reverential respect unto the promises and threatenings of God as might quicken and stir them up unto all diligence in seeking to inherit the one and avoid the other. Here, therefore, the same exhortation is resumed and carried on, and that on sundry suppositions, which he had laid down, explained, and confirmed in his preceding discourse, being all of them effectual enforcements of it. Now these are, — 1. That there is a rest promised unto us, and yet remaining for us, which is foretold and described in the 95th Psalm; for he hath showed that the rest mentioned therein was not a rest that was past, or enjoyed by any that went before us in any state of the church from the foundation of the world, but it is that which is now declared and proposed in the gospel.2. That others had a rest typical hereof proposed unto them, seeing God never ordained his church in any state without a rest, and a day of rest as a token thereof.3. That some by sin, or unbelief and disobedience, fell short of the rest proposed to them, and did not enter into it, but were destroyed in the just indignation of God against them.4. That in their sin and God’s displeasure, with the event of the one and effects of the other, there was an example set forth of what would be the event with them, and God’s dealings towards them, who through unbelief should neglect the rest now declared and proposed unto them. Unto all these propositions he subjoins a description of this new rest, in the cause, original, and nature of it, with that day of rest wherein it is expressed. Having, therefore, proved and confirmed these things in his expositions and discourses upon the 95th Psalm, he lays them down as the foundation of his exhorting the Hebrews to faith and perseverance, keeping himself unto the notion of a rest, and of entering into it, which the testimony he had chosen to insist upon led him unto. Hebrews 4:11. — Σπουδάσωμενου῏νεισελθεῖνεἰςἐκείνηντὴνκατάπαυσιν·ἵναμὴἐντῷαὐτῷτιςὑποδείγματιπέσῃτῆςἀπειθείας.Σπουδάσωμεν. Vulg. Lat., “festinemus;” and the Rhemists, “let us hasten,” — that is, σπεύδωμεν. The words are both from the same original; but σπουδάζω is never used for” to hasten;” nor is σπεύδω, for a rash, precipitate haste, such as is condemned by the prophet in the things of God: Isaiah 28:16, “He that believeth shall not make haste;” that is,with such a kind of haste as causeth men to miscarry in what they undertake, and gives them disappointment and shame. Hence the apostle renders these words, δξַּ ?ΰֲ ?ξִ ?ιομֹ ?ΰιָ ?ηִ ?ιωׁ, “He that believeth shall not make haste,” by ῾Οπιστεύωνἐπ᾿αὐτῷοὐκαταισχυνθήσεται, Romans 9:33, “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed,” — expressing the cause by the effect. Syr., πֶ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?τַ ?θ, “enitamur, operam demus,” — “let us endeavor it” “do our endeavor.” Ours, “let us labor;” Bez., “studeamus,” properly, — “let us study,” or “studiously endeavor,” “sedulously apply our minds.”Εἰσελθεῖνεἰςἐκείνηντὴνκατάπαυσιν. These words have been all opened before; nor do translators vary in the rendering of them.῝Ιναμὴἐντῷαὐτῷτίςὑποδείγματιπέσῃτῆςἀπειθείας. Vulg. Lat., “ut ne in id ipsum quis incidat incredulitatis exemplum.” Rhem., “that no man fall into the same example of incredulity;” somewhat ambiguously· Beza, “ne quis in idem incidat contumacies exemplum;” “that no man fall into the same example of stubborn disobedience,” — that is, into the like sin. Erasm., “ne quis concidat eodem incredulitatis exemplo;” to the same purpose: as ours also, “lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Syr., “that we fall not after the manner of them who believed not, — αγִ ?ξεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “ad similitudinem,” “like unto them.” And in all these translations it is left somewhat ambiguous whether it be the sin of the people or their punishment that is proposed to consideration. Μήτιςπέσῃ or μὴτις, “lest any;” and of what is therein included we have spoken before. Πέσῃ, “cadat,” that is, into sin; “incidat,” into punishment; “concidat,” “do fall.”Τῷαὐτῷὑποδείγματι. ῾Υπόδειγμα is sometimes as much as παράδειγμα, an “exemplary punishment;” or an example instructive by the evil which befalls others. Of the sense of the words afterwards.Hebrews 4:11. — Let us labor therefore [or, diligently endeavor] to enter into that rest; lest any should fall in the same example of unbelief.In the words three things may be observed: — First, The illative particle ου῏ν, “therefore;” denoting an inference from and dependence upon what was before discoursed. The things he now introduceth arise from the consideration of what was before alleged and proved, with an especial respect unto that part of the example insisted on which consisted in the sin and punishment of the people of old; “therefore.” Secondly, An exhortation unto duty ensues. Thirdly, A motive thereunto is proposed. In the exhortation there is the duty itself exhorted unto, — which is, to “enter into that rest;” and the manner of its performance, — it is to be done with labor and diligence, “Let us labor to enter into that rest.” First, The duty exhorted unto is expressed in terms whose use is taken from the example before insisted on, “entering into rest,” The things intended may be considered two ways, as to the act of the duty, or the duty itself and the effect of it, both included in the words. The duty itself intended is faith and obedience unto the gospel; these were represented of old by the people’s applying themselves to enter into the promised land of Canaan. Here, therefore, he exhorts them unto their present duty under these terms. And the effect of this duty, which is a participation of the rest of God, is also included.And indeed glorious advantages are comprised in all gospel duties. To know God in Christ is “life eternal,” John 17:3; to believe, is to enter into the rest of God. Again, for the further explication of these words, we may observe that the apostle changeth his expression from what it was in the preceding verse. He tells us, verse 9, that “there remaineth σαββατισμός” (a “sabbatism”) “for the people of God;” but here he doth not exhort them to enter εἰςἐκείνοντὸνσαββατισμόν, (“into that sabbatism,”) but changeth it into κατάπαυσιν, — that is, ξְ ?πεּ ?ηָ ?δ, as the other is ωָׁ ?αַּ ?ϊεֹ ?ο. And the reason is, because by that word, “sabbatism,” he intended to express the rest of the gospel not absolutely, but with respect unto the pledge of it in the day of rest, which is given and determined unto them that believe, for the worship of God and other ends before recounted: but the apostle here returns to exhort the Hebrews to endeavor after an interest in and participation of the whole rest of God in the gospel, with all the privileges and advantages contained in it; and therefore resumes the word whereby he had before expressed the rest of God in general.Secondly, For the manner of the performance of this duty, the word σπουδάσωμεν doth declare it. Let us “diligently study,” “endeavor,” or “labor” to this purpose. If we suppose “labor” in our language to be the most proper word (though I had rather use “endeavor”), such a laboring is to be understood as wherein the mind and whole soul is very intently exercised, and that upon the account of the difficulties which in the performance of this duty we shall meet withal. For the apostle, expressing our faith and gospel obedience, with the end of them, by “entering into the rest of God,” — a phrase of speech taken from the people’s entering into the land of Canaan of old, — he minds us of the great opposition which in and unto them we shall be sure to meet withal It is known what difficulties, storms, and contrary winds, the people met with in their wilderness peregrinations. So great were they, that the discouragements which arose from them were the principal occasions of their acting that unbelief which proved their ruin. Sometimes their want of water and food, sometimes the weariness and tediousness of the way, sometimes the reports they had of giants and walled towns, stirred up their unbelief to murmurings, and hastened their destruction. That we shall meet with the like opposition in our faith and profession the apostle instructs us, by his using this phrase of speech with respect unto the occasion of it, “entering into the rest of God.” And we may observe hence, — Obs. 1. That great oppositions will and do arise against men in the work of entering into God’s rest; that is, as unto gospel faith and obedience.First, The very first lessons of the gospel discourage many from looking any farther. So when our Savior entertained the young man that came to him for instruction with the lesson of self-denial, he had no mind to hear any more, but “went away sorrowful,” Matthew 19:22. And the reasons hereof may be taken partly from the nature of the gospel itself, and partly from our own natures to whom the gospel is proposed. I shall but instance in that general consideration, which alone would bear the weight of this assertion; — and this is, that in the gospel there is proposed unto us a “new way” of entering into the rest of God, of acceptation with him, of righteousness and salvation, which is contrary to our natural principle of self-righteousness, and seeking after it “as it were by the works of the law;” for this fills our hearts naturally with an enmity unto it and contempt of it, making us esteem it “foolish” and “weak,” no way able to effect what it proposeth and promiseth. But this would be too large a field to enter into at present, and I shall therefore insist only on some particular instances, giving evidence to the proposition as laid down These I shall take from among the precepts of the gospel, some whereof are very difficult unto our nature as it is weak, and all of them contrary unto it as it is corrupt. 1. Some gospel precepts are exceeding difficult unto our nature as it is weak. This our Savior takes notice of when exhorting his disciples to watchfulness and prayer in an hour of temptation; he tells them that “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” Matthew 26:41; where by “the flesh” he intendeth not that corrupt principle which is in us, that is often called by that name, but our nature in its whole composition with respect unto that weakness whence it is apt to succumb and sink under difficult duties. To fix on one instance among many, of this nature is self-denial, so indispensably required of all in the gospel. The denial of our lusts and corrupt inclinations falls under another consideration, and must on other accounts have violence offered unto them, as afterwards; but in the first place we may weigh this precept as it extends itself unto things in themselves lawful, and which have an exceeding suitableness unto our natures as weak and infirm. We are but dust, and God knows that we are but dust, Psalms 103:14. And he hath in his providence provided many things, and allowed us the use of them, which are fitted and suited to our refreshment and relief in our pilgrimage. Such are houses, lands, possessions, the comfort of relations and friends, which he hath given us a right unto and an interest in. And as we are persuaded that, through the weakness and frailty of our natures, we do greatly stand in need of these things, so it is known how our hearts are apt to cleave unto them. But here this gospel precept of self-denial interposeth itself, and requireth two things of us: —(1.) It requires an undervaluation of them, or at least introduceth a new affection over them and above them, which shall put the heart into a continual readiness and preparedness to part with them at the call and upon the occasions of the gospel, Matthew 10:37. Our acceptance of Christ on gospel terms is like a man’s entrance into a marriage relation. It introduceth a new affection, that goes above and regulates all former affections; for “a man must forsake both father and mother, and cleave unto his wife.” All others are to be steered and regulated hereby. And he that by his acceptance of Christ would enter into rest, must subordinate all former affections to lawful things unto this new one, which will not abide in any heart but where it is supreme. (2.) On sundry occasions which the profession of the gospel will present us withal, actually to relinquish and forego them, and to trust our persons, with all their weaknesses and frailties, to the provision that Christ will make for them, Mark 8:34-37. This is difficult unto our nature, because of its weakness. It is apt to say, ‘Let me be spared in this or that,’— to make an intercession for a Zoar. ‘What shall become of me when all is lost and gone? What shall I do for rest, for ease, for liberty, for society, yea for food and raiment?’Yet are all these to be conquered by faith, if we intend to enter into the rest of God. We condemn them of old who were afraid of giants and walled towns, which made them murmur and withdraw from their duty. These are our giants and fenced cities; — and, alas! how many are hindered by them from inheriting the promise! The like may be said of that particular branch of the great duty of self-denial, in “taking up the cross,” or willingness to undergo all sorts of persecutions for the sake of Jesus Christ. Many of these are exceeding dreadful and terrible to our nature as mortal weak, and infirm. Peter knew how it is with us in all our natural principles, when he advised his Lord and Master to spare himself, as he was foretelling of his own sufferings. Here the weakness of our nature would betake itself to a thousand pretences to be spared; but the gospel requires severely that they be all discarded, and the cross cheerfully taken up, whenever by the rule of it we are called thereunto. And they do but deceive themselves who engage into a profession of it without a readiness and preparation for these things. It is true, God may spare whom he pleaseth and when he pleaseth, as to the bitterness of them; and some, in his tenderness and compassion, are little, it may be, exercised with them all their days; but this is by especial dispensation and extraordinary indulgence. The rule is plain, — we must be all ready in the school of Christ to say this lesson, and he may call forth whom he pleaseth unto its repetition. We are, it may be, loath to come forth, loath to be brought to the trial; but we must stand to it, or expect to be turned out of doors, and to be denied by the great Master at the last day. We are, for the most part, grown tender and delicate, and unwilling to come (so much as in our minds) to a resolved conversation with these things. Various hopes and contrivances shall relieve our thoughts from them. But the precept is universal, absolute, indispensable, and such as our entrance into the rest of God doth depend on its due observance. By the dread hereof are multitudes kept in the wilderness of the world, wandering up and down between Egypt and Canaan, and at length fall finally under the power of unbelief. These and the like things are very difficult unto our nature as it is weak. 2. All the commands of the gospel are opposite and contrary to our nature as it is corrupt. And this hath so large an interest in all men, as to make those things very difficult unto them which are wholly opposite thereunto. A sense hereof hath made some endeavor a composition between the gospel and their lusts, so “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness,” by seeking countenance from thence unto their sins, which have no design but to destroy them. From the corruption of our nature it is that the things which the gospel in its precepts requires us severely to cast off and destroy have a treble interest in us, that it is not easy to overcome, — an interest of love, an interest of usefulness, and an interest of power. (1.) An interest of love. Hence we are commanded to pull out right eyes, if they offend us, Matthew 5:29, — things that are as dear unto us as our eye, as our right eye. And it is a proverbial expression to set out the high valuation and dear esteem we have of any thing, to say that it is unto us as our eye; — as God himself, to express his tender care over his people, says, “he that toucheth them toucheth the apple of his eye,” Deuteronomy 32:10, Zechariah 2:8. And such are the lusts of the flesh naturally to men; whence the precept of the gospel, “If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee,” immediately subjoined to that doctrine of purity and chastity, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart,” Matthew 5:28. Now there cannot but be great difficulty in cutting off and casting away from us such things as have so great an interest of love in us, as these lusts have in corrupted nature. Every one is unwilling to part with what he loves; and the more he loves it the less willing is he to part With it, the longer and the more earnestly will he hold it. And there is nothing that men naturally love more than their carnal lusts. They will part with their names, their estates, and venture their lives, all to satisfy them. (2.) An interest of usefulness. Nature, as corrupt, would persuade a man that he cannot live nor subsist in this world without the help and advantage of some of those things which the gospel forbids to all them that will enter into the rest of God. Hence is the command to cut off the right hand, if it offend, Matthew 5:30; that is, things apprehended as useful unto us as a right hand is to the common services of life. Of this kind is that inordinate love of the world, and all the ways whereby it is pursued, which the gospel doth so condemn. These things are to many what Micah’s gods were unto him, who cried out upon the loss of them, when they were stolen by the Danites, “Ye have taken away my gods, and what have I more?” Take away from men their love of this world, and the inordinate pursuit of it, and they think they have no more; they will scarce think it worth while to live in the world any longer. And this interest also is to be overcome, which it cannot be without great difficulty; and a cleaving unto it is that which hinders multitudes from entering into the rest of God. (3.) An interest of power. Hence sin is said to have “strongholds” in us, which are not easily cast down. But hereof I have treated in a peculiar discourse.Secondly, Another reason of the difficulty of this work ariseth from the combined opposition that is made unto it; for as the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and the Amorites, did all of them their utmost to hinder the Israelites from entering into Canaan, — and what they could not effect really by their opposition, they did morally, by occasioning the people’s unbelief through their fighting against them, which proved their ruin, — so do our spiritual adversaries deal in this matter. If the work of the gospel go on, if men endeavor by it to enter into God’s rest, Satan must lose his subjects, and the world its friends, and sin its life. And there is not one instance wherein they will not try their utmost to retain their interest. All these endeavor to hinder us from entering into the rest of God; which renders it a great and difficult work. It will be said, ‘That if there be all these difficulties lying before us, they must needs be so many discouragements, and turn men aside from attempting of it.’I answer, — 1. Of old, indeed, they did so. The difficulties and discouragements that lay in the way of the people quite took off their hearts and minds from endeavoring an entrance into the promised land. But what was the event? The apostle declares at large that on this account the indignation of God came upon them, and “their carcasses fell in the wilderness.” And no otherwise will it be with them who are afraid to engage in those spiritual difficulties we have now to conflict withal. They will die and perish under the wrath of God, and that unto eternity. He that shall tell men that their entering into the rest of Christ is plain, easy, suited to nature as it is weak or corrupt, will but delude and deceive them. To mortify sin, subdue our bodies, and keep them in subjection, — to deny ourselves, not only in the crucifying of lusts that have the secretest tendency unto things unlawful, but also in the use of things lawful, and our affections to them, pulling out right eyes, cutting off right hands, taking up the cross in all sorts of afflictions and persecutions, — are required of us in this matter: and they are not at present joyous, but grievous; not easy and pleasant, but difficult, and attended with many hardships, To lull men asleep with hopes of a rest in Christ, and in their lusts, in the world, in their earthly accommodations, is to deceive them and ruin them We must not represent the duties of gospel faith and obedience as the Jesuits preached Christ to the Indians, — never letting them know that he was crucified, lest they should be offended at it. But we must tell men the plain truth as it is, and let them know what they are to expect from within and from without, if they intend to enter into rest. 2. Notwithstanding all these difficulties, the promise of God, being mixed with faith, will carry us safely through them all. After the unbelieving generation was destroyed in the wilderness the hardships and difficulties still remained; yet their children, believing the promise, passed through them and entered into rest. The power of God, and his faithfulness amongst them and unto them, conquered them all. And it will be so with them infallibly that shall mix the promise with faith in reference unto this spiritual rest. God will both supply them with strength and subdue their enemies, so as that they shall not fail of rest. Whatever, therefore, may be pretended, it is nothing but unbelief that can cause us to come short of rest; and this will do it effectually. Faith in the promise will engage the power of Christ unto our assistance; and where he will work none shall let him. To this end we might consider the various ways whereby he will make mountains become plains, dry up rivers, yea, seas of opposition, and make all those things light and easy unto us which seem so grievous and insupportable unto our nature, either as weak and frail, or as corrupt and sinful. But we must not too far digress into these things, And I say, thirdly, which is a second observation from the words, — Obs. 2. That as the utmost of our labors and endeavors are required to our obtaining an entrance into the rest of Christ, so it doth very well deserve that they should be laid out therein.‘Let us,’saith the apostle, ‘endeavor this matter with all diligence,’as the word imports. Men are content to lay out themselves unto the utmost for other things, and to spend their strength for “the bread that perisheth,” yea, “for that which is not bread.” Every one may see how busy and industrious the world is in the pursuit of perishing things; and men are so foolish as to think that they deserve their whole time and strength; and more they would expend in the same way, if they were intrusted with it. “This their way is their folly.” But how easy a thing were it to demonstrate, from the nature of it, its procurement and end, with our eternal concernment in it, that this rest deserves the utmost of our diligence and endeavors. To convince men hereof is one of the chief ends of the preaching of the gospel in general, and so needs not here to be insisted on. Obs. 3. Again, there is a present excellency in and a present reward attending gospel faith and obedience.They are an entrance into the rest of Christ, or they give us a present interest therein. They are not only a present means of entering into future eternal rest with God, but they give us a present participation of the rest of Christ; which wherein it doth consist hath been before declared. Thirdly, The latter part of this verse yet remaineth to be explained and applied. Therein unto the precedent exhortation a motive is subjoined: “Lest any fall after the same example of unbelief.” These words, as was in part before intimated, do express either the sin to be avoided, or the punishment whereby we should be deterred from it.The word, “to fall,” is ambiguous, and may be applied to either sense; for men may fall into sin, and they may fall into the punishment due to their sin, when that word is used in a moral sense. Matthew 15:14, “The blind lead the blind, ἀμφότεροιεἰςβόθυνονπεσοῦνται,” — “both shall fall into the ditch,” of sin or trouble. See Romans 11:22, James 5:12. For the prime use of the word is in things natural, and is only metaphorically translated to express things moral. And ὑπόδειγμα is most commonly “a teaching example.” So ὑποδείκνυμι is “to teach,” or “to instruct” by showing: Matthew 3:7, “O generation of vipers, τίςὑπέδειζενὑμῖν,” — “who hath warned” (taught, instructed) “you.” Thence ὑπόδειγμα is “documentum.” ΤαῦταὑποδείγματαἔσταιτῷΠολυδάμνῃὧνδεῖἐπιμεληθῆναι· — “These are instructions for Polydamnes, about the things that are to be provided for.” But it is also often used as παράδειγμα, “an exemplary punishment;” as ῾Υπόδειγματῷπλήθειποιῶναὐτόν· — “Making him an example to the multitude;” that is, in his punishment. And so among the Latins, “exemplum” is often put absolutely for “punishment,” and that of the highest nature. Now, if ὑπόδειγμα in this place be taken merely for a “document” or “instruction,” which is undoubtedly the most proper and usual signification of the word, then the sense may be, ‘Lest any of you should fall into that unbelief whereof, and of its pernicious consequents, you have an instructive example in them that went before, proposed on purpose unto you, that you might be stirred tap to avoid it.’If it be taken for παράδειγμα, as sometimes it is, and so include in its signification “an exemplary punishment,” then the meaning of the word is, ‘Lest any of you, through your unbelief, fall into that punishment, which hath been made exemplary in the ruin of those other unbelievers who went before you.’ And this I take to be the meaning of the words: ‘You have the gospel, and the rest of Christ therein, preached and proposed unto you. Some of you have already taken upon you the profession of it, as the people did of old at mount Sinai, when they said, “All that the LORD our God shall command, that we will do.” Your condition is now like unto theirs, and was represented therein. Consider, therefore, how things fell out with them, and what was the event of their sin and God’s dealing with them. They believed not, they made not good their engagement, they persisted not in their profession, but were disobedient and stubborn; and God destroyed them. They “fell in the wilderness,” and perished, not entering into God’s rest, as hath been declared. If now you, or any amongst you, shall be found guilty of their sin, or the like answering unto it, do not think or hope that you shall avoid the like punishment. An example of God’s severity is set before you in their destruction. If you would not fall into it, or fall under it, labor by faith and obedience to enter into the rest of Christ.’And this I take to be the true sense and importance of the words, answering in their coherence and relation unto them that go before; for these words, “Let us labor to enter into that rest,” are no more but, ‘Let us sincerely believe and obey; wherein we shall find, through Jesus Christ, rest to our souls.’Hereunto this clause of the verse is a motive: “Lest any of you fall in the same example of unbelief.” Now, if their sense should be, ‘Lest any of you, after their example, should fall into unbelief;’then that of the whole must be, ‘Let us labor to believe, that we fall not into unbelief,’— which is a mere battology, and remote from our divine author. Hence observe, — Obs. 4. Precedent judgments on others are monitory ordinances unto us.They are so in general in all things that fall out in the providence of God in that kind, whereof we may judge by a certain rule. This is the use that we are to make of God’s judgments, without a censorious reflection on them in particular who fall under them; as our Savior teacheth us in the instances of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices, and those men on whom the tower in Siloam fell But there are many things peculiar in the examples of this kind given us in the Scripture; for, — 1. We have an infallible rule therein to judge both of the sins of men and the respect that the judgments of God had unto them; besides,2. They are designed instances of the love and care of God towards us, as our apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 10:11.God suffered their sins to fall out, and recorded his own judgments against them in his word, on purpose for our instruction; so that as he declared his severity in them towards others, he makes known by them his love and care towards us. This gives them the nature of ordinances, which all proceed from love. To this end, and with a sense hereof, are we to undertake the consideration of them. So are they exceedingly instructive; to which purpose we have treated somewhat on the third chapter, whither we refer the reader. Again, — Obs. 5. It is better to have an example than to be made an example of divine displeasure; yet this will befall us if we neglect the former: for, —Obs. 6. We ought to have no expectation of escaping vengeance under the guilt of those sins which others, in a like manner guilty of, have not escaped. We are apt to flatter ourselves, that however it fared with others, it will go well with us; like him who blesseth himself, and says he shall have peace, when he hears the words of the curse. This self-pleasing and security variously insinuates itself into our minds, and tenaciously cleaves unto us; but as we have any care of our eternal welfare, we are to look upon it as our greatest enemy. There is no more certain rule for us to judge of our own condition, than the examples of God’s dealings with others in the same. They are all effects of eternal and invariable righteousness; and “with God there is no respect of persons.” I might here insist on the ways and means whereby this self-flattery imposeth false hopes and expectations on men; as also on the duties required of us for to obviate and prevent its actings, but must not too often digress from our main purpose and design. These next verses contain as new enforcement of the precedent exhortation, taken from the consideration of the means of the event threatened in case of unbelief. Two things are apt to arise in the minds of men for their relief against the fear of such comminations as are proposed unto them: 1. That their failing in point of duty may not be discerned or taken notice of. For they will resolve against such transgressions as are open, gross, and visible to all; as for what is partial and secret, in a defect of exactness and accuracy, that may be overlooked or not be obeyed.2. That threatenings are proposed “in terrorem” only, — to terrify and awe men, but with a mind or will of putting them into execution. Both those vain pretences and deceiving reliefs our apostle in these verses obviates the way of, or deprives men of them where they have been admitted. For he lets them know that they are to be tried by that, or have to do with Him, who both actually discovers all the secret frames of our hearts, and will deal with all men accordingly. Moreover, herein he informs them how and in what manner it is necessary for them to attend unto his exhortation in the performance of their duty; namely, not in or by a mere outward observance of what is required of them with respect unto profession only, but with a holy jealousy and watchfulness over their hearts, and all the intimate recesses of their souls, the most secret actings of their spirits and thoughts of their minds; seeing all these things are open unto cognizance, and subject unto trial. Hebrews 4:12-13. — ΖῶνγὰρὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, καὶἐνεργὴς, καὶτομώτεροςὑπὲρπᾶσανμάχαιρανδίστομον, καὶδιϊκνούμενοςἄχριμερισμοῦψυχῆςτεκαὶπνεὺματος, ἁρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν, καὶκριτικὸςἐνθυμήσεωνκαὶἐννοιῶνκαρδίας·καὶοὐκἔστικτίσιςἀφανὴςἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ·πάνταδὲγυμνὰκαὶτετραχηλισμένατοῖςὀφθαλμοῖςαὐτοῦ, πρὸςὅνἡμῖνὁλόγος. Ζῶνγάρ, “vivus enim.” Syr. ηιָּ ?ΰδִ ?ι, “vivus es;” it supplies δִ ?ι, “est,” as all other translations, though there be an emphasis ofttimes in sundry in the omission of the verb substantive. Ours, “quick,” improperly; for that word doth more ordinarily signify “speedy,” than “living:” and I doubt not many are deceived in this place through the ambiguity of that word. ᾿῾Ολόγος, “sermo,” “verbum;” so is that word promiscuously rendered by translators, though the first using of “sermo” in John 1:1 causedsome stir amongst them who had been long used to “verbum.” But these words are promiscuously used, both by the ancients and learned men of latter days Ours,” The word.” Syr., ξֶ ?μְּ ?ϊֵ ?ϊּ the same word that it useth John 1:1, where the person of the Son of God is spoken of.Καὶἐνεργής, “et efficax;” so all the Latin translators; — “efficacious,” “effectual in operation,” “powerful:” but that denotes the habit, this word intends the act, — “effectually operative.” Syr. εְ ?λֻ ?μρָ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?ΰ“et omnino,” or “ad omnia efficax,” — altogether efficacious;” for ἐνεργής denotes a very intimate, active, powerful operation or efficacy. Rhem. “forcible.”Καὶτομώτερος. Vulg. Lat., Ari. Mon., “penetrabilior.” Scarce properly, for participles in “bilis,” are mostly passive; and in our language, “penetrable” is the description of a thing that may be pierced, or is easy so to be. Hence the Rhem. render it “more piercing,” properly. Beza, “penetrantior,” as Erasmus. Valla, and from him Erasmus, say they would render it “incidentior,” were that a proper Latin word. Ours, “sharper;” not so properly, “ more cutting,” or “more piercing.” Syr., εְ ?ηַ ?ψִ ?ιτָ ?ΰθָ ?α, “et longe penetrantior;” “and much more cutting,” “sharp,” or “piercing.” It adds “cal” and “tab,” to express the form of the comparative degree used in the original. ῾Υπὲρπᾶσανμάχαιρανδίστομον, “super omnem gladium ancipitem,” “above any two-edged sword.” ῾Υπέρ being added to the preceding comparative τομώτερος, eminently exalts one of the comparates above the other. Syr. τεְ ?ξִ ?ιδָ γַּ ?ϊְ ?ψֵ ?ιο, “before a sword with two mouths.” Both the Hebrews and the Greeks call the edge of the sword its mouth, — στόματῆςμαχαίρας, “the mouth of the sword,” — it being that wherewith it devours. Beza, “quovis gladio ancipiti.” Eras., “utrinque incidente.” Arab., “and in cutting sharper than a sword of two edges.” Ethiopic, “than a razor.” Ours, “than any two-edged sword.”Καὶδιϊκνούμενος, “et pertingens,” “et pertinget.” Syr., εְ ?ςָ ?ΰֲ ?μָ ?ΰ, “et ingreditur,” — “and entereth,” “reacheth unto,” “cometh into,” “pierceth into.” ῎Αχριμερισμοῦψυχῆςτεκαὶπνεύματος, “usque ad divisionem animae et spiritus.” Beza, “animee simul ac spiritus,” “both of soul and spirit;” expressing the particle τε, which yet in some copies is wanting.῾αρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν, “compagumque et medullarum,” “of the joints and marrow.” The Syriac adds εְ ?βַ ?ψְ ?ξֵ ?ΰ, “and of the bones.” Ethiopic, “et discernit aniroam ab anima, et quod noctescit a nocte; “discerneth one soul from another, and that which is dark from night,” — that is, the most secret things. Καὶχριτικός, “et discretor.” Vulg. Lat., “et judicat,” “et dijudicat;” “judgeth,... discerneth.” “Judex,” “criticus,” “and is a discerner;” that is, one that discerneth by making a right judgment of things.᾿Ενθυμήσεων, “cogitationum.” Ethiopic, “cogitationum desiderabilium,” “desirable thoughts;” not without reason, as we shall see.Καὶἐννοιῶνκαρδίας. Vulg. Lat., Ari., Eras., “intentionum cordis,” “of the intentions of the heart.” Beza, “conceptuum,” “conceptions.” Ours, “intents,” — a word of a deeper sense. There may be “conceptus” where there is not “intentio” or “propositum.” Syr., “the will of the heart.” See Ephesians 2:3.Καὶοὐκἔστικτίσις, “et non est creatura,” “and there is not a creature.” Beza, “et nulls est res crests,” “and there is no created thing;” more proper in Latin, but a “creature” is common with us.᾿Αφανής. Beza, “non manifests.” Ours, “that is not manifest.” Vulg. Lat., “invisibilis.” And the Rhem., “invisible,” not properly: “not manifestly apparent.” Syr., “that is hid.”Πάνταδὲγυμνά. Beza, “imo omnia nuda,” “yea, all things axe naked.” Ours, “but all things are naked.”Καὶτετραχηλισμένα. Vulg. Lat., “aperta,” “open.” Beza, “intime patentia,” “inwardly open.” Erasm., “resupinata,” “laid on their backs,” “open.” Syr., εβְ ?μֵ ?ΰ, “and manifest,” or “revealed.” Πρὸςὅνἡμῖνὁλόγος. Beza, “quo cure nobis est negotium;” which ours render, “with whom we have to do.” Vulg. Lat., “ad quem nobis sermo.” Rhem., “to whom our speech is.” Syr., “to whom they give account.” And the Arabic to the same purpose, “before whom our trial or excuse must be.” What help we may have in the understanding of the words from these various translations of them, we shall see in our consideration of the particulars of the text. The difficulty of the place hath caused me to inquire the more diligently into the sense of translators upon the words themselves. [8][8] Exposition. — Three questions are raised by the use of the term λόγος in this passage: — l. Does it refer to the personal or written Word? That the former is the correct exegesis is the opinion of Clericus, Seb. Schmid, Spener, Heinsius, Cramer, Alting, Olshausen, and Tholuek; while the latter view is held by Bengel, M’Knight, M’Lean, Bloomfield, Stuart, Scholefield, Turner, and Ebrard. 2. Do both the 12th and 13th verses apply to the written word? Most of those who hold by the latter of the two views just mentioned, with some exceptions, such as Ebrard, conceive that there is a transition in the 13th verse to God himself, — the pronoun αὐτοῦ referring to the same person to whom our account is to be rendered. 3. Opposed to the view that the personal Word is meant, three opinions are held: — (1.) Some writers conceiving “the word” to mean Old Testament threatenings, such as Stuart; (2.) Others, such as Ebrard, New Testament revelation; while (3.) Conybeare and Howson understand by it the revelation of God’s judgment to the conscience. — ED. Hebrews 4:12-13. — For the word of God is living and powerful [or effectual,] and sharper [more cutting, or cutting more] than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner [a discerning judge] of the thoughts and intents [conceptions] of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not [apparently] manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do, [or to whom we must give an account.] The whole exposition of these words depends on the subject spoken of, Hebrews 4:12; that, therefore, we must diligently inquire into. This being rightly stated, the things spoken must be duly accommodated unto it; and in these two things doth the due exposition of these words consist. Now this subject is ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, “the word of God.” It is known that this name sometimes in the Scripture denotes the essential Word of God, sometimes the word spoken by him: or, λόγοςΘεοῦ is either οὐσιωδής, that is, the eternal Son of God; or προφορικός, his enunciative word, the word of his will, his declared, written word. And the confounding of these is that which so entangleth the Quakers amongst us; or rather, is that whereby they endeavor to entangle others, and seduce “unlearned and unstable souls” But all sorts of expositors are divided in judgment about which of these it is that is here intended. Amongst the ancients, Ambrose, with many others, contends that it is the essential and eternal Word of God which is spoken of. Chrysostom seems rather to incline to the written word. The expositors of the Roman church are here also divided. Lyra, Cajetan, Carthusianus, a Lapide, Ribera, with sundry others, pleaded for the essential Word. Gatenus, Adamus, Hessetius, Estius, for the word written. So do the Rhemists in their annotations, and particularly for the word of threatening. Amongst the Protestants, few judge the essential Word, or Son of God, Jesus Christ, to be intended. Jacobus Cappellus and Gomarus I have only met withal that are positively of that mind. Among the rest, some take it for the word of God preached in general, as Calvin; some for the threatenings of God, with the Rhemists; and some peculiarly for the gospel. Crellius waives all these, and contends that it is the decree of God which is designed; which when he comes to the explanation of, he makes it the same with his threatenings. I shall inquire with what diligence I can into the true and direct meaning of the Holy Ghost herein. First, I grant that the name here used, ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, “the word of God,” is ascribed sometimes to the essential Word of God, and sometimes to the enunciative word, or the Scripture, as inspired and written. That the Son of God is so called we shall show afterwards; and that the declaration of the will of God by the penmen of the Scripture is so termed, is obvious and acknowledged by all but only our Quakers. But testimonies are full, many, and pregnant to this purpose: Luke 5:1, “The multitude pressed on him to hear τὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ,” — “the word of God;” where the word of God is directly distinguished from him that spake it, which was Jesus Christ. Luke 8:11, “The seed is ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ,” — the word of God;” that is, the word preached by Jesus Christ, the good sower of that seed, as the whole chapter declares. Luke 11:28, “Blessed are those that hear τὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ, καὶφυλάσσοντεςαὐτόν,” — “ the word of God, and keep it;” that is, preserve it in their hearts, and obey it being heard. Mark 7:13, “Making void τὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ,” — “the word of God by your traditions.” The word of God, that is, in his institutions and commands, is directly opposed to the traditions and commands of men, and so is of the same general nature. Acts 4:31, “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and spake out τὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ,” — “the word of God,” the word which they preached, declaring Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. When Philip had preached the gospel at Samaria and many believed, it is said, Acts 8:14, that “the apostles heard that Samaria had received τὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ,” — “the word of God,” or believed the doctrine of the gospel preached unto them. Acts 12:24, ῾ΟδὲλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦηὔξανεκαὶἐπληθύνετο,” — “But the word of God grew and multiplied;” that is, upon the death of Herod it was more and more preached and received. 1 Corinthians 14:36, “Did the word of God go out from you, or came it to you alone?” In like manner is it used in many other places. I have instanced in these to obviate the vain clamors of those men who will not allow the Scripture, or gospel as preached, to be called the word of God. So ὁλόγος absolutely, “the word,” and “the word of the gospel,” “the word preached,” “the word of Christ,” are common notations of this declared word of God. Secondly, It is granted that the attributes and effects that are there ascribed unto the word of God may, in several senses, be applied to the one and the other of the things mentioned. That they are properly ascribed unto the eternal Son of God shall be afterwards declared. That in some sense also they may be applied unto the written word, other places of the Scripture, where things of the same nature are ascribed unto it, do manifest. Isaiah 49:2; Psalms 45:5; Psalms 105:19; Psalms 107:20; Psalms 147:15; Psalms 147:18; Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 45:11, are cited by Grotius to this purpose, whereof yet more do clearly confirm the assertion. For though the word of God be mentioned in them, yet in some of the places the essential Word of God, in most of them his providential word, the word of his power, is unquestionably intended. But see Hosea 6:5; 1 Corinthians 14:24-25. Thirdly, It must be acknowledged, that if the things here mentioned be ascribed unto the written word, yet they do not primarily and absolutely belong unto it upon its own account, but by virtue of its relation unto Jesus Christ, whose word it is, and by reason of the power and efficacy that is by him communicated unto it. And on the other hand, if it be the Son, or the eternal Word of God, that is here intended, it will be granted that the things here ascribed unto him are such as for the most part he effects by his word in and upon the hearts and consciences of men. Hence the difference that is between the various interpretations mentioned in the issue concurs in the same things, though the subject primarily spoken of be variously apprehended. Now that this is the word of God’s will, his enunciative word, his word written, spoken, preached, is by very many contended and pleaded on the ensuing reasons: — 1. From the subject; ‘Because the Son of God, or Christ, is nowhere in the Scripture called ὁΛόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, “the Word,” or “Word of God,” but only in the writings of John the apostle, as in his Gospel and the Revelation. By Paul he is everywhere, and in an especial manner in this epistle, called the Son, the Son of God, Jesus Christ; and nowhere is he termed by him the Word, or the Word of God.’This argument is made use of by all that are of this mind; but that it is not available to evince the conclusion intended shall immediately be made manifest. 2. From its attributes. They say, ‘The things here spoken of, and attributed unto the word of God, as that it is “powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit,” are not personal properties, or such things as may properly be ascribed unto a person, as the eternal Word of God is, but rather belong unto things, or a thing, such as is the word preached.’Now this must be particularly examined in our exposition of the words; wherein it will be made to appear, that the things here ascribed unto the word of God, taken together in their order and series, with respect unto the end designed, are such as cannot firstly and properly belong to any thing but a person, or an intelligent subsistence, though not merely as a person, but as a person acting for a certain end and purpose, such as the Son of God is; and this will also be evinced in our exposition of the words. 3. From the context. It is objected by Estius,‘That the mentioning or bringing in of Christ, the Son of God, in this place is abrupt, and such as hath no occasion given unto it; for the apostle in the precedent verses is professedly treating about the gospel, and the danger they were in that should neglect it, or fall away from the profession of it. Hence it naturally follows, that he should confirm his exhortation by acquainting them with the power and efficacy of that word which they did despise.’ But neither is there any force in this consideration: for, — (1.) We shall see that there is a very just occasion to introduce here the mention of the Lord Christ, and that the series of the apostle’s discourse and arguing did require it.(2.) It is the way and manner of the apostle, in this epistle, to issue his arguings and exhortations in considerations of the person of Christ, and the respect of what he had insisted on thereunto. This we have already manifested in several instances.(3.) Thus, in particular, when he had treated of the word of the law and of the gospel, he closeth his discourse by minding them of the punishment that should and would befall them by whom they were neglected. Now punishing is the act of a person, and not of the word, Hebrews 2:1-3. And there is the same reason for the introduction of the person of Christ in this place.(4.) Estius himself doth, and all must confess, that it is either God or Christ that is intended, Hebrews 2:13, “with whom we have to do,” and “before whose eyes all things are opened and naked.” And if the order of the discourse admit of the introduction of the person of Christ in Hebrews 2:13, no reason can be assigned why it may not do so in Hebrews 2:12. Yea, it will be found very difficult, if possible, to preserve any tolerable connection of speech, and so to separate those verses that what is spoken of in the one should not be the subject of the other also. 4. Cameron argues, from the connection of the words, to prove the preaching of the word, and not the person of Christ, to be intended. For saith he,‘The conjunction, καὶ, noteth the reason of the thing spoken of before; but that which precedes is a dehortation from the contempt of the gospel. And the reason hereof the apostle gives in these verses, in that those, who forsake the gospel which they have once embraced are wont to be vexed in their consciences, as those who have denied the known truth. And although they seem to be quiet for a season, yet it is stupidness, and not peace, that they are possessed with. Now this judgment is often ascribed unto the word of God.’Ans. These things are somewhat obscurely proposed. The meaning seems to be, that the apostle threatens the Hebrews with the judging and disquieting power of the word when it is by any rejected. But this is inconsistent with the true design of the words, which we before laid down. Having exhorted them to perseverance, and to take heed that they neglected not the promise of entering into the rest of God through unbelief, he presseth them further to care, diligence, sincerity, and constancy, in the performance of the duty that he had exhorted them unto. And this he doth from the consideration of the person of Christ, the author of the gospel; as his manner is in all his arguings, to bring all to that point and center. And as to his present purpose, suitably unto his exhortation and the duty which he enjoined them, he insists upon his ability to discern and discover all the secret frames and actings of their spirits, with all the ways and means whereby a declension in them might be begun or carried on. I do judge, therefore, that it is the eternal Word of God, or the person of Christ, which is the subject here spoken of, and that upon the ensuing reasons: — First, ὁλόγος and ὁΛόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, “the Word,” and “the Word of God,” is the proper name of Christ in respect of his divine nature, as the eternal Son of God. So is he called expressly, John 1:1-2; Revelation 19:13, Καλεῖταιτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ, ὁλόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, “His name is called” (or, “this is his name,”) “the Word of God.” This, therefore, being the name of Christ, where all things that are spoken of it do agree unto him, and there be no cogent reasons in the context to the contrary, be is presumed to be spoken of, nor will any rule of interpretation give countenance to the embracing of another sense. It is, as we heard before, excepted against this first reason, that Christ is called ὁλόγος, “the Word,” only in the writings of John the evangelist, and nowhere else in the New Testament, particularly not by our apostle in any of his epistles.Ans. 1. This observation can scarcely be made good; I am sure not convincingly. Luke the evangelist tells us that some were ἀπ᾿ἀρχῆςαὐτόπταικαὶὑπηρέταιτοῦΛόγου, Luke 1:2, — “from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word:” that is, of the person of Christ; for these words are expounded, 1 John 1:1, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life.” They were αὐτόπταιτοῦΛόγοῦ, — “ eye-witnesses of the Word.” How they could be said to be eye-witnesses of the word preached is not evident. Jerome renders the words, “Sicut tradiderunt nobis, qui ab initio viderunt Sermonem et ministraverunt el,” Praefat. in Evangel; — “As they delivered unto us, who from the beginning themselves saw the Word, and ministered unto him.” And ὑπηρέται must respect a person to whom those so called do minister, and not ,the word that is administered. In the same sense the word is used again most probably, Acts 20:32 :Παρατίθεμαιὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, τῷΘεῷ, καὶτῷΛόγῳτῆςχάριτοςαὐτοῦ, τῷδυναμένῳἐποικοδομῆσαικαὶδοῦναιὑμῖνκληρονομίαν· ?— “I commend you, brethren, to God, and to the Word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and give you an inheritance.” To be able to build us up, and give us an inheritance, is the property of a person; nor can they be ascribed to the word preached, without forced prosopopoeia, and such as is unusual in Scripture. Therefore this ΛόγοςτῆςχάριτοςτοῦΘεοῦ is the Son of God. God he is called “the Word of his grace,” either because he was given unto us of his mere grace, as he is elsewhere called “the Son of his love;” or τῆςχάριτος may be “genitivus effecti,” the Word that is the author and cause of grace; as God himself is called “the God of peace and love,” 2 Corinthians 13:11. To him therefore, are believers committed and commended by the apostle, as a recommendation is made of one man unto another in or by an epistle. See its sense in Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 1:18; 1 Peter 4:19. Now, the word of the gospel is said to be committed or commended unto us, 2 Timothy 2:2; so as we cannot, unless it be exceeding abusively, [9] be said to be committed and commended thereunto. And if any will not admit the person of Christ to be here intended by “the Word of God’s grace,” I would supply an ellipsis, and read the text, “I commend you to God, and the Word of his grace, even to him that is able;” which I acknowledge the manner of the expression by the article τῷδυναμένῳ will bear. [9] That is, in a sense remote from the proper use of the word. — Ed. 2. But whatever may be spoken concerning this phraseology in other places and in other epistles of this apostle, there is peculiar reason for the use of it here. I have observed often before, that in writing this epistle to the Hebrews, our apostle accommodates himself to the apprehensions and expressions that were then in use among the Hebrews, so far as they were agreeable unto the truth, rectifying them when under mistakes, and arguing with them from their own concessions and persuasions. Now at this time there was nothing more common or usual, among the Hebrews, than to denote the second subsistence in the Deity by the name of “The Word of God.” They were now divided into two great parts; first, the inhabitants of Canaan, with the regions adjoining, and many old remnants in the east, who used the Syro-chaldean language, being but one dialect of the Hebrew; and, secondly, the dispersions under the Greek empire, who are commonly called Hellenists, who used the Greek tongue. And both these sorts at that time did usually, in their several languages, describe the second person in the Trinity by the name of “The Word of God.” For the former sort, or those who used the Syro-chaldean dialect, we have an eminent proof of it in the translation of the Scripture which, at least some part of it, was made about this time amongst them, commonly called the Chaldee Paraphrase; in the whole whereof the second person is mentioned under the name of ξιξψΰγιι, “Memra da-Iova,” or the “Word of God.” Hereunto are all personal properties and all divine works assigned in that translation; which is an illustrious testimony to the faith of the old church concerning the distinct subsistence of a plurality of persons in the divine nature. And for the Hellenists, who wrote and expressed themselves in the Greek tongue, they used the name of ὁΛόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, the “Word of God,” to the same purpose; as I have elsewhere manifested out of the writings of Philo, who lived about this time, between the death of our Savior and the destruction of Jerusalem. And this one consideration is to me absolutely satisfactory as to the intention of the apostle in the using of this expression, especially seeing that all the things mentioned may far more properly and regularly be ascribed unto the person of the Son than unto the word as written or preached. And whosoever will take the pains to consider what occurs in the Targums concerning their ξιξψΰγιι, the “Word of God,” and compare it with what the apostle here speaks, and the manner of its introduction, will, if I greatly mistake not, be of the same mind with myself. But I shall add yet some further considerations. 3. The introduction of ὁΛόγος, or “the Word,” here, is with respect unto a commination or an admonition; for the design of it is to beget a reverence or fear in the minds of men about their deportment in the profession of the gospel, because of the consequents of disobedience in punishment and revenge, Now the Lord Christ is particularly termed the “Word of God” with respect unto the judgments that he exerciseth with regard unto his church and his gospel, Revelation 19:13. That administration, therefore, being here respected, gives occasion unto a peculiar ascription of that name unto him, the “Word of God,” who will destroy all the opposers and forsakers of the gospel.4. It cannot be denied, nor is it by any, but that it is the person of the Son, or of the Father, that is intended, Hebrews 4:13. Indeed it is directly of the Son, as we shall manifest from the close of the words; but all confess God to be intended. Nor can these expressions, of “all things manifest in his sight,” and Being “opened and naked unto his eyes,” be applied unto any other, or intend any other but God; and that it is the Son who is especially intended the close of the verse doth evince, πρὸςὅνἡμῖνὁΛόγος. He speaks of “him with whom we have to do.” Some take πρὸςὅν here for περὶοὗ, “concerning whom;” ἡμῖνὁλόγος, “nostra oratio est,” “our discourse is:” which must needs denote the Son, concerning whom in this whole epistle he treats with the Hebrews. Ours, “with whom we have to do;” that is, in this matter, — who hath a concernment in us and our steadfastness or declension in profession. And this also properly and immediately designs the person of the Son. The precise sense of the words is, “cui a nobis reddenda ratio est,” — “ to whom we must give an account,” both here and hereafter. So Chrysostom and the Syriac translation expressly. Principally this respects the last day’s account, called our λόγος, or “ratiocinium:” Hebrews 13:17, “They watch for your souls, ὡςλόγονἀποδώσοντες,” — “as those that must give an account.” Luke 16:2, ᾿Απόδοςτὸνλόγον, — “Give an account of thy stewardship.” Romans 14:12, “Every one of us λόγονδώσει,” — “shall give an account of himself unto God.” 1 Peter 4:5, Οἱἀποδώσουσιλόγον, — “Who shall give an account unto him who is ready to judge the quick and the dead.” And this account is certainly to be given up immediately to Jesus Christ, Acts 17:31, Romans 14:9-10. Nor is it any way obstructive to the embracing of this sense, that ὁλόγος should be taken so diversely in the beginning of the 12th (Hebrews 4:12) and end of the 13th verse (Hebrews 4:13), during the continuation of the same discourse. For such an antanaclasis is not only very frequent but very elegant: ῾ΟΛόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, πρὸςὅνἡμῖνὁλόγος. See Matthew 8:22, 2 Corinthians 5:21, John 1:11. It is therefore the person of Christ which is undeniably intended in the 13th verse (Hebrews 4:13), even he to whom we must give an account of our profession, of our faith and obedience. And the relative, αὐτοῦ, in the first clause of that verse, in “his sight,” can refer to nothing properly but ὁΛόγος or “Word of God,” Hebrews 4:12. And its dependence is dear thereon: “Is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight..” So a reason is assigned in the beginning of the 13th verse (Hebrews 4:13) of what was affirmed in the dose of the 12th (Hebrews 4:12): he is “a discerner of the thoughts of the heart,” because “all things are manifest unto him.” 5. The attributes here ascribed to the word, Hebrews 4:12, do all of them properly belong unto the person of Christ, and cannot firstly and directly be ascribed to the gospel. This shall be manifested in the ensuing explication of the words: — (1.) It is said to be ζῶν, “virus,” “vivens,” — “living;” which, as was observed, we have translated ambiguously, “quick.” Ζῶν is applied to God himself, as expressing a property of his nature, Matthew 16:16, 1 Timothy 4:10, Hebrews 3:12. And it is also peculiarly ascribed unto Christ the mediator, Revelation 1:18. And he is ὁζῶν, “the living one.” And two things are intended in it: —[1. That he who is so “hath life in himself” [2. That he is the “Lord of life” unto others. Both which are emphatically spoken of the Son. [1. He “hath life in himself,” John 5:26; and,[2. He is the “Prince of life,” Acts 3:15, or the author of it.He hath the disposal of the life of all, whereunto all our concernments temporal and eternal do belong. See John 1:4. And it is evident how suitable unto the purpose of the apostle the mention hereof at this time is. He minds the Hebrews that he with whom they have to do in this matter is “the living one.” As in like manner he had before exhorted them to “take heed of departing from the living God,” and afterwards warns them how “fearful a thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God,” Hebrews 10:31; so here, to dissuade them from the one and to awe them with the other, he minds them that “the Word of God,” with whom in an especial manner they have to do, is “living.” What is contained in this consideration hath been declared on John 3:13. Slow this cannot properly be ascribed unto the word of the gospel. It is, indeed, the instrumental means of quickening the souls of men with spiritual life, or it is the instrument that the Lord Christ maketh use of to that purpose; but in itself it is not absolutely “living,” — it hath not life in itself, nor in its power. But Christ hath so; for “in him is life, and the life is the light of men,” John 1:4. And this one property of him with whom we have to do contains the two great motives unto obedience; namely, that on the one side he is able to support us in it, and reward us eternally for it; on the other, that he is able to avenge all disobedience. The one will not be unrewarded, nor the other unrevenged; for he is “the living one” with whom in these things we have to do. (2.) It is ἐνεργής, “powerful.” Power for operation is an act of life; and such as is the life of any thing, such is its power for operation. These things, life, power, and operation, answer one another. And this power signifies actual power, power acted or exerted, — actuated power, or power effectual in actual operation. Having therefore first assigned life to the Word of God, that is the principle of all power, life in himself, as being “the living one,” our apostle adds that he exerts that power of life in actual operation, when, where, and how he pleaseth. He is ἐνεργής. ᾿Ενεργέω, I confess, is a common word, signifying the efficacy of any thing in operation according to its principle of power; but it is that also whereby our apostle most frequently expresseth the almighty, effectual, operating power of God in and about spiritual things, 1 Corinthians 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 2:8; Galatians 3:5, Ephesians 1:11, Philippians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Ephesians 1:19, Colossians 2:12, and elsewhere. And this was necessary to be added to the property of life, to manifest that the Lord Christ, the Word of God, would effectually put forth his power in dealing with professors according to their deportment; which afterwards is expressed in sundry instances. And herein the apostle lets both the Hebrews and us know that the power that is in Christ lies not idle, is not useless, but is continually exercising itself towards us as the matter doth require. There is also, I acknowledge, an energy, an operative power in the word of God as written or preached; but it is not in it primarily, by virtue of a life or principle of power in itself, but only as a consequent of its being his word who is “the living one,” or “as it is indeed the word of the living God.” The original of the power of Christ in life, and the efficacy of it in operation, being laid down, he further declares it, — (1.) By its properties;(2.) By its effects.(1.) The property of the Word, with respect unto the exercise of his power, is, that it is τομώτεροςὑπὲρπᾶσανμάχαιρανδίστομον. From τέμνω, to “cut or “divide,” is τομός, “scindens,” “incidens,” — “cleaving,” “cutting,” or that which is “vi incisofia praeditus,” endued with a cutting power; τομώτερος, in the comparative degree. Valla says he would render it “incidentior,” were that word used. So in Phocylides, —῞Οπλοντοιλόγοςἀνδρὶτομώτερόνἐστισιδήρῳ.“Telum ferro penetrantius;” “acutior,” “penetrantior” (see the different translations of the word before); “sharper,” “more piercing.” ῾Υπὲρπᾶσανμάχαιρανδίστομον. The preposition added to the comparative degree increaseth the signification; for it might have been said, τομὸςὑπὲρπᾶσαν, or τομώτεροςπάσηςμαχαίρας: but the construction used expresseth the greatest distance between the comparates, — “than any two-edged sword.” Δίστομος, that is, ἀμφι.στομος, — “gladius biceps, anceps, utrinque incidens;” “double-edged or mouthed, cutting every way.” τִּ ?ιΰּ ?ηֶ ?ψֶ ?α, “the mouth of the sword,” is a Hebraism, with such an elegance in the allusion as most languages have admitted it. The metaphor is doubtless taken from wild beasts, whom mankind first feared, that devour with their mouths; which when the sword began to be used for destruction, gave them occasion to call its edge by the name of its “mouth:” δίστομος, “double-mouthed,” cutting each way, that leaves nothing unpierced whereunto it is applied. Christ in the exercise of his power is said to be “more piercing than any two-edged sword;” for so doth God oftentimes set forth himself and his power, with an allusion to things sensible, thereby to convey a notion and apprehension of them to our understandings. So he is said to be “a consuming fire,” and that he will be “as a lion;” things of great terror to men. This of a “sword” is often mentioned with respect unto the Lord Christ, Isaiah 49:2; Revelation 1:16, “Out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword.” And it is principally assigned unto him with respect unto the exercise of his power in and by his word, which is called “the sword of the Spirit,” Ephesians 6:17; the “sword that is on his thought” Psalms 45:3, which he hath in readiness when he goeth forth to subdue the souls of men to himself; as it is also “the rod of his power,” Psalms 110:2. But it is Christ himself who makes the word powerful and sharp: the principal efficiency is in himself, acting in and with it. That then which is here intended, is the spiritual, almighty, penetrating efficacy of the Lord Christ, in his dealing with the souls and consciences of men by his word and Spirit. And whereas there is a twofold use of a sword; the one natural, to cut or pierce through all opposition, all armor of defense; the other moral, to execute judgments and punishments, whence the sword is taken for the right and authority of punishing, and ofttimes for punishment itself, Romans 13:4; here is an allusion unto it in both senses. The Lord Christ, by his word and Spirit, pierceth into the souls of men (as we shall see in the next clause), and that notwithstanding all the defense of pride, security, obstinacy, and unbelief, which they wrap up themselves in, according to the natural use of the sword. Again, he by them executes judgments on wicked men, hypocrites, false professors, and apostates. He “smites the earth with the rod of his mouth, and slays the wicked with the breath of his lips,” Isaiah 11:4. He cuts off the life of their carnal hopes, false peace, worldly security, whatever they live upon, by the “two-edged sword” that proceeds out of his mouth. And the minding of the Hebrews hereof was exceedingly suited to his present purpose, as hath been declared. And in the pursuit of this double allusion are the ensuing expressions accommodated to the matter intended. (2.) This power of the Word is described by its effects: Διϊκνούμενοςἄχριμερισμοῦψυχῆςτεκαὶπνεύματος, ἀρμῶντεκαὶμυελῶν·καὶκριτικὸςἐνθυμήσεωςκαὶἐννοιῶνκαρδίας. The act itself intended is in the first word, διϊκνούμενος. The object of that act is doubly expressed, —[1. By “soul and spirit;” [2. “Joints and marrow;” and [3. There is the extent of this act with reference unto that object, expressing the effect itself, ἄχριμερισμοῦ, — “to the dividing of them.”Διϊκνούμενος, perceniens,” “penetrans;” “piercing,” say we, in answer to the sharpness before expressed. The word in other authors is variously rendered by “pervado,” “permeo,” “pervenio,” “attingo,” — “to pass through,” “to reach unto,” “to attain an end;” from ἵκω, “to come.” It is here, in the pursuit of the former allusion, used elegantly to express the power of Christ, as a sword piercing into the soul. And the meaning of the following expressions is, that it doth so into the innermost recesses, and as it were the secret chambers of the mind and heart. And this word is nowhere else used in the Scripture.The object of this piercing is the “soul and spirit.” Some think that by ψυχή, the natural and unregenerate part of the soul is intended; and by πνεῦμα, that which is in it renewed and regenerate. And there is some ground for that explication of this distinction; for hence is a man wholly unregenerate called ψυχικός, 1 Corinthians 2:14; say we, “the natural man.” And though ψυχή, absolutely used, doth denote either the being of the rational “soul,” or “life,” which is an effect thereof; yet as it is opposed to the “spirit,” or distinguished from it, it may denote the unregenerate part, as σάρξ, the “flesh,” doth, though absolutely it signifies one part of the material substance of the body. From hence is an unregenerate person denominated ἄνθρωποςψυχικός. So the spiritual part is frequently called πςεῦμα, the “spirit,” as John 3:6; and are generate person πνευματικός, the “spiritual man,” 1 Corinthians 2:15. According to this interpretation, the sense of the words is, that the Word of God, the Lord Christ, by his word and Spirit pierceth into the state of the soul, to discover who or what is regenerate amongst us or in us, and who or what is not so. The principles of these things are variously involved in the souls of men, so that they are not ofttimes discernible unto them in whom they are, as to whether of them is predominant. But the Lord Christ makes μερισμός, a “division” with a distribution, referring all things in the soul to their proper source and original. Others judge, that whereas our apostle makes a distinction between soul and spirit, as he doth in other places, he intends by ψυχή, “the soul,” the affections, the appetites, and desires; and by πνεῖμα, “the spirit,” the mind or understanding, the τὸἡγεμονικόν, the “conducting part” of the soul. And it is most probable that he here intends the same: for setting out the penetrating power of the Word of God with reference unto the souls of men, he distributes the soul into as it were its principal constituent parts, or faculties of it; that is, the mind, that leads, conducts, and guides it; and the passions, that steer and balance it, wherein all the most secret recesses and springs of all its actings do lie. And this sense is confirmed from the following words, wherein the same thing is asserted under a different notion, — namely, of the “joints and marrow.” That which in the soul answers the joints and marrow in the body, by way of allusion, is that which is intended. Joints and marrow in themselves are things sensual and fleshly, that have no concern in this matter; but in the body they are doubly considerable, — [1. Upon the account of their use; and so they are the ligaments of the whole, the principal and only means of communication to the members from the head, and among themselves. So this use of them is translated to spiritual things, Ephesians 4:16. And by a luxation or discontinuation of them the whole body will be dissolved.[2. On the account of their hiddenness and secrecy. They are undiscernible unto the eye of man, and it must be a sharp instrument or sword that pierceth unto them so as to divide them one from the other, whereby natural life will be destroyed. As these things are in the body for use and hiddenness, with respect unto their being pierced with a sword, so would the apostle have us to understand what he speaks of in reference unto the soul, the most useful and secret parts whereof are pierced and divided by the power of Christ; whence, if it be in a way of punishment, spiritual death doth ensue. And this is yet further confirmed in the last description which the apostle gives us of the Word of God from his actings and effects, — he is “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart;” which yet he more clearly explains in the next verse, as we shall see in the opening of it. That, then, which in all these expressions is intended, is the absolute power and ability of the Son of God to judge of the rectitude and crookedness of the ways and walkings of the sons of men under their profession, from the inward frames of their minds and hearts unto all their outward duties and performances, either in perseverance or backsliding. The last expression, κριτικὸςἐνθυμήσεοινκαὶἐννοιῶνκαρδίας, — “is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,” — is plainly declarative of what is elsewhere ascribed unto him, namely, that he is καρδιογνώστης, — he that “knoweth and searcheth the hearts of men.” This is a peculiar property of God, and is often affirmed so to be, Jeremiah 17:10; 1 Samuel 16:7; Psalms 7:9; and this in an especial manner is ascribed to the Lord Christ, John 2:24-25; John 21:17; Revelation 2:23. This is eminently expressed in that confession of Peter, “Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee;” — ‘By virtue of thine omniscience, whereby thou knowest all things, thou knowest my heart, and the love which I have therein unto thee.’Κριτικός, “judex,” “discretor;” one that, upon accurate inspection and consideration, judgeth and giveth sentence concerning persons and things. It differs from κριτής, a “judge,” as adding the act of judging unto the right and power of judgment. And this word alone, as it is here used, is sufficient to evince that the person of Christ is here principally intended, seeing it cannot be accommodated to the word as written or preached, in any tolerable manner. Καρδίας. By the “heart,” as I have showed before, the whole soul and all the faculties of it, as constituting one rational principle of moral actions, is intended, and so includes the “soul and spirit” before mentioned. Here two things are ascribed unto it: —[1. ᾿᾿Ενθυμήσεις, “thoughts,” “cogitations,” whatever is inwardly conceived, ἐντῷθυμῷ, “in the mind;” with a peculiar respect unto the irascible appetite called ιֵ ?φֶ ?ψξַ ?ηְ ?ωְׁ αֹ ?ϊμֵ ?λ, Genesis 6:5, “the figment of the cogitations of the heart,” — the thoughts which are suggested by the inclinations of the affections, with their commotions and stirrings in the heart or mind. [2. ῎Εννοιαι, “designs” or purposes,” inwardly framed ἐντῷνόῳ, “in the understanding.” Sometimes this word signifies the moral principles of the mind, by which it is guided in its actings. Hence are the κοιναὶἔννοιαι, or “common principles” that men are directed by in what they do. And here it denotes the principles that men are guided by in their actings, according to which they frame their actual purposes and intentions. Upon the whole matter, the design of the apostle in these words is to declare the intimate and absolute acquaintance that the Word of God hath with the inmost frames, purposes, desires, resolutions, and actings of the minds of professors; and the sure, unerring judgment which he makes of them thereby. Hebrews 4:13. — The 13th verse contains a confirmation of what is asserted in that foregoing. There the apostle declared how the Word of God pierceth into the hearts, minds, and souls of men, to discern and judge them. That they to whom he wrote might not doubt hereof, he confirms it by showing the ground of his assertion, which is the natural omniscience of the Word of God: ‘It cannot be otherwise than as I have declared, seeing he of whom we speak, “with whom we have to do,” to whom we must give an account, this “Word of God,” seeth and knoweth all things, nor can any thing possibly be hid from him.’This is the natural coherence of the words, and upon a supposition of a different subject to be spoken of in this from the foregoing verse, no man can frame a tolerable transition in this contexture of words from the one unto the other. I shall therefore proceed in the explication of them, as words of the same design, and used to the same purpose. Καὶοὐκἔστικτίσιςἀφανὴςἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ. The manner of the expression is by a double negation: the one expressed, οὐκἔστι, there is not;” the other included in the privative α in ἀφανής. And these expressions do emphatically assert the contrary to what is denied: “There is not a creature that is not manifest;” that is, every creature is eminently, illustriously manifest.Οὐκἔστικτίσις, “there is not a creature,” anything created: that is, every creature whatever, whether they be persons or things, — angels, men, devils, professors, persecutors, all men of all sorts; and all things concerning them, — their inward frames of mind and heart, their affections and temptations, their state and condition, their secret actings, their thoughts and inclinations. This confirms and carries on the foregoing attributions to the Word of God. ᾿ΑφανήςΘαίνω is “to appear,” “to shine forth;” and ἀφανής is opposed to ἐπιφανής, “illustrious,” “perspicuous,” “eminently manifest;” — so it is “hid,” “obscure,” not openly or evidently appearing. It is more than ἄραντος, which is merely “one out of sight,” Luke 24:31. This negation includes a plain, clear, illustrious appearance, nothing shrouding, hiding, terposing itself to obscure it.᾿Ενώπιοναὐτοῦ, “before him,” “in conspectu ejus,” “in his sight.” Every creature is continually under his view. Αὐτοῦ must refer to ὁΛόγοςτοῦΘεοῦ, “the Word of God,” in the beginning of Heb 4:12; and cannot respect πρὸςὅν, in the end of this verse. For the interposition of the adversative particle δέ, “but,” and the introduction of the relative αὐτοῦ again, do necessarily refer this αὐτοῦ to ὁΛόγος, and proves the same person to be all along intended.Πάνταδὲγυμὰκαὶτετραχηλισμένα. The unusual application of the word τραχηλίζομαι, in this place hath made work more than enough for critica. But the design of the apostle is open and plain, however the use of the word be rare, with some especial allusion. All agree that τετραχηλισμένα is as much as πεφανερωμένα, “absolutely open” or “manifest.” Only Oecumenius hath a peculiar conceit about it. It is, saith he, κάτωκύπτοντα, καὶτὸντράχηλονἐπικλίνοντα, διὰτὸμὴἱσχύεινἀτεςίσαιτῇδοξῃἐκείνῃτοῦκριτοῦκαὶΘεοῦἡμῶν᾿Ιησοῦ· ?— “bowing down, and declining or turning aside the neck, as not being able to behold the glory of Jesus, our Judge and God.” But he gives us another signification of the word himself. Τράχηλος, “the neck,” is a word commonly used in Scripture, and in all authors. Thence τραχηλίζομαι, in the sense here used, “to be manifest,” must receive its signification from some posture of the neck; and as joined here with Turves, “naked,” it may have respect unto a double allusion. First, unto wrestlers and contenders in games. First they were made naked, or stripped of their clothes; whence, as it is known, comes γυμνάζω and γυμνάσιον, “vigorously to exercise,” and a place of such exercise. Then, in their contending, when one was thrown on his back, when he was “resupinatus,” he was τραχηλιζόμενος, “laid open, with his throat and neck upwards.” Hence the word comes signify things that are “open, naked, evident, manifest.” The face and neck of a naked person being turned upwards, it is manifest who he is. This is to have “os resupinatum;” and, as he speaks, “aulam resupinat amici” [Juv., Sat. 3. 112], of him who sees what is in the bottom. There is yet another allusion that may be intended, and this is token from beasts that are slain, and, being stripped of their skins, are hanged by the neck, that all may see and discern them. This is also mentioned by OEcumenius. And Varinus gives us a further sense, and says that τραχηλίζειν is as much as διχοτομεῖν, “to divide into parts;” or διὰτῆςῥάχεωςσχίζειν, “to cut,” “cleave,” or “divide through the back- bone,” that all may be discovered. And from these two significations I suppose the design of the apostle in this allusion may most probably be collected. It is evident that he hath great regard unto, and doth much instruct the Hebrews by and from the customs in use amongst themselves. Unto one of them doth he here seem to have respect, namely, the beasts that were sacrificed. The first thing that was done with the body of it, after it was slain, was its being flayed. This work was done by the priests. Hereby the carcass of the beast was made γυμνόν, “naked,” laid open to the view of all. Then were all its entrails opened, from the neck down to the belly; after which the body was cut into its pieces through the chine- bone: whereby in both the senses mentioned, both of opening and division, it became τετραχηλισμένον, “opened and divided,” so that every part of it was exposed to view. Hence the apostle, having compared the Word of God before in his operations to a “two-edged sword, that pierceth to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow,” as did the sharp knife or instrument of the sacrificer; here affirms that “all things” whatever, and so consequently the hearts and ways of professors, were “evident, open, and naked before him,” as the body of the sacrificed beast was to the priests when flayed, opened, and cut to pieces. This is the most probable account of these expressions in particular, whose general design is plain and evident. And this appears yet further from the next words.Τοῖςὀφθαλμοῖςαὐτοῦ, “to the eyes of him.” He followeth on his former allusion; and having ascribed the evidence of all things unto the omniscience of the Word, by the similitude before opened, in answer thereunto he mentions his eyes wherewith he beholds the things so naked and open before him. Both expressions are metaphorical, containing a declaration of the omniscience of Christ, whom he further describes in the last words, by our respect unto him in all these things. Πρὸςὅνἡμῖνὁλόγος. How variously these words are rendered, and thereby what various senses are put upon them, hath been declared. But both the proper signification of them and the design of the place direct us to one certain sense, namely, “to whom we must give an account.” Λόγος is “an account;” there is no other word used in the New Testament to express it. Πρὸςὅν is properly “unto whom,” and not “of whom,” or “concerning whom;” that is, it expresseth the object of the action here mentioned, and not the subject of the proposition. And the whole is rightly rendered, “to whom we must give an account;” or, “before whom our account is to be made.” And this answers the design of the apostle in the place. For evidencing unto them the efficacy and omniscience of the Word of God, trying all things, and discerning all things, he minds them of their near concernment in these matters, in that he and they must all give up their final accounts unto and before him who is so intimately acquainted with what they are, and with whatsoever they shall do in this world. There are many things remaining to be observed from these words, which are both of great importance in themselves, and do also serve to the further explanation of the mind of the Holy Ghost in these words, as to what of our instruction is particularly intended in them. And from the properties that are assigned to the Word of God, Hebrews 4:12, we may observe, that, — Obs. 1. It is the way of the Spirit of God, to excite us unto especial duties by proposing unto us and minding us of such properties of God as the consideration whereof may in an especial manner incline us unto them. Here the Hebrews are minded that the Word of God is living, to give unto their hearts that awe and reverence of him which might deter them from backsliding or falling away from him. Our whole duty in general respects the nature of God. It is our giving glory to him because he is God, and as he is God, “glorifying him as God,” Exodus 20:2; Isaiah 42:8; Deuteronomy 28:58; Romans 1:21. It is our giving him the honor which is due to his being. That is the formal reason of all divine worship and obedience. And as this duty in general brancheth itself into many particular duties in the kinds of them, all which in various instances are continually to be attended unto; so God hath not only revealed his being unto us in general, but he hath done it by many distinct properties, all of them suited to promote in our minds our whole duty towards God, and this or that duty in particular. And he often distinctly presseth upon us the consideration of those properties, for to stir us up unto those distinct duties which they direct unto. God in his nature exists in one simple essence or being; nor are there any things really different or distinct therein. His nature is all his properties, and every one of his properties is his whole nature; but in the revelation of himself unto us he proposeth his nature under the notion of these distinct properties, that we may the better know the nature of the duty which we owe unto him: Hosea 3:5, “Fear the LORD and his goodness.” So in places innumerable doth he mind us of his power and greatness; that upon our thoughts and apprehensions of them we might be stirred up to fear him, to trust in trim, to get our hearts filled with a due awe and reverence of him, with many other duties of the like nature with them, or evidently proceeding from them: — to trust, Isaiah 26:4; fear, Jeremiah 10:6-7. His goodness, grace, bounty, patience, are all of them distinctly proposed unto us; and they all lead us unto especial duties, as the apostle speaks, Romans 2:4, “The goodness of God leadeth to repentance.” From these, or the efficacy of the consideration of them upon our souls, ought to proceed our love, our gratitude, our delight in God, our praise and thankfulness; and by them ought they to be influenced. So his holiness ingenerates terror in the wicked, Isaiah 33:14; and holy reverence in others, Hebrews 12:28-29. The like may be spoken of the rest of the properties of God, with respect unto the remainder of our duties. In like manner, and to the same purpose, did God of old reveal himself by his name. He still ascribed such a name to himself as might be prevalent on the minds of men unto their present duties. So when he called Abraham to “walk before him,” in the midst of many difficulties, temptations, hardships, and dangers, he revealed himself unto him by the name of God Almighty, thereby to encourage him to sincerity and perseverance, Genesis 17:1. Hence, in his greatest distress he peculiarly acted his faith on the power of God, Hebrews 11:19. And when he called his posterity to comply in their faith and obedience with his faithfulness in the accomplishment of his promises, he revealed himself unto them by his name Jehovah; which was suited to their especial encouragement and direction, Exodus 6:3. To the same end are the properties of the Word of God here distinctly proposed unto us. We are called to the faith and profession of the gospel. Herein we meet with many difficulties without, and are ofttimes ready to faint in ourselves, or otherwise to fail and miscarry. In this matter we have to do with the Lord Christ; to him we must one day give an account. Wherefore, to stir us up to carefulness, diligence, and spiritual watchfulness, that we give not place to any decays or declensions in our profession, we are especially minded that he is the living one, and one that continually exerciseth acts of life toward us. And in all duties of obedience, it will be our wisdom always to mind that respect which the properties of God or of Christ have unto them. Again, the Word of God is so living as that also it is powerful, or actually always exercising itself in power, actually efficacious toward the ends mentioned, — ἐνεργής. So that, —Obs. 2. The life and power of Christ are continually exercised about the concernments of the souls of professors; are always actually efficacious in them and upon them.And this power he putteth forth by his word and Spirit; for we declared, in the opening of the words, that the effects here ascribed unto the essential Word are such as he produceth by the word preached, which is accompanied with and made effectual by the dispensation of the Spirit, Isaiah 59:21. And the power here intended is wholly clothed with the word; thereby it is conveyed to the souls of men; therein is “the hiding of his power,” Habakkuk 3:4. Though it seems weak, and is despised, yet it is accompanied with the hidden power of Christ, which will not fail of its end, 1 Corinthians 1:18. And the word preached is not otherwise to be considered, but as that which is the conveyance of divine power to the souls of men. And every impression that it makes on the heart is an effect of the power of Christ. And this will teach us how to value it and esteem it, seeing it is the only way and means whereby the Lord Christ exerciseth his mediatory power towards us on the behalf of God; and effectual it will be unto the ends whereunto he designs it. For he is in it “sharper than any two-edged sword.” So that, — Obs. 3. The power of Christ in his word is irresistible, as to whatever effects he doth design it, Isaiah 55:10-11.The power of Christ in his word is by many exceedingly despised and slighted. Few there are who seem to have any real effects of it produced in them or upon them. Hence it is looked on in the world as a thing of no great efficacy; and those who preach it in sincerity are ready to cry out, “Who hath believed our report?” But all this ariseth from a mistake, as though it had but one end designed unto it. Had the Lord Christ no other end to accomplish by his word but merely that which is the principal, the conversion of the souls of his elect, it might be conceived to fail towards the far greater number of them to whom it is preached. But it is with him in his word as it was in his own person. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ ῾Εχοντεςοὗνἀρχιερέαμέγανδιεληλυθότατοὺςοὐρανοὺς, ᾿ΙησοῦντὸνΥἱὸντοῦΘεοῦ, κρατῶμεντῆςὁμολογίας.Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that passed into [through] the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. There being no difficulty in the words in the original, nor much diversity in translations, we shall cast what is worth observation on their account into the exposition of the words itself. ῎Εχοντεςου῏ν, “habentes igitur,” “having therefore;” or, as ours, “seeing then that we have.” And so the Syriac, “whereas, therefore, we have.” The illative ου῏ν declares the relation of what is under assertion unto that which went before. That which the apostle is now instructing us in, directing us unto, is educed from what he had before laid down. It is not a consequence in way of argument that is here inferred, but the consequent in way of duty: “Seeing we have.”᾿Αρχιερέαμέγαν, “pontificem magnum.” Some translations, as the Arabic and Syriac, in this place transpose the words, and place the person of Christ as the immediate object of our “having,” or that which the word ἐχοντες doth firstly and formally respect: “Having Jesus the Son of God be a high priest.” And in this way the person of Jesus Christ should be proposed unto us firstly, and that described by the adjunct of his office, and his acting therein, “he passed into heaven.” But in the original it is a “high priest,” as focally considered, which is the object proposed unto us. And he is described, —1. By his quality and condition; he is “passed through the heavens.”2. By the particular nomination of his person; he is “Jesus the Son of God.”In the condition wherein we are, we stand in need of the help and assistance of a high priest. Such a one we have. We have a high priest, as they had of old; and this such a one as “is passed through the heavens, even Jesus the Son of God.” This is the order of the words. ᾿Αρχιερέαμέγαν. Arab., “the chief prince of the priests;” rightly as to sense, bemuse of the twofold use of the word ἀρχιερεὺς, for it is applied to denote two sorts of persons. First, it signifies him who was eminently and signally so called, the high priest, — that is Aaron, and the chief of his family, who succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood. In the Old Testament he is called δַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μὁἱερεὺςὁμέγας, “the great priest.” This is frequently expressed by ἀρχιερεύς, as the Latins do it by “pontifex,” and “pontifex maximus.” Again, the word is often used to denote them who were the principal heads, rulers, or leaders of any one of the twenty-four orders which the priests were cast into for the service of the temple, 1 Chronicles 24. These are those which are intended in those places where some are expressed by name, and it is added, “They and their brethren;” that is, those who being of the same order with them, were yet in dignity not so conspicuous as themselves. And these in the gospel are frequently called ἀρχιερεῖς, as Matthew 2:4; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 21:15, and in the other evangelists frequently. And when the word is so applied we render it by “chief priests,” to distinguish them intended from the “high priest” properly so called, who was one set over them all, the peculiar successor of Aaron.If the word ἀρχιερεύς be here taken in the latter sense, as it may denote a “pontifex minorum gentium,” a high priest of the second rank and order, one of the chief priests, then the adjunct of μέγας, “great,” is discriminative; showing that it is not they who were merely so, but he only who was δλֹּ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, “the great priest, “pontifex maximus,” that is alluded unto. But if ἀρχειρεύς do of itself denote the single high priest, Aaron, or his successor, as most frequently it doth, then μέγας, “great,” is added κατ᾿ἐξαίρετον, by way of eminency, and is accumulative with respect unto Aaron. He is great high priest in comparison of him, exalted above him, more excellent, glorious, powerful, and able than he. And this is that which is intended in the words; for the especial design of the apostle is to compare him with Aaron, and not with any inferior priests, as we shall see in his ensuing discourses. Therefore “a great high priest,” is one eminently, excellently, gloriously so, and that on the accounts mentioned in his subjoined description.Διεληλυθότατούςοὐρανούς, “that is passed into the heavens.” So our translation; in which expression the thing intended is plain, but the difficulty that is in the words is as plainly concealed, and somewhat of their proper sense and meaning. Syr., “who is ascended into heaven;” laying the emphasis upon and directing our thoughts unto his ascension, and not to his present abode in heaven, which ours seem to point unto, “who is passed into the heavens.” Ethiop., “who came from heaven into the world;” which kind of mistakes are not infrequent with that interpreter, Διέρχομαι is “pertranseo,” “to pass through;” that is, any one place into another. 1 Corinthians 16:5 : ῝ΟτανΜακεδονίανδιέλθω·Μακεδονίανγὰρδιέρχομαι· — “When I shall pass through Macedonia; for I pass through Macedonia.” So Acts 15:41, John 4:4. And no other signification can it have in this place: “Is passed through τοὺςοὐρανούς,” “the heavens.” Διέρχεσθαιτοὺςοὐρανούς, is plainly to “pass through the heavens,” and not to “pass into them.” Neither the sense nor construction of the words will allow any such interpretation; nor will any thing else but his passing through the heavens answer the apostle’s design.The “heavens,” therefore, are taken two ways: — First, and most frequently, to denote the place of God’s glorious residence, the holy habitation of God, the resting-place of blessed souls, and palace of the great King, where is his throne, and thousands of his holy ones stand ministering before him. This heaven the Lord Christ did not pass through, but into, when ἀνελήφθηἐνδόξῃ, he was “taken up into glory,” 1 Timothy 3:16. There he sits, “on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” and these heavens “must receive him until the times of restitution” shall come, Acts 3:21.Secondly, The “heavens” are taken for the air, as when mention is made of the “fowls of heaven;” that is, which “fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven,” Genesis 1:20 : as also for the ethereal regions, the orbs of the sun, moon, and stars, which are set “for lights in the firmament of heaven,” Genesis 1:15, — the aspectable heavens above us, which “declare the glory of God,” and “shew his handywork,” Psalms 19:1; which he “garnished by his Spirit” for that end, Job 26:13. These are the heavens here intended. And concerning them our apostle says again of our high priest, ὑψηλότεροςτῶνοὐρανῶνγενόμενος, Hebrews 7:26, “made higher than the heavens;” he passed through them, and was exalted above them. These ethereal regions the disciples looked towards when he was “taken up into glory,” Acts 1:9-10. So Ephesians 4:10, “He ascended up, far above all heavens.” He passed through them, and ascended above them, into that which is called “the third heaven,” or the “heaven of heavens,” where is his blessed residence. This being the sense of the words, we may nextly inquire into what the apostle peculiarly designs to instruct us in by them. And this will appear from the consideration of what it is that in this expression he alludes unto. Now, it is the high priest peculiarly so called that he hath respect unto; and he designs an explanation of what was, in and by him, typically represented unto the church of old. Known it is, that he was the principal officer of the church in things immediately pertaining unto the worship of God. And the chief or most signal part of his duty in the discharge of his office, consisted in his annual entrance into the most holy place, on the day of expiation, with the services thereunto belonging. This is at large described, Leviticus 16. And herein three things were eminent: — 1. That he departed out of the sight of the people, yea, and of all the ministering priests also. The people were without in the court; and the priests that ministered in the tabernacle, when he was to open the veil to enter into the holy place, left the tabernacle, that they might not look in after him: Leviticus 16:17, “There shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement.”2. In this entrance he passed through the second veil of the tabernacle, which received him and hid him by the closing of the curtains from the sight of all.3. In the place whither he thus went were the especial pledges of the presence and tokens of the covenant of God, Leviticus 16:2.How all these things were really and in a glorious manner accomplished in and by our high priest, the apostle declares in these words. For, — 1. He had a holy place to pass into. He entered into the holy place not made with hands, even “heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us,” Hebrews 9:24; that is, the heaven of heavens, the place of the glorious residence of the majesty of God.2. Hereinto he passed through these aspectable heavens; which the apostle compareth unto the second veil of the temple, bemuse they interpose between us and the holy sanctuary whereinto he entered. Hence, when in his great trial and testimony he miraculously enabled. Stephen to see into the heavenly place, where he is in glory on the fight hand of God, these heavens were opened, Acts 7:55-56. The curtains of this veil were turned aside, that he might have a view of the glory behind them.3. By these heavens was he taken and hid out of the sight of all men in his entrance, Acts 1:9-10. Thus, in answer to the type of old, he passed through the veil of these heavens, into the glorious presence of God, to appear there as our intercessor.᾿ΙησοῦντὸνΥἱὸντοῦΘεοῦ, “Jesus the Son of God.” Translations do not well express the emphasis of these words, through the interposition of the article, ᾿ΙησοῦντὸνΥἱὸν, — the Son eminently, peculiarly, that Son of God; that is, the natural, only-begotten Son of the Father. And there is in the words a double designation of the person of our high priest; first by his name, and then by his relation unto God.1. By his name; that is, “Jesus,” — a name given him from the work he had to do. He was to “save his people.” Jesus, a savior. Matthew 1:21, Καλέσειςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ᾿Ιησοῦν, with the angel; “Thou shalt call his name Jesus? For what cause? Saith he, Αὐτὸςγὰρσώσειτὸνλαὸναὐτοῦἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶν, — “ For” (or “because”) “he shall save his people from their sins.” So our apostle calls him ᾿᾿Ιησοῦντὸνῥυόμενον, — “Jesus the deliverer,” 1 Thessalonians 1:10. Our high priest is our savior; and he is so [that is, the latter] in a great measure by his being so [that is, the former]. And this name was given him as born of a virgin: “She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus.” It doth not, therefore, in this place only — nay, not so much — denote him by his work of saving, according to the signification of his name, “Jesus;” but declares his human nature, whereof he was made partaker “that he might be a merciful high priest,” wherein he was called by that name. 2. He describes him by his relation unto God: ΤὸνΥἱὸντοῦΘεοῦ, — “that Son of God;” the eternal Son of God. The reason and nature of this sonship of our high priest hath been elsewhere declared. At present it may suffice to observe, that his divine nature is included in this appellation; for in his one person, as comprising both these natures, is he our high priest, as he is θεάνθρωπος, God and man in one. And we are here minded of it as a great encouragement unto our duty, expressed in the next words.Κρατῶμεντῆςὁμολογίας, “let us hold fast our profession.” Vulg. Lat., in some copies, “spei et fidei nostrae,” “of our hope and faith;” words taken from Hebrews 3:6, which here have no place. “Hold fast the profession, — that is which we make, or have made; and so “our profession,” as we supply the words.Two things are to be inquired into for the opening of these words: — 1. What is meant by ὁμολογία, or “profession;”2. What is included in κρατῶμεν, “let us hold fast”1. For the word ὁμολογία, it hath been opened, and the thing itself intended somewhat spoken unto, on Hebrews 3:1, where the Lord Christ is called “the apostle and high priest of our profession.” I shall therefore here only so far treat of it as it contains the duty which the apostle exhorts us unto, and wherein all the lines of his discourse do meet and center. This makes it assuredly a matter of singular consideration, as being that about which he doth so greatly labor.Our ὁμολογία is our “professed subjection to the gospel of Christ,” 2 Corinthians 9:13; or the subjection of our souls in the acknowledgment of the power and authority of Jesus Christ in the gospel: ᾿Υποταγὴὁμολογίας. It contains both our secret subjection unto the gospel, and our solemn declaration of it. The former which respects the matter of our profession, is ᾿ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ, 1 Peter 3:21; — ‘“the answer” (or“reply”) “of a good conscience,” by virtue of the resurrection of Christ, unto the demands of God in the precepts and promises of the gospel.’And it hath two parts: —(1.) Faith in Christ.(2.) Obedience unto him; the “obedience of faith,” Romans 1:5.(1.) Faith is the root, and obedience the fruit of our profession. And that faith which constitutes evangelical profession is distinctly acted on Christ, the Son of God, the mediator of the covenant, the king, priest, and prophet of his church. This he calls for John 14:1, “Ye believe in God, believe also in me,” expressly. See John 3:18; John 3:36; John 7:38. This, I say, makes our profession formally evangelical, distinguishing it from that of believers under the old testament. Their faith was directly in God as one, Deuteronomy 6:4; consequentially in the Messiah, as promised. Ours is express in Christ also, John 17:3; and in the Father by him, 1 Peter 1:21. (2.) Unto faith is added obedience, which is indeed inseparable from it. See a full description of it, Romans 6:22. It may be considered two ways: — [1. As it is internal and absolutely spiritual, or the constant acting of all the graces of the Spirit of God, unto purification and holiness, 2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Acts 15:9. This belongs unto our profession, not absolutely as profession, but as sincere and saving; on which account we ought to hold it fast.[2. As it is external also, in the diligent observation of all gospel commands in our course and practice. And these are of two sorts: — 1st. The moral duties of a holy conversation, Philippians 1:27; Titus 2:10-13. By a failure herein our whole profession is overthrown, Philippians 3:17-18; Titus 1:16; 2 Timothy 2:19. 2dly. The instituted duties of holy gospel worship, Matthew 28:20. And herein consists that part of our profession which the apostle in this epistle doth principally intend, as hath been declared. This is the matter of our profession; herein consists our subjection to the gospel. To complete our profession, yea, to constitute our ὁμολογία, there is required that we make a solemn declaration of our subjection unto the gospel in these things. And this is made two ways.(1.) By works.(2.) By words.(1.) Our profession by works, is our constant and solemn observation of all Christ’s commands in and concerning gospel-worship, Matthew 28:20; John 14:15; John 15:14. And the discharge of our duty herein is to be attended,[1. With prudence; and that, 1st. Not to provoke the world causelessly, by any irregularities of misguided zeal, or other disorders, Matthew 10:16; 1 Corinthians 10:32, 2 Corinthians 6:3; 2dly. Not to cast ourselves into dangers or troubles without just cause, call, or warrant, Matthew 10:23. [2. With constancy and confidence; so as, 1st. Not to be terrified with any persecutions or troubles which may befall us on the account of the gospel, 1 Peter 3:14, Philippians 1:28;2dly. Not on any account to decline the constant observance of the duties of worship required of us, Hebrews 10:25.(2.) By words; for “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,”Romans 10:10. And this also is twofold: —[1. With respect unto all times in general, 1 Peter 3:15. We are on all occasions to declare whose servants we are, and whom we own as our Lord and Master.[2. Unto especial seasons. 1st. Of temptation. Such arise from company, which may be so circumstanced as to awe us or corrupt us, that we shall not own the gospel as we ought. So it befell Peter in the highest instance, Matthew 26:70. And so are others in lesser degrees foiled everyday.2dly. Of persecution. Then is our profession to be turned into confession, or we lose it. The oral, open avowing of the Lord Christ, his ways and worship, in and under persecution, is the touchstone of all profession, Matthew 10:32-33; 1 Corinthians 3:13. This is the profession we are to hold fast. 2. Κρατῶμεν, “let us hold it fast.” So have we rendered κατάσχωμεν, Hebrews 3:6. But this word is more emphatical than that, and intimates another frame of mind, and a more severe endeavor: κρατεῖν is to hold a thing “strongly,” “firmly,” “totis viribus,” “with all our strength,” by all lawful means, with resolution and intension of mind. For the word is from κράτος, — that is, “power,” “strength,” “efficacy;” which are to be exercised in the holding fast intended: Revelation 2:25, “That which yehave κρατήσατεἄχριςοὗἀνV ήξω,” “hold fast,” ‘with all care, against all opposition,’ “till I come.” So Hebrews 3:11, Κράτειὃἔχεις, ἵναμηδεὶςλάβῃτὸνστέφανόνσου; “Hold fast,” — that is, with all thy might, with all diligence and intension of mind, “what thou hast,” as a man would hold fast his crown, if any should attempt to take it from him or deprive him of it. And this word is used concerning the Pharisees, with respect unto their traditions; which they adhered so firmly and resolutely unto, that nothing could move them or prevail with them to the contrary, Mark 7:3, Κρατοῦντεςτὴνπαράδοσιντῶνπρεσβυτέρων, — “Holding fast” (or “tenaciously”) “the tradition of the elders.” So also of them who, having entertained false and noxious opinions, are obstinate in their adherence to them: Revelation 2:15, ΟὑτωςἔχειςκαὶσὺκρατοῦνταςτὴνδιδαχὴντῶνΝικολαϊτῶν, — “So hast thou them who,” against light and persuasions, “retain the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes.” Wherefore the sense of the command here given is, that we should with our utmost ability and diligence hold fast against all oppositions, and take care that we lose not our profession after we are once engaged in it.So, then, this verse containeth the prescription of a duty, with a motive and encouragement unto the due performance of it. The duty is expressed in these last words, “Let us hold fast our profession.” And the reason for it, with an encouragement unto it, in those which go before, “Seeing then we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God.” And this is further amplified by the declaration of his qualifications, verse 15, and an exhortation to make use of and improve his assistance in this matter, verse 16, as we shall see afterwards. At present we may take some observations from this verse, according to the exposition of the words already given, which will further direct us to answer in our practice the mind of the Holy Ghost in this matter. Now, there is included in the words, — Obs. 1. First, that great opposition is, and always will be, made unto the permanency of believers in their profession.This the word of exhortation unto it plainly intimates. It is “injecta manu fortiter retinere,” — to “lay hold of a thing, and to retain it with all our might,” as if it were ready every moment to be taken from us with a violent and strong hand; it is to keep a thing as a man keeps his treasure when it is ready to be seized on by thieves and robbers. This argues great opposition, and no small hazard thereon ensuing. So our blessed Savior informs us, Matthew 7:25. When men hear the word, they build a house by profession. This all who make profession do, whether they build upon the rock or upon the sand. And when this house is built, “the rain will descend, and the floods will come, and the winds will blow and beat upon it.” Profession will be assaulted and pressed by all manner of hazardous and dangerous oppositions And if the house be not well secured, it will fall, — if our profession be not well guarded, it will be lost. What our Lord Jesus told Peter with respect unto this very matter, is even so concerning all professors When he was led to speak with much confidence, — which his present convictions of duty and resolutions for its performance prompted him unto, — that he would abide in his profession, and never forsake him, whatever other men might do; he answers, “Simon, Simon, Satan hath sought to winnow thee,” Luke 22:31-32. He minds him, that although he had called him Peter, for the unmovableness of that Rock which his faith was fixed on, yet he would appear in himself to be but Simon still, — a man, exposed to danger, and easy to be prevailed against; and therefore he might do well, in the midst of his confidence, to consider his dangers and the surprisals that he might be overtaken withal. And the same is the condition of all professors, the best and meanest, the strongest and weakest. From this opposition, our continuance in profession is called “enduring,” Matthew 24:13, ῾Οδὲὑπομείναςεἰςτέλος, οὗτοςσωθήσεται, — “He that patiently tolerateth” (beareth opposition) “unto the end shall be saved.” So we render ὑπομονή, Romans 2:7, “patient continuance.” And to the same purpose are the words προσκαρτερέω, Acts 2:42, and προσκαρτέρησις, Ephesians 6:18, used, and of the same signification, — “constantly to abide and endure against oppositions.” So is the word commonly applied. Men endure hunger, cold, bonds, imprisonment, the pains of death. They are hard things that men endure. “Durate” is the word of encouragement in difficulties: “Durate et vosmet rebus servate secundis. Durare, est verbum quod perferendis malls convenit,” Donat in Virg. AEn. 1:211. There is, then, a supposition of a conflict with all sorts of evil, where we are enjoined to “endure;” that is, to continue in our course with patience, courage, and constancy. Hence are the multiplied cautions that are given us, especially in this epistle, to take heed that we be not prevailed against and cast down from our stability by these oppositions. See 2 John 1:8; Revelation 2:24-26; Revelation 3:2.We are exceedingly apt to deceive ourselves in this matter. Desires, false hopes, appearing helps, do insinuate themselves into our minds, and prevail to ingenerate a persuasion that we shall not meet with any great difficulties in our profession. And these self-deceivings do exceedingly unprepare the mind for what we have to encounter, which the apostle warns us against, 1 Peter 4:12-13.The principles, causes, reasons, and means, of the opposition that is made to the profession of believers, are commonly handled. Could we take but one view of that constant preparation which there is amongst “principalities and powers,” those “spiritual wickednesses in high places,” in the world and all its fullness, and in the deceitfulness of sin which dwelleth in us, for an opposition unto our profession, we would either constantly stand upon our guard to defend it, or presently give it up as that which is not tenable. See Ephesians 6:10-13.Obs. 2. It is our duty, in the midst of all oppositions, to hold our profession firm and steadfast unto the end. This is the substance of what we are here exhorted and pressed unto, and the great design of the apostle in this whole epistle; which also we have occasionally insisted on in sundry precedent passages. What this profession is hath been declared. The principle of it is “faith in God” by Christ Jesus. The fruits of it are the whole “obedience of faith,” or “a conversation in all things becoming the gospel,” “adorning the doctrine of our Savior” in all holiness and’godliness. And it is expressed by a constant observation of all the ordinances and institutions of worship appointed by Christ or his authority, with an open confession of him at all times. For by such institutions did God in all ages try and exercise the faith and obedience of the church, whence they were the means of giving glory to himself in the world. And from this expression of them do our faith and obedience take the denomination of “profession.” And thereby are they proved in this world, and must be tried at the last day. This profession we are to hold in the manner expressed in the opening of the words; that is, with watchfulness, diligence, constancy, and our utmost endeavor in all of them. And this duty hath respect unto the contrary sins, which the apostle dehorts us from. Now these fall under two heads: — 1. Apostasy, or a total desertion of our profession. 2. Declension, or going back gradually from our diligence, progress, and attainments in it; which make way for the former evil. 1. Some totally fall off from their profession. These the apostle describes and reflects upon, Hebrews 6, 10. In which places we must take theirsin and punishment under consideration. And against this evil it is our duty to “hold fast our profession.” None doubt of it until they are under the power of the contrary evil, and are blinded or hardened thereby. And this total desertion from the gospel is twofold: — (1.) Express, by an open abrenunciation of it. This we hear not of much amongst us, because none is tempted thereunto. The prodigious eruptions of some men’s atheism we consider not.(2.) Interpretative, when men really east off all inward regard unto the authority of Christ in the gospel, and their outward compliance with any thing required in it is on motives foreign to the gospel itself; and this too much abounds in the world.Our apostle supplies us with considerations of the greatest and highest nature that can be conceived. In brief, — (1.) The glory of God in Christ is in the highest manner concerned in it. Every sin tends to the dishonor of God, all sinners dishonor him; but all is nothing, as it were, to the despite that is done to him by this sin. So it is described, Hebrews 10:29. It is a “treading under foot the Son of God,” — an act of the highest despite, malice, and contempt that a creature can be capable of.(2.) Assured destruction attends it, and that in a peculiar, terrible, and dreadful manner, Hebrews 10:29-31; 2 Peter 2:1. It is, therefore, undoubtedly our duty and our wisdom to “hold fast our profession,” so as neither by the blindness of our minds nor sensuality of life to lose and forego it.2. It is so as to the degrees of it. All the parts of our profession have their degrees whereby they are varied. Faith is strong or weak, stable or infirm. Obedience may be more or less exact, precise, and fruitful in good works. Our observation of instituted ordinances of worship may be exact and circumspect, or loose and negligent. In holding fast our profession, an endeavor to keep up to the degrees that we have attained, and a pressing forward in them all toward perfection, are required of us. That which our Lord Jesus Christ blames in his churches, Revelation 2:3, is the decay in their profession as to these degrees. Their faith, their love, their diligence, were decayed; and they performed not the works they had some time been fruitful in. And in all these things are men liable to let go their profession. Again, growth and progress in all these is required of professors. The kingdom of God is a growing thing, and ought to be so in all them in whom it is by its grace, and who are in it by the observation of its laws. Where growth is not, profession is not held firm. This is, in general, the nature of the duty we are charged with. The principal intendment of this verse, and those following, is to declare the encouragement and assistance which we have in Christ for its discharge, as he is our high priest; which must further be insisted on, and therein a fuller explication of the things contained in this verse will be given. And the whole of what is aimed at may be comprised in this observation, — Obs. 3. Believers have great encouragement unto and assistance in the constancy of their profession, by and from the priesthood of Jesus Christ.So it is expressly laid down in the text, and to that end is it by us to be improved. And to this purpose is, — 1. The priesthood of Christ in itself, and our relation thereunto, proposed and asserted; “we have an high priest.”2. Described, —(1.) By the qualification of our’high priest; he is “a great high priest:”(2.) By his action, and his exaltation therein; he is “passed through the heavens:”(3.) By his name and nature; he is “Jesus the Son of God.”And from every one of these considerations we have both encouragement and assistance in the great duty of holding fast our profession. 1. The Lord Christ is a “high priest;” and we have in our obedience and profession a relation unto him, — he is our high priest, the “high priest of our profession.” He is the “high priest over the house of God,” not only to direct us in our profession, but also to assist us in it. The difficulty of this duty lies in the opposition that is made unto it by sin, Satan, and the world, as we have showed: he that hath not found it never yet knew what it was to profess the gospel. And the effects of it lie under our view every day; they have done so in all ages. And we can never be jealous enough of our own hearts and ways, lest we should be made an example unto others, as others have been unto us. But herein lies our help and relief; for, — (1.) Whilst we are in this condition our high priest pitieth us and hath compassion on us, Hebrews 2:17-18. This is part of his duty and office, Hebrews 5:2. And there is some help in pity, some relief in compassion. Want hereof our Savior complained of as a great aggravation of his distresses, Psalms 69:20 : “I am,” saith he, “full of heaviness: I looked for some to take pity,” (or “lament with me,”) “but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.” Compassion, indeed, doth not communicate new strength; yet it greatly refresheth the spirits of them that suffer, especially if it be from those whom they greatly value. And this we are assured of in and from our high priest, in all the oppositions and sufferings that we meet withal in the course of our profession. See Hebrews 2:17, and the two verses following in this place. He is himself on his throne of glory, on the right hand of the Majesty on high, in eternal rest and blessedness, as having finished his personal works and labor, as hath been showed; but from the habitation of his holiness he looks on his laboring, suffering, tempted disciples, and is “afflicted in all their afflictions,” and is full of compassion towards them. ‘So,’saith he, ‘was I tempted, so was I opposed. And what thus befalls them is for my sake, and not for their own;’and his bowels are moved towards them. Whose heart will not the consideration hereof refresh? whose spirit will it not revive?(2.) As our high priest, he gives us actual help and assistance in this case. The ways whereby he doth this have been partly declared on Hebrews 2:18; and must yet be spoken unto, verse 16 of this chapter. At present I shall only show in general that the aid which he gives us is sufficient to secure our profession, and conquer the opposition that is made against it; for, as hath been observed, there are three parts of it, — our faith, our obedience in general, and our especial observance of instituted worship. And there are three especial principles of the opposition made to them: — [1. Our faith is opposed by Satan and his temptations in chief, with a contribution of aid from the world and our own corruptions. Faith’s overthrow is his principal design, Luke 22:31-32. No such irreconcilable enemies as faith and the devil. And this adversary is prevailed against by our high priest. He hath contended with him, bruised his head, conquered him, bound him, spoiled him, triumphed over him, and destroyed him, Genesis 3:15; Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14-15. And shall we suffer ourselves to be deprived of our profession by one thus dealt withal in our behalf? He shall not prevail in his attempt. [2. Our obedience is opposed principally by our own corruptions, aided by Satan and the world. These “war against our souls,” 1 Peter 2:11; and tend unto death, James 1:14-15. Whence our apostle warns us to take heed that these prove not the cause of our apostasy, Hebrews 3:13. And against these also there is relief for us in and by our high priest; for as “he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil,” 1 John 3:8, or all the effects of his first temptation in our hearts; so whatever evil it intends towards us, there is a remedy provided for it and against it in his grace, his blood, and by his Spirit.[3. Our profession, as formally such, consisting in the diligent observance of the laws and ways of Christ, is continually opposed by the world, not without assistance from Satan and the treacheries of indwelling sin. But he also hath “overcome the world,” John 16:33. He hath overcome it for us, and he will overcome it in us. And who, on this account, would not be encouraged to contend earnestly for the preservation of that profession wherein they are sure they shall be assisted?Professors have an aim and an end in their profession. They do not “run in vain,” nor “fight uncertainly,” nor “beat the air,” in what they do. Now their great design is to have their profession, and their persons therein, “accepted with God.” Without this they must acknowledge themselves to be “of all men most miserable.” For what would it avail them to spend their time in fears, hazards, conflicts, sorrows and troubles in this world, and when they have done all, be rejected of God, and have their everlasting portion amongst them who take the full of their sins and satisfactions in this world? And if it be so, why do they yet suffer persecution? And yet there are two things that do vehemently assault their faith and hope in this matter: — [1. The sinfulness and unworthiness of their own persons. Whatever be the duties that they perform, yet they find their persons on many accounts so vile, as that both they and their duties may be justly rejected of God. Hence they suppose themselves to defile whatever they touch. The guilt and defilement of their consciences by sin perplex their thoughts when they consider what it is to appear before the great and holy God. [2. They find that even the duties themselves wherein their profession doth consist are so weak, so mixed and imperfect, as it is hard for them to conceive how they should obtain acceptance with God. Their endeavors are weak and faint, their strivings against sin uneven and uncertain, their prayers ofttimes languid, and a fading is on all their duties. And say they often in themselves, ‘What ground of hope is there that a profession so made up will be accepted with God, and rewarded by him?’ But against all these considerations believers have relief in their relation to this high priest; for in this matter lies the principal part of his office. As such he hath undertaken to render our persons and duties accepted with God. This he respects both in his oblation and intercession; by which two ways he dischargeth the duties of this office: — [1. By them he gives acceptance with God unto our persons. For as he hath “made reconciliation for our sins,” Hebrews 2:17, so he hath “brought in everlasting righteousness,” Daniel 9:24. Yea, he himself is “our righteousness,” Jeremiah 23:6. “In him have we righteousness and strength,” Isaiah 45:24; he being “made of God unto us righteousness,” 1 Corinthians 1:30; having been “made a curse for us,” that the blessing of faithful Abraham might be ours, Galatians 3:13-14; who “believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness,” Galatians 3:6. So that although we have no such righteousness of our own as on the account whereof our persons may be accepted with God, yet upon the account of him and his who is ours, we shall not fail thereof.[2. He dealeth so likewise in reference unto our duties: for, as he “bears the iniquity of our holy things,” Exodus 28:38, that they should not be rejected because of any sinful imperfections cleaving to them; so he adds unto them the sweet incense and perfume of his own righteousness, Revelation 8:3-4, which causeth them to come up with a grateful and acceptable savor before the Lord.And these few things have I mentioned as instances of the encouragements that we have to abide in our profession in the midst of all hazards and against all oppositions, from the consideration of this one thing, that we have a high priest; — the end aimed at in this place by our apostle. 2. There is weight added hereunto from the qualification of the person vested with that office, here expressed. He is “a great high priest.” He is so both comparatively and absolutely. He is so in comparison of others so called; and not only so, — for he may be great in comparison of another who is but little in himself, — but he is so absolutely also, as we shall see afterwards. (1.) He is great comparatively with respect unto Aaron; which the apostle, as was showed, hath in this assertion regard unto: for he is now entering upon his great design, or showing his answering unto Aaron, and his pre- eminence above him. The high priest, in his office, sacred garments, and administrations, was the principal glory of the Judaical church. If that office ceased, all their solemn worship was to cease. And so excellent was his office, so beautiful were his garments, so glorious was his work and ministry, that these Hebrews, though now in some measure instructed in the doctrine and worship of the gospel, could not be persuaded utterly to relinquish that sacred service which he had the conduct of. And here lay the principal occasion of their obstinate adherence to Mosaical institutions. They had a high priest whose order and service they were exceedingly pleased withal. The prevalency of these thoughts on their minds our apostle obviates, by letting them know that they should undergo no loss or disadvantage by the relinquishment of him; inasmuch as in that profession which they were called unto by the gospel they had in like manner a high priest, and that “a great high priest,” — that is, one incomparably exalted and preferred above Aaron and his successors; which he afterwards invincibly demonstrates. And hereby he presseth them to constancy in profession, the duty at present proposed to them. For if God had appointed destruction unto him who forsook the worship and service of the law under the guidance of Aaron and his sons, what must and will their lot and portion be who shall forsake and desert the worship of the new testament, when we have a high priest far more excellent and glorious than they? (2.) He is absolutely great: and this the apostle proves by a double instance, wherein he gives a further description of him; —[1. By his exaltation; [2. By his name and person. [1. He is “a great high priest,” because he is “passed through the heavens.” The triumphant passage of the Lord Christ into glory is that which is expressed in these words. But for the right understanding hereof some things must be premised. As,— 1st, That the person of the Lord Christ, in all that he did, was still clothed with all his offices. Yet, 2ndly In sundry things he exerciseth the power and faculty of one office, and not of another immediately. Some things he did as a king, and some things as a priest, but he is still both king and priest who doth them all. 3dly, In some things he puts forth the power of both these offices at the same time and in the same manner, though with different respects.Thus, in his passing through the heavens as king, it was his triumph over all his enemies, and his glorious ascension into his throne, or “sitting down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” as priest, it was his entrance through the veil into the holy place not made with hands, “to appear in the presence of God for us.” This is that which is here principally intended, but I shall explain the whole; because even his acting as king, though it belongs not unto him as a priest, yet it doth to his glory as he is “a great high priest.” And there are three things which herein set out his greatness and glory. 1st. His passage itself; concerning which sundry things are observable, as,(1st.) His entrance into it, or the time and place when and where he began his triumphant entry into heaven. These are recorded Acts 1:9-12. Forty days after his resurrection, assembling his disciples he spake unto them of the kingdom of God. “And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath-day’s journey.” The time is expressed verse 3. It was forty days after he was alive, “after his passion.” As he went forty days in the wilderness to be tempted of the devil before he entered on his ministry, so he continued forty days in the world triumphing over him after he had finished his ministry. But the chief reason hereof was, that whereas his apostles, who were to be the eyewitnesses of his resurrection, could not bear his continual presence with them, he might have opportunity to show himself unto them by “many infallible signs and tokens,” Acts 1:3. The place was mount Olivet, “a sabbath-day’s journey from Jerusalem,” Acts 1:12. This place was near unto Bethany, for Luke 24:50; which was a village near that mount, “about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem,” John 11:18. The Jews constantly affirm that a sabbath- day’s journey was the space of two thousand cubits, which amount not to above seven furlongs of our measure; so that John had respect unto some other measure among the Jews, or Bethany was directly on the east of the mount, which took up the other space. This mount Olivet, therefore, near Bethany, was about a mile from Jerusalem. It was on the east side of the city, whither our Lord Jesus did often retreat for prayer and rest. It was a hill so high, that from the top of it a man might look into all the streets of Jerusalem, and into the temple. This was the last of his bodily presence on the earth, and the last that shall be “until the times of the restitution of all things.” Fabulous superstition hath feigned that on a stone he left here the impression of his feet. This was the mountain unto which “the glory of the Lord went up,” when it left the temple and city of Jerusalem, Ezekiel 11:23. And so did He now who was “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” With him the glory of God utterly departed from the temple and city, or the worship and people. Here he was taken up; and his disciples were ἀτεςίζοντες, earnestly, carefully, with love, diligence, and delight, looking on whilst these things were doing. Those who had not long before seen him hanging on the cross between two thieves, bleeding and dying, now saw him gloriously and triumphantly taken up into heaven. From their eyes a cloud received him. Elijah was taken up, before, alive into heaven, 2 Kings 2:11; but it was with fire and in a whirlwind, with dread and terror, insomuch that the young prophets much questioned what was become of him. But here, when his disciples were fully instructed, and were now no longer to live by sense, but by faith, whilst they earnestly and steadily looked on him as he ascended, a cloud draws the curtain, placidly interposing between him and their sight, who were not able as yet to look on what was doing within that veil. (2dly.) This was the time and day of heaven’s triumph. Ever since the apostasy of angels and men by sin, there had been an enmity and war between heaven and earth, pleaded by the interest of heaven in the earth here below. God had sent forth his champion, the Captain of salvation, typed out of old by Joshua, and David, and all those worthies which were employed to vanquish the enemies of the church in their especial stations. He had now finished his work, having fully conquered the first apostate, the great enemy of God, and spoiled him of his power. And he was now entering into that glory which he had left for a season to engage in the difficult and perilous service of subduing all the adversaries of God. And now was all heaven prepared for his triumphant reception. As when a great conqueror of old returned from a far country, where he had subdued the enemies of his people and brought home the leaders of them captives, all the citizens went forth with applauses and shouts of joy to meet him, — to which custom our apostle alludeth in this matter, Colossians 2:15; so was it with the glorious inhabitants of heaven upon the return of this victorious Captain of salvation. So the prophet describeth the fall of the oppressing tyrant of Assyria, Isaiah 14:9“Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.”He was theirs, they had looked for him, and he was to have a principal share in their condition. How much more was heaven stirred up, when the “everlasting gates were opened; and this King of glory entered in!” The psalmist expresseth it, Psalms 47:5-6,“God is gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet. Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises.”It is the glorious ascension of the Lord Christ into his kingdom and throne which is described in that psalm; and this all are exhorted to rejoice in. (3dly.) His attendants in this his passage through the heavens are also described unto us, Psalms 68:17-18 :“The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the LORD is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high.”And this place our apostle applies to the ascension of Christ, Ephesians 4:8. As when he descended of old upon the earth at the giving of the law on mount Sinai, he was attended with the heavenly host, who ministerially wrought all those glorious and dreadful effects which were wrought on the mount, Exodus 19; so now in his ascension he was attended with the angels of God, who were as the chariots in his triumph, that carried and bore up the human nature, and waited on him, ready to do his will and to manifest his glory. They had received command from God to “worship him,” Hebrews 1:6, and now they appeared eminently in the discharge of their duty. They compassed him about with joyful acclamations, doing their obeisance unto him as to their head and king. With them, then, and by their ministry, he “passed through the heavens;” — a sight too glorious for mortal eyes to behold.(4thly.) The disposal of his enemies is also declared, Psalms 68:18 : “He ascended on high, he led captivity captive;” that is, the authors of all bondage, of all captivity in sin and misery. See the phrase explained, Judges 5:12. And this our apostle expresseth, Colossians 2:15, “He spoiled principalities and powers,” — all the fallen, apostate angels; “making a show of them openly” in his triumph. He took them along with him in chains, tied, as it were, to his chariot wheels; making a show of them to the citizens of heaven. So dealt the old Roman conquerors with their enemies: they led them in chains, bound to their triumphal chariots, making them a spectacle to the people, and then returned them to prison, unto the time appointed for their execution. So dealt he with these implacable enemies of the glory of God and the salvation of the souls of the elect: he showed them openly, as judged, conquered, and fully subdued, remanding them to their prisons, until the time of their final doom should come. Thus did he pass through the heavens; and all the glory of God was laid open for his reception, all his saints and angels coming forth to meet him, to congratulate that success the fruits whereof they had before enjoyed. 2dly. His actual reception into the especial presence of God, as the end of his passage, adds to the manifestation of his greatness and glory. This our apostle declares, 1 Timothy 3:16, ᾿Ανελήφθηἐνδόξῃ, — He was “received up into glory.” This himself calls his “entering into his glory,” Luke 24:26. See Hebrews 12:22-24. He was received gloriously into the highest heaven, the habitation of the blessed. Then and there had he his entertainment and refreshment, after all the travail of his soul. Then was the time of the espousals of his church, “the day of the gladness of his heart.” There is joy in heaven upon the returning and repentance of one sinner; and what was there when He that causes them to return, and saves all that do so, was received into his glory? No heart can conceive, much less can any tongue express, the glorious reception of the human nature of Christ in heaven. 3dly. His exaltation, which ensued upon his reception. And this respects first God himself, and then the creation.In respect of God the Father two things are spoken of him: — (1st.) That he sat down in his throne. He “overcame, and sat down with his Father in his throne,” Revelation 3:21. The throne is the place and ensign of rule and judgment. And the Father did not forego his throne, but he sits down with him in it, inasmuch as the actual administration of all rule and judgment is committed unto him, John 5:22.(2dly.) As he sat down in the throne, so it was “on the right hand of God,” or “at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” This God promised him of old, and now gave him the actual possession of it. Of these things, see our exposition on Hebrews 1:2-4.In respect of others; so he had power over the whole creation given into his hand, — “all power in heaven and in earth;” concerning which, see also the digression about his kingdom and power, on Hebrews 1:3.These things, as they were openly glorious, belonged unto his passing through the heavens as the king of his church and the captain of our salvation; but there was in the thing itself a respect unto his priestly office and the exercise thereof. So in his dying, the principal thing intended was the offering up of himself, through the eternal Spirit, an offering for sin and a sacrifice of atonement as a priest; but yet withal he died as a prophet also, “to bear witness unto the truth,” for which cause he came into the world, John 18:37. So, although he thus passed through the heavens triumphantly as a king, he at the same time, and by the same action, passed through as our high priest, as they were the veil through which he entered into the holy place: which shall, God willing, be explained on Hebrews 9:23-24. And these things belong to the greatness of our high priest upon the account of his exaltation, or his passing through the heavens; and, — [2. The second consideration of our high priest evincing his greatness, is taken from his name and person, or who he is. He is “Jesus the Son of God.” Sundry things must be observed to manifest the necessity and usefulness hereof, namely, that our high priest is and was to be “Jesus the Son of God;” — first, absolutely “the Son of God,” and then “Jesus the Son of God.” But the things of the priesthood of the Son of God being handled at large in our Exercitations, I shall only here give a brief summary of them: — 1st. Before the entrance of sin, there was no need of the office of priesthood between God and man. Everyone in his own name was to go to God with his worship; which would have been accepted according unto the law of the creation. If man, therefore, had continued in that state wherein he was made, there would have been no such office in the church of God; for it is the office of a priest to represent them acceptably unto God who in their own persons might not appear before him. This was manifest in the after solemn institution of that office, wherein the nature and work of it were declared. On all occasions that interdiction is severely repeated and inculcated, ‘None shall come near but he who is of the seed of Aaron; and if any one do so, he shall be cut off.’And this God afterwards confirmed in sundry instances, especially that of Uzziah the king, who was smitten with leprosy for attempting to approach unto the altar of incense, 2 Chronicles 26:16-21. And, by the way, God will much more sorely revenge the sin of them who take the priestly office of the Lord Christ out of his hand; as by their false, pretended sacrifices and oblations the Papists attempt to do. Now this was needless before the entrance of sin, and therefore so was the office also; for every one had acceptance with God upon the account of his own personal interest in the covenant, as hath been showed elsewhere. Whatever other rule, dignity, or pre-eminence there would or might have been in that state amongst men, the office of priesthood would have been needless, and would not therefore have been appointed; for it is not natural, but a mere institution. So are things among the angels. There is dignity and pre-eminence in their order. Hence some of them are called ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ινψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πִ ?ιν, “the first,” or “chief princess” And this they seem to retain in their apostasy, one being everywhere represented as the head of the rest: “The devil and his angels.” But every one of them was immediately to perform his service and worship unto God in his own person, without the interposition of any other on their behalf. And so would it have been with Adam and his posterity in a state of integrity and holiness. 2dly. Sin being entered into the world, there was no more worship to be performed immediately unto God. Two cannot walk together unless they be agreed, Amos 3:3. All our obedience unto God and worship of him is our “walking before him,” Genesis 17:1. This we cannot do, unless there be a covenant agreement between him and us. But this now by sin was utterly broken, and rendered useless as unto any such end. The agreement failing, the walking together also ceaseth. None could now obtain acceptance with God in any of their duties, on their own account, inasmuch as “all had sinned, and come short of his glory.” 3dly. That the worship of God might be restored again in the world, it was indispensably necessary that some one must interpose between sinners and the holy God. Should they approach unto him immediately in their own names, he would be unto them a consuming fire, Isaiah 27:4-5. And here, because God would not lose the glory of his grace, and other holy excellencies of his nature, but would have a revenue of glory continued unto him from the worship of his creatures here on earth; and because in his love he would not have all sinners to perish under the curse of the old covenant that they had broken; he found out and appointed, in the counsel of his will, the office of priesthood, — namely, that there should be one to transact the whole worship of sinners in the presence of God for them, and render what they should do themselves in their own persons acceptable unto him. This is the rise, reason, and foundation of that office which was undertaken by the Son of God; for, — 4thly. In this condition no creature could undertake the office of being a priest for the church of God, which now consisted all of sinners. This both the nature of the office itself, and the work which he was to perform that should undertake it, do declare: —(1st.) For the office itself, it was to be a gracious interposition between God and sinners. The priest must approach unto God, even to his throne, representing the persons and worship of the church unto him, rendering them and it acceptable upon his account. Who was meet to be intrusted with this honor? who amongst the creatures could undertake this office? The best of them stand in need of goodness and condescension, to obtain and continue their own acceptance with him; for in the strictness of his justice, and infinite purity of his holiness, “the heavens,” that is, the inhabitants of them, “are not pure in his sight,” and “he charged his angels with Jolly,” Job 4:18; Job 15:15. How, then, should any of them, upon his own account, and in his own name, undertake to appear for others, for sinners, in the presence of God? They were doubtless utterly unmeet to interpose in this matter. (2dly.) The general work of such a priest is utterly exclusive of the whole creation from engaging herein; for the first thing that he undertakes must be to make atonement for sin and sinners. This is his first work, and the only foundation of what else he has to do, — namely, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people in whose stead he appeareth before God. That this could not be performed by any creature I have manifested on the second chapter. Failing in this, no other thing that can be done is of any value. Wherefore, — 5thly. The Son of God undertakes to be this priest for sinners: “We have a great high priest, Jesus the Son of God.” The whole enunciation is expressive of his person jointly, and each nature therein is also distinctly signified. “The Son of God,” — which in the first place we intend and consider, — denotes his divine person and nature. How the second person in the Trinity did undertake to be a mediator and priest for all the elect of God, hath been opened in our exposition of the second chapter of the epistle, and it shall not here be again in particular insisted on. This counsel was of old between the Father and the Son, namely, that he, the Son, should become the “seed of the woman,” — that is, should be “made of a woman,” and be thereby “made under the law;” that he should come to do the will of God in making atonement by the offering up or sacrifice of himself for sin; that he should undertake the cause of sinners, pay their debts, and satisfy for their offenses, — that is, by his appearance and acting for them, he should procure acceptance for them and their services at “the throne of grace.” All this the Son of God undertook, and therein both became the high priest of his people and discharged that office for them. And herein is the mystery of God, his truth and his grace, made conspicuous, as hath been at large declared in our Exercitations; for, — (1st.) Here the sacred truth of the trinity of persons in the divine nature or essence openeth itself unto the creatures. The nature, the essence, or being of God, is absolutely and numerically one. All the natural and essential properties of that being are absolutely and essentially the same; and all the operations of this divine essence or being, according to its properties, are undivided, as being the effects of one principle, one power, one wisdom. Hence it could not by any such acts be manifested that there was more than one person in that one nature or being. But now, in these actings of the persons of the Trinity in such ways as firstly respect themselves, or their operations “ad intra,” where one person is as it were the object of the other persons’acting, the sacred truth of the plurality of persons in the same single, undivided essence is gloriously manifested. The Son undertaking to the Father to become a high priest for sinners, openly declares the distinction of the Son, or eternal Word, from the person of the Father. And in these distinct and mutual actings of the persons of it is the doctrine and truth of the holy Trinity most safely contemplated. See concerning this our Exercitations at large. (2dly.) It opens the mystery of the fountain of divine grace, the springs of life and salvation which are with God. These things flow from the counsel that was between the Father and the Son, when he undertook to be a high priest for us. Grace and mercy are the way suited to the pursuit and accomplishment of those counsels. Hereon also depend all that religion and all those institutions of worship which were of old in the church. Upon the entrance of sin there was an end put unto all the religion that was in the world, as to any glory of God or advantage to the souls of men. How came it, then, to be restored, revived, accepted? Wherefore did God appoint anew a priesthood, sacrifices, and worship? What was aimed at, attained, or effected hereby? Men were sinners still, obnoxious to the law and the curse thereof, and what could their service do or signify? Here lay the invisible foundations of this new order of things. The Son of God had made an interposition for sinners, undertaken to be their high priest, to reconcile them unto God, and thereon to make their worship acceptable unto him. God was not pleased at first to bring this forth unto light, but hid the mystery of it in himself from the beginning of the world until the fullness of time came. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ But this precedent description of our high priest may be thought to include a discouragement in it in reference unto us, which may take off from all the encouragements which might be apprehended to lie in his office. For if he be in himself so great and glorious, if so exalted above the heavens, how can we apprehend that he hath any concernment in us, in our weak, frail, tempted, sinning condition? and how shall we use either boldness or confidence in our approach unto him for help or assistance? If the apostle Peter, upon a discovery of his divine power in working of one miracle, thought himself altogether unmeet to be in his presence, whilst he was on the earth, in the days of his flesh, and therefore cried out unto him, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord,” Luke 5:8, — how much more may we be terrified by his present glory from attempting an access unto him! And how shall we conceive that, in all this glory, he will entertain compassionate thoughts concerning such poor, sinful worms as we are?‘Yea,’saith the apostle, ‘we may, on the consideration of him and his office, “come boldly to the throne of grace;” ‘the especial reason whereof, removing this objection, and adding a new sort of encouragement, he gives us, Hebrews 4:15. Hebrews 4:15. — Οὐγὰρἔχομενἀρχιερέαμήδυνάμενονσυμπαθῆσαιταῖςἀσθενείαιςἡμῶν, πεπειρασμένονδὲκατὰπάντακαθ᾿ὁμοιότητα, χωρὶςἁμαρτίας.Οὐγὰρἔχομεν. Syr., μָ ?ΰβֵּ ?ιψΰִ ?ιϊμַ ?ο, “for there is not to us;” an Hebraism, “we have not.” Μὴδυνάμενονσυμπαθῆσαι. Syr., γְּ ?μָ ?ΰξְ ?φָ ?ΰγְּ ?πֵ ?ηַ ?ωׁ, “qui non possit compati,” “qui non possit, ut patiatur;” “who cannot suffer.” Vulg. Lat., “qui non possit compati;” “that cannot have compassion,” “that cannot suffer with.” Beza, “qui non possit affici sensu;” “who cannot be affected with a sense.” Arab., “qui non possit deflere,” “that cannot mourn.”Ταῖςἀσθενείαιςἡμῶν. Syr., “with our infirmity,” in the singular number. We follow Beza, “touched with the feeling of our infirmities;” which well expresseth the sense of the words, as we shall see. Πεπειραμένον [13] δέ, “sed tentatum.” Syr., γּ ?ξְ ?πַ ?ρַּ ?ι, “who was tempted;” one copy reads πεπειρασμένον; of which word we have spoken before.[13] Πεπειραμένον is the reading of Knapp and Tischendorf, on the authority of and most other. Κατὰπάντα. Vulg. Lat., “per omnia.” Rhem., “in all things.” So Erasm. and Beza, “in omnibus,” “in all things.” Syr., αְּ ?λֻּ ?μξֵ ?γֵ ?ν, “in omni re,” “in every thing.”Καθ᾿ὁμοιότητα. Bez., “similiter.” Vulg. Lat., Erasm., “pro similitudine.” Rhem., “by similitude.” Syr., ΰλְּ ?εָ ?ϊַ ?ο, “even as we.” Ours, “like as we are,” supplying the verb substantive; “secundum similitudinem.” Χωρὶςἁμαρτίας. Bez., “absque tamen peccato;”.whom we follow in the supply of” tamen,” — “ yet without sin.” Vulg. Lat., “absque peccato,” “without sin.” Syr., ρְ ?θַ ?ψξְ ?οηֲ ?θְ ?ιϊָ ?ΰ, “excepto peccato,” “sin being excepted.” Some use we shall find in these varieties.Hebrews 4:15. — For we have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling [affected with a sense] of our infirmities; but was every way tempted in like manner [with us], without sin.The words contain a further description of our high priest, by such a qualification as may encourage us to make use of him and improve his office unto our advantage. For whereas those things which may induce us to put our trust and confidence in any, or to expect benefit or advantage thereby, may be reduced unto two heads, — 1. Greatness and power; 2. Goodness and love, — he manifests both sorts of them to be eminently in our high priest.The former he declares, Hebrews 4:14; for he is “Jesus the Son of God, who is passed through” and exalted above “the heavens.” The latter sort are ascribed unto him in these words. The causal connection, γάρ, “for,” doth not so much regard the connection of the words, or express an inference of one thing from another, as it is introductive of a new reason, enforcing the purpose and design of the apostle in the whole. He had exhorted them to “hold fast their profession” upon the account of their high priest, verse 14; and directs them to make addresses unto him for grace and strength enabling them so to do, verse 16. With regard unto both these duties, to show the reasonableness of them, to give encouragement unto them, he declares the qualifications of this high priest, expressed in this verse. These things we may, these things we ought to do, — “For we have not an high priest that cannot.” The manner of the expression is known and usual. A double negation doth strongly and vehemently affirm. It is so with our high priest, even the contrary to what is thus denied. He is such a one as can be affected. “We have an high priest.” The apostle introduceth this for another purpose. Yet withal he lets the Hebrews know that in the gospel state there is no loss of privilege in any thing as to what the church enjoyed under the law of Mosea They had then a high priest who, and his office, were the life and glory of their profession and worship. ‘We also,’saith he, ‘have a high priest;’who how much, in his person, and office, and usefulness unto the church, he excelleth the high priest under the law he hath partly showed already, and doth more fully declare in the ensuing chapters. The mention of it is introduced for another end, but this also is included in it. The people of God under the gospel are not left without a high priest; who is in like manner the life and glory of their profession, worship, and obedience. For our apostle takes a diverse course in dealing with the Gentiles and the Jews in this matter. Treating with the Gentiles, he minds them of their miserable condition before they were called to the knowledge of Christ by the gospel, as Ephesians 2:11-13; but treating with the Jews, he satisfies them that they lost no advantage thereby, but had all their former privileges unspeakably heightened and increased. And our relation to him and interest in him are expressed in this word ἔχομεν, “we have him;” or, as the Syriac, “there is to us.” God hath appointed him, and given him unto us; and he is ours, as to all the ends of his office, and by us to be made use of for all spiritual advantages relating unto God. The church never lost any privilege once granted unto it, by any change or alteration that God made in his ordinances of worship, or dispensations towards it; but, still keeping what it had before, it was carried on towards that completeness and perfection which it is capable of in this world, and which it hath received by Jesus Christ. Presently upon the giving of the first promise, God instituted some kind of worship, as sacrifices, to be a means of intercourse between him and sinners, in and by the grace and truth of that promise. This was the privilege of them that did believe. After this he made sundry additional ordinances of worship, all of them instructive in the nature of that promise, and directive towards the accomplishment of it. And still there was an increase of grace and privilege in them all They were “the mountains of myrrh and hills of frankincense” on which the church “waited until the day brake, and the shadows fled away,” Son 4:6. All along the church was still a gainer. But when the time came of the actual accomplishment of the promise, then were all former privileges realized unto believers, new ones added, and nothing lost. We have lost neither sacrifice nor high priest, but have them all in a more eminent and excellent manner. And this is enough to secure the application of the initial seal of the covenant unto the infant seed of believers. For whereas it was granted to the church under the old testament as a signal favor and spiritual privilege, it is derogatory to the glory of Christ and honor of the gospel to suppose that the church is now deprived of it; for in the whole system and frame of worship God had ordained “the better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” And he says not, ‘There is an high priest,’but, “We have an high priest;” because all our concernment in spiritual things depends absolutely on our personal interest in them. They may do well to consider this, who, 1. Either know not the nature of this priesthood, or do not at all endeavor to improve this office of Christ as that which they have an interest in. Some call themselves Christians, and exercise themselves in the outward worship of God, who are ready to despise, yea, and deride, all spiritual improvement and use of this great privilege, that we have a high priest, and scarce take it any more into any real consideration in the worship of God than if there were no such thing at all. 2. Those who, not contented with it, have invented and appointed unto themselves a priesthood and sacrifice, to the contempt of this of Christ. Had our apostle dealt with these Hebrews on the principles of the present church of Rome, he would have told them, ‘You had under the law an high priest, but we have now a pope, a pontifex maximus, a great high priest; far richer, braver, and more potent, than yours was. You had many bloody sacrifices, but we have one in the host, of more use and profit than were all yours whatever.’But dealing with the principles of the gospel, he declares and proposeth to them “Jesus the Son of God,” as our only priest, sacrifice, and altar, — expressly intimating that others we have none. “That cannot be touched with a feeling,” “who cannot be affected with a sense,” “who cannot suffer with.” The negative expression, μὴδυνάμενον, “who cannot,” as it includes and asserts a power and ability for the work or acts mentioned, so it doth it in opposition unto and to the exclusion of some other considerations, that infer a disability to this purpose. Now, the ability here intended is either moral only, or moral and natural also. If it be moral only, and intend a constant goodness, kindness, tenderness, and benignity, attended with care and watchfulness, unto the end proposed, it may be asserted in opposition to the high priests among the Jews. For as they were the best of them but men, and sinful men, who did ofttimes indulge to their private and carnal affections, to the disadvantage of the people of God, — as did Eli, to the ruin of the church’s worship, 1 Samuel 2:17; 1 Samuel 2:22-25; 1 Samuel 2:28-30, etc., — and were none of them able at any time to have a due comprehension of all the temptations and infirmities of the people; so many of them were evil men, proud, haughty, wrathful, and such as despised their brethren and relieved them not at all. In opposition hereunto, it is affirmed of our high priest that he is able to do quite otherwise, — that is, with a moral ability of heart, will, and affections. He can and doth, always and constantly, concern himself in all the sins, sufferings, sorrows, temptations, and infirmities of his people. Again; there may not only be a moral but also a natural ability included in the word. And in this sense there is respect had unto the human nature of Christ, and something moreover ascribed unto him [morel than could have been in him if he had been God only, — which is a great encouragement unto us to make our addresses to him for help and assistance. And this seems to be designed from the following words, wherein mention is made of his being “tempted like unto us.” To understand this ability, we must inquire into the meaning of the next word, expressing that which it is applied unto or exercised about. Συμπαθῆσαι. I have showed how variously this word is translated, — “to suffer,” “to suffer with,” “to have compassion,” “to be touched with a feeling,” “to be affected with a sense,” “to condole” or “bewail.” The word is once more used by our apostle in this epistle, and nowhere else in the New Testament, Hebrews 10:34, Τοῖςδεσμοῖςμουσυνεπαθήσατε, where we render it by “having compassion:” “Ye had compassion of me in my bonds;” though I should rather say, “Ye suffered with me in my bonds.” 1 Peter 3:8, the noun συμπαθής occurs, where we render it again “having compassion.” And, indeed, the origination of that word “compassion” is comprehensive of its whole sense; but its common use for “pity” is not. Συμπζεῖς is more fully rendered in that place by Beza, “mutuo molestiarum sensu affecti,” — “affected with a mutual sense of the troubles of each other.” First, Συμπαθέω includes a concern in the troubles, or sufferings, or evils of others, upon the account of concernment in any common interest wherein persons are united, as it is in the natural body. Sometimes some part is affected with a disease, which hath seized on it. Another part of the body is affected with it, although nothing of the disease hath really seized on it. That part thereof cannot be said to be absolutely sick or ill-affected, for no part of the disease is in it; but it may be said συμπάσχειν, — that is, not to be free from being affected, though not upon its own account, Galen, de Locis Affectis, lib. 1. This suffering is by the consent or harmony that is in the same nature branched into its individuals. So we have a sense of the suffering of humanity or of human nature, wherein we are interested, in other men, in any man whatever. Secondly, It includes a propensity to relieve them in whose troubles or sufferings we are concerned, and that whether we have power to effect that relief or no. So David, in the deep sense that he had of the death of Absalom, wished that he had died for him, or relieved him from suffering by dying in his stead. And where this is not in some measure, there is no sympathy. We may not be able, in some cases where we are concerned, to relieve; it may not be lawful for us, in some cases, to give that help and succor which our compassion would incline us unto; but if there be no such inclination there is no sympathy. Thirdly, Properly it contains in it a commotion of affections, which we express by “condolentia;” whence the Arabic renders the word “who can mourn with us” So is the Hebrew πεּ ?γ used, Psalms 69:21 : ΰֲ ?χַ ?εֶּ ?δμָ ?πεּ ?γ; LXX., ῾Υπέμεινασυλλυπούμεονον· — “I looked for any to be grieved with me;” “to be affected with sorrow on my behalf;” “to take pity,” say we; “to lament with me,” by a motion or agitation of their affections, as the word signifies. And those intended are joined with ξְ ?πַ ?ηֲ ?ξִ ?ιν, “comforters.” This belongs to this sympathy, to have a moving of affection in ourselves upon the sufferings of others.And these things are here ascribed unto our high priest on the account of his union with us, both in the participation of our nature and the communication of a new nature unto us, whereby we become “members of his body,” one with him. He is deeply concerned in all our infirmities, sorrows, and sufferings. This is attended with an inclination and propensity to relieve us, according to the rule, measure, and tenor of the covenant; and herewithal, during the time of our trials, he hath a real motion of affections in his holy nature, which he received or took on him for that very end and purpose, Hebrews 2:16-18.In this sense of the word, σομπαθῆσαι, “to be affected with a sense,” ascribes this ability in a moral and natural sense unto the Lord Christ, our high priest, as he is man, in contradistinction unto God absolutely, whose nature is incapable of the compassion intended. There are, indeed, in the Scripture assignations of such kind of affections unto God; as Isaiah 63:9, αְּ ?λָ ?μφָ ?ψָ ?ϊָ ?νμֹ ?ΰφָ ?ψ. For μֹ ?ΰ, “not,” the reading is μεֹ, “to him;” and accordingly we translate it, “In all their afflictions he was affected;” or, “there was straitening, affliction unto him,” — he was afflicted with their straits and afflictions But there is an anthropopathy allowed in these expressions. These things are assigned unto God after the manner of men. And the true reason of such ascriptions, is not merely to assist our weakness and help our understandings in the things themselves, but to show really what God doth and will do in the human nature which he hath assumed, and intended to do so from of old; on which purpose the superstructure of his dealing with us in the Scripture is founded and built. And thus it is said of our high priest that “he is able to be affected with a sense of our infirmities,” because in his human nature he is capable of such affections, and, as he is our high priest, is graciously inclined to act according to them. Ταῖςἀσθενείαιςἡμῶν, “our infirmities.” ᾿Ασθενεία, “imbecillitas,” “debilitas,” “infirmitas,” is used, both in the Scripture and all Greek authors, for any debility, weakness, or infirmity, of body or mind. Frequently bodily diseases are expressed by it, as by the adjective ἀσθενής, and the verb ἀσθενέω, “to be sick,” “to be diseased,” with respect unto the weakness or infirmity that is introduced thereby, Matthew 10:8; Matthew 25:43; Luke 4:40; John 5:3; John 5:5. And sometimes it expresseth the weakness of the mind or spirit, not able, or scarcely able, to bear the difficulties and troubles that it is pressed withal, 1 Corinthians 2:3; weakness of judgment, Romans 14:2; spiritual weakness, as to life, grace, and power, Romans 5:6; Romans 8:26. So that this word is used to express every kind of imbecility or weakness that doth or may befall our natures with respect unto any difficulties, troubles, or perplexities that we have to conflict withal. And whereas it is here mentioned generally, without a restriction to any special kind of infirmities, it may justly be extended to all weaknesses of all sorts that we are, or upon any pressures may be, sensible of; but whereas, in the following words, the reason of the ability of Christ, our high priest, to be affected with a sense of our infirmities, is placed in his being tempted, it is manifest that the weaknesses here chiefly intended are such as respect afflictions and temptations, with persecution for the gospel. Our infirmities and weaknesses under these things, to wrestle with them or remove them, and consequently our trouble, sorrow, suffering, and danger, by them and from them, our high priest is intimately affected withal. He takes himself to be concerned in our troubles, as we are members of his mystical body, one with him; he is inclined from his own heart and affections to give in unto us help and relief, as our condition doth require; and he is inwardly moved during our sufferings and trials with a sense and fellow-feeling of them. Obs. The church of God hath a standing, perpetual advantage, in the union of our nature to the person of the Son of God, as he is our high priest.We all acknowledge that so it is with us, upon the account of the sacrifice that he was to offer for us. He had thereby somewhat of his own to offer. Thence it was that “God redeemed his church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28; and that “he laid down his life for us,” 1 John 3:16. But we are apt to think that this work being well over, we have now no more concernment in that nature nor advantage by it, but that what yet remains to be done for us may be as well discharged by him who is only God, and absolutely so in every respect. For since he “dieth no more,” what profit is there in his flesh? It is true, the flesh of Christ, carnally and sensually considered, “profiteth nothing,” as he told the Capernaites of old, John 6. And they will find his words true, who, in their own imagination, turn bread into his flesh every day. Yea, and our apostle tells us, “though he had known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth he knew him so no more,” 2 Corinthians 5:16;that is, though he had known Christ in the days of his flesh here in the world, whilst as a mortal man he conversed with mortal men, yet all the privilege thereof and advantage thereby, which some in those days boasted of, were past, and of use no longer; he was now to be known after another manner, and under another consideration, — as exalted at the right hand of God. Yet doth not all this in the least impeach our assertion of the greatness of our concernment in the continuation of his human nature in the union of his person. If, when he had finished his sacrifice, and the atonement which he made for sin, by the offering up of himself, he had then left off his human nature, which he had for that end taken on him, notwithstanding that offering we could not have been delivered nor saved. For besides that he himself had not been sufficiently manifested to be the Son of God for us to have believed on him, seeing he was “declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead,” Romans 1:6; so our apostle declares that without his resurrection from the dead we could neither be delivered from our sins nor have been ever raised again unto glory, 1 Corinthians 15:12-21.It is therefore confessed that many and great are the advantages of the resurrection of the body of Christ, and therein of his human nature; for this was the way and means of his entrance into glory: He “revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living,” Romans 14:9. And this was the testimony that he was acquitted and discharged from the penalty of the law, and the whole debt he had undertaken to make satisfaction of unto God for sinners, Acts 2:24, Romans 8:33-34; without which we could have said of him only as the disciples did when they knew not of his resurrection, “We trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel,” Luke 24:21. And hereby had he an illustrious and uncontrollable testimony given to his being the Son of God, Romans 1:4; as also, he laid the foundation and gave an infallible pledge of the future blessed resurrection, which all that believe in him shall by him obtain. But this being also past and over, what further concernment hath the church in the continuation of the union of his natures? I might mention many, and those of the greatest importance. For there yet remained some parts of his mediatory work to be discharged, which could not be accomplished without this nature; for he had not yet appeared in the holy place with his own blood, whereby he had made atonement, that the whole sacrifice might be completed. And the exaltation of our nature in glory was needful for the supportment and consolation of the church. But I shall mention that alone which is here proposed by our apostle, namely, his ability from thence to be affected with a sense of our infirmities and sufferings. This, as I have showed, is appropriate unto him on the account of his human nature. And on this account we may consider his compassion four ways: — 1. As it is an eminent virtue in human nature as absolutely innocent. So was the nature of Christ from the beginning; for therein was he “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” Now, though in that blessed estate wherein we were created there was no actual object for us to exercise compassion upon or towards, seeing every thing was at rest in its proper place and order, yet was there no virtue more inlaid in our rational constitution, as being absolutely inseparable from goodness and benignity, upon a supposition of a suitable object. Hence they are justly esteemed to be fallen into the utmost of degeneracy from our first make, frame, and state, and to be most estranged from our common original, who have cast off this virtue where it may and ought to have its actual exercise. Nor are any more severely in the Scripture reflected on than those who are unmerciful and without compassion, fierce, cruel, and implacable. No men more evidently deface the image of God than such persons. Now, our nature in Christ was and is absolutely pure and holy, free from the least influence by that depravedness which befell the whole mass in Adam. And herein are the natural virtues of goodness, benignity, mercy, and compassion, pure, perfect, and untainted. And he hath objects to exercise these virtues on which Adam could not have, and those such as are one with himself, by their participation in the same common principles of nature and grace. 2. This compassion is in him as a grace of the Spirit. For besides the spotless innocency and purity of our nature in him, there was a superaddition of all grace unto it, by virtue of its union with the person of the Son of God and the unction it had from the Spirit of God. Hence there was an all-fullness of created grace communicated unto him; for he received not the Spirit and his graces by measure, John 3:34. Of this fullness compassion is a part, and that no mean part neither; for of this rank and kind are all the principal fruits of the Spirit, Galatians 5:22-23. And in and by these did he make a representation of God’s nature unto us, which he hath described as full of pity, compassion, and tender affections; whence he compares himself unto those creatures and in those relations which have the most intense and merciful affections, And hereby doth the compassion of Christ, our high priest in our human nature, receive an eminent exaltation. 3. He had a peculiar furnishment with graces, virtues, habits of mind, and inclinations, suited to the good and useful discharge of his office in our behalf. The Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and peculiarly anointed him to that end, Isaiah 11:2-4; Isaiah 61:1-3. Now unto the office of a high priest it is in especial required that he should be able to have compassion, Hebrews 5:2; the reasons whereof we shall see afterwards. He had, therefore, in his human nature, an especial provision of compassion inlaid by the Holy Ghost, by whom he was anointed, for the due discharge of this office. Thus was he every way framed in his nature unto mercy and compassion. And whereas there seems nothing now wanting but an outward object of weakness, infirmities, and temptations, to excite and occasion the exercise of this virtue and grace, that this might be the more effectual to that purpose, — 4. He took an experiencs of such sufferings in himself as are the proper objects of compassion when they are in others. This the next words declare, which we shall afterwards consider.By these means is the nature of our high priest filled with tenderness, compassion, or sympathy, the foundation of whose exercise towards us lies in the oneness of his nature and ours. And these things belonging to the pure constitution of his nature, and receiving their improvement by the unction of the Spirit, are not lessened or impaired by his present glorification; for they all belonging unto him on the account of his office, continuing still in the exercise of the same office, their continuation also is necessary. And hence it is, namely, because of our concernment therein, that he gave so many particular instances of his retaining the same human nature wherein he suffered. For he did not only “shew himself alive to his disciples after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,” Acts 1:3,providing particularly that they should not think or take him now to be a mere spirit, and so to have lost his natural human constitution, saying unto them, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,” Luke 24:39;— but when he left the world with that body of flesh and bones, the angels witnessed that he should “come again in like manner” as he then went away, Acts 1:11. For “the heaven must” in that nature “receive him until the times of the restitution of all things,” Acts 3:21. And to confirm our faith in this matter, he appeared afterwards in the same nature to Stephen, Acts 7:56; and to our apostle, telling him that he was “Jesus whom he persecuted,” Acts 9:5. All this to assure us that he is such a high priest as is able to be “affected with a sense of our infirmities.” And those who by the monstrous figment of transubstantiation, and those others who feign the Lord Christ to have an ubiquitarian body, both of them by just consequence destroying the verity of his human nature, do evert what lies in them a main pillar of the church’s consolation. Much more do they do so who deny him to retain the same individual body wherein he suffered, in any sense. Herein lies a great advantage of the church, a great encouragement and supportment unto believers under their infirmities, in their trials and temptations. For, — 1. It is some relief to be pitied in distress. The want hereof Job complained of, and cried out pathetically about it: Job 19:21,“Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me.”It went unto his heart, to find that his friends were not affected with a sense of his sufferings; and it added exceedingly to the weight of them. And such was the complaint of David, as a type of Christ: Psalms 69:20,“Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness; and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.”It is a representation of the state of our Savior when all his disciples fled and left him, and he was encompassed with fierce and reproaching enemies. This is a high aggravation of the sorrows and sufferings of any that are in distress. And there is relief in compassion. Some going to the stake have been much refreshed with a compassionate word whispered unto them. And it cannot but be a cause of great refreshment unto believers, in all the hardships that befall them, and their weakness under them, that they have the compassion of their high priest accompanying of them. He is in himself exceedingly great and glorious, nearly allied unto us, able to relieve us, being far above all those persons and things that occasion our troubles, for they are all under his feet; all which considerations render his compassion, as before described, refreshing and relieving. 2. Herein lies a great encouragement to make our addresses unto him in all our straits and weaknesses. For if he be so concerned in us and our troubles, if he be so affected in himself with a sense of them, and have in his holy nature, and upon the account of his office, such a propensity to relieve us, which also he is so able for, as hath been declared, — what should hinder us from making our addresses unto him continually for help and supplies of his assisting grace, according as our necessities do require?But this being the peculiar use that the apostle makes of this doctrine in the next verse, it must be there considered. 3. There lies no small warning herein, how heedfully we should take care that we miscarry not, that we faint not in our trials. He looks on us with a great concernment, and his glory and honor are engaged in our acquitting of ourselves. If we have a due regard to him and his love, it will excite us unto all care and diligence in the discharge of every duty we are called unto, notwithstanding the difficulties that it may be attended withal.In the next words an especial reason is assigned of this merciful ability of our high priest to be “affected with a sense of our infirmities:” “But was in all things tempted as we are, yet without sin.” The assertion which is the ground of the reason assigned, is that he was “tempted;” — expressed with the extent of it; it was κατὰπάντα, “in all things;” and an appropriation unto our concernment, “like as we are;” with a limitation of the extent and appropriation, “yet without sin.”The whole substance of what is here intended hath been largely treated on, Hebrews 2:17, whither I refer the reader, that we may not repeat the same things again. Some very few words may be added, in the explication of what is peculiar to this place.Πεπειραμένονδέ. The particle δέ, “but,” is contradictory to what was before denied: ‘He is not such a one as cannot be affected, but one who was himself tempted.’And this plainly shows that what is now introduced is the principal proof of the former assertion: ‘It is evident that he can be “affected with a sense of our infirmities,” because he was “tempted.” ’Πεπειραμένον, “tempted;” that is, “tried,” “exercised,” for no more doth the word originally import. Whatever is the moral evil in temptation, it is from the depraved intention of the tempter, or from the weakness and sin of the tempted. In itself, and materially considered, it is but a trial, which may have a good or a bad effect. How, whereby, or wherein our high priest was thus tried and tempted, see the place before mentioned. Κατὰπάντα, “every way,” “in all things;” that is, from all means and instruments of temptation, by all ways of it, and in all things, wherein as a man, or as our high priest, he was concerned.Καθ᾿ὁμοιότητα, “secundum similitudinem,” “in like manner.” There is a plain allusion or relation unto the temptation of others. For whatever is “like,” is of necessity like to somewhat else; and what is done in “like manner,” or “according to similitude,” hath something that answers unto it. Now this is the trials and temptations of them that do believe, the things that press on them by reason of their weakness. See as above.Χωρὶςἁμαρτίας, “without sin.” Sin with respect unto temptation may be considered two ways; —1. As the principle of it; 2. As its effect.1. Sin sometimes is the principle of temptation. Men are tempted to sin by sin, to actual sin by habitual sin, to outward sin by indwelling sin, James 1:14-15. And this is the greatest spring and source of temptations in us who are sinners. 2. It respects temptation as the effect of it, that which it tends and leads unto, which it designs, which it bringeth forth or produceth. And it may be inquired with respect unto which of these considerations it is that the exception is here put in on the behalf of our high priest, that he was “tempted without sin.” If the former, then the meaning is, that he was tried and tempted by all ways and means, from all principles and causes, in like manner even as we are, excepting only that he was not tempted by sin, which had no place in him, no part, no interest, so that it had no ground to make suggestions unto him upon. And hereby the apostle preserves in us due apprehensions of the purity and holiness of Christ, that we may not imagine that he was liable unto any such temptations unto sin from within as we find ourselves liable unto, and which are never free from guilt and defilement. If the latter be intended, then all success of temptation upon our high priest is denied. We are tried and tempted by Satan, and the world, and by our own lusts. The aim of all these temptations is sin, to bring us more or less, in one degree or other, to contract the guilt of it. Of times in this condition sin actually ensues, temptation hath its effect in us and upon us; yea, when any temptation is vigorous and pressing, it is seldom but that more or less we are sinfully affected with it. It was quite otherwise with our high priest. Whatever temptation he was exposed unto or exercised withal, as he was with all of all sorts that can come from without, they had none of them in the least degree any effect in him or upon him; he was still in all things absolutely “without sin.” Now, the exception being absolute, I see no reason why it should not be applied unto sin with both the respects unto temptation mentioned. He neither was tempted by sin, such was the holiness of his nature; nor did his temptation produce any sin, such was the perfection of his obedience. And concerning all these things the reader may consult the place before mentioned. The last verse of this chapter contains an inference from what was discoursed in the two foregoing, as the contexture of the words declares. The exhortation is insisted on, Hebrews 4:14, that we would “hold fast our profession” unto the end. The motive and encouragement hereunto is taken from the consideration of the priesthood of Christ, with the several concerns thereof before explained. Here a further improvement of them in particular is directed unto, for the same end; for it is supposed that we may meet with many difficulties, oppositions, and temptations, in the discharge of that duty, which in and of ourselves we are not able to conflict withal and to overcome. Wherefore we are guided and encouraged to seek for help and assistance against them on the account of what hath been declared concerning the priesthood of the Son of God. Hebrews 4:16.— ΠροσερχώμεθαοὗνμετὰπαῤῥησίαςτῷθρόνῳτῆςΧάριτος, ἵναλαβωμενἔλεον, καὶχάρινεὔρωμενεἰςεὔχαιρονβοήθειαν.Ου῏ν, “therefore;” — ‘seeing we have an high priest, and him such a one as we have described.’The consideration hereof is to encourage, guide, and influence us unto the ensuing duty, and in all the concerns of it Without this we have no might unto it, no ability for it. Προσερχώμεθα, “let us come;” so we. But that is only ἐρχώμεθα. There is some addition of sense from the composition. Nor is it by any translators rendered “veniamus” singly, “let us come;” but “adeamus,” or “accedamus,” or “appropinquemus,” — “let us come to” “draw near,” or “approach.” Syr., πֶ ?ϊְ ?χַ ?ψַ ?α, “let us draw near,” in a sacred manner, or to sacred purposes. So have we rendered the mine word, Hebrews 10:22; and it is used absolutely for to come unto God in his worship, Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 11:16. It answers χָ ?ψַ ?α in the Hebrew, which, as it is used for “to approach” or “draw nigh” in general, so it is peculiarly used to signify the solemn approach that was to be made unto God in his worship or service. Hence, also it signifies “to offer sacrifices and offering,” which are thence called χָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?πִ ?ιν. The word, therefore, hath respect unto the access either of the people of old with their sacrifices to the altar in the temple, or the priests’approach unto the holy place, as the next words will more fully declare. Having asserted the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to be our high priest, as typed out by the high priest among the Jews, he expresseth our addresses unto God by him, in answer to the way and manner whereby the priests or people of old made their approaches unto God, as that which agreeth therewith in its general nature, though on other accounts variously exalted above it: ‘“Let us draw near,” in a holy, sacred manner, according to his appointment;’that is, with our prayers and supplications. Μετὰπαῤῥησίας, “with boldness.” This word hath been spoken unto on Hebrews 3:6. Here it is variously rendered. Syr. αּ ?βְ ?μֵ ?ΰςִ ?ιο, “with an open” or “revealed eye,” Vulg. Lat. “cum fiducia,” “with confidence.” So the Arabic. By the Ethiopic it is wholly omitted. Beza, “cure loquendi libertate,” “with liberty of speech” or “speaking.” It is a principal adjunct of the worship of God which our apostle expresseth in this word, both here and Hebrews 10:19; and this somewhat that is peculiar to theworship of the new testament in opposition unto that of the old. This he elsewhere calls ἐλευθερίαν, “liberty,” 2 Corinthians 3:17; the libertythat is given by the Holy Spirit under the new testament unto believers, which those who were kept under bondage by the letter of the old had no interest in: “For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” And he calls it πρόσωτονἀνακεκαλυμένον, 2 Corinthians 3:18, “open face;” whence is the “oculus revelatus” of the Syriac in this place. This, as it hath an especial opposition to the veil that was on the Jews, and is to this day, filling them with darkness and fear, so it denotes boldness and confidence of mind, in a freedom from fear, shame, and discouragements.There are, therefore, two things that the apostle intends to remove, and to have us free or delivered from, in our drawing near to the throne of grace with our prayers and supplications, on the account of the interposition of our high priest: — First, A bondage frame of spirit, or a “spirit of bondage unto fear,” which was upon the people under the old testament in the worship of God. This he elsewhere frequently both ascribes unto them and removes from us, Romans 8:14-15; 2 Corinthians 3:12-18. God, in the giving of the law and the institution of the ordinances of worship, wherein he taught the people how he would be reverenced by them, had so encompassed himself with fire and terror, that it ingenerated a great and awful horror in their minds. This made them remove and stand afar off, desiring that God would not approach to them, nor that they might approach unto God, but that all things between them might be transacted at a distance, by an internuncius, Exodus 20:18-19. This legal diffidence and distrust in our approaches unto God, which shuts up the heart, straitens the spirit, and takes away the liberty of treating with him as a father, is now by Christ removed and taken away, Galatians 4:4-6. Christ was “made under the law,” to deliver us from the dread and bondage of it; whereby, also, we receive the adoption of children, and therewithal the Spirit of Christ, to treat with God with the liberty, boldness, and ingenuity of children, crying “Abba, Father,” with the genuine actings of faith and love. Secondly, A disbelief of acceptation, arising from a sense of our own unworthiness. From an apprehension of God’s greatness and terror there arises a dread in persons under the law; and from the consideration of their own vileness there arises a distrust in sinners, accompanied with fear and despondency, as though there were no hope for them in him or with them. This also the apostle would remove, upon the account of the priesthood of Christ. The manner assigned unto us for our approach to God includes all this. We are to do it μετὰπαῤῥησίας, “with boldness;” which word imports, —1. “Orationis,” or “orandi libertatem.” Παῤῥησία is πανρησία, “a freedom and liberty in speaking;” rendered here by Beza, “loquendi libertas.” This liberty is internal and spiritual, and is opposed unto the legal diffidence and bondage before described. This therefore, in the first place, is our spiritual liberty and freedom, attended with a holy confidence, in our access unto God, to make our requests known unto him, expressing our condition, our wants, our desires, freely and with confidence.2. “Exauditionis fiduciam,” or a spiritual confidence of acceptance with God through the interposition of Jesus Christ. In another place our apostle seems to make this to be a thing distinct from the παῤῥησία here mentioned: Ephesians 3:12, ᾿Ενᾧἔχομεντὴνπαῤῥησίαν, καὶτὴνπροσαγωγὴνἐνπεποιθήσει, διὰτῆςπίστεωςαὐτοῦ· — “In whom we have boldness, and an access with confidence, through the faith that is in him.” Our “access with confidence” includes a persuasion of acceptance, and is distinguished from the “boldness” that it is accompanied withal; but yet as this παῤῥησία and προσαγωγὴἐνπεποιθήσει, this “boldness” and “access with confidence,” are inseparable in and from the same duty, so they may be mentioned the one for both in other places, as here they seem to be. And we thus “draw near,” — Τῷθρόνῳτῆςχάριτος, “to the throne of grace.” The proper and immediate object of our access or approach is and must be a person. Who that is, is not here expressed, but left to be understood from the manner of his being represented unto us. A throne is a seat of majesty, and is ascribed to God and men; to God frequently, as he is ξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, the “great king over all. Isaiah saw him “on a throne, high and exited,” Isaiah 6:1; and Ezekiel, as on “the likeness of a throne,” Ezekiel 1:26. So “justice and judgment” are said to be “the habitation of his throne,” Psalms 89:14. There they abide and dwell, when other thrones have but some partial visits from them. In general, heaven is said to be God’s throne, Matthew 5:34, as the place where principally he manifests his glory and majesty. But the expression being metaphorical, is not to be restrained to any one thing in particular. The Hebrews say that God hath a double throne; λρΰδγιο, “a throne of judgment;” and λρΰψηξιν, “a throne of compassion;; and tender mercy, — that is, θρόνοςτῆςχαρίτος, a “throne of grace. A throne, then, is the place where and from whence judgment is exercised and mercy administered; and therefore our coming unto God in his worship for mercy and grace, is said to be a coming unto his throne. Or there may be an allusion unto the mercy-seat in the tabernacle, which being laid on the ark with a coronet of gold round about it, and shadowed with the cherubim, it was as the throne or seat of God in that most solemn representation of his presence amongst that people; for that which the apostle here calls our “coming to the throne of grace,” in Hebrews 10:19 he expresseth by “drawing nigh with boldness into the holiest,” the place where the ark and mercy-seat were placed. And it is the love and grace of God in Christ which was thereby represented, as hath been manifested elsewhere. Our next inquiry is after the person whom we are distinctly to consider as on this throne in our addresses thereunto. Some say ‘it is the Lord Christ as our mediator and high priest who is intended: for concerning him directly is the discourse immediately preceding; he is also in particular here described as our merciful, faithful, and careful high priest, — all which are encouragements to come unto him, which accordingly we are exhorted unto, and that with boldness; and a throne is peculiarly ascribed unto him in this epistle, Romans 1:8; and he sits in the throne of God, Romans 3:21; and at his throne of grace we may be sure of acceptance.’ But yet this seems not to be the especial intention of this place. For, — 1. A throne, rule, and government, are ascribed unto the Lord Christ with respect unto his kingly and not his priestly office, of which the apostle here discourseth. It is said indeed of him that he should be “a priest upon his throne,” Zechariah 6:13; but that is to intimate the concomitancy of his kingly power as inseparable from his person, — he shall be a priest, though sitting, or whilst he sits as a king on his throne.2. Wherever the Lord Christ is spoken of as on his throne, exalted in the glory and majesty of his kingdom, it is always with reference to his power and authority over his church for to give laws and rules unto it for his worship, or over his enemies for their ruin and destruction.3. The context requires another sense; for the Lord Christ, in his office and interposition on our behalf, is not proposed as the object of our coming, but as the means of it, and a great encouragement unto it; for “through him we have an access by one Spirit unto the Father,” Ephesians 2:18. On the account of his undertaking for us, his appearance before God on our behalf, the atonement he hath made, we may come in his name with confidence of acceptance unto the throne of God. See Revelation 4:2-3, Hebrews 7:25.I cannot omit one argument that is used by Primasius, Haymo, and Ludovicus de Tena, on this place, to prove that it is the throne of Christ that is here intended. And this is because it is called a “throne of grace;” ‘that is,’say they, ‘of Christ, for so is he called by our apostle, Hebrews 2:9.’For, following the Vulgar translation, and reading the words, “ut gratia Dei gustaret mortem pro omnibus,” they say “gratia” is of the nominative and not of the ablative case, — that “the Grace of God should taste of death for all.” And herein Tena urgeth the consent of Thomas and the ordinary gloss. Such woful mistakes do men, otherwise wise and learned, fall into, who undertake to expound the Scriptures without consulting the original, or an ability so to do. The “throne of grace,” therefore, is unto us, God as gracious in Christ, as exalted in a way of exercising grace and mercy towards them that through the Lord Jesus believe in him and come unto him.This is the duty exhorted unto. The end hereof is twofold: — 1. General and immediate; 2. Particular, as an effect and product thereof. The general end hath two parts: — (1.) “That we may obtain mercy;”(2.) “That we may find grace.” The particular and determinate end of all is, — “seasonable help,” “help in a time of need.”The first thing designed, as a part of the end ‘to be aimed at in the discharge or performance of this duty, is, ἵναλάβωμενἔλον, “that we may receive mercy,” “that we may obtain mercy.” Λαμβάνω doth sometimes signify “to obtain,” “to acquire;” and so by most interpreters it is here tendered, “ut obtineamus,” “ut consequamur,” as by ours, “that we may obtain;” but the first and most usual signification of the word is only “to receive,” or “to take,” “that we may receive.” And I see no reason why that sense of it may not be most proper unto this place; for the apostle seems to intimate that mercy is prepared for us, only our access unto God by Christ with boldness is required to our being made actual partakers thereof. And this answers his prescription of “boldness,” or spiritual confidence in our approaches to the throne of grace for the receiving that mercy which in and through Christ is prepared for us. “That we may receive ἔλεος.” This word is often used to signify that “mercy” in God from whence we obtain and receive the pardon of our sins, — mercy in pardoning, ηρְּ ?μִ ?ιηַ ?δ. So most expound this place, that we may obtain mercy for our sins, that we may be pardoned. But this doth not seem to answer the present purpose of the apostle; for he is not discoursing about sin in the guilt of it, but about temptations, afflictions, and persecutions. Wherefore the ἔλεος, or “mercy,” here intended, must be that which is the principle or cause of our supportment, assistance, and deliverance, — namely, in the effects of it. This is ηֶ ?ρֶ ?γin the Hebrew, which the LXX. frequently render by ἕλεος, and we by “mercy,” though it rather signifies “kindness and benignity,” than pardoning grace. Moreover, it is not about the first approach of sinners unto God by Christ for mercy and pardon, whereof he treats, but about the daily access of believers unto him for grace and assistance. To “receive mercy,” therefore, is to be made partakers of gracious help and supportment from the kindness and benignity of God in Christ, when we are in straits and distresses; which springs, indeed, from the same root with pardoning grace, and is therefore called “mercy.”Καὶχάρινεὕρωμεν, “and that we may find grace.” This is the next general end of our access, unto the throne of grace. Εὕρωμεν, “that we may find, or rather “obtain;” for so is this word often used. And there may be a twofold sense of these words: — 1. “To find” or “obtain favor,” or favorable acceptance with God. When God is pleased χαριτῶσαι, to make us acceptable unto himself in Christ, as he is said to do, Ephesians 1:6, then we find χάριν, “grace,” or “favor” with him. And this is the foundation of all grace that is communicated unto us. The phrase of speech occurs frequently in the Old Testament. “Let me find grace in thine eyes,” or “favor in thy sight;” that is, “be accepted with thee,” — ξָ ?φָ ?ΰηֵ ?ο. And to this doth εὔρεινχάριν exactly answer; and that is, “to be accepted.” See Genesis 6:8; Genesis 18:3, Ephesians 1:6. So is the Greek phrase, Acts 7:46, ῝ΟςεὗρεχάρινἐνώπιοντοῦΘεοῦ, — “Who found favor in the sight of God;” Luke 1:30, ΕὗρεςγὰρχάρινπαρὰτῷΘεῷ, — “ Thou hast found favor with God.” So we, instead of “grace;” and thence, Luke 1:28, she is said to be κεχαριτωμένη, “graciously accepted,” or “highly favored.”This sense is pious, and agreeable to the analogy of faith; our free, gracious acceptance with God is the foundation and cause of all that grace or assistance that we are made partakers of. But, — 2. The apostle is not treating of the personal acceptance of sinners or believers in or by Christ in this place, but of that especial assistance which, upon particular addresses unto him, we do obtain. Now this may be considered two ways: —(1.) In respect of the fountain of it, and so it is “beneficentia,” the will of God to assist us; or, (2.) Of the effect itself, the “beneficium,” the actual assistance and help we do receive. So when our apostle, in his strait upon his temptation, made his address to God for relief, he received that answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness,” 2 Corinthians 12:9. Wherein he had an intimation both of God’s gracious care and good- will towards him, as also of the actual powerful assistance which he should be supplied with against his temptation. And this sense is determined by the next words. Εἰςεὔχαιρονβοήθειαν. What kind of help βοήθεια is hath been declared on Hebrews 2:18. It is a “succor;” that is, aid yielded unto any upon their cry. Θεῖνεἰςβοήν, “to run in to assist upon the cry of any,” is the original of the word’s signification. And this help is, — Εὔχαιρος, “seasonable;” that is, help αְּ ?ςִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ, “in its time,” its proper time or season. Proverbs 15:23, γָ ?αָ ?ψαְּ ?ςִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ξַ ?δΰּ ?θεֹ ?α; — “A word in its time” (or “its season”); “how good is it!” Help that is fit, suitable, seasonable, — that is, on the part of God that gives it, of the persons that receive it, of the time wherein it is afforded, of the end for which it is bestowed, — is εὔχαιρος. This kind of help it becometh the greatness and wisdom of God to give. And it is an impression on the minds of men by nature that such kind of help is from God. Hence the proverb, Θεὸςἀπὸμηχανῆς, for unexpected aid when all things otherwise would be lost. This the psalmist excellently expresseth, Psalms 46:2, ςֶ ?ζְ ?ψָ ?δαְ ?φָ ?ψεֹ ?ϊπִ ?ξְ ?φָ ?ΰξְ ?ΰεֹ ?γ; — “God is a help wonderfully found in straits.” And so the Syriac version adds in this place, “help in time of affliction” or “persecution.” Grace, therefore, effectual for our assistance in every time of need, upon our cry to God in Christ, is that which is here intended. I know not whether I may add an allusion that may be found in the Hebrew words, if respect may be had to that language here. For as λִּ ?ρֵּ ?ΰ is a “throne,” the throne whereunto we approach for help; so λֶּ ?ρֶ ?ΰis as much as ζְ ?ξָ ?οan “appointed time” or” season.” We come μַ ?λִּ ?ρֵּ ?ΰfor help αλֵּ ?ρֶ ?ΰ.We have opened the words in their order as they lie in the text. Our observations from the resolution of the sense will arise from the last clause and ascend unto the first; and in them the meaning of the words themselves will be yet more fully explained; as, — Obs. 1. There is, there will be a season, many a season in the course of our profession and walking before God, wherein we do or shall stand in need of especial aid and assistance.This is included in the last words, “help in a time of need,” — help that is suitable and seasonable for and unto such a condition, wherein we are found earnestly to cry out for it. This I shall a little enlarge upon. Our condition all along and in all things is wanting and indigent. We do live, we must live, if we intend to live, always in a constant dependence on God in Christ for supplies. There is a continual ἐπιχορηγίατοῦΠνεύματος, Philippians 1:19, or “additional supply of the Spirit” unto what we have received, without which we cannot well spiritually subsist one moment. And “God supplies all our wants according to his riches in glory” (that is, his glorious riches in grace) “by Christ Jesus,” Philippians 4:19. But besides that want which always attends our condition in this world, and which God constantly supplies according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, there are especial straits and difficulties, which in especial seasons we are exposed unto. I need not prove this to them that read; they have found it, they have felt it, and so have I also. I shall therefore only call over a few instances of such seasons, some whereof we have already been exercised in, some whereof we cannot escape for the future, and the rest may probably befall us, if they have not done so already. 1. A time of affliction is such a season. God is a help αְ ?φָ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ Psalms 46:2, in all sorts of straits and afflictions. And the Scripture abounds in instances of believers making their especial application unto God for especial assistance in such a season, and directions for them so to do. And the rule of the covenant in sending relief, is upon the coming up of the cry of the afflicted unto God, Psalms 50:15, Exodus 2:23-25. And let men’s stock of wisdom, grace, experience, and resolution, be what it will, or what they can fancy, they are not able to go through with the least new affliction to the glory of God without new especial aid and assistance from him.2. A time of persecution is such a season, yea, it may be the principal season here intended; for hence arose the great danger of these Hebrews in the course of their profession, as our apostle declares at large, Hebrews 10. And this is the greatest trial that in general God exerciseth his church withal. In such a season some seed quite decayeth, some stars fall from heaven, some prove fearful and unbelieving to their eternal ruin. And few there are but that, where persecution is ‘urgent, it hath some impression upon them to their disadvantage. Carnal fears, with carnal wisdom and counsels, are apt to be at work in such a season; and all the fruit that comes from these evil roots is bitter. Hence many make it their only design, in such a send, on, to creep through it and live; to be “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might,” unto the performance of all the duties which the gospel requireth, and as it requires them, they have no design. But by this means, as God hath no revenue of glory from them, nor the church of advantage, so they will scarce find inward peace when outward trouble is over. This, then, is a season wherein, if ever, an especial address is needful for especial aid. 3. A time of temptation is such a season. Our apostle found it so when he had the “messenger of Satan sent to buffet him.” Thrice did he pray and cry out for especial assistance against it, or deliverance from it; and he got assurance of them both. This, added to the former, completed the condition of these Hebrews. With their persecutions they had manifold temptations. These made it a time of need unto them. In reference to this season and the power of it doth our apostle give that great caution, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” 1 Corinthians 10:12. And wherein doth this heedfulness principally consist? In an application to him who is “faithful, who will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that we may be able to bear it,” 1 Corinthians 10:13; that is, who will give out seasonable help, “help in a time of need.”4. A time of spiritual desertion is such a season. When God in any way withdraws himself from us, we shall stand in need of special assistance. “Thou didst hide thy face,” saith David, “and I was troubled.” Trouble will ensue on God’s hiding himself from us. But this is of the mystery of his grace, that when he withdraws himself from any soul as to sense and experience, whereby it is troubled, he can secretly communicate of himself unto it in a way of strength whereby it shall be sustained.5. A time wherein we are called unto the performance of any great and signal duty is such a season also. So was it with Abraham when he was called first to leave his country, and afterwards to sacrifice his son. Such was the call of Joshua to enter into Canaan, proposed to our example, Hebrews 13:5; and of the apostles to preach the gospel, when they were sent out “as sheep in the midst of wolves.” Now, although we may not perhaps be called in particular to such duties as these, yet we may be so to them which have an equal greatness in them with respect unto us and our condition. Something that is new, that we are yet unexperienced in, something that there is great opposition against, somewhat that may cost us dear, somewhat that as to the state of the inward and outward man we may seem to be every way unfit for, somewhat that the glory of God is in an especial manner concerned in, we may be called unto. And there is nothing of this nature which doth not render the time of it a season wherein we stand in need of especial aid and assistance. 6. Times of changes, and the difficulties wherewith they are attended, introduce such a season. “Changes and war,” saith Job, are against me,” Job 10:17. There is in all changes a war against us, wherein we may be foiled if we are not the more watchful, and have not the better assistance. And freedom from changes is in most the ground of carnal security: Psalms 55:19, “Because they have no changes, therefore they fear not God.” Changes will beget fear; they are trials to all that are subject unto them. And these we are in all instances of life continually obnoxious unto. No man can enumerate the vicissitudes of our course; yet no one of them can we pass through in a due manner without renewed especial assistances of grace.7. The time of death is such a season. To let go all hold of present things and present hopes, to give up a departing soul entering into the invisible world, and an unchangeable eternity therein, into the hands of a sovereign Lord, is a thing which requires a strength above our own for the right and comfortable performance of.Now it is easy to apprehend how great an influence these things have into our whole course of walking before God, and how much of our lives and ways is taken up with them, — either afflictions, or persecutions, or temptations, or defections from God, or signal difficult duties, or changes, are continually before us, and the last of them, death, lies still at the door, — and there is none of these but render their seasons times of need. It may, indeed, then be said, ‘Wherein doth the specialty of the grace and aid mentioned consist, seeing it is that which we always stand in need of, and always receive?’I answer, that indeed all grace is special grace. It proceeds not from any common principle, but from the especial love of God in Christ; and is given out in an especial, distinguishing manner; and that for especial ends and purposes; so that no supply of it hath a peculiar specialty in its own nature. But it is here so called because it is suited unto especial occasions, to be “seasonable help in a time of need.” And although we may stand in need of it always, yet we do not so always on the same account, which gives it its specialty. Sometimes one thing, sometimes another, makes it needful and suitable. That which presently presseth upon us, be it affliction or persecution, be it duty or change, it makes the grace we seek for “help in a time of need.” And God is pleased so to dispose of things that we shall have occasion at all times to make our applications unto him for especial assistance. If things should be left unto an ordinary course, without some peculiar concernment to excite us, to awaken us, it is inconceivable how formal and secure we should quickly grow. Wherefore we have, in the wisdom of God, always somewhat that in particular presseth upon us, to make us intent, earnest, and vigilant in our addresses to him for help. And the especial supplies which we obtain on any particular occasion afford a contribution of new spiritual strength to the soul for all its duties. The remaining observations may be briefly presented; for hence it appears, — Obs. 2. That there is with God in Christ, God on his throne of grace, a spring of suitable and seasonable help for all times and occasions of difficulty. He is “the God of all grace,” and a fountain of living waters is with him for the refreshment of every weary and thirsty soul.Obs. 3. All help, succor, or spiritual assistance in our straits and difficulties, proceeds from mere mercy and grace, or the goodness, kindness, and benignity of God in Christ: “That we may receive mercy, and obtain grace to help.” Our help is from grace and mercy; and thence must it be, or we must be forever helpless. And, not to exclude that sense of the words, —Obs. 4. When we have, through Christ, obtained mercy and grace for our persons, we need not fear but that we shall have suitable and seasonable help for our duties. If we “obtain mercy” and “find grace,” we shall have “help.”Obs. 5. The way to obtain help from God is by a due gospel application of our souls for it to the throne of grace: “Let us come” for it “to the throne of grace.” How this application is to be made by faith and supplications, and how indispensable it is for the procuring of the aid aimed at, shall be elsewhere declared. Obs. 6. Great discouragements are used to interpose themselves in our minds and against our faith, when we stand in need of especial help from God, and would make our application unto him for relief. It is included in the exhortation to “come with boldness;” that is, to cast off and conquer all those discouragements, and to use confidence of acceptance and liberty of speech before him.Obs. 7. Faith’s consideration of the interposition of Christ in our behalf, as our high priest, is the only way to remove discouragements, and to give us boldness in our access unto God: “Let us come therefore with boldness;” that is, on the account of the care, love, and faithfulness of Christ as our high priest, before discoursed on. And we may add, — Obs. 8. That in all our approaches unto God, we are to consider him as on a throne. Though it be a “throne of grace,” yet it is still a throne; the consideration whereof should influence our minds with “reverence and godly fear” in all things wherein we have to do with him.These observations are, as included in the text, so of importance in themselves, as concerning the principal parts of the life of faith, and our daily spiritual exercise in our walking before God; yet I shall forbear any enlargements upon them, that these discourses be not drawn forth unto too great a length. ΜόνῳτῷΘεῷδόξα. THERE are three general parts of this chapter; — First, A description of the office and duties of a high priest, Hebrews 5:1-4. Secondly, The application of this general description unto the person and priesthood of Jesus Christ in particular, Hebrews 5:5-10.Thirdly, An occasional diversion into a reproof of and expostulation with the Hebrews, for and about their backwardness in learning the mysteries of the gospel, begun in this, and carried on in the beginning of the next chapter, Hebrews 5:11-14.In the First part, the general description of a high priest is given:1. From his original; he is “taken from among men.”2. From the nature of his office; he is “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.”3. From the especial end of it; to “offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins,” Hebrews 5:1. 4. From the qualification of his person for the discharge of his office; for he must be one that “can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way:” whereunto is subjoined the ground of that qualification; for “he himself also is compassed with infirmity,” Hebrews 5:2. 5. From the continual duty arising from his office and personal qualification for it, in respect of others and himself; for “by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins,” Hebrews 5:3. 6. From his call to his office: which is, —(1.) Asserted to be from God, “And no man taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God;”(2.) Exemplified in the instance of Aaron’s, “As was Aaron,” Hebrews 5:4. Secondly, The ἀπόδοσις, or “application” of this description unto the person of Jesus Christ (which is the second part of the chapter), is not to show an exact conformity thereunto, as though all things should be the same, and even or equal, in the high priest which he had described and him whom he would now represent unto them. This would have been contrary to the design of the apostle. For the description he hath given us of a high priest is of him, or such a one as the Hebrews had under the law; and his purpose was to show them how much more excellent a priest he was of whom he treated. There must, therefore, of necessity be sundry differences between them. Wherefore, in the application of this description of a legal high priest unto the person and office of Christ, three things (as we shall show afterwards in particular) the apostle aimeth at: — 1. To demonstrate that there was nothing essentially requisite unto the constituting of any one to be a high priest, or in the discharge of that office, but it was found in and agrees unto the Lord Jesus Christ;2. Whatever was of weakness or infirmity in the high priest of old, on the account of his infirm and frail condition, that Jesus Christ was free from;3. That he had in this office several pre-eminences and advantages which the old high priest was not partaker of or sharer in: which things will in our progress be explained.Hence the application made by the apostle of the precedent description is not to be expected such as should exactly correspond with it in all particulars. Wherefore, — 1. By a ὕστερονπρότερον, he insisteth first, in the application, on the last instance of his description, namely, the call of a high priest. And this as to the person of Christ is expressed, —(1.) Negatively, “He glorified not himself to be made a priest:” (2.) Positively, it was of God; which he proves by a double testimony, one from Psalms 2:7, the other from Psalms 110:4-6. 2. On the discharge of his office whereunto he was so called of God:which he describes, — (1.) From the season of it; “it was in the days of his flesh:”(2.) The manner of its performance; “he offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears:(3.) The general issue of it; he “was heard in that he feared,” Hebrews 5:7. 3. He proceeds by the anticipation of an objection, and therein the declaration of a singular pre-eminence that he had above all other priests, with the love and condescension with which the discharge of his office was accompanied; together with the great benefit which ensued thereon: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” Hebrews 5:8.4. The glorious end of his priesthood, manifesting the incomparable excellency of it above that of Aaron, is expressed Hebrews 5:9. All issuing, —5. In a summary description of his call and office, as he intends afterwards to enlarge upon them, Hebrews 5:10.The third part of the chapter contains a diversion unto a reproof of and expostulation with the Hebrews, about the things concerning which he intended to treat with them: wherein is expressed, — 1. The occasion; and that, —(1.) On the part of the things which he treated about, not absolutely, but with respect unto them, “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered;”(2.) On their part, “Seeing that ye are dull of hearing,” Hebrews 11:2. This fault of theirs, occasioning their reproof, is aggravated, —(1.) From the means and advantages to the contrary which they had enjoyed, Hebrews 5:12;(2.) By a particular elegant description of the nature of that weakness, evil, and defect which he blamed in them, Hebrews 5:12-13; (3.) By a declaration of the contrary virtue, the want whereof in them he complains of, Hebrews 5:14.This is the substance of the discourses of this chapter, considered apart by themselves. We must also inquire into their relation unto those foregoing, and the design of the apostle in them, which is twofold; for, — First, They have respect unto his general purpose and aim. And herein they contain an entrance into a full and particular description of the sacerdotal office of Christ, with the excellency of it, and the benefits which thereby redound unto the church. This was the principal intention of the apostle in the writing of this epistle; for besides the excellency of the doctrine hereof in itself, and the inestimable benefits which the whole church receiveth thereby, it was peculiarly for many reasons necessary for the Hebrews, as hath been showed. Wherefore in the first chapter he lays down a description of the person of Christ, which, under the new testament, is vested with all those sacred offices in and over the church of God which were typically exercised by others under the old. Of these, in the following chapters he more particularly treats of his kingly and prophetical; comparing him therein with Moses and Joshua, showing in sundry instances his pre-eminence above them. He had also by the way interserted several things concerning his sacerdotal office, with a general description whereof, and declaration of the advantage of the church thereby, he closeth the foregoing chapter. In all these things it was the purpose of the apostle not to handle them absolutely, but with respect unto that exercise of them which, by God’s appointment, was in use in the church of the Hebrews under the old testament; for that the nature of his treaty with them did require. And herein he effected two things, both apposite unto his principal end; for, — 1. He declares what it was in all those institutions which God intended to instruct them in, seeing they were all “shadows of good things to come.” So he lets them know that whatever esteem they had of them, and however they rested in them, they were not appointed for their own sakes, but only for a time, to foresignify what was now, in the person and mediation of Christ, actually and really exhibited unto them.2. He makes it evident how exceedingly the way and worship of God which they were now called unto, and made partakers of under the gospel, did excel those which before they were intrusted with; whence the conclusion was easy and unavoidable, unto the necessity of their stead-. fastness in the profession of the gospel, — the principal thing aimed at in the whole.On these grounds, the apostle undertaketh a comparison between the priesthood of Aaron and his successors and that of Jesus Christ, which was prefigured thereby. And this he doth with respect unto both the ends mentioned; for, first, he shows them how they were of old instructed in the nature and use of that priesthood which, according to the promise of God, was to be introduced and erected in the church in the person of his Son. Hence he lays down sundry things which they knew to belong unto the priesthood of old, whence they might learn somewhat, yea much, of the nature of this now exhibited, seeing they were instituted on purpose to declare it, although they did it but obscurely. And then also he makes known the excellency of this priesthood of Christ above that of old, as the substance excels the shadow, and the permanent thing represented, the obscure and fading representations of it. Unto the handling of these things an entrance is here made, which, with sundry occasional diversions, is pursued to the end of the 10th chapter. Secondly, In particular, the present discourse of this chapter hath relation unto what immediately precedes in the close of the foregoing; for having therein proposed to their consideration the priestly office of Christ, and given a glorious description of it in general, with respect unto his person and exaltation, he shows how greatly this conduces to the advantage and’ consolation of the church, as may be seen in the text, and our exposition of it. To confirm what be had so proposed, and to strengthen our faith in expectation of the benefits expressed, he enters upon a particular description of that office as exercised by Christ; and in this respect the ensuing discourse renders the reasons and gives the grounds of what he had immediately before laid down and declared. Πᾶςγὰρἀρχιερεὺςἐξἀνθρώπωνλαμβανόμενος, ὑπὲρἀνθρώπωνκαθίσταταιτὰτρὸςτὸνΘεὸν, ἵναπροσφέρῃδῶράτεκαὶθυσίαςὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν.᾿Εξἀνθρώπων. Syr., γְּ ?ξֵ ?οαְּ ?βַ ?ιπָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ “who is of” (or “from amongst”) “the sons of men.” ῾Υπὲρἀνθρώπωνκαθίσταται. Syr. μָ ?σαְּ ?πַ ?ιπָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰχָ ?ΰֵ ?ν “stands for men;” that is, in their stead. τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν. Syr, ΰִ ?ιμֵ ?ιογְּ ?γַ ?ΰμָ ?δָ ?ΰΰִ ?πֵ ?ιο, “over the things which are of God,” or which belong to him; not so properly, as we shall see. The Arabic renders τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν,” in the things that are offered unto God;” a good sense of the words. And the Ethiopic is, “appointed for men with” (or “before”) “God;’ that is, to do for them what is to be done with God. Vulg. Lat., “in iis quae sunt ad Deum,” “in the things appertaining unto God,” or which are to be done with him. So Arias, “ea quae ad Deum,” to the same purpose. Beza, “in iis quae sunt apud Deum peragenda,” “in the things that are to be performed towards God;” more properly than ours and the Rhemists, “in things pertaining to God,” for so do things innumerable, on one account or other, that are not here intended. Δῶρα. Syr., χιּ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?πΰ, “oblations,” “offerings;” a general name for all sacrifices.Πᾶςγὰρἀρχιερεύς, — that is, λָּ ?μλֹּ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, “even chief” or “great priest.” Or as the Syriac, λֻּ ?μψַ ?αλּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψֵ ?ΰ “prince” or “chief of the priests.” The first mention of a high priest is Leviticus 21:10, δַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μξֵ ?ΰֶ ?ηָ ?ιοδַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο “the priest that is great among his brethren.” LXX., ὁἱερεὺςὁμέγαςἀπὸτῶνἀδελφῶναὐτοῦ. Jun., “sacerdos qui maximus est fratrum suorum.” All the males of the family of Aaron were equal, and brethren, as to the priesthood; but there was one who was the head and prince of the rest, whose office was not distinct from theirs, but in the discharge of it, and preparation for it there were many things peculiarly appropriated unto him. And these things are distinctly appointed and enumerated in several places. The whole office was firstly vested in him, the remainder of the priests being as it were his present assistants, and a nursery for a future succession. The whole nature of the type was preserved in him alone. But as in one case our apostle tells us of these high priests themselves, that by the law they “were many,” — that is, succession one after another, “because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death,” Hebrews 7:23, (one single high priest had been sufficient to have represented the priesthood of Christ, but because God would have that done constantly during the continuance of that church-state, and every individual person of them died. in his season, they were to be multiplied by succession;) so because of their weakness, and the multiplied carnal services which they had to attend unto, no one man was able to discharge the whole office, there were others therefore added unto the high priest for the time being, as his assistants, which were so far also types of Christ as they were partakers of his office. But because the office was principally collated on and vested in the high priest, and because many important parts of the duty of it were appropriated unto him; as also, because the glorious vestments peculiar to the office, made “for glory and for beauty,” to represent the excellency and holiness of the person of Christ, were to be worn by none but him; he alone is singled out as the principal representative of the Lord Christ in this office. And the high priest was a single person, there was but one at one time, the better to type out the office of Christ. It is true in the gospel there is mention τῶνἀρχιερέων, of the “high priests” that then were, Matthew 2:4; Matthew 16:21, which we render “chief priests.” So Sceva, the father of the vagabond exorcists, is said to be ἀρχιερεύς, Acts 19:14. But these were only such as were ἐκγένουςἀρχιερατικοῦ, Acts 4:6, of the stock and near kindred of him who was at present high priest, or of that family wherein at present the high priesthood was; for out of them in an ordinary course a successor was to be taken. It may be, also, that those who were the heads or chiefs of the several orders or courses of the priests were then so called. But absolutely by the law the high priest was but one at one time. And it is of the high priest according to the law of Moses that the apostle speaks. Grotius thinks otherwise: “Non tantum legem hic respicit; sed et morem ante legem, cum ant primogeniti familiarum, aut a populis electi reges, inirent sacerdotium;” — “He respects not only the law, but the manner before the law, when the firstborn of the families, or kings chosen by the people, took and exercised the priesthood.” But it is of a high priest distinctly concerning whom the apostle speaks; and that there were any such among the people of God, either by natural descent or the consent of many, before the law, is not true. And this supposition is contrary to the design of the apostle, who treats with the Hebrews about the privileges and priesthood which they enjoyed by virtue of the law of Moses. So he says expressly, Hebrews 7:11, “If perfection were by the Levitical priesthood.” That is it whereof he speaks. And verse 28, “The law maketh men high priests.” He discourseth of the priests appointed by the law, that is, of Moses, and of them only. Some expositors of the Roman church, as our Rhemists, take occasion to assert the necessity of a Christian priesthood to offer sacrifices to God, as also to dispose of all things wherein the worship of God is concerned, and to reprove kings and princes if they interpose aught therein, it being a matter wherewith they have not any thing to do. But they cannot really imagine that the apostle had the least intention to teach any such thing in this place; and therefore the most sober interpreters amongst them do confine their discourses unto the Levitical priesthood. Yea, indeed, the purpose of the apostle is to prove that all priesthood properly so called, and all proper sacrifices to be offered up by virtue of that office, were issued in the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, seeing the sole use and end of them were to represent and prefigure these in the church. And to deny them now to be passed away, or to plead the continuance of any other proper priesthood and sacrifice, is to deny that Jesus is come in the flesh; which is “that spirit of antichrist,” 1 John 4:3.᾿Εξἀνθρώπωνλαμβανόμενος, “taken from among men.” This expression is not part of the subject of the proposition, or descriptive merely of that which is spoken of, as if the whole should be, “every high priest taken from among men;” in which way and sense they are restrictive of the subject spoken of, as containing a limitation in them, and so intimate that it is thus with every high priest who is taken from amongst men., though it may be otherwise with others who are not so. But this is one of the things which is attributed unto every high priest, every one that is so absolutely; he who is so is to be “taken from among men.” And “ex hominibus assumptus” is as much as “ex hominibus assumitur,” is taken from amongst men; and the whole sense may be supplied by a copulative interposed before the next words, “is taken from amongst men, and is ordained.” This is, then, the first thing that belongs unto a high priest, and which here is ascribed unto him, “he is taken from amongst men.” And two things are here considerable: — 1. That he is from amongst men; and, 2. That he is taken from amongst them.1. He is ἐξἀνθρώπων, and herein two things are included: —(1.) That he is “naturae humanae particeps.” He is, and must be, partaker in common of human nature with the rest of mankind, or he is not, on many reasons, meet for the discharge of this office. Neither the divine nature nor angelical is capable of the exercise of it for men; and this is principally intended.(2.) That antecedently unto his assumption unto this office he was among the number of common men, as having nothing in his nature to prefer him above them. So was it with Aaron; he was a common man amongst his brethren, yea, a mean man in bondage, before his call to office. The first of these declares what every high priest is and ought to be; the latter, what the first legal high priest actually was.I showed before that in this description of the office of a high priest, and the application of it unto Jesus Christ, those things which are essential thereunto, and without which it could not be duly executed, are found in him, and that in a far more perfect and excellent manner than in the priests of the law; but those things which, although they were found necessarily in all that were vested with this office, yet belonged not to the office itself, nor the execution of it, but arose from the persons themselves and their imperfections, they had no place in him at all. So is it here. It was essential to the office itself that he should be partaker of human nature; and that it was so with the Lord Christ our apostle signally declares, with the reason of it, Hebrews 2:14 : but it was not so that he should be absolutely in the common state of all other men, antecedently to his call to office; for so the apostle declares that he was not, but he was the Son, the Son of God, Hebrews 5:8. So “the Son was consecrated,” that is, a priest, “forevermore,” Hebrews 7:28. For he was born into this world king, priest, and prophet unto his church.2. Λαμβανόμενος, “assumptus,” or “is taken,” is separated from them. Being made a high priest, he is no more of the same rank and quality with them.῾Υπὲρἀνθρώπωνκαθίσταται, τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν, “is ordained for men.” ῾Υπὲρ is sometimes “vice,” or “loco,” “in the stead,” John 10:11; John 10:15; John 13:38; sometimes “pro,” only as it denotes the final cause, as to do a thing for the good of men, 2 Timothy 2:10. And both these senses may have place here; for where the first intention is, the latter is always included. He that doth any thing in the stead of another, doth it always for his good. And the high priest might be so far said to stand and act in the stead of other men, as he appeared in their behalf, represented their persons, pleaded their cause, and confessed their sins, Leviticus 16:21.But ‘in their behalf,’or ‘for their good and advantage, to perform what on their part is with God to be performed,’is evidently intended in this place. ΚαθίσταταιτὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν. Some suppose that because καθίσταται is, as they say, “verbum medium,” it may in this place have an active signification; and then the sense of it would be, that he might “appoint,” “ordain,” or “order the things of God.” But as it is used most frequently in a neuter or a passive sense, so in this place it can be no otherwise. So the apostle explains himself, Hebrews 8:3, Πᾶςἀρχιερεὺςεἰςτὸπροσφέρεινδῶράτεκαὶζυσίαςκαθίσταται, — “Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices;” which place expoundeth this. And two things are intended in the word: —1. God’s designation and appointment; 2. Actual consecration according to the order of the law. For so it was in the case of Aaron.1. God gave command that he should be set apart to the office of the priesthood. “Take Aaron thy brother, saith God to Moses, ξִ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?κְ αּ ?πֵ ?ιιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μ, “from amongst the children of Israel” (that is, ἐξἀνθρώπων, “from among men”) “that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office,” Exodus 28:1. This was the foundation of his call, separation, and function.2. He was actually consecrated unto his office by sundry sacrifices, described at large, Exodus 29. So was he ordained τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν. Now this latter part of his ordination belonged unto the weakness and imperfection of that priesthood, that he could not be consecrated without the sacrifice of other things. But the Lord Christ, being both priest and sacrifice himself, he needed no such ordination, nor was capable thereof. His ordination, therefore, consisted merely in divine designation and appointment, as we shall see. And this difference there was to be between them who were made high priests by the law, and which had infirmity, and him who was made by the word of the oath of God, who is the Son, Hebrews 7:28.ΤὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν. The expression is elliptical and sacred; but what is intended in it is sufficiently manifest, namely, the things that were to be done with God, or towards God, in his worship, to answer the duties and ends of the office of the priesthood, — that is, to do the things whereby God might be appeased, atoned, reconciled, pacified, and his anger turned away. See Hebrews 2:17.῞Ιναπροσφέρῃδῶράτεκαὶθυσίαςὑπέρἁμαρτιῶν, — “that he may offer,” εַ ?ιּ ?χְ ?ψֵ ?αthe word compriseth the whole sacerdotal performance from first to last, in bringing, slaying, and burning the sacrifice, according to the law; of which see Leviticus 1-5 and our former Exercitations concerning the sacrifices of the Jews. The object of this sacerdotal action is δῶρακαὶζυσίαι. Interpreters are much divided about the application of these words unto the ancient sacrifices. Some think they answer ξπְ ?ηεֹ ?ϊand ςεֹ ?μεֹ ?ϊ, any “offering” in common, and “whole burnt-offerings;” some ωְׁ ?μָ ?ξινand ςεֹ ?μֹ ?ϊ, “peace-offerings” and “burnt-offerings;” some ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊand ΰָ ?ωְׁ ?ν, the “sin” and “trespass-offering.” The most general opinion is, that by “gifts” all offerings of things inanimate are intended, — as meats, drinks, oils, first-fruits, meal, and the like; and by “sacrifices,” the offerings of all creatures that were slain, — as lambs, goats, doves, whose blood was poured on the altar. And this difference the words would lead us unto, the latter signifying directly the offering of things killed or slain. But our Savior seems to comprise all offerings whatever under the name or “gifts” Matthew 5:23. And if a distinction be here to be supposed, I should think that by “gifts” all “freewill offerings” might be intended; and by “sacrifices,” those that were determined, as to occasions, times, and seasons, by the law. But I rather judge that the apostle useth these two words in general to express all sorts of sacrifices for sin whatever; and therefore that expression, ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, “for sins,” may refer to δῶρα, “gifts,” as well as to θυσίας, “sacrifices.”Hebrews 5:1. — For every high priest, taken from amongst men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.What is the relation of these words unto the discourse of the apostle, both in general and particular, hath been declared before. I shall pursue that only which is particular and immediate. Having therefore proposed the priesthood of Christ as a matter of great advantage and comfort unto believers, he engageth into the confirmation thereof, by declaring the nature of that office, making application of what he observes therein unto the Lord Christ, as our high priest. In this verse we have, as was said, a general description of a high priest, as his office was constituted and consummated by the law. For, — 1. he is described from his original. He is one “taken from among men,” from amongst those for whom he is to be a priest, that so he may be one partaker of the same nature with them, Exodus 28:1. He was not to bean angel, whose nature was incapable of those compassionate impressions which are required unto a due discharge of this office. Besides, the administrations of an angel amongst sinners would have been attended with dread and terror, and have taken away that spiritual boldness and confidence which a high priest is to encourage men unto. Moreover, there would not have been hereby any representation of that union between the Lord Christ and us which was indispensably necessary unto our high priest, who was to be himself both priest and sacrifice. Wherefore a high priest was to be “taken from among men,” and so was our Lord Christ, as hath been at large declared on Hebrews 2:10-16. And we are taught that,—Obs. 1. Christ’s participation of our nature, as necessary unto him for the bearing and discharge of the office of a high priest on our behalf, is a great ground of consolation unto believers, a manifest evidence that he is and will be tender and compassionate towards them. The reader may consult what hath been discoursed to this purpose on Hebrews 2:10-11, etc.2. He is described from the nature of his office in general, he is “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” There are things to be done with God on the behalf of men as sinners, and with respect unto sin, as is declared in the close of the verse. Hence arose the necessity of priests, as we have showed elsewhere. Had there been no sin, no atonement to be made with God for sin, every one in his own person should have done that which appertained unto God, or what he had to do with God. For God required nothing of any man but what he might do for himself. But now, all men being sinners, God will not immediately be treated withal by them; and besides, there is that now to be done for them which in their own persons they cannot perform. It was therefore upon the account of the interposition of Jesus Christ, with respect unto his future priesthood, that any one was ever admitted to treat with God about an atonement for sin; and this was the ground of the typical priesthood of old. Those priests were “ordained for men in things pertaining to God.” Obs. 2. It was the entrance of sin that made the office of the priesthood necessary. This hath been abundantly confirmed elsewhere.Obs. 3. It was of infinite grace that such an appointment was made. Without it all holy intercourse between God and man must have ceased; for neither,1. were the persons of sinners meet to approach unto God, nor, 2. was any service which they could perform, or were instructed how to perform, suited unto the great end which man was now to look after, — namely, peace with God.For the persons of all men being defiled, and obnoxious unto the curse of the law, how should they appear in the presence of the righteous and holy God? Isaiah 33:14; Micah 6:6-7. It may be it will be said, ‘That these priests themselves, of whom the apostle treateth in the first place, were also sinners, and yet they were appointed for men in things appertaining unto God; so that sinners may appear in such matters before the Lord.’I answer, It is true, they were so. And therefore our apostle says that they were to offer for their own sins as well as for the sins of the people, verse 3; but then they did none of them officiate in that office merely in their own names and on their own account, but as they were types and representatives of him who had no sin, and whose office gave virtue and efficacy unto theirs. Again, men in their own persons had nothing to offer unto God but their moral duties, which the law of their creation and the covenant of works required of them. Now these, as is known, for many reasons were no way meet or able to make atonement for sin, the great work now to be done with God, and without which every thing else that can be done by sinners is of no consideration. God therefore appointing a new service for this end, namely, that of sacrifices, appointed also a new way, with performance by a priest in the name and behalf of others. And a most gracious appointment it was, as that on which all blessed intercourse with God and all hopes of acceptance with him do solely depend. Though the occasion was grievous, the relief is glorious. Obs. 4. The priest is described by the especial discharge of his duty or exercise of his office; which is his “offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” This is the proper and principal work of a priest, as we have at large declared in our Exercitations. Priests and sacrifices are so related as that they cannot be separated. Take away the one, and you destroy the other. And these sacrifices here are “for sin;” that is, offered unto God to make atonement, propitiation, and reconciliation for sin. Obs. 5. Where there is no proper propitiatory sacrifice there is no proper priest. Every priest is to “offer sacrifices for sin;” that is, to make atonement. And therefore, —Obs. 6. Jesus Christ alone is the high priest of his people; for he alone could offer a sacrifice for our sins to make atonement. This our apostle designs to prove, and doth it accordingly, in this and the ensuing chapters.Obs. 7. It was a great privilege which the church enjoyed of old, in the representation which they had, by God’s appointment, of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ in their own typical priests and sacrifices. In themselves they were things low and carnal, such as could by no means expiate their sins: that is a work not to be done by the blood of bulls and goats. An expectation of that issue and effect by the mere virtue of such sacrifices, is the highest affront to the nature, rule, holiness, and righteousness of God. But this was their glory and excellency, that they typed out and represented that which should really accomplish the great and mighty work of taking up the controversy between God and man about sin.Obs. 8. Much more glorious is our privilege under the gospel, since our Lord Jesus hath taken upon him, and actually discharged, this part of his office, in offering an absolutely perfect and complete sacrifice for sin. Here is the foundation laid of all our Peace and happiness. And this is now plainly proposed unto us, and not taught by types or spoken in parables. Their teachings of old were obscure, and therefore many missed of the mind of God in them. Hence some thought that they must trust to their sacrifices for their righteousness and pardon. Of these, some took up with them, and rested in them to their ruin. Others, more galled with their convictions, thought of other ways, and how they might outdo what God required, seeing they could not trust unto what he did so require, Micah 6:6-7. But now all things are clearly revealed and proposed unto us; for Jesus Christ in the gospel is “evidently crucified before our eyes,” Galatians 3:1. Our way is made plain, so that “wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein,” Isaiah 35:8. The veil being removed, “we all with open face behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord,” 2 Corinthians 3:18. The sum of all is, —Obs. 9. What is to be done with God on the account of sin, that it may be expiated and pardoned, and that the people of God who have sinned may be accepted with him and blessed, is all actually done for them by Jesus Christ, their high priest, in the sacrifice for sin which he offered on their behalf. He was ordained τὰπρὸςτὸνΘεόν, — to do all things with God that were to be done for us; namely, that we might be pardoned, sanctified, and saved. This he undertook when he took his office upon him. His wisdom, faithfulness, and mercy, will not allow us to suppose that he hath left any thing undone that belonged thereunto. If any thing be omitted, as good all were so: for none besides himself in heaven or earth could do aught in this matter. He hath therefore faithfully, mercifully, fully done all that was to be done with God on our behalf. Particularly, he hath offered that great sacrifice which was promised, expected, represented, from the foundation of the world, as the only means of reconciliation and peace between God and man. So saith the text he was to do: he was to offer sacrifice for sin. How he did it, and what he effected thereby, must be declared in our progress. For the present it may suffice, that there is no more to be done with God about sin, as to atonement, propitiation, and pardon. There needs no more sacrifice for it, rune masses, no merits, no works of our own. Two things the apostle hath proposed unto himself, which in this and the ensuing verses he doth yet further pursue. 1. A description of a high priest according to the law. 2. The evincing,(1.) That whatever was useful or excellent in such a high priest was to be found in a more eminent manner in Jesus Christ, the only real and proper high priest of the church; as also,(2.) That whatever was weak and infirm in such a priest, necessarily attending his frail and sinful condition, which either eclipsed the glory or weakened the efficacy of the office as by him discharged, had no place in him at all.For whereas the affections and infirmities of our human nature are of two sorts, — (1.) Such as arise from the essence and constitution of it, and so are naturally and absolutely necessary unto all that are partakers thereof as created;(2.) Such as came occasionally on it by the entrance of sin, which adhere to all that are partakers of our nature as corrupted; — the former sort were necessary unto him that should be a high priest, and that not only unto his being so, as is the participation of our nature in general, but also as to such a qualification of him as is useful and encouraging unto them for whose good he doth exercise and discharge his office; but the latter sort are such as that although they did not evacuate the office in their discharge of it who were obnoxious unto them, as to the proportion of their interest therein, yet was it an impeachment of its perfection, and absolutely hindered it from being able to attain the utmost end of the priesthood. Wherefore the first sort of these affections, such as are compassion, love, condescension, care, pity, were not only in Christ, our high priest, but also, as graciously prepared, did belong unto his holy qualification for the effectual and encouraging discharge of his office. The latter sort, as death natural, sickness, distempers of mind, producing personal sins inevitably, with other frailties, as they were found in the high priest according to the law, and belonged unto the imperfection of that priesthood; so being either sinful or penal, with respect unto the individual person in whom they were, they had no place in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. To understand, therefore, aright the comparison here made between the high priest under the law and Jesus Christ, or the application of it as spoken concerning a high priest by the law, unto him, we must observe that the apostle designs the two things mentioned in the second particular before laid down: — 1. That all real, necessary, useful conditions and qualifications of a high priest, as required in him by the law, were all of them found in Jesus Christ as our high priest, whereby he did answer and fulfill the representation and prefigurations that were made of him under the old testament.2. That whatever did adhere necessarily unto the persons of the high priests of old as they were sinful men, partakers of our nature as depraved or corrupted, was not to be sought for nor to be found in him. And unto these there is added, as a necessary exurgency of both, —3. That sundry things, wherein the peculiar eminency, advancement, and perfection of this office doth consist, were so peculiar unto him, as that they neither were nor could be represented by the high priest made so by the law.Wherefore it is not an exact parallel or complete resemblance between the legal high priest and Christ, the Son of God, which the apostle designeth, but such a comparison as wherein, there being an agreement in things substantial with respect unto a certain end, yet the differences are great and many; which only can take place where one of the comparates is indeed on many accounts incomparably more excellent than the other. To this purpose is the observation of Chrysostom on the place: Τέωςου῏νἅκοινάἐστιτίθησιπρῶτα·καὶτότεδείκνυσινὅτιὑπερέχει·ἡγὰρκατὰσύγκρισινὑπεροχὴοὕτω..... ὅτανἐνμὲντοῖςκοινωνῇ, ἐνδὲτοῖςὑπερέχῃ·εἰδὲμὴοὐκἐτικατὰσὐγκρισιν.— “First” he sets down the things that are common to both, then declares wherein he” (that is, Christ) “excelleth; for so an excellency is set out by comparison, when in some things there is an equality, in others an excellency on one side; and if it be otherwise there can be no comparison.” The words of the second verse are, — Hebrews 5:2. — ΜετριοπαθεῖνδυνάμενοςτοῖςἀγνοοῦσικαὶπλανωμένοιςΈἐπεὶκαὶαὐτὸςπερίκειταιἀσθένειαν.Μετρισπαθεῖνδυνάμενος. Vulg. Lat., “qui condolere possit,” “that can grieve with.” Rhem., “that can have compassion.” Arias, “mensurate pati potens,” “that is able to bear moderately.” Syr., εִ ?ΰֵ ?ιπָ ?ΰξֶ ?ωְׁ ?λַּ ?δγְּ ?πַ ?ξֵ ?κְ πַ ?τְ ?ωֵׁ ?δּ εְ ?πֵ ?ηַ ?ωׁ ςַ ?ν, “and who can let down” (or “humble himself”) “his soul, and suffer with,” or condescend to suffer with. Arab., “who can spare and forgive.” The Ethiopic translation, referring this wholly to the high priest under the law, by way of opposition, not comparison, reads it, “who cannot relieve them who err under their hands,” or by their conduct. Eras., “qui compati possit,” “who can suffer together with,” or have compassion on. Beza, “qui quantum saris est possit miserari vicem ignorantium;” that is, “who can sufficiently pity and have compassion on the condition,” etc. There is not only a variety of expression used, but various senses also are intended by these interpreters, as we shall see in the examination of them. Ours, “who can have compassion on;” and in the margin, “reasonably bear with.” Τοῖςἀγνοοῦσικαὶπλανωμένοις, “ignorantibus et errantibus.” Bez., “aberrantibus;” whence is ours, “out of the way.” One “out of the way” is properly “aberrans.” Rhem., “and do err.” Arab., “who deal foolishly and err.”Περίκειταιἀσθένειαν. Syr., μְ ?αִ ?ιωׁ, is “clothed,” compassed with infirmity, as a man is with his clothing that is about him and always cleaving to him.Hebrews 5:2. — Who can have compassion on [is able mercifully to bear with] the ignorant, and those that wander from the way, seeing that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. The discourse begun in the preceding verse is here continued, and all things spoken in it are regulated by the first words of it, “Every high priest;” — ‘Every high priest is one who can have compassion.’And the same construction and seine is carried on in the next verse. There are three things in the words: — 1. A great and necessary qualification or endowment of a high priest; he is, he was to be, one who is “able to have compassion.”2. The peculiar object of his office acts, proceeding from and suited unto that qualification; which is, “those who are ignorant, and do wander from the way.” 3. A special reason, rendering this qualification necessary unto him, or the means whereby it is ingenerated in him; “he himself is compassed with infirmity:” which things must be particularly inquired into.1. Μετριοπαθεῖνδυνάμενος. Δύναμαι doth first and properly signify natural ability, a power for the effecting of any thing. And it is used concerning God and man, according to their distinct powers and abilities; — the one original and absolutely infinite; the other derived, dependent, and variously limited. This is the first and proper signification of the word, which is so known as that it needs no confirmation by instances. Secondly, It signifies a moral power, with respect unto the bounds and limits of our duty. So, “Illud possumus quod jure possumus,” — “That we can do which we can do lawfully.” Men can do many things naturally that they cannot do morally, — that is, justly; and they do so every day. 1 Corinthians 10:21, ΟὺδύνασθεποτήριονΚυρίουπίνεινκαὶποτήριονδαιμονίων, — “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils;” ‘ye cannot do it righteously, ye ought not to do it.’ 2 Corinthians 13:8, Οὐγὰρδυνάμεθάτικατὰτῆςἀληθείας, — “We can do nothing against the truth, but for it.” So, then, it expresseth a power commensurate unto our duty, and exerted in the discharge of it, Genesis 39:9. Thirdly, Δυνάμενος, “potens,” is as much as ἱκανός, “idoneus,” one that is meetly qualified with dispositions and inclinations suited unto his work, or that which is affirmed of him. This sense of the word we have opened on Hebrews 2:17-18; Hebrews 4:15. And this sense, which is here intended, may be conceived two ways, or it includes two things: —(1.) The denial of an incapacity for what is affirmed: He is not of such a nature, of such a condition, or so qualified, as that he should be unable — that is, unmeet and unfit — for this work.(2.) An assertion of a positive inclination, meetness, readiness, and ability for it: Who is able, hath nothing in nature or state to hinder him, is disposed unto it, and ready for it.Μετρισπαθεῖν. This word is nowhere used in the New Testament but in this place only; and, as most suppose, it is here used in a sense new and peculiar. Hence have interpreters so variously rendered this word, as we before observed. Nor are expositors less divided about its sense, though the differences about it are not great nor of importance, seeing all ascribe a sound and useful meaning unto it. In other writers it signifies constantly to “moderate affections.” Μετριοπαθής is “modicθ,” or “moderatθ affectus; qui modum tenet in animi perturbationibus;” — “one who is moderate in his affections; who exceeds not due measure in perturbations of mind.” And μετριοπάθεια is rendered by Cicero, “Modus naturalis in omni perturbatione;” that is, in the consideration of such things as are apt to disturb the mind and affections, especially anger, to observe a mean, not to be moved above or beyond due measure. So μετριοπαθέω is “moderate ferre,” to “bear any thing,” especially provocations unto anger, “moderately,” without any great commotion of affections, so as to be stirred up to wrath, severity, and displeasure. So Arias, “mensurate” (better “moderate”) “pati potens.” An example hereof we may take in Moses. He was μετριοπαθής in a high and excellent manner; whence is that character given of him by the Holy Ghost, Numbers 12:3, “Now the man Moses was ςָ ?πָ ?εξְ ?ΰֹ ?γ(πραῦ ?vςσφόδρα), “very meek above all men.” It is spoken of him with respect unto his quiet and patient bearing of exasperating provocations, when he was opposed and reproached by Miriam and Aaron. He was μετριοπαθής; but as the best in the best of men is but weak and imperfect, so God in his wisdom hath ordered things that the failings of the best should be in their best, or that wherein they did most excel; that no man should glory in himself, but that “he that glorieth should glory in the Lord.” Thus Abraham and Peter failed in their faith, wherein they were so eminent. And the failure afterwards of Moses was in this meekness or moderate bearing with provocations. He was not able in all things μετριοπαθεῖν, but, upon the provocation of the people, “spoke unadvisedly” and in wrath, saying, “Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?” Numbers 20:10. This privilege is reserved in every case for Christ alone; he can always bear “quantum satis est,” so much as shall assuredly prevent any evil consequent whatever.If the word be used in this sense, then respect is had to what is of provocation and exasperation in those who are “ignorant and out of the way.” ‘The high priest is one who is fit and able to bear moderately and quietly with the failings, miscarriages, and sins of those for whom he executes his office; not breaking out into any anger or excess of indignation against them by reason of their infirmities.’And this, as applied unto Jesus Christ, is a matter of the highest encouragement and consolation unto believers. Were there not an absolute sufficiency of this disposition in him, and that as unto all occurrences, he must needs cast us all off in displeasure. Erasmus expresseth it by “qui placabilis esse possit,” one “who may be appeased,” who is ready to be pleased again when he is angry or provoked. But the apostle doth not teach us herein how the high priest may be appeased when he is angry, but how remote he is, or ought to be, from being so on any occasion. The Vulg. Lat., as we saw, reads, “qui condolere possit;” which is the same with δυνάμενοςσυμπαθῆσαι, Hebrews 4:15, “can be touched with a feeling.” And it is not improbable but that μετριοπαθεῖν may be used here in the same sense with συμπαθῆσαι, Hebrews 4:15. But then it may be questioned whether “condoleo,” “to grieve with,” be as extensive and significant as “compatior;” which also it may, seeing the proper signification of “doleo” is to have a sense of pain. And thus no more should be intended than what we have already opened on those other places, What is said belongs to the description of the nature of a high priest as he is merciful, and of his disposition unto pity and compassion, with his readiness thereon to relieve and succor them that are tempted. But I cannot judge that the apostle useth this word merely as it were for change, without a design to intimate something further and peculiar therein. Hence is that translation of Beza, “qui quantum satis est miserari possit vicem,” — “Who can meetly and sufficiently pity the condition of the ignorant.” By μέτριος, in this composition, the apostle intends the just and due measure of a disposition unto compassion. Not that he sets bounds unto it with respect unto any excess, as if he had said, ‘He hath no more compassion or condolency than becomes him, — he shall observe a measure therein, and not exceed it;’which, although it be true, yet is not the intimation of it in this place unto his purpose. But he is one that doth not come short herein, who will not fail in any instance, who hath a sufficient measure of it to answer the condition and necessities of all with whom he hath to do. And this doth not infer a new sense, distinct from that last before mentioned, but only further explains it, according to the intention of the apostle in the peculiar use of this word. I see no reason to confine myself unto either of these senses precisely, but do rather think that the apostle on purpose made use of this word to include them both. For, — Suppose the object of this qualification of the high priest, in them that are ignorant and do wander out of the way, be their ignorance and wanderings, that is, their sins, and those considered as containing a provocation of himself, as every sin is attended with provocation; then δυνάμενοςμετριοπαθεῖν is “qui potest moderate ferre,” “who is able to bear with them with that due moderation of mind and affections,” as not to have any vehement commotion of the one or the other against them: for if he should be liable unto such impressions provoked to call them “rebels as did Moses; and to he would be to say, as in the prophet, “I will feed you no more; let that that dieth die,” Zechariah 11:9. But he is able to bear with them patiently and meekly, so as to continue the faithful discharge of his office towards them and for them. This, as we observed, Moses was not able always to do, as he also complains, Numbers 11:12, “Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child?” Yet this is required in a high priest, and that he should no more cast off poor sinners for their ignorance and wanderings than a nursing father should cast away a sucking child for its crying or frowardness; which whoso is ready to do is very unfit for that duty. So our apostle, in his imitation of Jesus Christ, affirms that in the church he was “gentle among them, even as a nurse cherisheth her children,” 1 Thessalonians 2:7;— not easy to be provoked, not ready to take offense or cast off the care of him. So it is said of God, Acts 13:18, that for forty years ἐτροποφόρησε, “he bare with the manners of the people in the wilderness;” or as some read it, ἐτροφοφόρησε, “he bare” or “fed them, as a nurse feedeth her child.” Thus ought it to be with a high priest, and thus is it with Jesus Christ. He is able, with all meekness and gentleness, with patience and moderation, to bear with the infirmities, sins, and provocations of his people, even as a nurse or a nursing father beareth with the weakness and frowardness of a poor infant. Again; suppose the immediate object of this qualification of the high priest to be the sins, temptations, and infirmities of his people, as they are grievous, troublesome, and dangerous unto themselves; then this δυνάμενοςμετριοπαθεῖν signifies his nature and disposition as meet, prepared, and inclined, so to pity and commiserate, and consequently relieve in the way of his office, as shall be sufficient on all occasions. He is one that wants no part nor degree of a compassionate frame of heart towards them. Both these the word signifies as diversely applied; and both of them, if I mistake not, are intended by the apostle; and for this end, that they might be both included, did he make use of this singular word. At least, I am not able to embrace either of these senses unto the exclusion of the other. A high priest, therefore, is one who can quietly bear with the weaknesses and sinful provocations of them that are ignorant and wander out of the way, as also commiserate or pity them unto such a measure and degree as never to be wanting unto their help and assistance; such a person as is ΰֶ ?μΰּ ?γָּ ?μξωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμ, Psalms 41:2, — one that is so “wise and understanding” in thestate and condition of the poor as duly to relieve them. 2. The compassion described, accompanied with meek and patient bearing, is exercised towards the “ignorant and them that are out of the way.” These words may be taken two ways; — first, as distinctive; secondly, as descriptive of the object of this compassion. In the first way the sense of them is, ‘Whereas there are amongst the people of God some, or many, that are ignorant and out of the way, the compassion of the high priest is to be extended unto them; yea, this qualification doth respect them chiefly: so that they need not be discouraged, but boldly make use of his help and assistance in every time of distress.’ “The ignorant and them that are out of the way;” that is, those among the people who are so. In the latter way, all the people of God are intended. There are, indeed, degrees in these things, some being more affected with them than others; for there are degrees in the infirmities and sins of believers. And those who are most obnoxious unto them are hereby encouraged to expect relief by the high priest. Yet in general this is the condition of all the people of God, they fall more or less under these qualifications. And because they are so, so obnoxious unto ignorance and wanderings; because actually in sundry things they are ignorant and do err from the right way; and because they know this in some measure of themselves, and are therefore apt to be cast down and discouraged, the Holy Ghost here proposeth this qualification of a high priest for their relief, as that which is required in him, and necessary unto him for that end. And as such, he had peculiarly to do with the people in his dealing with God on their behalf, both in his oblations and intercessions. So it is said of our Savior, the great high priest, that he “made reconciliation for the sins of the people,” and “intercession for the transgressors.” And this is the proper sense of the words. It is the whole people of God who are thus described, as they lie under the eye and care of their high priest. But because, also, it is their duty to make application unto him for relief, which they will not do without a sense of their want, it is required, moreover, in this description, that they be burdened with an apprehension of the guilt and danger that are in these things, — those who are sensible of their ignorance and wanderings. Τοῖςἀγνοοῦσι, “to them that are ignorant.” Not the mere affection of the mind or ignorance itself, but the consequences and effects of it in actual sins, are principally intended: ‘To such as are obnoxious to sinning, to such as sin, through the ignorance and darkness of their minds.’There was under the law a sacrifice provided for them who sinned αִ ?ωְׁ ?βָ ?βָ ?δ, through “ignorance” or “error,” Leviticus 4. For whereas, in the first three chapters, Moses had declared the institution and nature of all those sacrifices in general whereby the justification and sanctification of the church was typically wrought and represented, with the obligation that thence was upon them to walk in new obedience and holiness; he supposeth yet, notwithstanding what was done, that there would be sins yet remaining among the people, which, if they had no relief for or against, would prove their ruin. As our apostle, in answer thereunto, having declared the free justification of sinners through the obedience and blood of Christ, Romans 4:5, with their sanctification flowing from the efficacy of his life and death, Romans 6, yet adds that there will be a remaining principle of sin in them, bringing forth fruits and effects answerable unto its nature, Romans 7, which he declares how we are relieved against by Jesus Christ, Romans 8; so was it in the institution of these sacrifices, whose order and nature is in this chapter [Leviticus 4] unfolded. For, as was said, after the declaration of the sacrifices which concerned the justification and sanctification of the church in general, Moses distributes the following sins of the people into two sorts; into those which were committed αωβָ ?βָ ?δ by “ignorance,” unadvisedly, or in error; and those which were committed αְּ ?ιָ ?γψָ ?ξָ ?δ, with a “high hand,” or “presumptuously.” For those of the first sort there were sacrifices allowed; but those who were guilty of the latter were to be cut off: Numbers 15:27-28; Numbers 15:30,“If any soul, sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin-offering. And the priest, shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously” (with an high hand),...... “the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.”And it is so also under the gospel. For after we profess an interest in the sacrifice of Christ unto our justification and sanctification, there are sins that men may fall into “presumptuously,” and “with an high hand,” for which there is no relief: “For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries,” Hebrews 10:26-27.All other sins whatever come within the rank and order of them which are committed αִ ?ωְׁ ?βָ ?βָ ?δ, by “ignorance” or error of mind. Of these there is no man that liveth and is not guilty, Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 Samuel 2:2. Yea, they are so multiplied in us or upon us as no man living can know or understand them, Psalms 19:12. By sins of ignorance, then, are not understood only those which were “ex ignorantia juris,” or when men sinned against the law because they knew, it not; doing what it forbade, as not knowing that it was forbidden; and omitting what was commanded, as not knowing that it was commanded. This kind of ignorance Abimelech pleaded in the case of his taking Sarah, the wife of Abraham, in that he knew her not to be a married woman; which plea, as to some part of his guilt, God admits of, Genesis 20:4-6. And this ignorance was that which preserved the case of our apostle, in his blasphemy and persecution, from being remediless, and his sin from being a sin of presumption, or with a high hand, 1 Timothy 1:12-13. But this sort of sins only is not intended, although we see by these instances how great and heinous provocations may be of this kind. But those are in this case, and in opposition unto presumptuous sins, reckoned unto sins of ignorance, when the mind or practical understanding, being corrupted or entangled by the power of sin and its advantageous circumstances, doth not attend unto its duty, or the rule of all its actions; whence actual sin doth ensue. And this is the principal cause and spring of all the sins of our lives, as I have elsewhere declared, treating of the power of indwelling sin. [1] Those, therefore, who are “ignorant” in this place, are such as who, through the inadvertency of their minds, or want of a due and diligent attendance unto the rule of all their actions, do fall into sin as well as those who do so through a mere ignorance of their duty. He adds, καὶπλανωμένοις, “to them that wander out of the way.” The reader may see what we have spoken concerning this word on Hebrews 3:10. Our sinning is often thus expressed, Psalms 119:176, “I have gone astray like a perishing sheep.” Isaiah 53:6, “We like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.” We have erred, or wandered astray from the way of God, and turned unto our own ways. “Ye were as sheep going astray,” 1 Peter 2:25. But we must observe, that there is a twofold erring or wandering expressed by this word in this epistle. The one is in heart: ᾿Αεὶπλανῶνταιτῇκαρδίᾳ, — “They always err in their heart.” The other is in our ways, going out of them; which is here intended. The former is the heart’s dislike of the ways of God, and voluntary relinquishment of them thereon. This answers to the presumptuous sinning before mentioned, and is no object of compassion either in God or our High Priest; for concerning them who did so, “God sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest.” But there may be a wandering in men’s ways, when yet their hearts are upright with God. So it is said with Asa, that “his heart was perfect all his days,” 2 Chronicles 15:17; yet his great wanderings from the ways of God are recorded, 1 Corinthians 16:7-10; 1 Corinthians 16:12. There is therefore included in this word a seduction by temptation into some course of wandering for a season from the ways of God. Who then are these of οἱπλανώμενοι? Even those who by the power of their temptations have been seduced and turned from the straight paths of holy obedience, and have wandered in some crooked paths of their own. [1] See volume 6, p. 153 of the author’s works. And in these two words doth the apostle comprise all sorts of sinners whatever, with all sorts of sins, and not merely those which are commonly esteemed of infirmity or ignorance; for he intends all those sins which the high priest was to confess, sacrifice, and intercede for, on the behalf of the people. And this was, “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,” Leviticus 16:21. It is true, as the law was the instrument of the Jewish polity, there was no sacrifice appointed for some sins, if precisely known and legally proved by witnesses; because the sinners were to be punished capitally, for the preservation of public order and peace. And God would not allow an instance of accepting a sacrifice where the offender was to suffer; which would have overthrown the principal notion of sacrifices, wherein the guilt of the offerer was, as to punishment, transferred unto the beast to be offered. But otherwise, without respect unto civil rule and legal proof, all sorts of sins were to be expiated by sacrifices. And they are here by our apostle reduced unto two heads, whence two sorts of sinners are denominated: — (1.) Such as men fall into by the neglect and failure of their minds in attending unto their duty; which is their sinful ignorance.(2.) Such as men are seduced unto some continuance in through the power of their temptation, and that against their light and knowledge. Such are ignorant or wanderers out of the way.All sorts, therefore, of sins and sinners are comprised in these expressions. And with respect unto them it is required of a high priest, — (1.) That he should not take the provocation of them so high or immoderately as to neglect them or cast them off on their account.(2.) That he should have such pity and compassion towards them as is needful to move him to act for their relief and deliverance. And this the high priest of old was prompted unto, —3. ᾿Επεὶκαὶαὐτὸςπερίκειταιἀσθένειαν. ᾿Επεί, “quoniam,” “seeing it is so;” καὶαὐτὸς, “that even he himself.” His own state and condition will mind him of his duty in this matter. Περίκειταιἀσθένειαν. This is more than if he had said that he was ἀσθενής, “weak and infirm:” ‘He is beset and compassed about on every hand with infirmity.’Περικειμένηνἔχωνἀσθένειαν, as is the meaning of the phrase, ‘having infirmity round about him,’attended with it in all that he sets himself unto. Now this ἀσθένειαis twofold: — (1.) Natural.(2.) Moral.(1.) There is an infirmity which is inseparable from our human nature. Such are the weaknesses of its condition, with all the dolorous and afflictive affections in doing or suffering that attend it. And this our Lord Jesus Christ himself was compassed withal; whence he was “a man of sorrow, and acquainted with grief,” as hath been declared. Had it been otherwise he could not have been such a merciful high priest as we stood in need of; nor, indeed, any priest at all, for he would not have had any thing of his own to offer, if he had not had that nature from which in this life that sort of infirmity is inseparable, Matthew 26:41.(2.) There is a moral infirmity, consisting in an inclination unto sin and weakness as to obedience. ῎Οντωνἡμῶνἀσθενῶν, Romans 5:6, “When we were yet infirm (without strength),” is the same with ῎Οντωνἡμῶνἁμαρτωλῶν, verse 8, “while we were yet sinners;” for our weakness was such as was the cause of our sin. See 1 Corinthians 8:7. And the words, both substantive, adjective, and verb, are frequently used in the New Testament to express bodily weakness by sickness and infirmities of every kind. Nothing hinders but that we may take it here in its most comprehensive signification, for infirmities of all sorts, natural, moral, and occasional. For the first sort do necessarily attend the condition of our human nature, and are requisite unto him that would discharge aright the whole office of a priest. And the following verse, affirming that “for this cause” it was necessary for him “to offer sacrifice for himself,” declares directly that his moral or sinful infirmities are also included. He himself was subject to sin, as the rest of the people. Whence there were peculiar sacrifices appointed for the anointed priest to offer for himself and his own sin. And for the last, or infirmities in bodily distempers unto sickness and death, it is a necessary consequent of the former. Wherefore, as these words have respect unto them that go before, or yield a reason why the high priest is such a one as “can have compassion on the ignorant,” they express the infirmity of nature which inclined him thereunto from a sense of his own weakness and suffering. As they respect what ensues, verse 3, they intend his moral infirmities, or sinful infirmities, with their consequences; from whence it was necessary that he should offer sacrifice for himself. And in the latter sense the things intended belong peculiarly to the high priest according to the law, and not to Christ. And this obviateth an objection that may be raised from the words For it may be said, ‘If this be so, why is it mentioned in this place as an advantage for the inducing of the high priest unto a due measure of compassion, or to equanimity and forbearance? For if this were not in Christ, he may be thought to come short in his compassion of the legal high priest, as not having this motive unto it and incentive of it.’ Ans. (1.) That natural infirmity whereof our Lord Christ had full experience, is every way sufficient unto this purpose; and this alone was that which qualified the legal high priest with due compassion. His moral infirmity was not any advantage unto him, so as to help his compassion towards the people; which was, as all other graces, weakened thereby. It is therefore mentioned by the apostle only as the reason why he was appointed to offer sacrifice for himself, which Christ was not to do. And what advantage soever may be made of a sense of moral weakness and proneness unto sin, yet is it in itself an evil, which weakens the duty that it leads unto; nor where this is can we expect any other discharge of duty but what proceeds from him who is liable to sin and miscarriage therein. Now, the Lord Christ being absolutely free from this kind of infirmity, yet made sensible of the one by the other, doth in a most perfect manner perform all that is needful to be done on our behalf. (2.) The apostle treats not of the nature of the priesthood of Christ absolutely, but with respect unto the legal high priests, whom he exalts him above. It was necessary, therefore, that their state should be represented, that it might appear as well wherein he excelled them as wherein there was an agreement between them. And this he did, among other things, in that he was not obnoxious unto any moral infirmity, as they were. From the whole we may observe, — Obs. 1. Compassion and forbearance, with meekness, in those from whom we expect help and relief, are the great motive and encouragement unto faith, affiance, and expectation of them.It is unto this end that the apostle makes mention of this qualification or endowment of a high priest, with respect unto its application to Jesus Christ. He would thereby encourage us to come unto him, and to expect all that assistance which is necessary to relieve us in all our spiritual distresses, and to give us acceptance with God. No man will expect any good or kindness from one whom he looks upon as severe, incompassionate, and ready to lay hold on occasions of anger or wrath. When God himself saw it necessary to exercise severity, and give frequent instances of his displeasure, for the preservation of his worship in holiness and order among that stubborn generation in the wilderness, they spake unto Moses, saying, “Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish. Whosoever cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the LORD shall die: shall we be consumed with dying?” Numbers 17:12-13.“Behold, the sword hath killed some of us; and behold, the earth hath swallowed some of us; and behold, some of us are dead with the pestilence,”as the Chaldee Targum expresseth it. Most apprehend this to be a sinful repining against the righteous judgments of God, wherewith they were consumed for their sins. I rather judge it an expression of that bondage, legal apprehension of the terror of the Lord and his holiness, which they were then kept under, finding “the commandment which was ordained to life” to become unto them, by reason of sin, “unto death,” Romans 7:9-10. And therefore that last expostulation, “Shall we be consumed with dying?” is a deprecation of wrath: as Psalms 85:5, “Wilt thou be angry with us for ever?” and Lamentations 5:22, “Wilt thou utterly reject us?”But evident it is, that want of a clear insight into God’s compassion and forbearance is full of terror and discouragement. And he who framed unto himself a false notion of Christ was thereby utterly discouraged from diligence in his service: “I knew thee, that thou art an hard man,” or an austere, severe man; “and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth,” Matthew 25:24-25; Luke 19:22.His undue apprehensions of Christ (the proper effect of unbelief) ruined him forever. Wherefore God himself doth not, in his dealings with us, more properly or more fully set out any pro-petty of his nature than he doth his compassion, long-suffering, and forbearance. And as he proposeth them unto us for our encouragement, so he declares his approbation of our faith in them. He delighteth in them that “hope in his mercy,” Psalms 33:18. Hence, when he solemnly declared his nature by his name to the full, that we might know and fear him, he doth it by an enumeration of those properties which may convince us of his compassionateness and forbearance, and not till the close of all makes any mention of his severity, as that which he will not exercise towards any but such as by whom his compassion is despised, Exodus 34:6-7. So he affirms that “fury is not in him,” Isaiah 27:4. Although we may apprehend that he is angry and furious, ready to lay hold of all occasions to punish and destroy, yet is it not so towards them who desire sincerely to “lay hold of him strongly,” and to “make peace with him” by Jesus Christ, Isaiah 27:5. Elihu supposed that Job had such apprehensions of God: “Thou hast said, Behold, he findeth occasions against me, he counteth me for his enemy. He putteth my feet in the stocks, he marketh all my paths,” Job 33:10-11. And, indeed, in his agony he had said little less, Job 14:16-17. But it is not so; for if God should so mark iniquities, who could stand? Psalms 130:3. Wherefore the great recompense that God gives to sinners from first to last is from his compassion and forbearance. And as for our Lord Jesus Christ, as mediator, we have evinced that all things were so ordered about him as that he might be filled with tenderness, compassion, and forbearance towards sinners. And as this we stand in need of, so it is the greatest encouragement that we can be made partakers of. Consider us either as to our sins or sufferings, and it will appear that we cannot maintain a life of faith without a due apprehension of it. Obs. 2. Wherefore, secondly, we live, the life of our souls is principally maintained, upon this compassionateness of our high priest; namely, that he is able to bear with us in our provocations, and to pity us in our weaknesses and distresses.To this purpose is the promise concerning him, Isaiah 40:11. There are three things that are apt to give great provocations unto them that are concerned in us: —1. Frequency in offending; 2. Greatness of offenses; 3. Instability in promises and engagements.These are things apt to give provocations beyond what ordinary moderation and meekness can bear withal, especially where they are accompanied with a disregard of the greatest love and kindness. And all these are found in believers, — some in one, and some in another, and in some all. For, 1. There is in us all a frequency of provocation, as Psalms 19:12. They are beyond our numbering or understanding. What believer is there that doth not constantly admire how the Lord Christ hath patiently borne with him in the frequency of his daily failings? that he hath carried it towards him without such provocations unto anger as to lay him out of his care?2. Some of them are overtaken with great offenses, as was the case of Peter; and there is not one of them but, on one account or other, hath reason to make use of the prayer of the psalmist, “Be merciful unto my sin, for it is great.” And great sins are attended with great provocations. That our souls have not died under them, that we have not been rejected of God utterly for them, it is from this holy qualification of our high priest, that he is able sufficiently to bear with all things that are required in the discharge of his office. Were it not so, he would, on one occasion or another wherein now we admire his lenity and forbearance, have “sworn in his wrath that we should not enter into his rest.” 3. Instability in promises and engagements, especially as breaking forth into frequent instances, is a matter of great provocation. This is that which God complains of in Israel, as wherewith he was almost wearied, Hosea 6:4. And herein also do we try, and exercise the forbearance of our high priest. There is not a day wherein we answer and make good the engagements of our own hearts, either in matter or manner, as to our walking before him in the constant exercise of faith and love. And that we are yet accepted with him, it is that δύναταιμετριοπαθεῖν, he can bear with us in all patience and moderation.Again; our ignorances and wanderings are our sufferings, as well as our sins. Sin is the principal affliction, the principal suffering of believers; yea, all other things are light unto them in comparison hereof. This is that which they continually groan under, and cry out to be delivered from. Herein our high priest is able so to pity us as undoubtedly to relieve us; but this hath been already insisted on. Obs. 3. Though every sin hath in it the whole nature of sin, rendering the sinner obnoxious unto the curse of the law, yet as there are several kinds of sins, so there are several degrees of sin, some being accompanied with a greater guilt than others.The Papists have a distinction of sins into mortal and venial, which is the foundation of one moiety of their superstition. Some sins, they say, are such as in their own nature deserve death eternal; so that there is no deliverance from the guilt of them without actual contrition and repentance. But some are so slight and small as that they are easily expiated by an observance of some outward rites of the church; however, they endanger no man’s eternal salvation, whether they repent of them or no. The worst is but a turn in purgatory, or the charge of a pardon. Because this distinction is rejected by Protestants, they accuse them of teaching that all sins are equal. But this they do untruly. That distinction, I confess, might be allowed with respect unto offenses against the law of old, as it was the rule of the Jewish polity. For some of them, as murder and adultery, were to be punished capitally without mercy; which therefore were mortal unto the offenders. Others were civilly as well as typically expiated by sacrifice, and so were venial in the constitution of the law; that is, such as were pardoned of course, by attending to some instituted observances. But with respect unto God, every sin is a transgression of the law; and the “wages” or reward “of it is death,” Romans 6:23. And the curse of the whole law was directed against everyone who did not every thing required in it, or failed in any one point of obedience, Deuteronomy 27:26, Galatians 3:10. And “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” James 2:10.But there are degrees of sin, and degrees of guilt in sinning; as, — 1. There is a distinction of sins with respect unto the persons that commit them. But this distinction ariseth from the event, and not from the nature of the sin itself intended. As suppose the same sin committed by an unregenerate person, and by one that is regenerate: unto the latter it shall be pardoned; unto the former, continuing so, it shall never be pardoned. But whence is this difference? Is it that the sin is less in the one than in the other? Nay, being supposed of the same kind, commonly it hath more aggravating circumstances in the regenerate than in the unregenerate. Is it because God is less displeased with sin in some than in others? Nay, God is equally displeased with equal sins, in whomsoever they are found; if there be any difference, he is more displeased with them in believers than in others. But the difference ariseth merely from the event. Regenerate persons will, through the grace of God, certainly use the means of faith and repentance for the obtaining of pardon, which the other will not; and if they are assisted also so to do, even they in like manner shall obtain forgiveness. No man, therefore, can take a relief against the guilt of sin from his state and condition, which may be an aggravation, but can be no alleviation of it. 2. There are degrees of sin amongst men unregenerate, who live in a course of sin all their days. We see it is so, and it ever was so in the world. And sometimes here, but certainly hereafter, God deals with them, not only according to their state of sin, and their course of sin, but according to the degrees and aggravations of sin in great variety. All do not sin equally; nor shall all be equally punished.3. In the sins of believers there are different degrees, both in divers and in the same persons. And although they shall be all pardoned, yet have they different effects; with respect,(1.) Unto peace of conscience;(2.) Sense of the love of God;(3.) Growth in grace and holiness;(4.) Usefulness or scandal in the church or the world;(5.) Temporal afflictions; and,(6.) A quiet or troublesome departure out of this world; — but in all a reserve is still to be made for the sovereignty of God and his grace. Obs. 4. Our ignorance is both our calamity, our sin, and an occasion of many sins unto us.Having declared that the high priest was first to offer sacrifices for the sins of men, and then that he was to be compassionate towards them, both in their sins and sorrows, the first instance which the apostle gives of those who are concerned herein is of “them that are ignorant.” They stand in need both of sacrifice and compassion. And ignorance in spiritual things is twofold: — 1. Original, subjective, and universal. This is that whereby men have “their understandings darkened,” and are “alienated from the life of God,” Ephesians 4:18; the ignorance that is in men unregenerate, not savingly enlightened, consisting in the want or defect of a principle of heavenly or spiritual light in their minds; which I have elsewhere at large described. But it is not this sort of persons nor this sort of ignorance which is here intended.2. There is an ignorance which is objective and partial, when the light and knowledge that is in us is but weak and infirm, extending itself unto some objects, and affecting the mind with darkness and disorder in the apprehension of them also. And this also may be considered two ways:(1.) Absolutely; and so the best, and the most wise, and the most knowing are ignorant, and to be esteemed among them that are so; for the best “know but in part, and prophesy but in part,” and “see darkly, as in a glass,” 1 Corinthians 13:9; 1 Corinthians 13:12. Yea, “how little a portion is it that we know of God!” We “cannot by searching find out the Almighty to perfection;” “such knowledge is too wonderful for us.” Yea, we “know nothing perfectly,” neither concerning God nor ourselves. If we know him so as to believe him, fear him, and obey him, it is all that is promised us in this life, all that we can attain unto. Wherefore let the best of us, —[1. Take care that we be not puffed up, or fall into any vain elation of mind upon the conceit of our knowledge. Alas! how many things are there to be seen, to be known in God, that we know nothing of; and nothing do we know as we ought or as it shall be known. [2. Endeavor, in the constant use of all means, to grow in the knowledge of God and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The more we learn here, the more we shall see there is to be learned. [3. Long for the time, or rather that eternity, wherein all these shades shall flee away, all darkness be removed from our minds, all veils and clouds taken away from about the divine being and glory; when “we shall see him as he is,” with “open face,” and “know even as we are known:” which is the eternal life and blessedness of our souls. [4. Know that on the account of the ignorance that is yet in the best, yea, that was in the most holy saint that ever was on the earth, they all stand in need of the compassion of our high priest, to bear with them, pity and relieve them. (2.) This second sort of ignorance may be considered comparatively. So among believers some are more chargeable with this evil than others, and are more obnoxious unto trouble from it. And these we may distinguish into four sorts: —[1. Such as are young and tender, either in years or in the work of grace upon their souls. These the apostle calls “babes,” and “children,” that have need to be nourished with milk, and not to have their minds overcharged with things too high and hard for them. And concerning this sort many things are spoken graciously and tenderly in the Scripture. [2. Such as, through the weakness of their natural capacities, are slow in learning, and are never able to attain unto any great measure of sound knowledge and judgment; although we often see many notable natural defects in the minds of them that are sincere to be abundantly compensated by the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” shining plentifully upon them and in them. [3. Such as are so disposed of by the providence of God, in their outward concerns in this world, as that they enjoy not the means of knowledge and growth therein, at least in so full and effectual a manner as others do. Hereby are they kept low in their light and spiritual apprehensions of things, and are thereby obnoxious to manifold errors and mistakes. And of these, partly through the blindness of them who in many places take upon themselves to be the only teachers and guides of the disciples of Christ, partly through some sloth of their own in not providing as they ought for their own edification, there is a great number in the world. [4. Such as by reason of some corrupt affections, spiritual sloth, and worldly occasions, perpetually diverting their minds, are dull and slow in learning the mysteries of the gospel, and thrive but little in light or knowledge under an enjoyment of the most effectual means of them. These our apostle complains of, and reproves in particular, verses 11-13. And this sort of comparative ignorance is attended with the greatest guilt of any; the reasons whereof are obvious. But yet unto all these sorts doth our high priest extend his compassion, and they are all of them here intended. And he is compassionate toward us under our ignorance, — 1. As it is our calamity or trouble; for so it is, and as such he pities us in it and under it. Who is not sensible of the inconveniencies and perplexities that he is continually cast into by the remainders of darkness and ignorance in him? who is not sensible how much his love and his obedience are weakened by them? who doth not pant after fuller discoveries and more clear and stable conceptions of the glorious mystery of God in Christ? Yea, there is nothing on the account whereof believers do more groan for deliverance from their present state, than that they may be freed from all remainders of darkness and ignorance, and so be brought into a clear and intimate acquaintance with the in-created glories of God, and all the holy emanations of light and truth from them. Herein, then, our merciful high priest exerciseth compassion towards us, and leads us on, if we are not slothfully wanting unto ourselves, with fresh discoveries of divine light and truth; which, although they are not absolutely satisfactory to the soul, nor do utterly take away its thirst after the all-fullness of the eternal Fountain of them, yet do they hold our souls in life, and give a constant increase unto our light towards the perfect day. 2. That this ignorance also is our sin, as being our gradual falling short of the knowledge of the glory of God required in us, and the occasion of manifold failings and sins in our course, — most of our wanderings being from some kind of defect in the conducting light of our minds, — are things known and confessed. And with respect hereunto, namely, that efficacious influence which our ignorance hath into our frequent surprisals into sin, it is principally that we have relief from the compassion of our high priest.Obs. 5. Sin is a wandering from the way. See on Hebrews 3:10.Obs. 6. No sort of sinners is excluded from an interest in the care and love of our compassionate high priest, but only those who exclude themselves by their unbelief. Our apostle useth these two expressions to comprise all sorts of sinners, as they did under the law, unless they were such presumptuous sinners as had no relief provided for them in the institutions thereof. Of this nature is final unbelief alone under the gospel; therefore on all others our high priest is able to have compassion, and will especially exercise it towards poor, dark, ignorant wanderers. And I would not forbear to manage from hence some encouragements unto believing, as also to declare the aggravations of unbelief, but that these discourses must not be drawn out unto a greater length. Wherefore I shall only add on this verse, — Obs. 7. It is well for us, and enough for us, that the Lord Christ was encompassed with the sinless infirmities of our nature.Obs. 8. God can teach a sanctified use of sinful infirmities, as he did in and unto the priests under the law. In the third verse the apostle illustrates what he had asserted concerning the high priest, as to his being “compassed with infirmity,” from a necessary consequent thereof: he was to offer sacrifices for his own sins. Before, he had declared in general that the end of his office was to “offer gifts and sacrifices to God,” — that is, for the sins of the people; but proceeding in his description of him, he mentions his own frailty, infirmity, and obnoxiousness unto sin. And this he did, that he might give an account of those known institutions of the law wherein he was appointed to offer sacrifices for his own sins also. Hebrews 5:3. — Καὶδιὰταύτηνὀφείλει, καθὼςπερὶτοῦλαοῦ, οὕτωκαὶπερὶἑαυτοῦ, προσφέρεινὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν.For διὰταύτην one manuscript has δι᾿αὐτήν, — that is, ἀσθένειαν, “because of which infirmity.” Vulg. Lat., “propterea debet;” “wherefore,” or “for which cause he ought.” Or, as we, “and by reason hereof.” Syr., “so also for himself to offer for his own sins.”Hebrews 5:3. — And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins.Καὶδιὰταύτην: that is, say some, for διὰτοῦτο, the feminine put for the neuter, by a Hebraism. Hence it is rendered by some “propterea.” But ταύτνη plainly and immediately refers unto ἀσθένειαν, “propter hanc,” or “istam infimitatem.” Had the high priest under the law been ἀναμάρτητος, without any sin, or sinful infirmity, as the Lord Christ was, he should have had nothing to do but to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people. But it was otherwise with him, seeing he himself also, as well they, was encompassed with sinful infirmities.᾿Οφείλει, “he ought.” He ought to offer for his own sins, and that on a double account, whereinto this duty or necessity is resolved: —1. The nature of the things themselves, or the condition wherein he was. For seeing he was infirm and obnoxious unto sin, and seeing he did, as other men, sin actually in many things, he must have been ruined by his office if he might not have offered sacrifice for himself. It was indispensably necessary that sacrifices should be offered for him and his sin, and yet this no other could do for him; he ought therefore to do it himself. 2. The command of God. He ought so to do, because God had so appointed and ordained that he should. To this purpose there are sundry express legal institutions, as we shall see immediately.Καθὼςπερὶτοῦλαοῦ, “in like manner as for the people;” that is, either the whole people collectively, or all the people distributively, as their occasions did require. In the first way the great anniversary sacrifice which he celebrated in his own person for the whole body of the people is principally intended, Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:24. Add hereunto the daily sacrifice belonging unto the constant service of the temple, — which is therefore used synecdochically for the whole worship thereof, Daniel 8:11-12, — for herein also was the whole church equally concerned. In the latter way, it respects all those occasional sacrifices, whether for sin or trespasses, or in free-will offerings, which were continually to be offered, and that by the priests alone. Οὕτωκαὶπερὶἑαυτοῦ, “so for himself;” in like manner, on the same grounds and for the same reasons that he offered for the people. He had a common interest with them in the daily sacrifice, which was the public worship of the whole church; and therein he offered sacrifice for himself also, together and with the people. But besides this there were three sorts of offerings that were peculiar unto him, wherein he offered for himself distinctly or separately: —1. The solemn offering that ensued immediately on his inauguration:Leviticus 9:2, “And he said unto Aaron, Take thee a young calf for as in offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, without blemish, and offer them before the Lord.” This was for himself, as it is expressed, Leviticus 9:8, “Aaron therefore went unto the altar, and slew the calf, which was the sin-offering for himself.” After this he offered distinctly for the people “a kid of the goats for a sin-offering,” Leviticus 9:3; Leviticus 9:15. And this was for an expiation of former sins, expressing the sanctification and holiness that ought to be in them that draw nigh unto God.2. There was an occasional offering or sacrifice which he was to offer distinctly for himself, upon the breach of any of God’s commandments by ignorance, or any actual sin: Leviticus 4:3, “If the priest theft is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people” (that is, in like manner as any of the people do sin), “then let him bring, for his sin which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin-offering.” After which there is a sacrifice appointed of the like nature, and in like manner to be observed, — (1.) For the sin of the whole people, Leviticus 4:13; and then(2.) For the sin of any individual person, Leviticus 4:27.And hereby the constant application that we are, on all actual sins, to make unto the blood of Christ for pardon and purification was prefigured. 3. There was enjoined him another solemn offering, on the annual feast, or day of expiation, which he was to begin the solemn service of that great day withal: Leviticus 16:3, “Aaron shall thus come into the holy place with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering.” Leviticus 16:11, “And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for. himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself.” After this, he offers also on the same day, for the sins of the people, Leviticus 16:15; — a bullock for himself, and a goat for the people. And this solemn sacrifice respecting all sins and sorts of them, known and unknown, great and small, in general and particular, represents our solemn application unto Christ for pardon and sanctification; which as to the sense of them may be frequently renewed. The Jews affirm that the high priest used at his offering this sacrifice the ensuing prayer: — ΰπδδωνςειϊιτωςϊιηθΰϊιμτπικΰπιεαιϊιεαπιΰδψοςνχγεωκΰπΰδωνλτψπΰμςεπεϊεμτωςιεμηθΰιωςειϊιεωτωςϊιεωηθΰϊιμτπικΰπιεαιϊιεαπιΰδψοςνχγεωκλλϊααϊεψϊξωδςαγκλιαιενδζδιλτψςμιλνμθδψΰϊλνξλμηθΰϊιλνμτπιִ ?δ — that is,“I beseech thee, O Lord, I have done perversely, have transgressed, I have sinned before thee; I and my house, and the children of Aaron, and thy holy people. I beseech thee, O Lord, be propitious unto, or pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquities, transgressions, and sins, wherein I have done amiss, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house, and the sons of Aaron, and thy holy people; according as it is written in the law of Moses thy servant., that in this day thou wouldst pardon and purify us from all our sins.” — Mishnaioth, Tract. Jom. Perek. 4. And all these several sorts of sacrifices for himself were, all of them, as our apostle here speaks, ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, “for sins.” And this was necessary, because he was encompassed with infirmities and obnoxious unto sin, and so stood in no less need of expiation and atonement than the people. Expositors generally agree that this is peculiar unto the high priest according to the law, the Lord Christ being neither intended nor included in this expression; for we have showed that, in this comparison, the things compared being on some accounts infinitely distant, there may be that in the one which nothing in the other answers unto. And that the Lord Christ is not intended in this expression appears, — 1. The necessity of this offering for himself by the high priest arose from two causes, as was declared: —(1.) From his moral infirmity and weakness; that is, unto obedience, and obnoxiousness to sin.(2.) From God’s command and appointment; he had commanded and appointed that he should offer sacrifice for himself. But in neither of these had our Lord Christ any concern; for neither had he any such infirmities, nor did God ordain or require that he should offer sacrifice for himself.2. Actually Christ had no sin of his own to offer for, nor was it possible that he should; for he was made like unto us, “yet without sin.” And the offering of the priest here intended was of the same kind with that which was for the people. Both were for actual sins of the same kind; one for his own, the other for the people’s.3. It is expressly said, that the Lord Christ “needed not, as they to offer first for his own sins, and then for the people’s;” and that because he was in himself “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” Hebrews 7:26-27. This, therefore, belonged unto the weakness and imperfection of the legal high priest. Two expositors of late have been otherwise minded. The first is Crellius or Schlichtingius, who says that the infirmities and evils that Christ was obnoxious unto, are here, by a catachresis, called “sins;” and for them he offered for himself. The other is Grotius, who speaks to the same purpose: “Cum hoc generaliter de omni sacerdote dicitur, sequitur Christum quoque obtulisse pro se ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, i.e., ut a doloribus illis qui peccatorum poenae esse solent, et occasione peccatorum nostrorum ipsi infiigebantur, posset liberari;” — “Whereas this is spoken generally of every priest, it follows that Christ also offered for himself for sins; that is, that he might be freed from those pains which are wont to be punishments of sins, and which, on the occasion of our sins, were inflicted on him.” It is well enough known what dogma or opinion is intimated in these expressions. But I answer, — 1. This assertion is not universal and absolute concerning every high priest, but every high priest that was “under the law,” who was appointed to be a type of Christ, so far as was possible by reason of his infirmities.2. It is not without danger, to say that “Christ offered for himself ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν.” He “knew no sin,” he “did no sin,” and therefore could not offer a sin-offering for himself. His “offering himself to God for us.” — “making his soul an offering for sin,” our sins, — his being “made sin for us,” to make “atonement” or “reconciliation” for our sins, is fully declared; but this offering for himself, especially for sin, is nowhere taught nor intimated.3. If he be intended here, then must he offer for himself, as the high priest did of old; this the letter of the text enforceth. But the high priest of old was to offer distinctly and separately, “first for himself, and then for the people.” So the words require it in this place, by the notes of comparison and distinction, κάθως and οὕτω, “as for the people, so” (or “in like manner”) “for himself.” Therefore if the Lord Christ be intended, he must offer two distinct sacrifices, one for himself, another for us. Now, whereas this he needed not to do, nor did, nor could do, it is undeniably manifest that he hath no concern in this expression.There remaineth one difficulty only to be removed, which may arise from the consideration of this discourse. For it the high priest of old, notwithstanding his own sins, could first offer for himself and then for the people, and so make expiation for all sin, what necessity was there that our high priest should be absolutely free from all sin, as our apostle declares that he was, and that it was necessary he should be, Hebrews 7:26-27; for it seems he might first have offered for his own sin, and then for ours?Ans. 1. It is one thing to expiate sin typically, another to do it really; one thing to do it in representation, by virtue of somewhat else, another to do it effectually by itself. The first might be done by them that were sinners, the latter could not. 2. On that supposal it would have been indispensably necessary that our high priest must have offered many sacrifices. Once he must have offered for himself, wherein we should have had no concern; and then he must again have offered himself for us. Hence, whereas he had nothing to offer but himself, he must have died and been offered more than once; which lay under all manner of impossibilities.3. That a real atonement might be made for sin, it was required that our nature, which was to suffer and to be offered, should be united unto the divine nature in the person of the Son of God; but this it could not be had it not been absolutely sinless and holy. Some observations ensue.The order of God’s institution, with respect unto the sacrificing of the high priest for himself and the people, is observable; and this was, that he should first offer for himself, and then for them. This order was constant, and is especially observable in the great anniversary sacrifice for atonement on the day of expiation, Leviticus 16. Now the reason of this was, — 1. Typical, that having first received pardon and purification for himself, he might the better prefigure and represent the spotless holiness of our high priest in his offering of himself for us.2. Moral, to declare how careful they ought to be of their own sins who deal about the sins of others. And we may observe that, —Obs. 1. The absolute holiness and spotless innocency of the Lord Christ in his offering of himself had a signal influence into the efficacy of his sacrifice, and is a great encouragement unto our faith and consolation.This our apostle informs us to have been necessary, Hebrews 7:26, τοιοῦτοςγὰρἡμῖνἔπρεπενἀρχιερεύς, — “It was meet” (convenient, necessary, for and unto us) “that we should have such an high priest as was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” No other sort of high priest could have done what was to be done for us. Had he had any sin of his own he could never have taken all sin from us. From hence it was that what he did was so acceptable with God, and that what he suffered was justly imputed unto us, seeing there was no cause in himself why he should suffer at all. This, therefore, is frequently mentioned and insisted on where his sacrifice is declared: 2 Corinthians 5:21,“He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” He was “made sin for us” when he was made a “sacrifice for sin,” when “his soul was made an offering for sin.” Hereon depends our being “made the righteousness of God in him,” or righteous before God through him; but not on this as absolutely considered, but as “he was made sin who knew no sin,” who was absolutely innocent and holy. So the apostle. Peter, mentioning the redemption which we have by his blood, which was in the sacrifice of himself, says it was “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter 1:19. And treating again of the same matter, he adds, “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” 1 Peter 2:22. So Romans 8:3. And we may see herein, —1. Pure, unmixed love and grace. He had not the least concern in what he did or suffered herein for himself. This was “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” that being “rich, for our sakes he became poor.” All that he did was from sovereign love and grace. And will he not pursue the same love unto the end?2. The efficacy and merit of his oblation, that was animated by the life and quintessence of obedience. There were in it the highest sufferings and the most absolute innocency, knit together by an act of most inexpressible obedience.3. The perfection of the example that is set before us, 1 Peter 2:21-22. And from hence we may also observe, that, —Obs. 2. Whosoever dealeth with God or man about the sins of others, should look well, in the first place, unto his own. The high priest was to take care about, and “first to offer for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.” And they who follow not this method will miscarry in their work. It is the greatest evidence of hypocrisy, for men to be severe toward the sins of others and careless about their own. There are four ways whereby some may act with respect unto the sins of others, and not one of them wherein they can discharge their duty aright, if in the same kind they take not care of themselves in the first place.1. It is the duty of some to endeavor the conversion of others from a state of sin. As this belongs to parents and governors in their place, so is it the chief work of ministers, and principal end of the ministry. So the Lord Christ determines it in his mission of Paul: “I send thee to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me,” Acts 26:17-18. shall he apply himself hereunto, how shall he be useful herein, who was never made partaker of this mercy himself? How can they press that on others which they neither know what it is, nor whether it be or no, any otherwise than as blind men know there are colors? By such persons are the souls of men ruined, who undertake the dispensation of the gospel unto them for their conversion unto God, knowing nothing of it themselves. 2. It is our duty to keep those in whom we are concerned as much as in us lieth from sinning, or from actual sin. “These things I write unto you,” saith the apostle, “that ye sin not.” 1 John 2:1. With what. confidence, with what conscience, can we endeavor this toward others, if we do not first take the highest care herein of ourselves? Some that should watch over others are open and profligate sinners themselves. The preaching, exhortations, and reproofs of such persons do but render them the more contemptible; and on many accounts tend to the hardening of those whom they pretend to instruct. And where men “regard iniquity in their hearts,” although there be no notoriety in their transgressions, yet they will grow languid and careless in their watch over others; and if they keep up the outward form of it, it will be a great means of hardening themselves in their own sin. 3. To direct and assist others in the obtaining pardon for sin is also the duty of some. And this they may do two ways: —(1.) By directing them in their application unto God by Jesus Christ for grace and mercy;(2.) By earnest supplications with them and for them. And what will they do, what can they do in these things sincerely for others, who make not use of them for themselves? look on this as one of the greatest blessings of the ministry, that we have that enjoined us to do with respect unto others which may sanctify and save their souls; and God hath so ordered things that we neither can nor will diligently attend unto any thing of that kind towards others concerning which we do not first endeavor to have its effect upon ourselves. 4. To administer consolation under sinning, or surprisals with sin, unto such as God would have to be comforted, is another duty of the like kind. And how shall this be done by such as were never cast down for sin themselves, nor ever spiritually comforted of God? It behoves us, therefore, in all things wherein we may deal with others about sin, to take care of ourselves in the first place, that “our consciences be purged from dead works,” that in all we do we may “serve the living God.” Obs. 3. No dignity of person or place, no duty, no merit, can deliver sinners from standing in need of a sacrifice for sin. The high priest, being a sinner, was to “offer for himself.” Obs. 4. It was a part of the darkness and bondage of the church under the old testament, that their high priests had need to offer sacrifices for themselves and their own sins. This they did in the view of the people; who might fear lest he could not fully expiate their sins who had many of his own, and was therefore necessitated in the first place to take care of himself. It is a relief to sinners, that the word of reconciliation is administered unto them, and the sacrifice of Christ proposed, by men subject unto the like infirmities with themselves; for there is a testimony therein, how that they also may find acceptance with God, seeing he deals with them by those who are sinners also. But these are not the persons who procure the remission, or have made the atonement which they declare. Were it so, who could with any confidence acquiesce therein? But this is the holy way of God: Those who are sinners declare the atonement which was made by him who had no sin. The foregoing verses declare the personal qualifications of a high priest. But these alone are not sufficient actually to invest any one with that office; it is required, moreover, that he be lawfully called thereunto. The former make him meet for it, and this gives him his right unto it. And in the application of the whole unto Jesus Christ, this is first insisted on, Hebrews 5:5. Hebrews 5:4. — Καὶοὐχἑαυτῷτιςλαμβάνειτὴντιμὴν, ἀλλὰὁκαλούμενοςὑπὸτοῦΘεοῦ, καθάπερκαὶὁ᾿Ααρών. [2][2] The article before καλούμενος is omitted by Griesbach, SchoIz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and most other modern critics. — Ed.Hebrews 5:4. — And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.There is no difficulty in the rendering of these words, and consequently very little difference among translators. The Syr. and Vulg. Lat. read “honor” absolutely, without taking notice of the article τήν, which is here emphatical, “this honor;” the honor of the priesthood. And for “himself,” the Syriac reads, “to his own soul;” by an idiom of speech peculiar to the eastern languages.The words may be taken as a negative universal proposition, with a particular exception subjoined. “No man taketh this honor to himself but” only “he who is called.” He that is called taketh this honor to himself, or he that hath right so to do, — namely, to possess and exercise the office of a high priest. Or they may be resolved into two disjunctive propositions: the one universally negative, without exception or limitation, “No man taketh this honor unto himself;” the other particularly affirmative, “He that is called of God,” he doth so, or he receiveth this honor. Thus there is an opposition expressed between a man’s taking this honor unto himself and his receiving of it on the call of God. Or we may yet more plainly express the meaning of the apostle. Having laid down the qualifications necessary unto him who was to be a high priest, he declares what is required for his actual investiture with this office. And this he expresseth, — 1. Negatively he is not to assume this honor to himself:2. Positively, he is to be called of God; which he exemplifies in the instance of Aaron, “as was Aaron.”Οὐχἑαυτῷλαμβάνει, “any one doth not take;” that is, no man doth. And λαμβάνω is not here simply “sumo,” “to take;” but “assumo,” “to take upon,” to take to him: or as it sometimes signifies, “prehendo, corripio,” “unduly to take,” by laying hold of any thing. “No man taketh,” that is, according to the law, according to divine institution. It was not the law that men should so do. Men might do otherwise, and did do otherwise, both as to the office and exercise of the priesthood. So did king Uzziah as to the exercise of it, 2 Chronicles 26:16. And at the time of the writing of this epistle, as also for many years before, there had been no lawful order or call observed in those who possessed the office of the high priesthood among the Jews. Some invaded it themselves, and some were intruded into it by foreign power. And both Chrysostom and OEcumenius suppose that our apostle in this place doth reflect on that disorder. His principal intention is plainly to declare how things ought to be, by the law and constitution of God. “No man doth;” that is, no man, ought so to do, for it is contrary to the law and the order appointed of God in his church. See Numbers 18. God’s institution in the Scripture is so far the sacred rule of all things to be done in his worship, that whatever is not done by virtue thereof, and in conformity thereunto, is esteemed as not done, or not at all done to him. But, — Τὴντιμήν. This is the object of the act prohibited: “The honor;” ‘this honor whereof we treat.’Τιμή here intends either the office itself or the dignity of it. The office itself may be called “honor,” because it is honorable. So also is the word used, Hebrews 3:3. ‘No man taketh this honourable office upon him of his own head, of himself, without warrant, call, and authority from God.’If only the dignity of the office be intended, then it is, ‘No man arrogateth so much to himself, so sets up or advanceth himself, as to set himself out for an high priest.’I judge the office itself is first intended, yet not absolutely, but as it was honorable, such as men would naturally desire and intrude themselves into, had not God set bounds to their ambition by his law. So did Korah; for which he was first rebuked and afterwards destroyed, Numbers 16:9-10, etc. And this office was exceeding honorable, on a twofold account: —1. From the nature of it: wherein there was,(1.) An especial separation unto God, Exodus 28;(2.) An especial appropinquation or drawing nigh unto him, Leviticus 16;(3.) The discharge of all peculiar divine services. These things made the office honorable, — a high honor unto them that were duly vested with it. For what greater honor can a mortal creature be made partaker of, than to be peculiarly nigh unto God? 2. Because God required that honor should be given both unto the office and person vested with it. For this end partly was he to be adorned with garments made “for beauty and for glory,” and had power given him to rule in the house of God, 1 Samuel 2:30. But even in general, it is a great honor, on any account, to be made nigh unto God.᾿Αλλὰὁκαλοῦμενος, “but he that is called of God.” The called one of God, he hath, he receiveth, he is made partaker of the honor of this office. He is the high priest whom God calls. And this call of God is the designation of a man unto an office or employment. He doth, as it were, look on a person among others, and calls him out to himself, as Exodus 28:1. It compriseth also the end of the call, in the collation of right, power, and trust, whatever is necessary unto the due exercise of that whereunto any one is called; for God’s will and pleasure is the supreme rule of all order and duty. And this call is here exemplified in the instance of Aaron: “even as was Aaron.” Καθάπερκαὶὁ᾿Ααρών, “even as Aaron,” “in like manner as Aaron.” And the note of similitude is regulated either by the word “called,” or by the subject of the instance, “Aaron.” If by the former, no more is intended but that he must have a call of God, as Aaron had. The comparison proceeds no farther but unto the general nature of a call. A call he must have, but the especial nature of that call is not declared. But if the note of comparison be regulated by the instance of Aaron, then the especial manner and nature of the call intended is limited and determined: ‘He must be called of God as was Aaron;’that is, immediately and in an extraordinary way. And this is the sense of the words and place. It may be objected, ‘If this be so, then all the high priests who succeeded Aaron in the Judaical church are here excluded from a right entrance into their office; for they were not immediately called of God unto their office, as Aaron was, but succeeded one another by virtue of the law or constitution, which was only an ordinary call.’Ans. It doth not exclude them from a right entrance into their office, but it doth from being considered in this place. They had that call to their office which God had appointed, and which was a sufficient warranty unto them in the discharge of it. But our apostle disputes here about the erection of a new priesthood, such as was that of Christ. Herein no ordinary call, no law-constitution, no succession, could take place, or contribute any thing thereunto. The nature of such a work excludes all these considerations. And he who first enters on such a priesthood, not before erected nor constituted, he must have such a call of God thereunto. So had Aaron at the first erection of a typical priesthood in the church of Israel. He had his call by an immediate word of command from God, singling him out from among his brethren to be set apart unto that office, Exodus 28:1. And although in other things which belonged unto the administration of their office, the Lord Christ is compared to the high priests in general, executing their office according to the law, wherein they were types of him, yet as unto his entrance into his office upon the call of God, he is compared with Aaron only.This being the proper design of the words, the things disputed by expositors and others from this place, about the necessity of an ordinary outward call to the office of the priesthood, and, by analogy, unto the ministry of the gospel, though true in themselves, are foreign unto the intention of this place; for the apostle treats only of the first erection of a priesthood in the persons of Aaron and Christ, whereunto an extraordinary call was necessary. And if none might take on him the office of the ministry but he that is called of God as was Aaron, no man alive could do so at this day. Again, the note of similitude expresseth an agreement in an extraordinary call, but not in the manner of it and its special kind. This is asserted, that the one and the other had an immediate call from God, but no more. But as unto the especial kind and nature of this immediate call, that of Christ was incomparably more excellent and glorious than that of Aaron. This will be manifest in the next verses, where it is expressed and declared. In the meantime we shall consider the call of Aaron, as our apostle doth the ministry of Moses, Hebrews 3, declaring wherein indeed it was excellent, that so the real honor of the call of Christ above it may appear: — 1. He was “called of God,” by a word of command for his separation unto the office of the priesthood: Exodus 28:1,“Take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.”His sons were also mentioned, because provision was herein made for succession. This made his call extraordinary, — he was “called of God.” But, (1.) This command was not given by a word from God immediately unto himself. God doth not say unto him, ‘Thou art my priest; this day have I called thee.’But it is Moses to whom the command is given, and with whom the execution of it is intrusted. So that, (2.) He is in his call put as it were in the power of another; that is, of Moses. To him God says, “Take unto thee Aaron thy brother;” — ‘Be thou unto him in the room of God, and act towards him in my name.’ 2. This command or call of God was expressed in his actual separation unto his office, which consisted in two things: — (1.) His being arrayed by God’s appointment with glorious garments, Exodus 28:2. And they are affirmed to be contrived on purpose “for beauty and for glory.” But herein also a double weakness is included or supposed: —[1. That he stood in need of an outward robe to adorn him, because of his own weakness and infirmities, which God would as it were hide and cover, in his worship, under those garments. [2. That indeed they were all of them but typical of things far more glorious in our high priest, namely, that abundant fullness of the graces of the Spirit, which being poured on him rendered him “fairer than the children of men.” It was therefore a part of the glory of Christ, that in the discharge of his office he stood in no need of outward ornaments, all things being supplied by the absolute perfection of his own personal dignity and holiness. (2.) His actual consecration ensued hereon; which consisted in two things: — [1. His unction with the holy consecrated oil. [2. In the solemn sacrifice which was offered in his name and for him, Exodus 29. And there was much order and glory in the solemnity of his consecration. But yet still these things had their weakness and imperfection. For, (1.) He had nothing of his own to offer at his consecration, but he was consecrated with the blood of a bullock and a ram.(2.) Another offered for him, and that for his sins. And this was the call of Aaron, his call of God; and that which God vindicated, setting a notable mark upon it, when it was seditiously questioned by Korah, Numbers 16:3; Numbers 17:10. And all these things were necessary unto Aaron, because God in his person erected a new order of priesthood, wherein he was to be confirmed by an extraordinary call thereunto. And this is that, and not an ordinary call, which the call of Christ is compared unto and preferred above. After this all the successors of Aaron had a sufficient call to their office, but not of the same kind with that of Aaron himself. For the office itself was established to continue by virtue of God’s institution. And there was a law of succession established, by which they were admitted into it, whereof I have treated elsewhere. But it is the personal call of Aaron which is here intended. Obs. 1. It is an act of sovereignty in God to call whom he pleaseth unto his work and especial service, and eminently so when it is unto any place of honor and dignity in his house.The once of the priesthood among the Jews was the highest and most honorable that was among them, at the first plantation of the church. And an eminent privilege it was, not only unto the person of him who was first called, but with respect also unto his whole posterity; for they, and they only, were to be priests unto God. Who would not think, now, but that God would call Moses to this dignity, and so secure also the honor of his posterity after him? But he takes another course, and calls Aaron and his family, leaving Moses and his children after him in the ordinary rank and employment of Levites. And the sovereignty of God is evident herein, 1. Because every call is accompanied with choice and distinction. Some one is called out from among others. So was it in the call of Aaron, Exodus 28:1, “Take unto thee Aaron, from among the children of Israel.” By a mere act of sovereign pleasure God chose him out from among the many thousands of his brethren. And this sovereign choice God insisteth on to express the favor and kindness that is in any call of his, 1 Samuel 2:27-28. And herewith he reproacheth the sins and ingratitude of men, upbraiding them with his sovereign kindness, Numbers 16:9-10.2. Because antecedent unto their call there is nothing of merit in any to be so called, nor of ability in the most for the work whereunto they are called. Under the new testament none was ever called to greater dignity, higher honor, or more eminent employment, than the apostle Paul. And what antecedaneous merit was there in him unto his vocation? Christ takes him in the midst of his madness, rage, persecution, and blasphemy, turns his heart unto himself, and calls him to be his apostle, witness, and great instrument for the conversion of the souls of men, bearing forth his name to the ends of the earth. And this we know that himself mentions on all occasions as an effect of sovereign grace, wisdom, and mercy. What merit was there, what previous disposition unto their work, in a few fishermen about the lake of Tiberias or sea of Galilee, that our Lord Jesus Christ should call them to be his apostles, disposing them into that state and condition wherein they “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel?” So was it ever with all that God called in an extraordinary manner. See Exodus 4:10-11; Jeremiah 1:6; Amos 7:14-15. In his ordinary calls there is the same sovereignty, though somewhat otherwise exercised.For in such a call there are three things: — 1. A providential designation of a person to such an office, work, or employment. When any office in the house of God, suppose that of the ministry, is fixed and established, the first thing that God doth in the call of any one thereunto, is the providential disposition of the circumstances of his life, directing his thoughts and designs toward such an end. And were not the office of the ministry in some places accompanied with many secular advantages, yea, provisions for the lusts and luxuries of men that are foreign unto it, this entrance into a call from God thereunto, by a mere disposal of men’s concerns and circumstances, so as to design the ministry in the course of their lives, would be eminent and perspicuous. But whilst multitudes of persons, out of various corrupt ends, crowd themselves into the entrances of this office, the secret workings of the providence of God towards the disposal of them whom he really designs unto his work herein are greatly clouded and obscured.2. It is part of this call of God, when he blesseth, succeedeth, and prospereth the endeavors of men to prepare themselves with those previous dispositions and qualifications which are necessary unto the actual call and susception of this office. And hereof also there are three parts: — (1.) An inclination of their hearts, in compliance with his designation of them unto their office. Where this is not effected, but men proceed according as they are stimulated by outward impressions or considerations, God is not as yet at all in this work.(2.) An especial blessing of their endeavors for the due improvement of their natural faculties and abilities in study and learning, for the necessary aids and instruments of knowledge and wisdom.(3.) The communication of peculiar gifts unto them, rendering them meet and able unto the discharge of the duty of their office; which, in an ordinary call, is indispensably required as previous to an actual separation unto the office itself. 3. He ordereth things so, as that a person whom he will employ in the service of his house shall have an outward call, according unto rule, for his admission thereinto.And in all these things God acts according to his own sovereign will and pleasure. And many things might hence be educed and insisted on. As, — 1. That we should have an awful reverence of, and a holy readiness to comply with the call of God; not to run away from it, or the work called unto, as did Jonah 1; nor to be weary of it, because of difficulty and opposition which we meet withal in the discharge of our duty, as it sundry times was ready to befall Jeremiah 15:10; Jeremiah 20:7-9; much less desert or give it over on any earthly account whatever, seeing that he who sets his hand to this plough, and takes it back again, is unworthy of the kingdom of heaven, — and it is certain that he who deserts his calling on worldly accounts, first took it up on no other.2. That we should not envy nor repine at one another, whatever God is pleased to call any unto.3. That we engage into no work wherein the name of God is concerned without his call; which gives a second observation, namely, that, —Obs. 2. The highest excellency and utmost necessity of any work to be done for God in this world, will not warrant our undertaking of it or engaging in it, unless we are called thereunto. Yea, — Obs. 3. The more excellent any work of God is, the more express ought our call unto it to be.Both these observations will be so fixed and confirmed in the consideration of the instance given us in the next verse, as that there is no occasion here to insist upon them. Obs. 4. It is a great dignity and honor, to be duly called unto any work, service, or office, in the house of God. The description of a high priest according to the law, with respect, — 1. Unto his nature;2. His employment, Hebrews 5:1;3. His qualification, Hebrews 5:2;4. His especial duty, with regard(1.) to himself(2.) to others, Hebrews 5:3;5. His call, in the instance of him who was the first of the order, Hebrews 5:4, — being completed, an application of the whole is in this verse entered upon unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And this is done in all the particulars wherein there was or could be an agreement or correspondency between them and him with respect unto this office. And it was necessary to be thus declared by the apostle, unto the end designed by him, for two reasons: — 1. Because the original institution of those priests and their office was to teach and represent the Lord Christ and his; which was his main intention to manifest and prove. Now this they could not do unless there were some analogy and likeness between them; neither could it be apprehended or understood for what end and purpose they were designed, and did so long continue in the church.2. That the Hebrews might be satisfied that their ministry and service in the house of God was now come to an end, and the whole use whereunto they were designed accomplished. For by this respect and relation that was between them, it was evident that he was now actually exhibited, and had done the whole work which they were appointed to prefigure and represent. It was therefore impossible that there should be any further use of them in the service of God; yea, their continuance therein would contradict and utterly overthrow the end of their institution. For it would declare that they had a use and efficacy unto spiritual ends of their own, without respect unto him and his work whom they did represent; which is to overthrow the faith of both churches, that under the old testament and that under the new. Wherefore a full discovery of the proportion between them, and relation of the one unto the other, was necessary, to evince that their continuance was useless, yea, pernicious. But on the other side, it could not be but that those high priests had many imperfections and weaknesses inseparable from their persons in the administration of their office, which could represent nothing nor receive any accomplishment in our Lord Jesus Christ. For if any thing in him had answered thereunto, he could not have been such a high priest as did become us, or as we stood in need of. Such was it that they were subject to death, and therefore were necessarily many, succeeding one another in a long series, according to a certain genealogy: “They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood,” or a priesthood that passeth not from one to another, Hebrews 7:23-24. Herein, therefore, there was a dissimilitude between them, because of their being obnoxious unto death; whence it was inevitable that they must be many, one succeeding to another. But Jesus Christ was to be one high priest only, and that always the same. Again, they were all of them personally sinners, and that both as men and as high priests; whence they might and did miscarry and sin, even in the administration of their office. Wherefore it was needful that they should offer sacrifice for their own sins also, as hath been declared. Now, as nothing could be represented hereby in Jesus Christ, “who knew no sin,” “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” nor could he therefore offer sacrifice for himself; so these things do cast some darkness and obscurity on those instances wherein they did represent him. Wherefore our apostle steers a straight course between all these difficulties: for, First, He manifests and proves that the legal high priests were indeed types of Jesus Christ in his office, and did bear forth a resemblance of him therein; as also, that they were appointed of God for that very end and purpose. Secondly, He shows what were their qualifications and properties; which he distinguisheth into two sorts: — 1. Such as belonged essentially, or were required necessarily, unto the office itself, and its regular discharge.2. Such as were unavoidable consequents or concomitants of their personal weakness or infirmity. This latter sort, in this application of their description unto Christ and his office, as prefigured thereby, he discards and lays aside, as things which, though necessary unto them from their frail and sinful condition, yet had no respect unto Christ, nor accomplishment in him. And as for the former, he declares in the discourse immediately ensuing how they were found in Christ, as exercising this office, in a far more eminent manner than in them. This is the design of the discourse in the second part of the chapter, which we are now entering on. Only, whereas in the description of a high priest in general, he begins with his nature, qualifications, work, and duty, closing and issuing it in his call; in his application of the whole unto the Lord Christ, he taketh up that first which he had lastly mentioned, namely, the call of a high priest, and proceedeth unto the others in an order absolutely retrograde. Hebrews 5:5. — ΟὕτωκαὶὁΧριστὸςοὐχἑαυτὸνἐδόξασεγενηθῆναιἀρχιερέα, ἀλλ᾿ὁλαλήσαςπρὸςαὐτόν·Υἱόςμουει῏σὺ, ἐγὼσήμερονγεγέννηκάσε.Hebrews 5:5. — So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.Οὕτωκαί, “so also, “and so, or “in like manner;” a note τῆςἀποδόσεως, of the application of things before spoken unto the subject principally intended. A respect may be herein unto all the instances in the preceding discourse: ‘As it was with the legal high priest in all the things necessary unto that office, so in like manner was it with Christ;’which he now designeth to manifest. Or the intention of this expression may be restrained to the last expressed instance, of a call to office: ‘As they were called of God, so, or in like manner, was Christ also;’which he immediately declares. And this is first regarded, though respect may be had unto it in all the particular instances of analogy and similitude which ensue. On this note of inference there ensueth a double proposition on the same supposition. The supposition that they both are resolved into is, that “Christ is an high priest.” Hereon the first proposition, with respect unto his call and entrance on that office, is negative, “He glorified not himself to be made an high priest.” The other is positive or affirmative, “But he that said unto him, Thou art my Son;” that is, he glorified him so to be, or he made him so. ῾ΟΧριστός, “Christ,” the subject spoken of; that is, the promised Messiah, the anointed one. The apostle in this epistle calls him occasionally by all signal names, as “the Son,” Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 1:8; the “Son of God,” Hebrews 4:14; the “Word of God,” Hebrews 4:12; “Jesus,” Hebrews 2:9; “Christ,” Hebrews 3:6; “Christ Jesus,” Hebrews 3:1. Here he useth the name of Christ as peculiarly suited unto his present occasion; for he had designed to prove that the promised Messiah, the hope and expectation of the fathers,, was to be the high priest for ever over the house of God. Therefore he calls him by that name whereby he was known from the beginning, and which signified his unction unto his office, — the anointed one. He was to be λֹּ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?ξָ ?ωִׁ ?ιηַ, the “anointed priest;” that is, “Christ.”The subject spoken of being stated or described by his name, the supposition of his being a high priest takes place. This the apostle had before taught and proved, Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 4:14. But you, considering the constitution of the law, and the way of any one’s entering on that office, a difficult inquiry yet remained, namely, how he came so to be. Had he been of the tribe of Levi, and of the family of Aaron, he might have been a priest., he would have been so, and have been so acknowledged by all. But how he should become so, who was a stranger to that family, who “sprang of the tribe of Judah, concerning which Moses spake nothing of the priesthood,” might be highly questioned. Fully and satisfactorily to resolve this doubt, and therein to take in the whole difficulty whence it arose, the apostle in the preceding verse lays down a concession in a universal maxim, that none who had not a right thereunto, by virtue of an antecedent law or constitution, — which Christ had not, as not being of the tribe of Levi, — could be a priest, without an immediate call from God, such as Aaron had. By and on this rule he offers the right of the Lord Christ unto this office to trial; and therein acknowledgeth that if he were not extraordinarily called of God thereunto he could be no high priest. To this purpose he declares, — First, Negatively, that “he glorified not himself to be made an high priest.” Outward call by men, or a constitution by virtue of any ordinance of the law he had none. Seeing therefore he is a priest, or if so he be, he must be made so by God, or by himself. But as for himself, neither did he take this honor to himself, nor was it possible that so he should do; for the whole office, and the benefit of his discharge of it, depended on a covenant or compact between him and his Father. Upon the undertaking of it, also, he was to receive many promises from the Father, and was to do his will and work; as we have elsewhere declared and fully proved. It was therefore impossible that he should make himself a high priest. The Socinians do but vainly raise a cavil against the deity of Christ from this place. They say, ‘If he were God, why did another glorify him in any kind, why did he not glorify himself?’And the Jews on all occasions make the same exception. There were, indeed, some force in the objection against us, if we believed or professed that the Lord Christ were God only; but our doctrine concerning his person is that which is declared by our apostle, Philippians 2:6-7,“Being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”Wherefore there is no more weight in this cavil than there would be in another, namely, if one, unto those testimonies, that “all things were made by him,” and that he “in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,” should ask, ‘How could this be, seeing he was a man, born in the fullness of time?’But this objection, for the substance of it, was raised by the Jews of old, and fully answered by himself. For whereas they objected unto him that he, being not fifty years old, could not have seen Abraham, as he pretended, who was dead near two thousand years before, he replied, “Before Abraham was, I am,” John 8:58. If he had no other nature than that wherein they thought he was not fifty years old (being indeed little more than thirty), he could not have known Abraham, nor Abraham him. As, therefore, if he had been man only, he could not have been before Abraham, so had he been God only, another could not have glorified him to be a priest. But he was man also; and these words are spoken not with respect unto his divine nature, but his human. Again; as it was impossible he should, so it is plain that he did not glorify himself to be a high priest, or take this dignity and honor to himself by his own will and authority. And this may be evidenced by a brief rehearsal of the divine acts necessary to the making of him a high priest; all which I have handled at large in the previous Exercitations. And they were of two sorts: — 1. Authoritative, and wholly without him;2. Perfective, whereunto his own concurrence was required. Of the first sort were, —(1.) His eternal designation unto this office.(2.) His mission unto the discharge of it.(3.) His unction with the Spirit for its due discharge. (4.) The constitution of the law of his priesthood, which consisted of two parts; the first prescribing what he should do, what he should undergo, what he should offer, or what should be the duties of his office; the other declaring, appointing, promising what should be attained, effected, and accomplished thereby.(5.) The committing and giving a people unto him, for whose sake and on whose account he was to bear, execute, and discharge this holy office. And all these, whereby he was authoritatively vested with his office, were sovereign acts of the will and wisdom of the Father, as I have elsewhere proved. By these was he called and glorified to be a high priest. Again, there were some acts perfective of his call, or such as gave it its complement; and these were wrought in him and by him, neither could they be otherwise: but yet by them did he not make himself a high priest, but only complied with the will and authority of the Father. Thus, when Aaron was called of God to his office, the law for its constitution being made and given, the person designed and called out by name, his pontifical garments put on, and the anointing holy oil poured on him, a sacrifice was to be offered, to complete and perfect his consecration. But because of his imperfection, whence it was necessary that he should come to his office by degrees and the actings of others about him, he could not himself offer the sacrifice for himself. He only laid his hand on the head of it, to manifest his concernment therein, but it was Moses that offered it unto God, Exodus 29:10-12. Thus it could not be with respect unto Jesus Christ, nor did he need any other sacrifice than his own for his consecration, seeing it was necessary unto the legal high priests on the account of their personal sins and infirmities. But although he was perfectly and completely constituted a high priest, by those acts of God the Father before mentioned, yet his solemn consecration and dedication, not to his office, but to’the actual discharge of it, were effected by acts of his own, in his preparation for and actual offering up of himself a sacrifice, once for all. And so he was perfected and consecrated in and by his own blood. Wherefore he did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but that was an act and effect of the will and authority of God. It remains only, as unto this first clause, that we inquire how it is said that “Christ glorified not himself,” as unto the end mentioned. Was there an addition of glory or honor made unto him thereby? Especially may this be reasonably inquired, if we consider what befell him, what he did, and what he suffered, in the discharge of this office; nay, doth not the Scripture everywhere declare this as an act of the highest condescension in him, as Philippians 2:6-9, Hebrews 2:10? How, therefore, can he be said not to glorify himself herein? Let those answer this inquiry who deny his divine nature and being. They will find themselves in the same condition as the Pharisees were when our Savior posed them with a question to the same purpose; namely, how David came to call Christ his Lord, who was to be his son so long after. Unto us these things are clear and evident. For although, if we consider the divine nature and person of Christ, it was an infinite condescension in him to take our nature, and therein to execute the office of a priest for us; yet with respect unto the nature assumed, the office itself was an honor and dignity unto him, on the accounts to be afterwards insisted on. Secondly, In the affirmative proposition the way whereby Christ came unto his office is declared, or by what authority he was appointed a high priest: ᾿Αλλ᾿ὁλαλήσαςπρὸςαὐτόν, — “But he that said unto him.” There is an ellipsis in the words, which must be supplied to complete the anti-thesis: “But he glorified him,” or “he made him to be an high priest, who said unto him, Υἱόςμουει῏σὺ, ἐγὼσήμερονγεγέννηκάσε.” It is not easily apprehended how the apostle confirmeth the priesthood of Christ, or his call to office, by these words (they are twice used elsewhere by himself to other ends, Hebrews 1:5, Acts 13:33); for these words do originally signify the eternal relation that is between the Father and the Son, with their mutual love therein. To this purpose are they applied, Hebrews 1:5. And because this was manifested in and by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, when and wherein he was “declared to be the Son of God with power,” Romans 1:4, this testimony is applied thereunto, Acts 13:33.For the direct intention and the full meaning of the words, the reader may consult our exposition on Hebrews 1:5, where they are handled at large. But how they are produced by our apostle here, as a confirmation of the priesthood of Christ, is an inquiry that is not without its difficulties; and seeing expositors are variously divided about it, their apprehensions must necessarily be inquired into and examined. First, Those of the Socinian way, as Crellius and Schlichtingius, affirm that these words are constitutive of the priesthood of Christ; and that they were spoken to him after his resurrection. Hence they suppose two things will ensue: — 1. That the Lord Christ was not a priest, at least no complete priest, until after his resurrection; for not until then was it said unto him, “Thou art my Son.”2. That his priestly and kingly offices are the same; for his exaltation in his kingly power is principally intended in these words. But these things are fond and impious. For if the Lord Christ were not a priest until after his resurrection, then he was not so in the offering of himself to God, in his death and blood-shedding; which to say is to offer violence to the common sense of all Christians, the whole institution of the types of old, the analogy of faith, and express testimonies of Scripture in particular, as hath been evinced in our Exercitations. It expressly contradicts the apostle in this very place, or would make him contradict himself; for after this he affirms that as a priest he offered unto God “in the days of his flesh,” verse 7. They say, therefore, that he had some kind of initiation into his office by death, but he was not completely a priest until after his resurrection. The meaning whereof is, that he was not a complete priest until he had completely finished and discharged the principal work which belonged unto that office! I say, therefore, — 1. That this distinction, of the Lord Christ being first an incomplete priest, and then afterwards made so completely, is foreign to the Scripture, a vain imagination of bold men, and inconsistent with his holy perfection, who was at once made so by the oath of God.2. It is destructive of all the instructive parts of the type; for Aaron neither did nor could offer any sacrifice to God until he was completely consecrated unto his office. Nor is any thing in the law more severely prohibited, than that anyone should draw nigh to God in offering sacrifice that was not completely a priest.3. Thus to interpret the testimony urged by the apostle,’is completely to disappoint his purpose and intention in it. For he designs by it to prove that Christ, in the offering which he made in the days of his flesh, did not glorify himself to be made a priest, but was made so by him who said unto him, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” And if this was not said unto him until after his resurrection, then in his offering of himself before, he glorified himself to be a priest, for he was not yet made so of God the Father. 4. The vanity of confounding the kingly and priestly offices of Christ hath been sufficiently detected in our Exercitations. Secondly, Others say that the confirmation of the priesthood of Christ in these words, is taken from the ancient usage before the law, whereby the priesthood was annexed unto the primogeniture. Wherefore God declaring the Lord Christ to be his only-begotten Son, the first-born, lord and heir of the whole creation, did thereby also declare him to be the high priest. And this exposition is embraced by sundry learned men, whose conjecture herein I cannot comply withal. For, — 1. The foundation of it is very questionable, if not unquestionably false; namely, concerning the priesthood of the firstborn before the law. This, indeed, is the opinion of the Jews, and is so reported by Jerome, Epist. ad Evagr.; but the matter is not clear in the Scripture. Abel was not the first- born, nor Abraham either; yet they both offered sacrifice to God.2. This would include an express contradiction unto the scope of the apostle. For his design is to prove that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedec, called of God, and raised up extraordinarily, in a way peculiar and not common to any other. But on this supposition, he should be a priest after the order of the first-born. For what belonged unto Christ as the first-born, see our exposition on Hebrews 1:3.Thirdly, Some judge that although the apostle recites expressly only these words, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” yet he directs us thereby to the whole passage in the psalm whereof these words are a part, Hebrews 5:7-8,“I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”Here seems to be an express constitution, such as the apostle refers unto. For if we would know when or how God the Father glorified Christ to be a high priest, it was in that decree of his which is declared, Psalms 2:7. It was before established in heaven, and then declared in prophecy. And moreover, there is added an especial mention of the discharge of one part of his office as a priest, in these words, “Ask of me;” wherein authority is given him to make intercession with God. And this exposition, whereof, as far as I can find, Junius was the author, I shall not oppose; only for two reasons I cannot readily assent unto it. For, — 1. It seems not probable that the apostle, in the quotation of a testimony, should omit that which was directly to his purpose, and produce those words only which alone were not so.2. The asking here enjoined, is not his sacerdotal intercession, but only an expression denoting the dependence of Christ, as king, on God the Father for the subduing of his enemies.Fourthly, Some conceive that the apostle intends not a testimony of the constitution of Christ in his office of priesthood, but only to give an account of the person by whom he was called thereunto: ‘He made not himself a high priest; but was made so by him from whom he had all his honor and glory as mediator, and that because be was his Son, and in his word declared so to be.’But the testimony given unto his priesthood is brought in in the next verse. Nor do I see any more than one exception which this exposition is liable unto, but which those that follow it have taken no notice of. And this is, that the manner of the introduction of the next testimony, “As he also saith in another place,” doth evidence that they are both produced and urged to the same purpose, for the confirmation of the same assertion. But withal I answer thereunto by concession, that indeed they are both here of the same importance, and used to the same purpose. For these words in this place, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec,” are considered as spoken to him by God the Father, even as the former were. This, therefore, is the design of the apostle in the introduction of this testimony; for the clearing whereof we may observe:— 1. That it is not the priesthood of Christ, but his call thereunto, which in this place the apostle asserts, as was before declared.2. As to this, he intends to show only that it was God the Father from whom he had all his mediatory power, as king, priest, and prophet to his church.3. This is evidently proved by this testimony, in that therein God declares him to be his Son, and his acceptance thereby of him in the discharge of the work committed unto him. For this solemn declaration of his relation unto God the Father in his eternal sonship, and his approbation of him, doth prove that he undertook nothing, performed nothing, but what he had appointed, designed, and authorized him unto. And that he had so designed him unto this office is more particularly declared in the ensuing testimony. Obs. 1. The office of the high priesthood over the church of God was an honor and glory to Jesus Christ.It was so unto his human nature, even as it was united unto the divine; for it was capable of glory, of degrees of glory, and an augmentation in glory, John 17:1, 1 Peter 1:21. And the Lord Christ had a twofold glory upon him in the bearing and discharging of this office: —1. The glory that was upon him, or of the work itself; 2. The glory that was proposed unto him, in the effects of it.1. There was a glory upon him in his work, from the nature of the work itself. So it was prophesied of him, Zechariah 6:13, “He shall build the temple of the LORD, and he shall bear the glory.” All the glory of the house of God shall be on him, Isaiah 22:24. And it was a glory unto him, because the work itself was great and glorious It was no less than the healing of the breach made between God and the whole creation by the first apostasy. Sin had put variance between God and all his creatures, Genesis in, Romans 8:20. No way was left, but that God must be perpetually dishonored, or all creatures everlastingly cursed. And hereby there seemed to be a kind of defeatment of God’s first design, to glorify himself in the making of all things; for to this purpose he made them all “exceeding good,” Genesis 1:31. And his glory depended not so much upon their being, as their being good; that is, their beauty, and order, and subjection to himself. But this was now lost as to all the creation, but only a part and portion of the angels, who sinned not. But yet the apostasy of those who were partakers of the same nature, privileges, and advantages with them, made it manifest what they also in their natural state and condition were obnoxious unto. How great, how glorious a work must it needs be, to put a stop unto this entrance of confusion; to lay hold on the perishing creation, running headlong into eternal ruin, and to preserve it, or some portion of it, some first-fruits of it, unto God from destruction! Must not this be a work equal unto, if not exceeding, the first forming of all things? Certainly it is a glorious and honorable thing unto him that shall undertake and accomplish this great and glorious work. What is said with respect unto one particular in it, may be applied unto the whole. When the sealed book containing the state of the church and the world was represented unto John, it is said that there was “no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, that was able to open the book, neither to look thereon,” Revelation 5:3. Whereon the apostle wept that none was found worthy to engage in that work. But when the Lord Christ, “the lion of the tribe of Judah,” appeared to do it, and prevailed therein, Revelation 5:5, all the host of heaven, all the saints of God, joined together in ascribing glory and honor unto him, Revelation 5:6-14. The work was great and honorable, and therefore on the account of it doth that harmonious ascription of glory and honor unto him ensue. How much more must the whole work be esteemed such, whereof that book contained only a small portion! Herein, then, was the Lord Jesus Christ exceedingly glorious in his priestly office, because in the discharge of it he was the only means and way of the recovery and advancement of the glory of God; the greatness of which work no heart can conceive nor tongue express. 2. It appears from the effects and consequents of the discharge of his office, or the glory proposed unto him. And that, —(1.) On the part of them for whom he did discharge it. And these were all the elect of God. He himself looked on this as a part of the glory set before him, that he should be a captain of salvation unto them, and bring them unto the eternal enjoyment of God in immortal glory. And a double honor ariseth hence unto Jesus Christ: — [1. Initial, the love, thankfulness, and worship of the church in all ages, in this world. See Revelation 1:5-6. This is a glory wherein he is delighted, that all his saints, in all parts of the world, do severally, and in their assemblies, with all humility, love, and thankfulness, worship, adore, bless, praise, and glorify him, as the author and finisher of their recovery unto God, and eternal salvation. Every day do they come about his throne, cleave unto him, and live in the admiration of his love and power.[2. This glory will be full at the latter day, and so hold unto all eternity, when all his saints, from the beginning of the world unto the end thereof, shall be gathered unto him, and abide with him, adoring him as their head, and shouting for joy when they behold his glory. (2.) On his own part. There is a peculiar honor and glory given him of God, as a consequent of his discharge of this office, and on the account thereof, 1 Peter 1:21; Philippians 2:9-10; Ephesians 1:20-23 : whereof see our exposition on Hebrews 1:2.(3.) That glory wherein God will be exalted unto all eternity in the praise of his grace, — the end of all his holy purposes towards his church, Ephesians 1:6, — doth ensue and depend hereon. For these and the like reasons it was that our blessed Savior, knowing how unable we are in this world to comprehend his glory, as also how great a part of our blessedness doth consist in the knowledge of it, makes that great request for us, that, after we are preserved in, delivered from, and carried through our course in this world, as a principal part of our rest and reward, we may be with him where he is, to behold his glory which is given him of his Father, John 17:24. And our present delight in this glory and honor of Christ, is a great evidence of our love of him and faith in him. Obs. 2. Relation and love are the fountain and cause of God’s committing all authority in and over the church to Jesus Christ.By this expression of relation and love, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” doth the apostle prove that God called him to be the high priest of the church. To the same purpose himself [3] speaketh, John 3:35, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” In his constitution and declaration to be the great and only prophet of the church, God did it by an expression of his relation and love to him: [3] Or rather, John the Baptist. — Ed. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” Matthew 17:5.And this also was the foundation of his kingly office. Hebrews 1:2, “He hath spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things;” — he who was his Son, and because he was his Son. God would give this glory and honor unto none but unto his only Son; which to prove is the design of our apostle in the first chapter of this epistle. And this his relation unto God manifested itself in that he did in the discharge of his office; for saith the evangelist, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,” John 1:14.Now, first, the relation intended is that one single eternal relation of his being the “Son of God,” the “only-begotten of the Father,” through the divine ineffable communication of his nature with him, or unto him. And hence the faith hereof is the foundation of the church; for when Peter made that confession of it, in opposition unto all false conceptions of others concerning his person, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he answers, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” Matthew 16:16; Matthew 16:18. And why doth the Lord Christ build his church on the profession of this article of our faith concerning his person? It is because we declare our faith therein that God would not commit all power in and over the church, and the work of mediation in its behalf, unto any but him who stood in that relation to him, of his only-begotten Son. And hereby, as God declares the greatness of this work, which none could effect but his Son, he who is God with himself, and that none other should partake with him in this glory; so he directs us to the worship and honor of him as his Son: for it is the will of God that “all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,” John 5:23. And those who put in themselves, their wills and authorities, as the pope; or bring in others into the honor of this work, as saints and angels; do rise up in direct opposition to the design of the will and wisdom of God. They must first give some one the relation of an only Son to God, before they ought to ascribe any thing of this great work or the honor of it unto him. Secondly, The love intended is twofold: —1. The natural and eternal love of the Father unto the Son, and his delight in him, as participant of the same nature with himself. This is expressed, Proverbs 8:30-31; which place hath been explained and vindicated before.2. His actual love towards him on the account of his infinite condescension and grace in undertaking this work, wherein his glory was so deeply concerned. See Philippians 2:6-11. And this love hath a peculiar influence into the collation of that glory and honor on Christ which God bestowed on him. And in these things, which must not be here enlarged on, doth lie the blessed, sure, stable foundation of the church, and of our salvation, by the mediation of Christ. The next verse gives us a further confirmation of the call of Christ unto his office, by another testimony, taken from Psalms 110:4. And much time, with diligence, would be needful to the explanation hereof, but that this is not its proper place. For that the whole psalm was prophetical of Jesus Christ I have proved before, and vindicated it from the exceptions of the Jews, both in our Exercitations and expositions on the first chapter. The subject-matter also spoken of, or the priesthood of Melchisedec, with the order thereof, the apostle expressly resumes and handles at large, Hebrews 7, where it must be considered. There is, therefore, only one concernment of these words here to be inquired into; and this is, how far or wherein they do give testimony unto the assertion of the apostle, that Christ did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but that he was designed thereunto of God, even the Father. Hebrews 5:6. — Καθὼςκαὶἐνἑτέρῳλέγει·ΣὺἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνακατὰτὴνἀξινΜελχισεδέκ.Hebrews 5:6. — As he saith in another [psalm], Thou [art] priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.There are two things in these words: — First, The manner of the introduction of a new testimony; Secondly, The testimony itself.The First, “As he saith in another.” And therein we may consider, —1. The connection unto and compliance with that foregoing: ‘In the same manner as he had said in Psalms 2, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,” so he speaks “in another place” to the same purpose.’So great and important a truth had need of solid confirmation.2. The author of the testimony, or he that spake the words of it: Λέγει, “He saith.” And this may be taken two ways; —(1.) With respect unto the delivery of the words;(2.) With respect unto the subject-matter of them, or the thing signified in them.(1.) In the first way, he that speaks may be [1. David. He who was the penman of the second psalm was so also of this hundred and tenth. As, therefore, the words foregoing, as to the declaration of them, were his, so were these also. As he said in that place, so he saith in this. Or, [2. The Holy Spirit himself, who in both places spake in and by David: “Saying in David,” Hebrews 4:7.(2.) But the thing spoken and signified is principally here intended. And λέγει, “he saith,” referreth immediately to God the Father himself. That which the apostle designed to prove, is that Christ was called and constituted a high priest by the authority of God the Father. And this was done by his immediate speaking unto him. The Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, speaks these things to us. But he doth only therein declare what the Father said unto the Son; and that was it whereby the apostle’s intention was proved and confirmed. “He saith.” This was that which God said unto him. And this is recorded ἐνἑτέρῳ, “in another;” that is, τόπῳ, “place,” or rather ψαλμῷ, “in another psalm,” that is, Psalms 110:4.Secondly, The testimony itself is expressed, or the words of the Father unto the Son, whereby the apostle’s assertion is confirmed: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” It was sufficient for the apostle at present to produce these words only; but he will elsewhere make use of the manner how they were uttered, namely, by and with the oath of God, as it is declared in the psalm, “The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest,” etc. And these words of verse 4 do indissolubly depend on the first verse: “The LORD said unto my Lord;” that is, God the Father said unto the Son, with respect unto his incarnation and mediation, as I have proved elsewhere. And this word, “Thou art,” is “verbum constitutivum,” a “constituting word,” wherein the priesthood of Christ was founded. And it may be considered, — 1. As declarative of God’s eternal decree, with the covenant between the Father and Son, whereby he was designed unto this office; whereof we have treated expressly and at large in the previous Exercitations.2. As demonstrative of his mission, or his actual sending to the discharge of his office. These words are the symbol and solemn sign of God’s conferring that honor upon him, which gave him his instalment. There is included in them a supposition that God would prepare body for him, wherein he might exercise his priesthood, and which he might offer up unto him. On the whole, it is undeniable from this testimony, that God called and appointed him to be a priest; which was to be proved. Thus Christ was “called of God, as was Aaron;” — that is, immediately, and in an extraordinary manner; which was necessary in the first erection of that office in his person. But yet, as to the especial manner of his call, it was every way more excellent and glorious than that of Aaron. What his call was, and what were the weaknesses and imperfections of it, were before declared. But the call of Christ, — 1. Had no need of any outward ceremony to express it, yea, it had a glory in it which no ceremony could express.2. It consisted in the words of God spoken immediately to himself, and not to any others concerning him; only they are reported unto the church in the two psalms mentioned.3. The words spoken are present, effective, constituting, authoritative words, and not merely declarative of what God would have done. By these words was he called and made a priest.4. They are expressive of infinite love to and acquiescency in the person of Christ as a high priest. “Thou art my Son; THOU art a priest for ever.” 5. They were spoken and pronounced with the solemnity of an oath, — “The LORD hath sworn;” whereof elsewhere. He was not, therefore, only called of God, as was Aaron, but also in a peculiar way, far more eminently and gloriously. We may hence observe, —Obs. That in all things wherein God hath to do with mankind Jesus Christ should have an absolute pre-eminence. It was necessary that of old some things should be made use of to represent and prefigure him. And it is necessary now that some things should be made use of to reveal and exhibit him unto us. And these things must, as they are appointments of God, effects of his wisdom, and out of their respect unto him, be precious and excellent. But yet in and through them all it is his own person, and what he doth therein, that hath the pre- eminence. And this is so on a twofold account: — 1. Because in the representation which they made of him there was an imperfection, by reason of their own nature, so that they could not perfectly represent him. So Aaron was called in an extraordinary manner, to prefigure his call ‘unto his priesthood; but that call of his was accompanied with much weakness and perfection, as hath been declared. It belonged unto the pre-eminence of Christ, that there should be something, yea, very much, in his call absolutely peculiar. 2. The principal dignity of all these things depended on their respect and relation unto him; which exalts him infinitely above them. And so also is it with all the means of grace, whereby at present he is exhibited, and the benefits of his mediation communicated unto us. In this verse two instances of the qualifications of a high priest are accommodated unto our Lord Jesus Christ, and that in the retrograde order before proposed. For the last thing expressed concerning a high priest according to the law was, that he was “compassed with infirmity,” Hebrews 5:3. And this, in the First place, is applied unto Christ; for it was so with him when he entered upon the discharge of his office. And therein the apostle gives a double demonstration: —1. From the time and season wherein he did execute his office; it was “in the days of his flesh.” So openly do they contradict the Scripture who contend that he entered not directly on his priestly office until these days of his flesh were finished and ended. Now, in the days of his flesh he was compassed with infirmities, and that because he was in the flesh.2. From the manner of his deportment in this discharge of his office, he did it with “cries and tears.” And these also are from the infirmity of our nature. Secondly, The acting of the high priest, as so qualified, in the discharge of his office, is accommodated unto him. For a high priest was appointedιπναπροσφέρῃδῶράτεκαὶθυσίαςὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, verse 1; — “that he might offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.” So it is here affirmed of our Savior that he also “offered” to God; which is expressive of a sacerdotal act, as shall be declared. And this is further described, —1. By an especial adjunct of the sacrifice he offered, namely, “prayers and tears;”2. By the immediate object of them, and his sacrifice which they accompanied, “Him that was able to save him from death;”3. By the effect and issue of the whole, “He was heard in that which he feared.”Hebrews 5:7. — ῝Οςἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκόςαὐτοῦδεήσειςτεκαὶἱκετηρίαςπρὸςτὸνδυνάμενονσώζειναὐτὸνἐκθανάτου, μετὰκραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶςκαὶδακρύωνπροσενέγκας, καὶεἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας. ᾿Ενταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ. Syr., “also when he was clothed with flesh.” Arab., “in the days of his humanity.” Μετὰκραυγῆςἱσχυρᾶς. Syr., “with a vehement outcry.” ᾿Απὸτῆςεὐλαβεῖας. This is wholly omitted in the Syriae; only in the next verse mention of is introduced, as ηֶ ?μְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰ, “fear,” or “dread:” which is evidently transferred from this place, the interpreter, it seems, not understanding the meaning of it in its present construction. [4] [4] . — Chrys., Phot., Theophyl., Vulg., Luther, Calov, Olshausen, Bleek, and some others, understand εὐλάβ. in the sense of “fear of God;” — Jesus was heard on account of his piety. The Peschito, Itala, Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Gerhard, Cappellus, Limborch, Carpzor, Bengei, Morus, Storr, Kuinoel, Paulus, De Wette, Tholuck, and a whole host of critics besides, render εὐλάβ. by fear, anxiety; which signification has been vindicated on philological grounds by Casaubon, Wetstein, and Krebs. Ebrard proceeds to argue, that though the prayer of Christ was to be saved from death, it was not unheard, inasmuch as he was divested of the fear of death. Others understand the fear to be simply that horror of soul under which he was” exceeding sorrowful.” — Ed. Hebrews 5:7. — Who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications, with a strong cry [or vehement outcry] and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard [or delivered] from [his] fear.The person here spoken of is expressed by the relative ὅς, “who;” that is, ὁχριστός, mentioned Hebrews 5:5, to whose priesthood thenceforward testimony is given. “Who,” that is Christ, not absolutely, but as a high priest.The First thing mentioned of him is an intimation of the infirmity wherewith he was attended in the discharge of his office, by a description of the time and season wherein he was exercised in it; it was ἐνταῖςἡμέραιςτῆςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ, — “in the days of his flesh.” That these infirmities were in themselves perfectly sinless, and absolutely necessary unto him in this office, was before declared. And we may here inquire, —1. What is meant by the “flesh” of Christ?2. What were “the days of his flesh?”1. The “flesh” of Christ, or wherein he was, is in the Scripture taken two ways: —(1.) Naturally, by a synecdoche, for his whole human nature: John 1:14, “The Word was made flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh.” Romans 9:5, “Of whom was Christ according to the flesh.” Hebrews 2:14, “He partook of flesh and blood.” 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 1:3. See our exposition of Heb 2:9-14. In this flesh, or in the flesh in this sense, as to the substance of it, Christ still continues. The body wherein he suffered and rose from the dead was altered, upon his resurrection and ascension, as to its qualities, but not as to its substance; it consisted still of “flesh and bones,” Luke 24:39. And the same spirit which, when he died, he resigned into the hands of God, was returned unto him again when he was “quickened by the Spirit,” 1 Peter 3:18; when God showed him again “the path of life,” according to his promise, Psalms 16:11. This flesh he carried entire with him into heaven, where it still continueth, though inwardly and outwardly exalted and glorified beyond our apprehension, Acts 1:11; and in this flesh shall he come again unto judgment, Acts 1:11; Acts 3:21; Acts 17:31; Revelation 1:7 : for the union of this flesh with the divine nature in the person of the Son of God, is eternally indissoluble. And they overthrow the foundation of faith, who fancy the Lord Christ to have any other body in heaven than what he had on the earth; as they also do who make him to have such flesh as they can eat every day. It is not, therefore, the flesh of Christ in this sense, as absolutely considered, which is here intended; for the days of this flesh abide always, they shall never expire to eternity. (2.) “Flesh,” as applied unto Christ, signifies the frailties, weaknesses, and infirmities of our nature; or our nature as it is weak and infirm during this mortal life. So is the word often used: Psalms 78:39, “He remembereth λִּ ?ιΰּ ?αָ ?ωָׂ ?ψηֵ ?ξָּ ?δ,” — “that they are but flesh;” that is, poor, weak, mortal, frail creatures. Psalms 65:2, “Unto thee shall all flesh come;” poor, helpless, creatures standing in need of aid and assistance. So “flesh and blood” is taken for that principle of corruption, which must be done away before we enter into heaven, 1 Corinthians 15:50. And this is that which is meant by the flesh of Christ in this place, — human nature not yet glorified, with all its infirmities, wherein he was exposed unto hunger, thirst, weariness, labor, sorrow, grief, fear, pain, wounding, death itself. Hereby doth the apostle express what he had before laid down in the person of the high priest according to the law, — he was “compassed with infirmity.” 2. What were “the days of his flesh” intended? It is evident that in general his whole course and walk in this world may be comprised herein. From his cradle to the grave he bare all the infirmities of our nature, with all the dolorous and grievous effects of them. Hence all his days he was ΰִ ?ιωׁ ξַ ?λְ ?ΰֹ ?αεֹ ?ϊεִ ?ιγεּ ?ςַ ηֹ ?μִ ?ι, Isaiah 53:3; — “a man of sorrows,” filled with them, never free from them; and familiarly “acquainted with grief, as a companion that never departed from him. But yet respect is not had here unto this whole space of time, only the subject-matter treated of is limited unto that season; it fell out neither before nor after, but in and during the days of his flesh. But the season peculiarly intended is the close of those days, in his last suffering, when all his sorrows, trials, and temptations came unto a head. The sole design of the expression is to show that when he offered up his sacrifice he was encompassed with infirmities; which hath an especial influence into our faith and consolation. Secondly, An account is given of what he did in those days of his flesh, as a high priest, being called of God unto that office. And this in general was his acting as a priest, wherein many things are to be considered: —1. The act of his oblation, in that word προσενέγκας. Προσφέρω is “accedo,” “appropinquo,” or “accedere facio,” when applied unto things in common use, or unto persons in the common occasions of life. So doth χָ ?ψַ ?α signify in the Hebrew. But when it doth so, the LXX. constantly render it by ἐγγίζω and προσεγγίζω; that is, “to draw near.” But when it is applied to things sacred, they render it by προσφέρω; that is, “offero,” or “to offer.” And although this word is sometimes used in the New Testament in the common sense before mentioned, yet it alone, and no other, is made use of to express an access with gifts and sacrifices, or offerings, to the altar. See Matthew 2:11; Matthew 5:23-24; Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14. λְּ ?ιΰּ ?ιַ ?χְ ?ψִ ?ιαχָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ο, Leviticus 1:2; — that is, προσφέρῃδῶρον, “offer a gift;’that is, at the altar. And in this epistle it constantly expresseth a sacerdotal act, Hebrews 5:1; Hebrews 5:3; Hebrews 8:3-4; Hebrews 9:7; Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:1-2; Hebrews 10:8; Hebrews 10:11-12; Hebrews 11:4; Hebrews 11:17. And προσφορά is a “sacred oblation,” or a “sacrifice,” Hebrews 10:5; Hebrews 10:8; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 10:18. Nor is the word otherwise used in this epistle. And the end why we observe it, is to manifest that it is a priestly, sacerdotal offering that is here intended. He offered as a priest.2. The matter of his offering is expressed by δεήσειςκαὶἱκετηρίας “prayers and supplications.” Both these words have the same general signification. And they also agree in this, that they respect an especial kind of prayer, which is for the averting or turning away of impendent evils, or such as are deserved and justly feared. For whereas all sorts of prayers may be referred unto two heads, —(1.) Such as are petitory, for the impetration of that which is good;(2.) Such as are deprecatory, for the keeping off or turning away that which is evil; the latter sort only are here intended. Δεήσεις are everywhere “preces deprecatoriae;” and we render it “supplications,” 1 Timothy 2:1. And “supplicationes” are the same with “supplicia,” which signifies both “punishments,” and “prayers” for the averting of them; as in the Hebrew, ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊis both “sin” and a “sacrifice” for the expiation of it. ῾Ιχετηρία is nowhere used in the Scripture but in this place only. In other authors it originally signifies “a bough, or olive-branch, wrapped about with wool or bays,” or something of the like nature; which they carried in their hands, and lifted up, who were supplicants unto others for the obtaining of peace from them, or to avert their displeasure. Hence is the phrase of “velamenta pretendere,” to hold forth such covered branches. So Liv. de Bell. Punic. lib. 24. cap. 30.:“Ramos oleae ac velamenta alia supplicum porrigentes, orare, ut reciperent sese;” — “Holding forth olive branches, and other covered tokens used by supplicants, they prayed that they might be received into grace and favor.” And Virgil, of his AEneas, to Evander, AEn. lib. 8:127: — “Optime Grajugenϋm, cui me fortuna precari, Et vittβ comptos voluit pretendere ramos.”And Herodian calls them ἱκετηρίας, — “branches of supplication.” Hence the word came to denote a supplicatory prayer; the same with ἱκέτευμα. And it is in this sense usually joined with δεήσεις, as here by our apostle. So Isoc. de Pace, cap. xlvi.: Πολλὰςἱκετηρίαςκαὶδεήσειςποιούμενοι, — “Using many deprecatory entreaties and supplications.” So constantly the heathen called those prayers which they made solemnly to their gods, for the averting of impendent evils, “supplicia,” and “supplicationes.” Liv. lib. 10. cap. 23: “Eo anno prodigia multa fuerunt: quorum averruncandorum causβ supplicationes in biduum senatus decrevit;” that is, “Irae deϋm averruncandae,” as he speaks lib. 8. cap. 6:— to turn away the wrath of their gods. And such a kind of prayer is that whose form is given in Cato de re Rustic. cap. 14: “Mars pater, te precor, quaesoque, ut calamitates intemperiasque prohibessis, defendas, averrunces.” Hesychius explains ἱκετηρία by παράκλησις, a word of a much larger signification; but ἱκετηρία, a word of the same original and force, by καθαρτήρια, λυτήρια, — “expiations and purgations,” from guilt deserving punishment. ῾Ικετηρία, Gloss. Vet., “Oratio, precatio supplicum;” — “the prayer of suppliants.” The word being used only in this place in the Scripture, it was not unnecessary to inquire after the signification of it in other authors. It is a humble supplication for peace, or deprecation of evil, with the turning away of anger. And this sense singularly suits the scope of the place; for respect is had in it to the sufferings of Christ, and the fear which befell him in the apprehension of them as they were penal, as we shall see afterwards. But it must also be here further observed, that however this word might be used to express the naked supplication of some men in distress unto others, yet whenever it is used in heathen authors, with respect unto their gods, it is always accompanied with expiatory sacrifices, or was the peculiar name of those prayers and supplications which they made with those sacrifices. And I have showed before that the solemn expiatory sacrifice of the high priest among the Jews was accompanied with deprecatory supplications; a form whereof, according to the apprehensions of their masters, I gave out of the Mishna. And so he was appointed, in the great sacrifice of expiation, to confess over the head of the scape-goat “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,” Leviticus 16:21;which he did not without prayers for the expiation of them, and deliverance from the curse of the law due to them. And they are not the mere supplications of our blessed Savior that are here intended, but as they accompanied and were a necessary adjunct of the offering up of himself, his soul and body, a real propitiatory sacrifice to God. And therefore, wherever our apostle elsewhere speaks of the “offering” of Christ, he calls it the “offering of himself,” or of his “body,” Ephesians 5:2, Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:10. Here, therefore, he expresseth the whole sacrifice of Christ by the “prayers and supplications” wherewith it was accompanied; and therefore makes use of that word which peculiarly denotes such supplications. And he describes the sacrifice or offering of Christ by this adjunct for the reasons ensuing: —1. To evince what he before declared, that in the days of his flesh, when he offered up himself unto God, he was encompassed with the weakness of our nature, which made prayers and supplications needful for him, as at all seasons, so especially in straits and distresses, when he cried from “the lion’s mouth,” and “the horns of the unicorns,” Psalms 22:21. He was in earnest, and pressed to the utmost in the work that was before him. And this expression is used, — 2. That we might seriously consider how great a work it was to expiate sin. As it was not to be done without suffering, so a mere and bare suffering would not effect it. Not only death, and that a bloody death, was required thereunto, but such as was to be accompanied with “prayers and supplications,” that it might be effectual unto the end designed, and that he who suffered it might not be overborne in his undertaking. The “redemption of souls was precious,” and must have ceased for ever, had not every thing been set on work which is acceptable and prevalent with God. And, — 3. To show that the Lord Christ had now made this business his own. He had taken the whole work and the whole debt of sin upon himself. He was now, therefore, to manage it, as if be alone were the person concerned. And this rendered his prayers and supplications necessary in and unto his sacrifice. And, —4. That we might be instructed how to make use of and plead his sacrifice in our stead. If it was not, if it could not be, offered by him but with prayers and supplications, and those for the averting of divine wrath, and making peace with God, we may not think to be interested therein whilst under the power of lazy and slothful unbelief. Let him that would go to Christ, consider well how Christ went to God for him; which is yet further declared, —Thirdly, In the manner of his offering these prayers and supplications unto God, whereby he offered up himself also unto him. He did it μετὰκραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶςκαὶδακρύων, “with strong crying” (or “a strong cry”) “and tears.” Chrysostom on the place observes, that the story makes no mention of these thugs. And, indeed, of his tears in particular it doth not; which from this place alone we know to have accompanied his sacerdotal prayers. But his “strong crying” is expressly related. To acquaint ourselves fully with what is intended herein, we may consider, — 1. How it was expressed in prophecy; 2. How it is related in the story; 3. How reposed here by our apostle: —1. In prophecy the supplications here intended are called his “roaring:”Psalms 22:1-3, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιωַׁ ?ΰֲ ?ϊִ ?ι,” “the words of my roaring?” “Rugitus,” the proper cry of a lion, is κραυγὴἰσχυρά, “clamor validus,” “a strong and vehement outcry.” And it is used to express such a vehemency in supplications as cannot be compressed or confined, but will ordinarily break out into a loud expression of itself; at least such an intension of mind and affection as cannot be outwardly expressed without fervent outcries. Psalms 32:3, “When I kept silence,” — that is, whilst he was under his perplexities from the guilt of sin, before he came off to a full and clear acknowledgment of it as verse 5, — “my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.” The vehemency of his complainings consumed his natural strength. So Job 3:24, “My sighing cometh before I eat, ειּ ?ϊְּ ?λεּ αַ ?ξַּ ?ιִ ?νωַׁ ?ΰֲ ?βֹ ?ϊָ ?ι,” — “and my roarings are poured out like waters,” namely, that break out of any place with great noise and abundance. So is a sense of extreme pressures and distresses signified: “I have roared by rein of the disquietness of my heart,” Psalms 28:8. This is κραυγὴἰσχυρά, “a strong cry.” And if we well consider his prayer, as recorded Psalms 22, especially from verse 9 to verse 21, we shall find that every word almost, and sentence, hath in it the spirit of roaring and a strong cry, however it were uttered. For it is not merely the outward noise, but the inward earnest intension and engagement of heart and soul, with the greatness and depth of the occasion of them, that is principally intended. 2. We may consider the same matter as related in story by the evangelists. The prayers intended are those which he offered to God during his passion, both in the garden and on the cross. The first are declared Luke 22:44, “And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as drops of blood falling on the earth.” The inward frame is here declared, which our apostle shadows out by the external expressions and signs of it, in “strong cries and tears.” ᾿Ενἀγωνίᾳγενόμενος, — “constitutus in agonia.” He was in, under the power of, wholly pressed by “an agony;” that is, a strong and vehement conflict of mind, in and about things dreadful and terrible. ᾿Αγωνία is φόβοςδιαπτώσεως, saith Nemes. de Natur. Hom.; — “a dread of utter ruin.” “Timor extrinsecus advenientis mall,” Aquin.; — “a dread of evil to come upon us from without.” It signifies, “ita vehementi discriminis objecti metu angi ut quodam-modo exanimis et attonitus sis,” saith Maldonat on Matthew 26:37. He prayed ἐκτενέστερον, “with more vehement intension of mind, spirit, and body.” For the word denotes not a degree of the acting of grace in Christ, as some have imagined, but the highest degree of earnestness in the actings of his mind, soul, and body; — another token of that wonderful conflict wherein he was engaged, which no heart can conceive nor tongue express. This produced that preternatural sweat wherein θρόμβοιαἵματος, “thick drops of blood” ran from him to the ground. Concerning this he says, λּ ?ξַּ ?ιִ ?νπִ ?ωְׁ ?τַ ?λְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, Psalms 22:15, — “I am poured out like water;” that is, ‘my blood is so, by an emanation from all parts of my body, descending to the ground.’And they consult not the honor of Jesus Christ, but the maintenance of their own false suppositions, who assign any ordinary cause of this agony, with these consequents of it, or such as other men may have experience of. And this way go many of the expositors of the Roman church. So ΰ Lapid. in loc.: “Nota secundo hunc Christi angorem lacrymas et sudorem sanguineum, testem infirmitatis a Christo assumptae, provenisse ex vivaci imaginatione, fiagellationis, coronationis, mortis dolorumque omnium quos mox subiturus erat; inde enim naturaliter manabat eorundem horror et angor.” He would place the whole cause of this agony in those previous fancies, imaginations, or apprehensions, which he had of those corporeal sufferings which were to come upon him. Where, then, is the glory of his spiritual strength and fortitude? where the beauty of the example which herein he set before us? His outward sufferings were indeed grievous; but yet, considered merely as such, they were, as to mere sense of pain, beneath what sundry of his martyrs have been called to undergo for his name’s sake. And yet we know that many, yea, through the power of his grace in them, the most of them who have so suffered for him in all ages, have cheerfully, joyfully, and without the least consternation of spirit, undergone the exquisite tortures whereby they have given up themselves unto death for him. And shall we imagine that the Son of God, who had advantages for his supportment and consolation infinitely above what they had any interest in, should be given up to this dreadful, trembling conflict, wherein his whole nature was almost dissolved, out of a mere apprehension of those corporeal sufferings which were coming on him? Was it the forethought of them only, and that as such, which dispelled the present sense of divine love and satisfaction from the indissoluble union of his person, that they should not influence his mind with refreshments and consolation? God forbid we should have such mean thoughts of what he was, of what he did, of what he suffered. There were other causes of these things, as we shall see immediately. Again; on the cross itself it is said, ᾿᾿Ανεβόησεφωνῇμεγάλῃ, Matthew 27:46; that is plainly, “He prayed μετὰκραυγῆςἱσχυρᾶς,” — He cried with a great outcry,” or “loud voice,” with a “strong cry.” This was the manner of the sacerdotal prayers of Christ which concerned his oblation, or the offering himself as a sacrifice, as is reported in the evangelist. The other part of his sacerdotal prayer, which expressed his intercession on a supposition of his oblation, he performed and offered with all calmness, quietness, and sedateness of mind, with all assurance and joyful glory, as if he were actually already in heaven; as we may see, John 17. But it was otherwise with him when he was to offer himself a sin-offering in our stead. If, therefore, we do compare the 22d psalm, as applied and explained by the evangelists and our apostle, with the 17th of John, we shall find a double mediatory or sacerdotal prayer of our Savior in behalf of the whole church. The first was that which accompanied his oblation, or the offering of himself an expiatory sacrifice for sin. And this having respect unto the justice of God, the curse of the law, and the punishment due to sin, was made in an agony, distress, and conflict, with wrestlings, expressed by cries, tears, and most vehement intensions of soul. The other, — which though in order of time antecedent, yet in order of nature was built on the former, and a supposition of the work perfected therein, as is evident, John 17:11, — represents his intercession in heaven. The first was μετὰκραυγῆςἰσχυρᾶςκαὶδακρύων, the other μετὰπεποιθήσεωςκαὶπληροφορίας.3. These are the things which are thus expressed by our apostle, “He offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears.” Such was the frame of his soul, such was his prayer and deportment in his sacrifice of himself. His tears, indeed, are not expressly mentioned in the story, but weeping was one of those infirmities of our nature which he was subject unto: John 11:35, “Jesus wept.” He expressed his sorrow thereby. And being now in the greatest distress, conflict, and sorrow, which reached unto the soul, until that was “sorrowful unto death,” as we may well judge that in his dealing with God he poured out tears with his prayers, so it is here directly mentioned. So did he here “offer up himself through the eternal Spirit.” Fourthly, The object of this offering of Christ, he to whom he offered up prayers and supplications, is expressed and described. And this was ὀδυνάμενοςσώζειναὐτὸνἐκθανάτου, — “he that was able to save him from death,” that had power so to do. It is God who is intended, whom the apostle describes by this periphrasis, for the reasons that shall be mentioned. He calls him neither God, nor the Father of Christ, although the Lord Jesus, in the prayers intended, calls upon him by both these names. So in the garden he calls him Father: “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” Matthew 26:39. And on the cross he called him God: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” Matthew 27:46; and “Father” again, in the resignation of his life and soul into his hands, Luke 23:46. But in the reporting of these things our apostle waiveth these expressions, and only describeth God as “Him who was able to save him from death.” Now this he doth to manifest the consideration that the Lord Christ at that time had of God, of death, and of the causes, consequents, and effects of it. For his design is, to declare what was the reason of the frame of the soul of Christ in his suffering and offering before described, and what were the causes thereof.In general, God is proposed as the object of the actings of Christ’s soul in this offering of himself, as he who had all power in his hand to order all his present concernments: “To him who was able.” Ability or power is either natural or moral. Natural power is strength and active efficiency; in God omnipotency. Moral power is right and authority; in God absolute sovereignty. And the Lord Christ had respect unto the ability or power of God in both these senses: in the first, as that which he relied upon for deliverance; in the latter, as that which he submitted himself unto. The former was the object of his faith, namely, that God, by the greatness of his power, could support and deliver him in and under his trial. The latter was the object of his fear, as to the dreadful work which he had undertaken Now, because our apostle is upon the description of that frame of heart, and those actings of soul, wherewith our high priest offered himself for us unto God, which was with “prayers and supplications,” accompanied with “strong cries and tears,” I shall consider from these words three things, considering the power or ability of God principally in the latter way: — 1. What were the general causes of the state and condition wherein the Lord Christ is here described by our apostle, and of the actings ascribed unto him therein.2. What were the immediate effects of the sufferings of the Lord Christ in and upon his own soul.3. What limitations are to be assigned unto them.From all which it will appear why and wherefore he offered up his prayers and supplications unto him who was able to save him from death; wherein a fear of it is included, on the account of the righteous authority of God, as well as a faith of deliverance from it, on the account of his omnipotent power. 1. The general causes of his state and condition, with his actings therein, were included in that consideration and prospect which he then had of God, death, and himself, or the effects of death upon him.(1.) He considered God at that instant as the supreme rector and judge of all, the author of the law and the avenger of it, who had power of life and death, as the one was to be destroyed and the other inflicted, according to the curse and sentence of the law. Under this notion he now considered God, and that as actually putting the law in execution, having power and authority to give up unto the sting of it, or to save from it. God represented himself unto him first as armed and attended with infinite holiness, righteousness, and severity, — as one that would not pass by sin nor acquit the guilty; and then as accompanied with supreme or sovereign authority over him, the law, life, and death. And it is of great importance under what notion we consider God when we make our approaches unto him. The whole frame of our souls, as to fear or confidence, will be regulated thereby.(2.) He considered death not naturally, as a separation of soul and body; nor yet merely as a painful separation of them, such as was that death which in particular he was to undergo; but he looked on it as the curse of the law due to sin, inflicted by God as a just and righteous judge. Hence, in and under it, he himself is said to be “made a curse,” Galatians 3:13. This curse was now coming on him, as the sponsor or surety of the new covenant. For although he considered himself, and the effects of things upon himself, yet he offered up these prayers as our sponsor, that the work of mediation which he had undertaken might have a good and blessed issue. From hence may we take a view of that frame of soul which our Lord Jesus Christ was in when he offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears, considering God as him who had authority over the law, and the sentence of it that was to be inflicted on him. Some have thought, that upon the confidence of the indissolubleness of his person, and the actual assurance which they suppose he had always of the love of God, his sufferings could have no effect of fear, sorrow, trouble, or perplexity on his soul, but only what respected the natural enduring of pain and shame, which he was exposed unto. But the Scripture gives us another account of these things. It informs us, that “he began to be afraid, and sore amazed;” that “his soul was heavy, and sorrowful unto death;” that he was “in an agony,” and afterwards cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” under a sense of divine dereliction. There was, indeed, a mighty acting of love in God toward us, in the giving of his Son to death for us, as to his gracious ends and purposes thereby to be accomplished; and his so doing is constantly in the Scripture reckoned on the score of love. And there was always in him a great love to the person of his Son, and an ineffable complacency in the obedience of Christ, especially that which he exercised in his suffering; but yet the curse and punishment which he underwent was an effect of vindictive justice, and as such did he look upon it and conflict with it. I shall not enter into the debates of those expressions which have been controverted about the sufferings of Christ, as whether he underwent the death of the soul, the second death, the pains of hell. For it would cause a prolix digression to show distinctly what is essential unto these things, or purely penal in them, which alone he was subject unto; and what necessarily follows a state and condition of personal sin and guilt in them who undergo them, which he was absolutely free from. But this alone I shall say, which I have proved elsewhere, whatever was due to us from the justice of God and sentence of the law, that he underwent and suffered. This, then, was the cause in general of the state and condition of Christ here described, and of his actings therein, here expressed. 2. In the second place, the effects of his sufferings in himself, or his sufferings themselves, on this account, may be reduced in general unto these two heads: —(1.) His dereliction. He was under a suspension of the comforting influences of his relation unto God. His relation unto God, as his God and Father, was the fountain of all his comforts and joys, The sense hereof was now suspended. Hence was that part of his cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The supporting influences of this relation were continued, but the comforting influences of it were suspended. See Psalms 22:1-3, etc. And from hence he was filled with heaviness and sorrow. This the evangelists fully express. He says of himself, that “his soul was exceeding sorrowful, even unto death,” Matthew 26:38; which expressions are emphatical, and declare a sorrow that is absolutely inexpressible. And this sorrow was the effect of his penal desertion; for sorrow is that which was the life of the curse of the law. So when God declared the nature of that curse unto Adam and Eve, he tells them that he will give them “sorrow,” and “multiply their sorrow,” Genesis 3:16-17. With this sorrow was Christ now filled, which put him on those strong cries and tears for relief. And this dereliction was possible, and proceeded from hence, in that all communications from the divine nature unto the human, beyond subsistence, were voluntary. (2.) He had an intimate sense of the wrath and displeasure of God against the sin that was then imputed unto him. All our sins were then caused, by an act of divine and supreme authority, “to meet on him,” or “the LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isaiah 53:6. Even all our guilt was imputed unto him, or none of the punishment due unto our sins could have been justly inflicted on him. In this state of things, in that great hour, and wonderful transaction of divine wisdom, grace, and righteousness, whereon the glory of God, the recovery of fallen man, with the utter condemnation of Satan, depended, God was pleased for a while, as it were, to hold the scales of justice in aequilibrio, that the turning of them might be more conspicuous, eminent, and glorious. In the one scale, as it were, there was the weight of the first sin and apostasy from God, with all the consequents of it, covered with the sentence and curse of the law, with the exigence of vindictive justice, — a weight that all the angels of heaven could not stand under one moment. In the other were the obedience, holiness, righteousness, and penal sufferings, of the Son of God, — all having weight and worth given unto them by the dignity and worth of his divine person. Infinite justice kept these things for a season, as it were, at a poise, until the Son of God, by his prayers, tears, and supplications, prevailed unto a glorious success, in the delivery of himself and us. 3. Wherefore, as to the limitation of the effects of Christ’s sufferings in and upon himself, we may conclude, in general, —(1.) That they were such only as are consistent with absolute purity, holiness, and freedom from the least appearance of sin;(2.) Not such as did in the least impeach the glorious union of his natures in the same person;(3.) Nor such as took off from the dignity of his obedience and merit of his suffering, but were all necessary thereunto: but then,(4.) As he underwent whatever is or can be grievous, dolorous, afflictive, and penal, in the wrath of God, and sentence of the law executed; so these things really wrought in him sorrow, amazement, anguish, fear, dread, with the like penal effects of the pains of hell; from whence it was that he “offered up prayers and supplications, with strong cries and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death,” — the event whereof is described in the last clause of the verse. Καὶεἰσακουσθεὶςἀπὸτῆςεὐλαβείας, “and was heard in that which he feared.” To be heard in Scripture signifies two things: —1. To be accepted in our request, though the thing requested be not granted unto us. “God will hear me,” is as much as, ‘God will accept of me, is pleased with my supplication,’ Psalms 55:17; Psalms 22:21.2. To be answered in our request. To be heard, is to be delivered. So is this expressed, Psalms 22:25. In the first way there is no doubt but that the Father always heard the Son, John 11:42, — always in all things accepted him, and was well pleased in him; but our inquiry is here, how far the Lord Christ was heard in the latter way, so heard as to be delivered from what he prayed against.Concerning this observe, that the prayers of Christ in this matter were of two sorts: — 1. Hypothetical or conditional; such was that prayer for the passing of the cup from him, Luke 22:42, “Father, if thou wilt, remove this cup from me.” And this prayer was nothing but what was absolutely necessary unto the verity of human nature in that state and condition. Christ could not have been a man and not have had an extreme aversation to the things that were coming upon him. Nor had it been otherwise with him, could he properly have been said to suffer; for nothing is suffering, nor can be penal unto us, but what is grievous unto our nature, and what it is abhorrent of. This acting of the inclination of nature, both in his mind, will, and affections, which in him were purely holy, our Savior expresseth in that conditional prayer. And in this prayer he was thus answered, — his mind was fortified against the dread and terror of nature, so as to come unto a perfect composure in the will of God: “Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done.” He was heard herein so far as he desired to be heard; for although he could not but desire deliverance from the whole, as he was a man, yet he desired it not absolutely, as he was wholly subjected to the will of God. 2. Absolute. The chief and principal supplications which he offered up to him who was able to save him from death were absolute; and’in them he was absolutely heard and delivered. For upon the presentation of death unto him, as attended with the wrath and curse of God, he had deep and dreadful apprehensions of it; and how unable the human nature was to undergo it, and prevail against it, if not mightily supported and carried through by the power of God. In this condition it was part of his obedience, it was his duty, to pray that he might be delivered from the absolute prevalency of it, that he might not be cast in his trial, that he might not be confounded nor condemned. This he hoped, trusted, and believed; and therefore prayed absolutely for it, Isaiah 1:7-8. And herein he was heard absolutely; for so it is said, “He was heard ἀπὸτῆςευλαβείας.”The word here used is in a singular construction of speech, and is itself of various significations. Sometimes it is used for a religious reverence, but such as hath fear joined with it; that is, the fear of evil. Frequently it signifies fear itself, but such a fear as is accompanied with a reverential care and holy circumspection. The word itself is but once more used in the New Testament, and that by our apostle, Hebrews 12:28, where we well render it, “godly fear.” Εὐλαβής, the adjective, is used three times, Luke 2:25, Acts 2:5; Acts 8:2; everywhere denoting a religious fear. Hebrews 11:7, we render the verb, εὐλαβηθείς, by “moved with fear;” that is, a reverence of God mixed with a dreadful apprehension of an approaching judgment. And the use of the preposition ἀπὸ added to εἰσακουσθείς is also singular, — “auditus ex metu,” “heard from his fear.” Therefore is this passage variously interpreted by all sorts of expositors. Some read it, “He was heard because of his reverence.” And in the exposition hereof they are again divided. Some take “reverence” actively, for the reverence he had of God; that is, his reverential obedience: “He was heard because of his reverence,” or reverential obedience unto God. Some would have the reverence intended to relate to God, the reverential respect that God had unto him; God heard him, from that holy respect and regard which he had of him. But these things are fond, and suit not the design of the place; neither the coherence of the words, nor their construction, nor their signification, nor the scope of the apostle, will bear this sense. Others render it, “pro metu;” “from fear,” or “out of fear.” And this also is two ways interpreted: — 1. Because “heard from fear” is somewhat a harsh expression, they explain “auditus” by “liberatus,” — “delivered from fear;” and this is not improper. So Grotius: “Cure mortem vehementer perhorresceret,...... in hoc exauditus fuit utab isto metu liberaretur.” In this sense fear internal and subjective is intended. God relieved him against his fear, removing it and taking it away, by strengthening and comforting of him. Others by “fear” intend the thing feared; which sense our translators follow, and are therefore plentifully reviled and railed at by the Rhemists: “He was heard;” that is, delivered from the things which he feared as coming upon him. And for the vindication of this sense and exposition, there is so much already offered by many learned expositors as that I see not what can be added thereunto, and I shall not unnecessarily enlarge myself. And the opposition that is made hereunto is managed rather with clamours and outcries, than Scripture reasons or testimonies. Suppose the object of the fear of Christ here to have been what he was delivered from, and then it must be his fainting, sinking, and perishing under the wrath of God, in the work he had undertaken; yet, — 1. The same thing is expressed elsewhere unto a higher degree and more emphatically; as where in this state he is said λυπεῖσθαικαὶἀδημονεῖν, and ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, Matthew 26:37, Mark 14:33, — to be “sorrowful,” “perplexed,” and “amazed.”2. All this argues no more but that the Lord Christ underwent an exercise in the opposition that was made unto his faith, and the mighty conflict he had with that opposition. That his faith and trust in God were either overthrown or weakened by them, they prove not, nor do any plead them unto that purpose. And to deny that the soul of Christ was engaged in an ineffable conflict with the wrath of God in the curse of the law, — that his faith and trust in God were pressed and tried to the utmost by the opposition made unto them, by fear, dread, and a terrible apprehension of divine displeasure due to our sins, — is to renounce the benefit of his passion and turn the whole of it into a show, fit to be represented by pictures and images, or acted over in ludicrous scenes, as it is by the Papists.It remains that we consider the observations which these words afford us for our instruction, wherein also their sense and importance will be further explained. And the first thing that offers itself unto us is, that, — Obs. 1. The Lord Jesus Christ himself had a time of infirmity in this world.A season he had wherein he was beset and “compassed with infirmities.” So it was with him “in the days of his flesh.” It is true, his infirmities were all sinless, but all troublesome and grievous. By them was he exposed unto all sorts of temptations and sufferings; which are the two springs of all that is evil and dolorous unto our nature. And thus it was with him, not for a few days, or a short season only, but during his whole course in this world. This the story of the gospel gives us an account of, and the instance of his “offering up prayers with strong cries and tears,” puts out of all question. These things were real, and not acted to make an appearance or representation of them. And hereof himself expresseth his sense: Psalms 22:6-7, “I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All that see me, laugh me to scorn.” So verses 14, 15. How can the infirmities of our nature, and a sense of them, be more emphatically expressed? So Psalms 69:20,“Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.”Psalms 40:12, “Innumerable evils have compassed me about.” He had not only our infirmities, but he felt them, and was deeply sensible both of them and of the evils and troubles which through them he was exposed unto. Hence is that description of him, Isaiah 53:3.Two things are herein by us duly to be considered: — First, That it was out of infinite condescension and love unto our souls that the Lord Christ took on himself this condition, Philippians 2:6-8. This state was neither natural nor necessary unto him upon his own account. In himself he was “in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God;” but this mind was in him, that for our sakes he would take on himself all these infirmities of our nature, and through them expose himself unto evils innumerable. It was voluntary love, and not defect or necessity of nature, which brought him into this condition.Secondly, As he had other ends herein, — for these things were indispensably required unto the discharge of his sacerdotal office, — so he designed to set us an example, that we should not faint under our infirmities and sufferings on their account, Hebrews 12:2-3, 1 Peter 4:1. And God knows such an example we stood in need of, both as a pattern to conform ourselves unto under our infirmities, and to encourage us in the expectation of a good issue unto our present deplorable condition. Let us not, then, think strange, if we have our season of weakness and infirmity in this world, whereby we are exposed unto temptation and suffering. Apt we are, indeed, to complain hereof; the whole nation of professors is full of complaints; one is in want, straits, and poverty; another in pain, under sickness, and variety of troubles; some are in distress for their relations, some from and by them; some are persecuted, some are tempted, some pressed with private, some with public concerns; some are sick, and some are weak, and some are “fallen asleep.” And these things are apt to make us faint, to despond, and be weary. I know not how others bear up their hearts and spirits. For my part, I have much ado to keep from continual longing after the embraces of the dust and shades of the grave, as a curtain drawn over the rest in another world. In the meantime, every momentary gourd that interposeth between the vehemency of wind and sun, or our frail, fainting natures and spirits, is too much valued by us. But what would we have? Do we consider who, and what, and where we are, when we think strange of these things? These are the days of our flesh, wherein these things are due to us, and unavoidable. “Man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward,” Job 5:7, — necessarily and abundantly. All complaints, and all contrivances whereby we endeavor to extricate ourselves from those innumerable evils which attend our weak, frail, infirm condition, will be altogether vain. And if any, through the flatteries of youth, and health, and strength, and wealth, with other satisfactions of their affections, are not sensible of these things, they are but in a pleasant dream, which will quickly pass away. Our only relief in this condition is a due regard unto our great example, and what he did, how he behaved himself in the days of his flesh, when he had more difficulties and miseries to conflict with than we all. And in him we may do well to consider three things: — 1. His patience, unconquerable and unmovable in all things that befell him in the days of his flesh.“He did not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street,” Isaiah 42:2.Whatever befell him, he bore it quietly and patiently. Being buffeted, he threatened not; being reviled, he reviled not again. “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” 2. His trust in God. By this testimony, that it is said of him, “I will put nay trust in God,” doth our apostle prove that he had the same nature with us, subject to the same weakness and infirmities, Hebrews 2:13. And this we are taught thereby, that there is no management of our human nature, as now beset with infirmities, but by a constant trust in God. The whole life of Christ therein was a life of submission, trust, and dependence on God; so that when he came to his last suffering, his enemies fixed on that to reproach him withal, as knowing how constant he was in the profession thereof, Psalms 22:8, Matthew 27:43. 3. His earnest, fervent prayers and supplications, which are here expressed by our apostle, and accommodated unto the days of his flesh. Other instances of his holy, gracious deportment of himself, in that condition wherein he set us an example, might be insisted on, but these may give us an entrance into the whole of our duty. Patience, faith, and prayer, will carry us comfortably and safely through the whole course of our frail and infirm lives in this world. Obs. 2. A life of glory may ensue after a life of infirmity.“If,” saith our apostle, “in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable.” For besides that we are obnoxious to the same common infirmities within and calamities without with all other men, there is, and ever will be, a peculiar sort of distress that they are exposed unto who “will live godly in Christ Jesus.” But there is nothing can befall us but what may issue in eternal glory. We see that it hath done so with Jesus Christ. His season of infirmity is issued in eternal glory; and nothing but unbelief and sin can hinder ours from doing so also. Obs. 3. The Lord Christ is no more now in a state of weakness and temptation; the days of his flesh are past and gone.As such the apostle here makes mention of them, and the Scripture signally in sundry places takes notice of it. This account he gives of himself, Revelation 1:18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.” The state of infirmity and weakness, wherein he was obnoxious unto death, is now past; he now lives for evermore. “Henceforth he dieth no more, death hath no more power over him;” nor anything else that can reach the least trouble unto him. With his death ended the days of his flesh. His revival, or return unto life, was into absolute, eternal, unchangeable glory. And this advancement is expressed by his “sitting at the right hand of the Majesty on high;” which we have before declared. He is therefore now no more, on any account, obnoxious, — 1. Unto the law, the sentence, or curse of it. As he was “made of a woman, he was “made under the law; and so he continued all the days of his flesh. Therein did he fulfill all the righteousness it required, and answered the whole penalty for sin that it exacted. But with the days of his flesh ended the right of the law towards him, either as to require obedience of him or exact suffering from him: hence, a little before his expiration on the cross, he said concerning it, “It is finished.” And hereon doth our freedom from the curse of the law depend. The law can claim no more dominion over a believer than it can over Christ himself. He lives now out of the reach of all the power of the law, to plead his own obedience unto it, satisfaction of it, and triumph over it, in the behalf of them that believe on him. Nor, 2. Unto temptations. These were his constant attendants and companions during the days of his flesh. What they were, and of what sorts, we have in part before discoursed. He is now freed from them and above them; yet not so but that they have left a compassionate sense upon his holy soul of the straits and distresses which his disciples and servants are daily brought into by them, — which is the spring and foundation of the relief he communicates unto them. Nor,3. Unto troubles, persecutions, or sufferings of any kind. He is not so in his own person. He is far above, out of the reach of all his enemies; — above them in power, in glory, in authority and rule. There is none of them but he can crush at his pleasure, and “dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” He is, indeed, still hated as much as ever, maligned as much as in the days of his flesh, and exposed unto the utmost power of hell and the world in all his concerns on the earth. But he laughs all his enemies to scorn, he hath them in derision; and, in the midst of their wise counsels and mighty designs, disposes of them and all their undertakings unto his ends and purposes, not their own. He is pleased, indeed, as yet, to suffer and to be persecuted in his saints and servants; but that is from a gracious condescension, by virtue of a spiritual union, not from any necessity of state or condition. And some may hence learn how to fear him, as others may and do to put their trust in him. Obs. 4. The Lord Christ filled up every season with duty, with the proper duty of it.The days of his flesh were the only season wherein he could “offer” to God; and he missed it not, he did so accordingly. Some would not have Christ offer himself until he came to heaven. But then the season of offering was past. Christ was to use no strong cries and tears in heaven, which yet were necessary concomitants of his oblation. It is true, in his glorified state, he continually represents in heaven the offering that he made of himself on the earth, in an effectual application of it unto the advantage of the elect; but the offering itself was in the days of his flesh. This was the only season for that duty; for therein only was he meet unto this work, and had provision for it. Then was his body capable of pain, his soul of sorrow, his nature of dissolution; all which were necessary unto this duty. Then was he in a condition wherein faith, and trust, and prayers, and tears, were as necessary unto himself as unto his offering. This was his season, and he missed it not. Neither did he so on any other occasion during the days of his flesh, especially those of his public ministry; wherein we ought to make him our example. Obs. 5. The Lord Christ, in his offering up himself for us, labored and travailed in soul to bring the work unto a good and holy issue.A hard labor it was, and as such it is here expressed. He went through it with fears, sorrows, tears, outcries, prayers, and humble supplications. This is called ςֲ ?ξַ ?μπַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ, — the pressing, wearying, laborious “travail of his soul,” Isaiah 53:11. He labored, was straitened and pained, to bring forth this glorious birth. And we may take a little prospect of this travail of the soul of Christ as it is represented unto us.1. All the holy, natural affections of his soul were filled, taken up, and extended to the utmost capacity, in acting and suffering. The travail of our souls lies much in the engagement and actings of our affections. Who is there who hath been acquainted with great fears, great sorrows, great desires, great and ardent love, who knows it not? All and every one of these had now their sails filled in Christ, and that about the highest, noblest, and most glorious objects that they are capable of. The sorrows of his holy mother, Luke 2:35; the danger of his disciples, Zechariah 13:7; the scandal of the cross, the shame of his suffering, Hebrews 12:2; the ruin of his people according to the flesh for their sin, Luke 23:28-30; with sundry other the like objects and considerations, filled and exercised all his natural affections. This put his soul into travail, and had an influence into the conflict wherein he was engaged. 2. All his graces, the gracious qualifications of his mind and affections, were in a like manner in the height of their exercise. Both those whose immediate object was God himself, and those which respected the church, were all of them excited, drawn forth, and engaged: as, —(1.) Faith and trust in God. These himself expresseth in his greatest trial, as those which he betook himself unto, Isaiah 1:7-8; Psalms 22:9-10; Hebrews 2:13. These graces in him were now tried to the utmost. All their strength, all their efficacy, was exercised and proved; for he was to give in them an instance of an excellency in faith, rising up above the instance of the provocation that was in the unbelief of our first parents, whereby they fell off from God. There is no object about which faith can be exercised, no duty which it worketh in and by, but what it was now applied unto, and in, by Jesus Christ. (2.) Love to mankind. As this in his divine nature was the peculiar spring of that infinite condescension whereby he took our nature on him, for the work of mediation, Philippians 2:6-8; so it wrought mightily and effectually in his human nature, in the whole course of his obedience, but especially in the offering of himself unto God for us. Hence where there is mention made of his “giving himself for us,” which was in the sacrifice of himself, commonly the cause of it is expressed to have been his love: ‘The Son of God “loved me, and gave himself for me,”’Galatians 2:20; “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it,” Ephesians 5:25-26; “He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” Revelation 1:5. With this love his soul now travailed, and labored to bring forth the blessed fruits of it. The workings of this love in the heart of Christ, during the trial insisted on, whereby he balanced the sorrow and distress of his sufferings, no heart can conceive nor tongue express.(3.) Zeal for the glory of God. Zeal is the height of careful, solicitous love. The love of Christ was great to the souls of men; but the life of it lay in his love to God, and zeal for his glory. This he now labored in, namely, that God might be glorified in the salvation of the elect. This was committed unto him, and concerning this he took care that it might not miscarry.(4.) He was now in the highest exercise of obedience unto God, and that in such a peculiar manner as before he had no occasion for. It is observed as the height of his condescension, that he was “obedient unto death, the death of the cross,” Philippians 2:8. This was the highest instance of obedience that God ever had from a creature, because performed by him who was God also. And if the obedience of Abraham was so acceptable to God, and was so celebrated, when he was ready to offer up his son, how glorious was that of the Son of God, who actually offered up himself, and that in such a way and manner as Isaac was not capable of being offered! And there was an eminent specialty in this part of his obedience; hence, Hebrews 5:8, it is said that “he learned obedience by the things which he suffered;” which we shall speak to afterwards. And in the exercise of this obedience, that it might be full, acceptable, meritorious, every way answering the terms of the covenant between God and him about the redemption of mankind, he labored and travailed in soul. And by this his obedience was a compensation made for the disobedience of Adam, Romans 5:19. So did he travail in the exercise of grace. 3. He did so also with respect unto that confluence of calamities, distresses, pains, and miseries, which was upon his whole nature. And that in these consisted no small part of his trials, wherein he underwent and suffered the utmost which human nature is capable to undergo, is evident from the description given of his dolorous sufferings both in prophecy, Psalms 22, Isaiah 53, and in the story of what befell him in the evangelists. In that death of the body which he underwent, in the means and manner of it, much of the curse of the law was executed. Hence our apostle proves that he was “made a curse for us,” from that of Moses, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:22-23. For that ignominy of being hanged on a tree was peculiarly appointed to represent the execution of the curse of the law on Jesus Christ, “who his own self bare our sins on the tree,” 1 Peter 2:24. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The things discoursed in the foregoing verse seem to have an inconsistency with the account given us concerning the person of Jesus Christ at the entrance of this epistle. For he is therein declared to be the Son of God, and that in such a glorious manner as to be deservedly exalted above all the angels in heaven. He is so said to be the Son of God, as to be “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person,” even partaker of the same nature with him; God, by whom the heavens were made, and the foundations of the earth were laid, Hebrews 1:8-10. Here he is represented in a low, distressed condition, humbly, as it were, begging for his life, and pleading with “strong cries and tears” before him who was able to deliver him. These things might seem unto the Hebrews to have some kind of repugnancy unto one another. And, indeed, they are a, “stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense,” unto many at this day; they are not able to reconcile them in their carnal minds and reasonings. Wherefore, since it is by all acknowledged that he was truly and really in the low, distressed condition here described, they will not allow that he was the Son of God in the way declared by the apostle, but invent other reasons of their own for which he should be so termed. Their pleas and pretences we have discussed elsewhere. The aim of the apostle in this place is, not to repel the objections of unbelievers, but to instruct the faith of them who do believe in the truth and reason of these things. For he doth not only manifest that they were all possible, upon the account of his participation of flesh and blood, who was in himself the eternal Son of God; but also that the whole of the humiliation and distress thereon ascribed unto him was necessary, with respect unto the office which he had undertaken to discharge, and the work which was committed unto him. And this he doth in the next ensuing and following verses. Hebrews 5:8. — ΚαίπερὥνΥἱὸς, ἔμαθενἀφ᾿ὧνἔπαθετὴνὑπακοήν.I observed before that the Syriac translation hath transpond some words in these two verses, and thus reads this latter of them, And although he were a Son, from the fear and sufferings which he underwent he learned obedience.” That concerning “fear” is traduced out of the foregoing verse, where it is omitted. Some copies of the Vulgar read, “et quidem cum esset Filius Dei,” as do our old English translations, restoring it before its connection, as also in other places. The Rhemists only, “and truly, whereas he was the Son;” no other translation acknowledgeth the addition of” God.” Arias, “existens Filius:” which some other translations add some epithet unto, to express the emphasis; “a faithful Son,” Ethiop.; a Son always,” Arab. [5] [5] . — Υἱός. The word becomes definite from its connection and well-known application; as in Matthew 12:41-42, “men of Nineveh,” and “a queen translation, and thereby gives the preciseHeb_5:8. — Although he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by [or from] the things which he suffered. Καίπερ, “quamvis,” “tametsi,” “although;” an adversative, with a concession. An exception may be supposed unto what was before delivered, namely, ‘If he were “a Son,” how came he so to pray and cry, so to stand in need of help and relief? This is here tacitly inserted. Saith the apostle, ‘Although he were so, yet these other things were necessary.’And this gives us a connection of the words unto those foregoing. But according to the apostle’s usual way of reasoning in this epistle, there is also a prospect in this word towards the necessity and advantage of his being brought into the condition described; which in our translation is supplied by the addition of “yet.” Υἱὸςὤν, “he were a Son,” “and yet being a Son;” that is, such a Son as we have described, or “that Son of God.”’It was no great nor singular thing for a son or child of God by adoption to be chastised, to suffer, and thereby to be instructed unto obedience. He therefore speaks not of him as a son on any common account, or such as any mere creature can claim interest in. But he was “God’s own Son,” Romans 8:3; the “only begotten of the Father,” John 1:14; who was himself also “in the form of God,” Philippians 2:6. That he should do the thing here spoken of, is great and marvelous. Therefore is it said that he did thus, “although he were a Son.” Two things are included herein, namely, in the introduction of Christ in this place under the title of the “Son:” — 1. The necessity of doing what is here ascribed unto him, with respect unto the end aimed at. And this is more fully declared in the next verse. The things that were in themselves necessary unto the great end of the glory of God in the salvation of the elect, were not to be waived by Christ, “although he were the Son.”2. His love, that he would submit to this condition for our sake. On his own account no such thing was required of him, or any way needful unto him; but for our sakes (such was his love) he would do it, “although he were a Son.” Besides, whereas the apostle is comparing the Lord Christ, as a high priest, with Aaron and those of his order, he intimates a double advantage which he had above them: — 1. That he was a Son, whereas they were servants only; as he had before expressed the same difference in comparing him with Moses, Hebrews 3:4-6. 2. That he learned obedience by what he suffered; which few of them did, none of them in the same way and manner with him.῎Εμαθενἀφ᾿ὧνἔπαθε, τὴνὑπακοήν. As to the manner of the expression or phraseology, ἀφ᾿ὧν seems to be put for ἐξὧν, “by,” “out of,” “from,” the things. And, moreover, there is an ellipsis, or a metaptosis in the words, being put for ἔμαθενἀπ᾿ἐκείνωνἃἓπαθε: and so we express the sense in our translation. Also, the paranomasia which is in them, ἔμαθενἀφ᾿ὧνἔπαθε, is observed by all. And there is some correspondence in the whole unto that common ancient saying, Τὰπαθήματαμαθήματα. [6] [6] See the speech of Croesus, Herodot. 1:207. — Ed. Three things we are to inquire into: — 1. What is the obedience which is here intended. 2. How Christ is said to learn it. 3. By what means he did so.1. ῾Υπακοή is “an obediential attendance unto the commands of another;” “a due consideration of, a ready compliance with authoritative commands:” for the word cometh from that which signifieth “to hearken,” or “hear.” Hence, to “hearken” or “hear,” is frequently in the Scripture used for to obey; and to “refuse to hear,” is to be stubborn and disobedient: because obedience respects the commands of another, which we receive and become acquainted withal by hearing; and a readiness with diligence therein, is the great means to bring us unto obedience. ῾Υπακοή, therefore, is” an obediential compliance with the commands of another,” when we hear, and thereby know them.This obedience in Christ was twofold: — (1.) General, in the whole course of his holy life in this world; every thing he did was not only materially holy, but formally obediential. He did all things because it was the will and law of God that so he should do. And this obedience to God was the life and beauty of the holiness of Christ himself; yea, obedience unto God in any creature is the formal reason constituting any act or duty to be good or holy. Where that consideration is excluded, whatever the matter of any work or duty may be, it is neither holy nor accepted with God. Wherefore the whole course of the life of Christ was a course of obedience unto God; whereon he so often professed that he kept the commands and did the will of him that sent him, thereby “fulfilling all righteousness.” But yet this is not the obedience here peculiarly intended, although no part of it can be absolutely excluded from the present consideration; for whereas this obedience hath respect unto suffering, he “learned it from the things which he suffered,” his whole life was a life of suffering. One way or other he suffered in all that he did, at least when and whilst he did it. His state in this world was a state of humiliation and exinanition; which things have suffering in their nature. His outward condition in the world was mean, low, and contemptible; from which sufferings are inseparable. And he was in all things continually exposed unto temptations, and all sorts of oppositions, from Satan and the world; this also added to his sufferings. (2.) But yet, moreover, there was a peculiar obedience of Christ, which is intended here in an especial manner. This was his obedience in dying, and in all things that tended immediately thereunto. “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;” for this commandment had he of his Father, that he should lay down his life, and therefore he did it in a way of obedience. And this especial obedience to the command of God for suffering and dying the apostle here respects. With regard hereunto he said of old,“Lo, I come: in the volume of thy book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God,” Psalms 40:7-8;which was in the offering up of himself a sacrifice for us, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 10:9-10. And concerning the things which befell him herein, he says, “he was not rebellious,” but “gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair,” Isaiah 50:5-6.2. Concerning this obedience, it is said that ἔμαθε, he “learned” it. Μανθάνω is to learn as a disciple, with a humble, willing subjection unto, and a ready reception of the instructions given. But of the Lord Christ it is said here, “he learned obedience,” not that he learned to obey; which will give us light into the meaning of the whole. For, to learn obedience may have a threefold sense: — (1.) To learn it materially, by coming to know that to be our duty, to be required of us, which before we knew not, or at least did not consider as we ought So speaks the psalmist, “Before I was afflicted I went astray; but now have I learned thy commandments.” God by his chastisements, and under them, taught him the duties he required of him, and what diligent attendance unto them was necessary for him. But thus our Lord Jesus learned not obedience, nor could so do; for he knew beforehand all that he was to do, or undergo, — what was proposed unto him, what was to come upon him, in the discharge of his office and performance of the work he had undertaken. And the law of the whole of it was in his heart; no command of God was new to him, nor ever forgotten by him. (2.) To learn it formally; that is, to be guided, instructed, directed, helped, in the acts and acting of the obedience required of him. This is properly to learn to obey; so is it with us, who are rude and unskilful in holy obedience, and are by supplies of light and grace gradually instructed in the knowledge and practice of it. This wisdom do we learn, partly by the word, partly by afflictions, as God is pleased to make them effectual. But thus the Lord Christ neither did nor could learn obedience. He had a fullness of grace always in him and with him, inclining, directing, guiding, and enabling him unto all acts of obedience that were required of him. Being full of grace, truth, and wisdom, he was never at a loss for what he had to do, nor wanted any thing of a perfect readiness of will or mind for its performance. Wherefore, (3.) He can be said to learn obedience only on the account of having an experience of it in its exercise. So a man knoweth the taste and savor of meat by eating it; as our Savior is said to “taste of death,” or to experience what was in it, by undergoing of it. And it was one especial kind of obedience that is here intended, as was declared before, namely, a submission to undergo great, hard, and terrible things, accompanied with patience and quiet endurance under them, and faith for deliverance from them. This he could have no experience of, but by suffering the things he was to undergo, and the exercise of the graces mentioned therein. Thus learned he obedience, or experienced in himself what difficulty it is attended withal, especially in cases like his own. And this way of his learning obedience it is that is so useful unto us, and so full of consolation. For if he had only known obedience, though never so perfectly, in the notion of it, what relief could have accrued unto us thereby? how could it have been a spring of pity or compassion towards us? But now, whereas he himself took in his own person a full experience of the nature of that especial obedience which is yielded to God in a suffering condition, what difficulty it is attended withal, what opposition is made unto it, how great an exercise of grace is required in it, he is constantly ready to give us relief, as the matter doth require. 3. The way or means of his learning obedience is lastly expressed: ᾿Αφ᾿ὧνἔ῎παθε, — “From the things which he suffered.” It is a usual saying, Παθήματα, μαθήματα, — “ Sufferings” (or “corrections “) are instructions.” And we cannot exclude from hence any thing that Christ suffered, from first to last, in the days of his flesh. He suffered in his whole course, and that in great variety, as hath been showed elsewhere. And he had experience of obedience from them all, in the sense declared. But seeing the apostle treats concerning him as a high priest, and with especial respect to the offering himself unto God, the suffering of death, and those things which immediately led thereunto, are principally intended:“He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” Philippians 2:8.Now we may be said to learn from sufferings objectively and occasionally. In their own nature and formally they are not instructive. All things that outwardly come upon us are ἐκτῶνμέσων, and may be abused, or improved unto a good end. But in them that believe, they give a necessity and especial occasion unto the exercise of those graces wherein our obedience in that season doth consist. So from them, or by them, did the Lord Christ himself learn obedience; for by reason of them he had occasion to exercise those graces of humility, self-denial, meekness, patience, faith, which were habitually resident in his holy nature, but were not capable of the peculiar exercise intended but by reason of his sufferings. But, moreover, there was still somewhat peculiar in that obedience which the Son of God is said to learn from his own sufferings, namely, what it is for a sinless person to suffer for sinners, “the just for the unjust.” The obedience herein was peculiar unto him, nor do we know, nor can we have an experience of the ways and paths of it.The Lord Christ, undertaking the work of our redemption, was not on the account of the dignity of his person to be spared in any thing that was necessary thereunto. He was enabled by it to undertake and perform his work; but he was not for it spared any part of it. It is all one for that; “although he were a Son,” he must now “learn obedience.” And this we have sufficiently cleared on the former verse. And we may hence observe, that, — Obs. 1. Infinite love prevailed with the Son of God to lay aside the privilege of his infinite dignity, that he might suffer for us and our redemption.“Although he were a Son, yet he learned,” etc. 1. The name of “Son” carrieth with it infinite dignity, as our apostle proves at large, Hebrews 1:3-4, etc. The Son; — that is, “the Son of the living God,” Matthew 16:16; “the only-begotten of the Father,” John 1:14; he who “in the beginning was with God, and was God,” John 1:1-2. For as he was “God’s own Son,” Romans 8:3; he was “in the form of God, equal with him,” Philippians 2:5-6; one with him, John 10:30. So that infinite glory and dignity were inseparable from him. And so long as he would make use of this privilege, it was impossible he should be exposed to the least suffering, nor could the whole creation divest him of the least appurtenance of it. But, 2. He voluntarily laid aside the consideration, advantage, and exercise of it, that he might suffer for us. This our apostle fully expresseth, Philippians 2:5-8,“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”Concerning which we must observe, — That the Son of God could not absolutely and really part with his eternal glory. Whatever he did, he was the Son of God, and God still. Neither by any thing he did, nor any thing he suffered, nor any condition he underwent, did he really forego, nor was it possible he should so do, any thing of his divine glory. He was no less God when he died than when he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead.” But he is said to “empty himself” of his divine glory, — 1. With respect unto the infinite condescension of his person; 2. With respect unto the manifestations of it in this world: — 1. Of his condescension, when he forewent the privilege of his eternal glory, the apostle observes sundry degrees.(1.) In his taking of our nature on him. He “took on him the form of a servant;” and therein “made himself of no reputation,” — that is, comparatively unto the glory which he had “in the form of God,” wherein he was “equal with God,” that is, the Father. Hence “the Word was made flesh,” John 1:14; or, “God was manifest in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16. This was an infinite, unspeakable, unconceivable condescension of the Son of God, namely, to take our nature into union with himself; whereby he who was God, like unto the Father in all things, “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” became a man like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. (2.) In his so becoming a man as to take on him “the form of a servant.” He did not immediately take the nature he had assumed into glory; but he first became a “servant” in it, — a servant to God, to do his will, and that in the most difficult service that ever God had to do in this world.(3.) In that in this service he “made himself of no reputation.” The work, indeed, he undertook, was great and honorable, as we have before declared; but the way and manner whereby he did accomplish it was such as exposed him unto scorn, reproach, and contempt in the world, Isaiah 53:1-2; Psalms 22:6-7.(4.) In that in this work he “became obedient unto death.” Had he staid at the former degrees, his condescension had been for ever to be admired and adored; this only remains to be added, that he should die, and that penally and painfully. And this also he submitted unto. The Prince, the Author, the God of life, became obedient unto death! which also,(5.) Hath an aggravation added to it, — it was “the death of the cross,” a shameful, ignominious, cursed death. In all these things did he lay aside the privilege of his infinite dignity; all this he did “although he were a Son.”2. As to manifestation. He did, as it were, hide and eclipse unto the world all the glory of his divine person, under the veil of flesh which he had taken on him. Hence at the close of this dispensation, when he was finishing the work committed to him, he prays, John 17:5, “O Father, glorify thou me with that glory which I had with thee before the world was;” — ‘Let that glory which was necessarily hid and eclipsed in my debasement, wherein I have been made low for the suffering of death, now shine forth again conspicuously.’Now the reason why the Son of God did thus forego the privilege and dignity of his glory, was his infinite love.“Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same,” Hebrews 2:14.The reason why he condescended unto this condition, was, that he might redeem and save the children which God gave unto him; and this out of his own unspeakable love towards them, Galatians 2:20; Revelation 1:5; Philippians 2:5. This was that which engaged him into, and carried him through his great undertakings.And here we may, as it were, 1. Lose ourselves in a holy admiration of this infinite love of Christ. Our apostle prays for the Ephesians, that they“might be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge,” Ephesians 3:18-19.This, it seems, is the work, the design, the endeavor of “all saints,” — namely, to come to an acquaintance with, or to live in the contemplation of the love of Christ. The dimensions here assigned unto it are only to let us know, that, which way soever we exercise our thoughts about it, there is still a suitable object for them. It wants nothing that may be a proper object for that prospect which a soul may take of it in the way of believing; and he so prays for the knowledge of it, as that he lets us know that absolutely it is incomprehensible, it “passeth knowledge.” Then do we in our measure know the love of Christ, when we know that it passeth knowledge, — when we comprehend so much of it, as to find we cannot comprehend it; and thereby we have the benefit and consolation of what we do not conceive, as well as of what we do. For as contemplation is an act of faith with respect unto our measure of comprehension, so is admiration with respect unto what exceeds it. And what way soever faith acts itself on Christ, it will bring in advantage and refreshment to the soul. And we are never nearer Christ than when we find ourselves lost in a holy amazement at his unspeakable love. And, indeed, his love herein, that “although he were a Son,” the eternal Son of God, yet he would condescend unto the condition before described for our deliverance and salvation, is that which fills the souls of believers with admiration, not only in this world, but unto eternity. And, 2. Here we may, as it were, find ourselves. The due consideration of this love of Christ is that alone which will satisfy our souls and consciences with the grounds of the acceptance of such poor unworthy sinners as we are in the presence of the holy God. For what will not this love and the effects of it prevail for? what can stand in the way of it? or what can hinder it from accomplishing whatever it is designed unto? Obs. 2. In his sufferings, and notwithstanding them all, the Lord Christ was the “Son” still, the Son of God. He was so both as to real relation and as to suitable affection. He had in them all the state of a Son and the love of a Son. It is true, during the time of his suffering, a common eye, an eye of sense and reason, could see no appearance of this sonship of Christ. His outward circumstances were all of them such as rather eclipsed than manifested his glory, Isaiah 53:2-3. This was that which the world being offended at, stumbled and fell; for he was unto them “a stone of stumbling, and rock of offense,” Romans 9:33. The meanness of his condition, the poverty of his life, and shame of his death, proved an offense both to Jews and Gentiles. How could such a one be thought to be the Son of God? Besides, God himself so dealt with him, as flesh and blood would not conceive him to deal with his only Son. For he laid his curse upon him, as it is written, “Cursed is he that is hanged on a tree.” And in all this state of things, he speaks of himself as one made so much beneath the condition of glory which was due to the Son of God, as that he was lower than any sort of men; whence he complains, “I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,” Psalms 22:6.Yet, during all this, he was still the Son of God, and suffered as the Son of God. Hence it is said, that “God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,” — that is, to suffering and death, Romans 8:32. He “sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” and “condemned sin in the flesh,” verse 3. It is true, he suffered only in his human nature, which alone was capable thereof; but HE suffered who was the Son of God, and as he was the Son of God, or God could not have “redeemed the church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28. In all that he underwent neither was the union of his natures dissolved, nor the love of the Father unto him as his own Son in the least impeached. Obs. 3. A practical experience of obedience to God in some cases will cost us dear.We cannot learn it but through the suffering of those things which will assuredly befall us on the account thereof. So was it with the Lord Christ. I intend not here the difficulties we meet withal in mortifying the internal lusts and corruptions of nature; for these had no place in the example here proposed unto us. Those only are respected which do, or will, or may, come upon us from without. And it is an especial kind of obedience also, namely, that which holds some conformity to the obedience of Christ, that is intended. Wherefore, 1. It must be singular; it must have somewhat in it that may, in a special manner, turn the eyes of others towards it. A common course of obedience, clothed with a common passant profession, may escape at an easy rate in the world. There seems to be somewhat singular denoted in that expression, “He that will live godly in Christ Jesus,” 2 Timothy 3:12. To live in Christ Jesus, is to live and walk in the profession of the gospel, to be a professing branch in Christ, John 15:2. But of these there are two sorts; some that “live godly in him,” some branches that bring forth fruit, — that is, in an eminent and singular manner. Every branch in the true vine hath that whereby he is distinguished from brambles and thorns; and every one that lives in the profession of the gospel hath somewhat that differenceth him from the world, and the ways of it; but there is a peculiar, a singular fruit-bearing in Christ, an especial “living godly in him,” which will turn an observation upon itself. So our apostle says, that they “were made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men,” by the especial ministry which was committed unto them, 1 Corinthians 4:9. 2. It is required that this obedience be universal. If there be an allowance in any one instance where there is a compliance with the world, or other enemies of our obedience, the trouble of it will be much abated. For men,‘by indulging any crooked steps to themselves, do compound for outward peace, and ofttimes thus obtain their aims, though greatly to their spiritual disadvantage. But the gospel obedience which we inquire into, is such as universally agrees in conformity with Christ in all things. And this will cost us dear. Sufferings will attend it. “They that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” For this kind of obedience will be observed in the world. It cannot escape observation, because it is singular; and it provokes the world, because it is universal, and will admit of no compliance with it. And where the world is first awaked, and then enraged, trouble and suffering of one kind or another will ensue. If it do not bite and tear, it will bark and rage. And Satan will see enough to make such his especial mark, as to all the opposition and actings of enmity which he puts forth against any in this world. Yea, and God himself ofttimes delighteth to give a trial unto eminent graces, where he endows any with them. For he gives them not for the peculiar advantage of them on whom they are bestowed only, but that he himself may have a revenue of glory from their exercise. Obs. 4. Sufferings undergone according to the will of God are highly instructive.Even Christ himself learned by the things which he suffered; and much more may we do so, who have so much more to learn. God designs our sufferings to this end, and to this end he blesseth them. And this hath frequently been the issue of God’s dealing with men; those who have suffered most, who have been most afflicted, most chastised, have been the most humble, most holy, fruitful, and wise among them; and he that learneth such things, profiteth well under his instruction. Obs. 5. In all these things, both as to suffering, and learning or profiting thereby, we have a great example in our Lord Jesus Christ.As such is he proposed unto us in all his course of obedience, especially in his sufferings, 1 Peter 2:21; for he would leave nothing undone which was any way needful, that his great work of sanctifying and saving his church to the utmost might be perfect.Obs. 6. The love of God towards any, the relation of any unto God, hinders not but that they may undergo great sufferings and trials.The Lord Christ did so, “although he were a Son.” And this instance irrefragably confirms our position. For the love of God to Jesus Christ was singular and supereminent; he doth not love any with a love so much as of the same kind. The relation also of Christ unto God was singular; none ever standing in the same relation unto him, he being his only-begotten Son. And yet his sufferings and trials were singular also. No sorrows, no pains, no distresses of soul and body, no sufferings like his. And in the whole course of the Scripture we may observe, that the nearer any have been unto God, the greater have been their trims. For, — 1. There is not in such trials and exercises anything that is absolutely evil, but they are all such as may be rendered good, useful, yea, honorable and glorious, to the sufferers, from God’s conduct in them and the end of them.2. The love of God, and the gracious emanations of it, can and do abundantly compensate the temporary evils which any do undergo according to his will.3. The glory of God, which is the end designed unto, and which shall infallibly ensue upon all the sufferings of the people of God, — and that so much the greater as any of them, on any account, are nearer than others unto him, — is such a good unto them which suffer, as that their sufferings neither are, nor are esteemed by them to be evil. The words and design of this verse have so great a coincidence with those of Heb 2:10, that we shall the less need to insist upon them. Something only must be spoken to clear the context. The apostle having declared the sufferings of Christ as our high priest, in his offering of himself, with the necessity thereof, proceeded to declare both what was effected thereby, and what was the especial design of God therein. And this in general was, that the Lord Christ, considering our lost condition, might be every way fitted to be a “perfect cause of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” There are, therefore, two things in the words, both which God aimed at and accomplished in the sufferings of Christ: — 1. On his own part, that he might be “made perfect;” not absolutely, but with respect unto the administration of his office in the behalf of sinners.2. With respect unto believers, that he might be unto them an “author of eternal salvation.” Unto both these ends the sufferings of Christ were necessary, and designed of God.Hebrews 5:9. — Καὶτελειωθεὶςἐγένετοτοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷπᾶσιναἴτιοςσωτηρίαςαἰωνίου.Τελειωθείς, “perfectus,” “consummatus,” “consecratus;” “perfect,” “consummated,” “fully consecrated.” Syriac, εְ ?δָ ?λַ ?πָ ?ΰΰֶ ?ϊְ ?βַ ?ξַּ ?ψ, “and so being made perfect, “perfectus redditus,” as Erasmus. Εγένετο, ‘“factus est,” “fuit;” “he became.” Τοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷ. Vulg., “sibi obtemperantibus.” So Arias, Eras., Syr. And Beza, “qui ipsi auscultans,” keeping to the word; which in all the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, signifies originally “to hearken,” “to hear, to attend unto, with a design to learn and obey.” Αἴτιος. Syr., ςֶ ?μְ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, causa, so most. Beza, “auctor;” whom we follow, “the author.” Σωτηρίαςαἰωνίου, “salutis aeternae.” Syr, γְּ ?ηַ ?ιֵּ ?ΰγַּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?μַ ?ν“of life,” or lives which are eternal.” One learned grammarian hath translated αἴτιος, by “causa efficiens et exhibens.” Ethiop., “the rewarder with life eternal, and the redeemer of the world.” Τελειωθείς, “being perfected,” “consummated,” “fully consecrated;” for the word is sacred, and expresseth sacred consecration. As to the sense of it in this place, with respect unto the verses foregoing, it answers directly unto its use, Hebrews 2:10, διὰπαθημάτωντελειῶσαι, “to perfect by sufferings;” only that it is used actively, with respect unto God the Father, “It became him to make perfect the Captain of our salvation.” Here it is used passively, with respect unto the effect of that act of God on the person of Christ, who by his suffering was “perfected.” The signification of this word, and the constant use of it in this epistle, the reader may find at large in our exposition on Hebrews 2:10. The sum is, that it signifies to dedicate, to consecrate, to sanctify and set apart, and that by some kind of suffering or other. So the legal high priests were consecrated by the suffering and death of the beasts that were offered in sacrifice at their consecration, Exodus 29. But it belonged unto the perfection of the priesthood of Christ to be consecrated in and by his own sufferings. I shall therefore only remove out of the way the corrupt exposition given us of this word by Schlichtingius: — Τελείωσις,“Ista, seu consummatio Christi opponitur diebus carnis ejus: tum enim cum Christus infirmus esset, et ipse alieno auxilio indigeret, non potuerat aliis perfectum in omnibus auxilium ferre. Sed postquam consammatus est, id est, postquam immortalitatem, seu naturam incorruptibilem, supremamque in coelo et terra potestatem est adeptus, sicut nihil illi desit amplius; seu postquam est adeo penitus consecratus, et plenθ in sacerdotem inauguratus (quemadmodum aliqui hanc vocem explicaudam putant), factus est causa salutis aeternse; nempe causa perfectissima. Nam et in diebus carnis suae erat causa salutis aeternae; sed consummatus, factus est causa perfectissima. Tunc causa erat nostrae salutis tanquam Dei maximus legatus et apostolus; nunc tanquam summus pontifex et rex noster coelestis a Deo constitutus.” There is also another expositor, who, although he grants that the τελείωσις here mentioned hath respect unto the ξִ ?μֻּ ?ΰִ ?ιν, or “sacrifices at the consecration of priests, which was antecedent unto their right of offering any thing in their own persons, yet so far complies with this interpretation as to understand, I know not what, “inauguration into a Melchisedecian priesthood, which consisted in a power of blessing after his resurrection;” and so, in the application of the word unto Christ, falls into a contradiction unto his own exposition of it, making it consist in his exaltation and endowment with power. But there is nothing sound in these discourses. For, — 1. There is no opposition between this consecration of Christ and the days of his flesh; for it was effected in and by his sufferings, which were only in the days of his flesh. And we have given the reason before, and that taken from the perfection of his person and his office, why he was himself consecrated for ever in and by that sacrifice which he offered for us; for neither could he often offer himself, and it was destructive of his whole office to have been consecrated by the offering of any other.2. There is too much boldness in that expression, that Christ could not perfectly help others in the days of his flesh. For, set aside the consideration of his divine nature, wherein he wrought whatever the Father wrought (which this sort of men will not admit), he had declared openly that “all power,” “all things,” were given into his hand, Matthew 11:28; “power over all flesh,” John 17, — which surely extended unto an ability of relieving all them that were committed to him of God. It is true, he had not as yet absolutely perfected all the means of our salvation; but he was furnished with a fullness of power in their accomplishment, according to the method and order appointed of God unto them. 3. It is not said, that after he was consecrated, or perfected, or made immortal, as though these things were of the same importance; for he was consecrated in and by his sufferings, as is expressly affirmed, Hebrews 2:10, which were antecedent unto and issued in his death. 4. That the Lord Christ was not constituted and consecrated a high priest before his entrance into heaven, is a direct contradiction unto the whole design of the apostle in this place. His purpose is, as hath been evidenced, and is acknowledged by all, to compare the Lord Christ as a high priest with the priests according to the law; and therein he shows his pre- eminence above them. Among the things which to this purpose he makes mention of, are his sufferings, verses 7,8. Now if he suffered not when he was a priest, and as he was so, nothing could be less to his purpose. But whereas he principally designed to magnify the priestly office of Christ, or his person in the exercise of it, on the account of mercy and compassion, verse 2, he proves his excellency unto that end from his sufferings as he was a priest; whence in the future discharge of his office he is inclined to give out merciful assistance unto them that suffer. 5. The pretended distinction, that Christ in the days of his flesh was indeed the cause of salvation, but afterwards a most perfect cause of salvation, is unscriptural. The Lord Christ, in every condition, was the most perfect cause of salvation, although he performed some acts and works belonging thereunto in one estate, and some in another, according as the nature of the works themselves to be performed unto that end did require: for some things that were necessary unto our perfect salvation could not be accomplished but in a state of humiliation; and some, on the other hand, depended on his exaltation.6. What is affirmed concerning Christ’s being the prophet of the church, and apostle of God, in the days of his flesh, but of his being a king and priest afterwards, is another invention of this sort of men. He was always equally the king, priest, and prophet of the church, though he exercises these offices and the several acts or duties of them variously, according as the nature of them doth require.Τελειωθείς, then, is, “consecrated,” “dedicated, “consummated” sacredly. And it was necessary that Christ should be so, both from the nature of his office and work, which he was sacredly and solemnly to be set apart unto; and to answer the types of the Aaronical priesthood, which were so consecrated and set apart. And in this consecration of the Lord Christ unto his office of the priesthood, and his offering of sacrifice by virtue thereof, we may consider, —1. The sovereign disposing cause; 2. The formal cause constitutive of it; 3. The external means.1. For the first, it was God, even the Father. He by his sovereign authority disposed, designed, called, and separated the Lord Christ unto his office; which we have spoken unto once, and must again consider it on the verse following.2. The formal cause of it was his own will, obedientially giving up himself unto the authority and will of the Father, and that out of love unto and delight in the work itself, Psalms 40:6-8. And in especial did he thereby dedicate, separate, and consecrate himself unto the principal work and duty of his office, or the offering of a sacrifice, John 17:19.3. The external means were his own sufferings, especially in the offering of himself. This alone hath any difficulty attending it, how the Lord Christ can be said to be consecrated by his own sufferings in his offering, when his offering was an act of that office which he was consecrated unto. But I answer, that seeing an external means of the consecration of Christ was necessary, it could be no other but only his own sufferings in the offering of himself. For, — (1.) It was impossible for him, unworthy of him, and beneath both the dignity of his person and excellency of his office, with the very nature of it, that he should be consecrated by any other sacrifice, as of beasts and the like, as were the priests of old. To suppose the suffering and offering of beasts to be useful to this purpose, is repugnant to the whole design of God, and destructive of the office of Christ itself, as is manifest.(2.) He could not consecrate himself by an antecedent offering of himself; for he could not die often, nor suffer often, nor indeed had any need, or could righteously on the part of God have so done. It was therefore indispensably necessary that he should be consecrated, dedicated, and perfected himself, in and by the sacrifice that he offered for us, and the suffering wherewith it was accompanied. But withal, this was only the external means of his consecration; concerning which we may observe two things: —(1.) That as to the main or substance of his office, he was consecrated by his sufferings only in a way of evidence and manifestation. Really he was so by the acts of God his Father and himself before mentioned; only hereby he was openly declared to be the high priest of the church. (2.) There were some acts and duties of his sacerdotal office yet remaining to be performed, which he could not orderly engage into until he had suffered, because they supposed and depended on the efficacy of his suffering. These he was now made meet and fit for, and consequently unto the complete discharge of the whole course of his office.Being thus consecrated, ἐγένετο, “he was made,” “he became,” or “he was” only. Nothing was now wanting unto the great end aimed at in all these things, which is expressed in the next place.Αἴτιοςσωτηρίαςαἱωνίου. Where his consecration is before mentioned, Hebrews 2:10, he is said to become ἀρχηγὸςσωτηρίας, a “captain of salvation.” And it is affirmed of him with respect unto his actual conduct of believers unto salvation, by the plentiful and powerful administration of his word and Spirit. supplying them with all fruits of grace and truth needful unto that end. Somewhat more is here intended. Αἴτιος is both “a cause in general,” and “he who is in any kind the cause of another thing.” And sometimes an “efficient cause,” and sometimes a “meritorious cause” is expressed thereby. In the first sense it is used by Isocrates ad. Phileb.: Θεοὺςτῶνἀγαθῶνἡμῖναἰτίουςὅντας, — “The gods are the author” (or “causes”) “of good things unto us;” that is, they bestow them on or work them in us. And Aristotle, de Mundo, useth a phrase of speech not unlike this: ῾Ηἐνοὐρανῷδύναμιςσυμπασιναἴτιοςγίνεταισωτηρίας, — “The power that is in heaven is the cause of safety to all things.” And sometimes it is taken for a meritorious or procuring cause, or him by whom any thing is procured; though most frequently in other authors he who is guilty or deserves evil is intended thereby. So he: Οὔκἐγὼαἴτιοςεἷμιἀλλὰζεὺςκαὶμοῖρα. So αἴτιος is expounded by Eustathius, ὑπεύθυνοςκαὶκολάσεωςἄξιος; but it is of the mine importance with reject unto what is good. The apostle, therefore, hath in this word respect unto all the ways and means whereby the Lord Christ either procured salvation for us or doth actually bestow it upon us.And here also it will be necessary, for the further clearing of the importance of this word, to examine the endeavor of the forementioned expositor to corrupt the sense of it: “Est vero,” saith he, “perfectissima salutis cause, quia peffectissima ratione salutem affert; nihil illi deest, nec ad vires, ac facultatem, nec ad studium et voluntatem salutis nostrae perficiendae. Nam et poenas peccatorum omnes a nobis potentia suβ arcet, et vitam aetemam largitur; spiritus nostros in manus suas suscipit; succurrit nobis in affiictionibus et opem promptθ fert ne in fide succumbamus, inque poenas peccatis debits ea ratione incidamus.” This, indeed, is “the voice of Jacob,” but “the hands” of this doctrine “are the hands of Esau.” For whilst by these words, for the most part true, we have a description given us how and on what account the Lord Jesus Christ, as our high priest, is the author and cause of our salvation, that which is indeed the principal reason hereof, and without which the other consideration would not be effectual, is omitted and excluded. For in the room of his satisfaction and expiation of sin by the propitiatory sacrifice of himself we are supplied with a keeping off, or driving from us, the punishment due unto our sins. But this kind of delivery from the punishment of sin by Christ is unscriptural, both name and thing. The tree way was that whereby he delivereth us from the curse and penalty of the law, so saving us from “the wrath to come.” And this was by his “bearing our sins in his own body on the tree;” by being “made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” See 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 8:3, Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24, Isaiah 53:6-8. The other things mentioned by this author Christ doth indeed, in carrying on the work of our salvation, and many other things of the like nature which he mentioneth not; all which are here included, but all with respect unto that foundation which was laid in his satisfactory oblation, — which is by him here excluded. We may therefore consider the Lord Christ as the “author of eternal salvation,” either with respect unto his own acts and works, whereby he wrought it or procured it; or with respect unto the effects of them, whereby it is actually communicated unto us: or we may consider him as the meritorious, procuring, purchasing, or as the efficient cause of our salvation. And in both respects the Lord Christ is said to be the author of our salvation, as the word doth signify him who is the cause of any thing in either kind. And where he is said to be the author of our salvation, nothing is to be excluded whereby he is so. In the first way, as the meritorious cause of our salvation, he is the author of it two ways: — 1. By his oblation; 2. By his intercession.Both these belong unto the means whereby he procures our salvation. And these, in the first place, are respected, because the apostle treats immediately of our salvation as arising from the priestly office of Christ. And, 1. In his oblation, which was the offering of himself as an expiatory sacrifice for our sins, accompanied with the highest acts of obedience, and the supplications mentioned, verse 7, two things may be considered unto this end: —(1.) The satisfaction he made therein for sins, with the expiation of our guilt; which is the foundation of our salvation, without which it was impossible we should be partakers of it.(2.) The merit of his obedience therein, by which, according to the tenor of the covenant between God and him, he purchased and procured this salvation for us, Hebrews 9:14. On these two accounts was he in his oblation the author or cause of our salvation.2. He is so also on the account of his intercession; for this is the name of that way whereby, with respect unto God, he makes effectual unto us what in his oblation he had purchased and procured, Hebrews 7:25-27. And this he doth as the meritorious cause thereof.But secondly, he is also the efficient cause of our salvation; inasmuch as he doth by his Spirit, his grace, and his glorious power, actually communicate it unto us and collate it upon us. And this he doth in sundry instances, the principal whereof may be named: — 1. He teacheth us the way of salvation, and leads us into it; which Socinus fondly imagined to be the only reason why he is called our Savior.2. He makes us meet for it, and saves us from the power of sin, quickening, enlightening, and sanctifying of us, through the administration of his Spirit and grace.3. He preserves and secures it unto us, in the assistance, deliverance, and victory he gives us against all oppositions, temptations, dangers, and troubles.4. He both gives an entrance into it and assurance of it, in our justification and peace with God.5. He will actually, by his glorious power, bestow upon us immortal life and glory, or give us the full possession of this salvation. In all these respects, with those many other streams of grace which flow from them, is the Lord Christ said to be the “author of our salvation.”This salvation is said to be “eternal;” whereof see our exposition on Hebrews 2:3. So the redemption purchased by this offering of Christ is said to be “eternal,” Hebrews 9:12. And it is called so absolutely, comparatively, and emphatically.1. Absolutely; it is eternal, endless, unchangeable, and permanent. We are made for an eternal duration. By sin we had made ourselves obnoxious to eternal damnation. If the salvation procured for us were not eternal, it would not be perfect, nor suited unto our condition.2. It is also said to be eternal in comparison with and in opposition unto that or those temporal deliverances, or salvations, which the people under the law were made partakers of by the interposition of their legal priests and their sacrifices. For there were temporary punishments, and excisions by death, threatened unto divers transgressions of the law, as it was the administration of a temporal covenant unto that people. From these they might be freed by the ministry of their priests and carnal atonements. But those who were delivered from those penalties, and saved from the sentence of the law, were not thereby absolutely secured of deliverance from the curse annexed unto the moral law as a covenant of works. Their salvation, therefore, was not eternal And perhaps, also, respect may be had unto the deliverance of the people of old out of bondage, with their introduction into the land of Canaan, which was a temporary salvation only. But this is so absolutely; and, 3. Emphatically. It takes off indeed all temporal punishments as effects of the curse of the law. It gives temporal deliverance from fear and bondage by reason thereof. It supplies us with mercy, grace, and peace with God in this world. But all these things issuing in eternal blessedness, that being the end of them, being all bestowed on us in a tendency thereunto, the whole is emphatically called “eternal.”Lastly, There is a limitation of the subject of this salvation, unto whom the Lord Christ is the cause and author of it; it is to “all them that obey him,” — τοῖςὑπακούουσιναὐτῷπᾶσιν. The expression is emphatical. To all and every one of them that obey him; not any one of them shall be excepted from a share and interest in this salvation; nor shall any one of any other sort be admitted thereunto. He is “the author of eternal salvation” only unto “them that obey him;” whether there be any other author of salvation to those who neither know him nor obey him, they may do well to inquire who suppose that such may be saved. A certain number, then, they are, and not all men universally, unto whom he is the author of salvation. And as these elsewhere are described by the antecedent cause hereof, namely, their election, and being given unto Christ by the Father; so here they are so by the effects of it in themselves, — they are such as “obey him.” ῾Υπακούω is “to obey upon hearing,” “dicto obedire;” originally it signifies only “to hearken” or “hear,” but with a readiness, or subjection of mind unto what is heard, to do accordingly.Hence it is faith in the first place that is intended in this obedience. For it is that which, in order unto our participation of Christ, first “cometh by hearing,” Romans 10:17; and that partly because the object of it, which is the promise, is proposed outwardly unto it in the word, where we hear of it and hear it; and partly because the preaching of the word, which we receive by hearing, is the only ordinary means of ingenerating faith in our souls. Hence to believe is expressed by ὑπακοὑειν, “to hear” so as to answer the ends of what is proposed unto us. The ensuing subjecting our souls unto Christ, in the keeping of his commands, is “the obedience of faith.” We may now draw some observations from the words, for our further instruction: as, — Obs. 1. All that befell the Lord Christ, all that he did and suffered, was necessary to this end, that he might be the cause of eternal salvation to believers.Being “consecrated,” or “perfected,” he became so; and what belonged unto that consecration we have declared. This was that which he was of God designed unto. And the disposal of all things concerning him to this end was the fruit of infinite wisdom, goodness, and righteousness. No more was required of him, that he might be the author of eternal salvation unto believers, but what was absolutely necessary thereunto; nor was there an abatement made of any thing that was so necessary. Some have said, that “one drop of the blood of Christ was sufficient for the salvation of the whole world.” And some have made use of that saying, pretending that the overplus of his satisfaction and merit is committed to their disposal; which they manage to their advantage. But the truth is, every drop of his blood, — that is, all he did and all he suffered, for matter and manner, in substance and circumstance, — was in dispensably necessary unto this end. For God did not afflict his only Son willingly, or without cause in any thing, and his whole obedience was afflictive. He did not die nor suffer δωρεάν, Galatians 2:21, without an antecedent cause and reason. And nothing was wanting that was requisite hereunto. Some suppose that Christ was and is the author of salvation unto us only by showing, teaching, declaring the will of God, and the way of faith and obedience, whereby we may be saved. But why, then, was he consecrated in the way before described? why did it “become God to make him perfect through sufferings?” why was he “bruised and put to grief ?” for what cause was he reduced unto the state and condition described in the verse foregoing? Certainly such men have low thoughts of sin and its guilt, of the law and its curse, of the holiness and righteousness of God, of his love to Jesus Christ, yea, and of his wisdom, who suppose that the salvation of sinners could be attained without the price and merit of all that he did and suffered, or that God would have so dealt with his only Son, might it any otherwise have been attained. I might show in particular from the Scripture, how every thing that Christ did and suffered was not only useful, but necessary also, to this purpose, allowing the wisdom and righteousness of God to give the standard and measure of what is so; but I must not too far digress And hence it is evident, — 1. How great a matter it is to have sinners made partakers of eternal redemption;2. How great, how infinite was that wisdom, that love and grace, which contrived it and brought it about;3. How great and terrible will be the ruin of them by whom this salvation is despised, when tendered according to the gospel, etc.Obs. 2. The Lord Christ was consecrated himself in and by the sacrifice that he offered for us, and what he suffered in so doing. This belonged to the perfection both of his office and his offering. He had none to offer for him but himself, and he had nothing to offer but himself.Obs. 3. The Lord Christ alone is the only principal cause of our eternal salvation, and that in every kind. There are many instrumental causes of it in sundry kinds. So is faith; so are the word and all the ordinances of the gospel; they are instrumental, helping, furthering causes of salvation, — but all in subordination unto Christ, who is the principal, and who alone gives use and efficacy unto all others. How he is so, by his oblation and intercession, by his Spirit and grace, in his ruling and teaching, offices and power, is the chief work of the ministry to declare. God hath appointed that in all things he should have the preeminence. There are both internal and external means of salvation that he hath appointed, whereby he communicates unto us the virtue and benefit of his mediation. These it is our duty to make use of according to his appointment; so that we expect no relief or help from them, but only by them. So much as they have of Christ in them, so much as they convey of Christ unto us, of so much use they are, and no more. Not only, therefore, to set up any thing in competition against him, as the works of the law, or in conjunction with him, as the Papists do their penances, and pilgrimages, and pardons, and purgatory, is pernicious and ruinous unto the souls of men; but also, to expect any assistance by, or acceptance in, such acts of religion or worship as he hath not appointed, and therefore doth not fill up with his grace, nor communicate from his own fullness by it, is the highest folly imaginable. This, therefore, is the great wisdom of faith, to esteem of Christ and to rest upon him as that which he is indeed, namely, the only author of salvation unto them that believe. For, — Obs. 4. Salvation is confined to believers; and those who look for salvation by Christ, must secure it unto themselves by faith and obedience. It is Christ alone who is the cause of our salvation; but he will save none but those that obey him. He came to save sinners, but not such as choose to continue in their sins; though the gospel be full of love, of grace, of mercy, and pardon, yet herein the sentence of it is peremptory and decretory: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” In the 10th verse the apostle returns unto the improvement of the testimony given unto the priesthood of Christ taken from Psalms 110. And hereby he makes way unto another necessary digression, without which he could not profitably pursue the instruction which he intended [for] the Hebrews from that testimony, as we shall see in the following verses. He had drawn forth nothing out of that testimony of the psalmist, but only that the Lord Christ was a priest; and when he had done this in general, which was necessary for him to do, he declares his sacerdotal actings which he was enabled unto by virtue of that office: for a priest he must be who so “offered” unto God as he did. But he had yet a further and peculiar intention in the production of that testimony. And this was, not only to prove him to be a priest in general, and so to have right to perform all sacerdotal offices and duties in behalf of the people, which he did accordingly, verses 7-9, but withal to declare the especial nature and pre- eminence of his priesthood, as typed or shadowed out by the priesthood of Melchisedec. The demonstration and declaration whereof is that which he now designs. But so soon as he hath laid down his general assertion, in this verse, considering the greatness of the matter he had in hand, as also the difficulty of understanding it aright which he should find among the Hebrews, he diverts unto a preparatory digression, wherein he continues the remainder of this and the whole ensuing chapter, resuming his purpose here proposed in the beginning of the seventh chapter. Hebrews 5:10. — ΠροσαγορευθεὶςὑπὸτοῦΘεοῦἀρχιερεὺςκατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ. [7]Hebrews 5:10. — Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. [7] . — Προσαγ. Declared of God. — Craik. Having been named of God. — Conybeare and Howson. Genannt. — De Wette. Craik justly remarks, “The term ought to be distinguished from καλούμενος, verse 4. It literally signifies ‘addressed,’and refers to the form of the declaration in Psalms 110.” — ED. Προσαγορευθείς, “called.” He refers unto the testimony produced, verse 6. And it is here manifest who it is that is intended in those words, “As he saith in another place, Thou art a priest.” That is, God said so; for he was προσαγορευθεὶςὑπὸτοῦΘεοῦ, — dictus, cognominatus, πִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰ; “called,” “pronounced.” “Salutatus,” as “salutare aliquem regem,” is to pronounce him so. And we may inquire into the reason of this peculiar expression. He had before declared that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, was “a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” Now there may be more supposed herein than is indeed intended. When we say that Phinehas, and Eli, and Zadok, were high priests of the order of Aaron, we intend that they had the very same priesthood that Aaron had. But that is not the meaning of the expression in this place and matter. The priesthood of Christ and of Melchisedec were not the same; for that of Christ is such as no mere man could possibly sustain or exercise: only these two priesthoods, as expressed in the Scripture, had an especial agreement in sundry things, the particulars whereof the apostle enumerates and explains, Hebrews 7. For on the account of sundry things that were singular in the person of Melchisedec (either absolutely, or as his story is related in the Scripture, which is the rule of our comprehension of sacred things), and suited to prefigure or shadow out the Lord Christ in his priesthood, above what was in Aaron or his office, he is said to be made “a priest after the order of Melchisedec,” or according to the things spoken of. Melchisedec. He is not said to be a priest of the order, but ςμΰּ ?γִּ ?αְ ?ψָ ?ϊִ ?ι, κατὰτάξιν, according to the things spoken of Melchisedec, as a priest; after the manner of what is related concerning him. And this, in my judgment, is the reason of the use of this word προσαγορευθείς in this place; for it doth not signify a call to office, — that is κλητός constantly, — but it is the denomination of him who is so called, for some certain reason. ‘Because,’ saith the apostle, ‘of the especial resemblance that was between what Melchisedec was and what Christ was to be, God called his priesthood Melchisedecian; whereon I must necessarily declare wherein that resemblance did consist:’which he doth afterwards. So was his priesthood surnamed from his type, and not Aaronical.“Called of God,” ἀρχιερεὺς. Verse 6, he renders the Hebrew λֹ ?δֵ ?ο by ἱερεὺς only, “a priest.” And it signifies no more. For where the high priest in a note of distinction is intended, they call him λֹ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?βַּ ?γεֹ ?μ, the “great” or “high priest;” “sacerdos magnus,” “summus;” “pontifex,” “pontifex summus” But the whole nature, right, and privilege of the office, belonged unto any one as a priest. Every high priest was a priest absolutely; but every priest was not a high priest also. Aaron and his sons were together separated unto the same office of the priesthood, Exodus 28:1; but some duties in the execution of the office were peculiarly reserved unto him who was chief and singular. And because he who was singular had thus sundry pre-eminences above other priests, and also that the discharge of some duties, and offering of some sacrifices, as that of the great atonement, were committed unto him alone, which were peculiarly typical of the sacerdotal actions of Christ; as he is called ἱερεύς, a “priest” absolutely, as being invested in the real office of the priesthood, so is he termed by our apostle, the “chief” or “high priest,” not because there were any other in or of the same order with himself, but because all the pre- eminences of the priesthood were in him alone, and he really answered what was typed out by the singular actings of the Aaronical high priest. He was thus “called an high priest κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ,” — “according to the order of Melchisedec.” This is not a limitation of his priesthood to a certain order, but a reference unto that priesthood whereby his was most eminently prefigured. And there are two things intended herein by the apostle. First, A concession that he was not a high priest according unto the constitution, law, and order of the Aaronical priesthood. And this he doth not only grant here, but elsewhere positively asserts, Hebrews 8:4; yea, and proves at large that it was impossible he should be so, and that if he had been so, his priesthood would not have been of advantage unto the church, Hebrews 7:11-14, etc. He was neither called as they were, nor came to his office as they did, nor was confirmed in it by the same means, nor had right unto it by the law, nor was his work the same with theirs. Secondly, That there was a priesthood antecedent unto and diverse from that of Aaron, appointed of God to represent the way and manner how he would call the Lord Christ unto his office, as also the nature of his person in the discharge there of, in what is affirmed and what is concealed concerning him who singly and alone was vested with that office; that is, Melchisedec. Look in what manner and by what means he became a priest; by the same, with other peculiar excellencies and pre eminencies added thereunto, was Christ also called, so as that he may be said, and is termed of God, a priest after his order or manner of appointment. For as he, without ceremony, without sacrifice, without visible consecration, without “the law of a carnal commandment,” was constituted a high priest, so was Christ also, by the immediate word of the Father, saying unto him, “Thou art my Son, a priest for every” or “after the power of an endless life.” And in this sense is he called “a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” I have elsewhere evinced the corruption of the Targum on Psalms 110:4, whence these words are taken; also the malice of some of the late Jewish masters, who would have Melchisedec to be there called λֹ ?δֵ ?ο, a “priest” improperly, as David’s sons were said to be λֹ ?δַ ?πִ ?ιν, — that is, “princes.” So the Targum, “Thou art a great prince.” But the expression here used by the psalmist is taken directly from Genesis 14:18, εְ ?δεּ ?ΰλֹ ?δֵ ?ομְ ?ΰֶ ?μςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο, — “And he was a priest of” (or “unto”) “the most high God.” Here none of the Jews themselves are so profligate as to pretend that a prince is intended, — a prince to the most high God! It is nothing, therefore, but that obstinacy which is the effect of their unbelief, which casts them on the shift of this evasion. Some observations do ensue: — Obs. 1. God was pleased to put a signal honor upon the person and office of Melchisedec, that in them there should be an early and excellent representation made of the person and priesthood of Jesus Christ.I am not here to inquire who this Melchisedec was, nor wherein the nature of his priesthood did consist. I shall do it elsewhere. Here he is reflected on as an eminent type of Christ in his office. And in how many particulars the resemblance between them did consist, our apostle doth afterwards declare. In the meantime we may observe, in general, 1. That all the real honor which God did unto any persons under the old testament, it was in order unto the prefiguring of Christ, “that in all things he might have the pre-eminence.” Other reason of the great exaltation of Melchisedec in the church, even above Abraham, the father of the faithful, there was none.2. He was the only type of the person of Christ that ever was in the world. Others were types of the Lord Christ in the execution of his office, but none but he were ever types of his person. For being introduced “without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life,” he was “made like unto the Son of God,” and represented his person, which none other did.3. He was the first personal type of Christ in the world. After him there were others; as Isaac and Aaron, Joshua, David, and Solomon; but he was the first, and therefore the most eminent.4. He was a type of Christ in these two great offices of a king and a priest; which none but he ever was, 5. The circumstances of his name, and the place of his reign, whence he was a “king of righteousness and peace,” do most gloriously represent the whole effect of the mediation of Christ; all which may be spoken to afterwards. Now the exaltation of any one in the like kind is a mere act of sovereign grace in God. He might so honor whom he pleased. Hence is Melchisedec introduced without the consideration of any circumstances of prerogative on his own part whatever, that all his dignity might be owned to be of God’s sovereign pleasure. God, therefore, having referred all to Christ, it is our wisdom to do likewise. Obs. 2. As the Lord Christ received all his honor, as mediator, from God the Father, so the ground and measure of our giving glory and honor unto him as such depend on the revelation and declaration of it unto us, He was termed, called, and declared of God “an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.” He made him so, which was his honor; he declared him to be so: whence we ought to give all honor unto him. But this hath been spoken unto elsewhere.And from the respect that these words have unto the precedent verse, we may observe, that, — Obs. 3. It is an evidence and testimony that the Lord Christ was able to be, and is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him,” because he is “a priest after the order of Melchisedec;” that is, his priesthood is eternal. In the 11th verse the apostle enters upon his designed digression. And first he expresseth the occasion and reason of it, taken from the subject or matter which in this place it was necessary for him to insist upon, and the condition, with the former carriage, or rather miscarriage, of them unto whom he spake. Hence he evidenceth the necessity of his digression, which consists in such awakening admonitions as they then and we now stand in need of, when we are to be excited unto a due attendance unto spiritual and mysterious truths. Hebrews 5:11. — Περὶοὗπολὺςἡμῖνὁλόγοςκαὶδυσερμήνευτοςλέγειν, ἐπεὶνωθροὶγεγόνατεταῖςἀκοαῖς.Περὶοὗ, “de quo,” “of whom.” The Syriac, ςֲ ?μַ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιγֵּ ?ιοςַ ?μδָ ?πָ ?ΰξַ ?μְ ?λִ ?ιζֶ ?γֶ ?χ; “of whom, even of the same Melchisedec :” which no other translation followeth. Πολὺςἡμῖνὁλόγος. Vulg., “grandis nobis sermo.” Rhem., “of whom we have great speech;” improperly, and unintelligibly. Arias, “multus nobis sermo,” “we have much to say.” Eras., “multa nobis forent dicenda,” “many things should be spoken by us:” intimating as if they were pretermitted; namely, what might have been spoken. Beza, “multa nobis aunt dicenda,” “we have many things to say” Syriac, ρβִּ ?ιΰָ ?ΰδִ ?ιμַ ?οξֶ ?μְּ ?ϊָ ?ΰμְ ?ξִ ?ΰξְ ?ψָ ?δּ, “multa forent verba facienda.” Translat. Polyglot., “we might use many words.” Tremel., “multus est nobis sermo quem eloquamur;” we have much discourse that we may utter” or “speak:” properly, “we have many words to be spoken.” Καὶδυσερμήνευτοςλέγειν. Vulg. Lat., “et interpretabilis ad dicendum.” Valla corrected this translation. Erasmus first suspected that it was originally in the translation, “ininterpretabilis;” which, although a barbarous word, yet evidently intends the sense of the original. Hence it is rendered by the Rhemists, “inexplicable to utter;” which expresseth neither the Latin nor the original. The expositors who follow that translation contend, (whilst the word doth signify negatively, “that cannot be interpreted;” or affirmatively, “that needs interpretation;”) with wonderful varify, as Erasmus manifests, if the word have any signification, it is, “that which is easy to be interpreted,” contrary to the original. Arias, “difficilis interpretatio dicere.” Eras., “difficilia explicatu,” “things hard to be explained.” So Beza. Ours, “hard to be uttered; “difficult to be expounded in speaking. Syr., μַ ?ξְ ?τַ ?ωָׁ ?χεּ ?ϊָ ?δּ εְ ?ςַ ?ρְ ?χָ ?ΰ“et labor ad exponendum;” or, as Tremel., “et occupatio ad exponendum illud;” — “and it is hard labor to expound it,” — a laborious work. “Of whom we have many things to say, and those difficult to be expounded. “ ᾿Επεὶνωθροὶγεγόνατε. Vulg., “quoniam imbecilli facti estis;” “because ye are become weak,” improperly. Arias, “segnes,” “slothful.” So Erasmus and Beza. “Dull.” Syr, λְּ ?ψַ ?ιְ ?δֵ ?ΰ, “infirm,” “weak.” Ταῖςἀκοαῖς. Vulg. Lat., “ad audiendum,” “weak to hear.” Arias, “auribus.” So Erasmus and Beza. But ἀκοή signifies the faculty of hearing and the act of hearing, as well as the instrument of it. “Dull of hearing.” [8] [8] . — Γεγόν. implies a course of declension, which our author sufficiently brings out by his translation. Conyheare and Howson render it more emphatically, “since ye have grown dull in understanding.” — Ed. Hebrews 5:11. — Concerning whom we have many things to speak, and difficult to be explained, seeing you are become slothful in hearing [or dull of hearing].There are four things combined in this verse in the way of a summary of the discourse that is to ensue: — 1. The subject whereof he would treat; “concerning whom.”2. The manner how he would treat concerning it; he had “many things to say.”3. The nature of those things, not so much absolutely in themselves as out of respect unto the Hebrews; they were “difficult to be explained” and understood. 4. The reason hereof, namely, because “they were become dull in hearing.” “Concerning whom;” — that is, Melchisedec, not Christ; and so the “Syriac” translation expresseth it. But he intends not to treat of him absolutely, neither of his person nor his office. These were things now past, and to search curiously into them was not for the edification of the church. And the apostle had no design to trouble the minds of believers with things unnecessary or curious. And it had not been amiss if this had been well considered by them who have laden us with so many needless speculations about his person and office; and some of them directly opposite to the scope and design of the apostle. But the purpose of the apostle is, to treat of him so far and wherein he was a type of Christ, and as such is represented in the story concerning him. Hence some render περὶοὗ, by “de qua re,” “of which matter;” that is, the similitude and conformity between Melchisedec and Christ, which was a great, necessary, and instructive truth. Πολὺςἡμῖνὁλόγος, “we have much to say;” many things to speak or treat of. But not the multitude of the things only which he had to speak, but the weight and importance also of them is intended in this expression. So the “grandis sermo” of the Vulgar, intends not loftiness of speech, but the weight of the things spoken of. And when the apostle comes to insist particularly on the things here intended, they appear rather to be mysterious and important than many. However, I deny not but that the apostle intimates that there were sundry, yea many things of that importance to be declared and insisted on, on this occasion.Some translations, as we have seen, supply the words by “forent,” some by “sunt.” The former seems to have apprehended that the apostle intended wholly to forbear treating on this subject, and that because it was so deep and mysterious, that, considering their condition, it would not be profitable unto them, nor for their edification. Wherefore he lets them know, that although he could treat of many things concerning Melchisedec, and such as were necessary to be declared, yet, because of their incapacity to receive them, he would forbear. And sundry interpreters do so apprehend his mind. But this is no way consistent with his express undertaking to declare all those things unto them, Hebrews 7. Wherefore he only declares in general, that he hath many weighty mysteries to instruct them in, but would not immediately engage in that work, until he had spoken that unto them which was needful to prepare them unto a due attention. And his ensuing discourses, before he returns unto this subject again, are not reasons why he will totally intermit the handling of them, but a due admonition unto them for precedent negligences, whereby they might be excited to prepare themselves in a due manner for the receiving of what he had to declare. The nature of the things treated of, with respect unto the capacity of the Hebrews, is nextly declared: Λόγοςδυσερμήνευτοςλέγειν. How variously these words are rendered we have seen before. It may be the things which Paul himself here calls δυσερμήνευτα, are those which Peter intends in his epistle, calling them δυσνόητα, 2 Peter 3:16, “things hard to be understood;” which is the same with what our apostle here intends. The phrase, δυσερμήνευτοςλέγειν, is somewhat unusual, and the sense of it not easy to be expressed to the full in our language. Λέγειν seems to be for ἐντῷλέγειν, “in dicendo,” “in the speaking” or uttering of it: or, when it is spoken and uttered, it is “hard to be interpreted,” that is, to be understood. For the interpretation intended is not that of the apostle in speaking, but that which is made in the understanding of them that hear it. For he that hears a thing uttered, and considers it, makes the interpretation of it unto himself, as Jerome observes, Epist. ad Evagr. The apostle doth not, therefore, intimate, — 1. That it would be any hard or difficult matter unto him to declare all things concerning the conformity between Melchisedec and Christ, which were necessary to be known unto the edification of the church; for what he had by revelation and inspiration (as he had all that he wrote as a part of the church’s canon, or rule of faith and obedience) was no matter of difficulty in him to find out and express. It is true, that being called to be an apostle in an especial manner, not having conversed with the Lord Christ in the flesh, he was in vision taken up into heaven, and there heard immediately from him ἄῤῥηταῥήματαἃοὐκἐξὸνἀνθρώπῳλαλῆσαι, 2 Corinthians 12:4, — “unspeakable words, that were not possible” (or “lawful”) “for a man to utter.” The things and manner of Christ’s speech unto him were accompanied with such a glory as human nature unperfected cannot bear. But these things belonged unto his own particular confirmation in his office and work, and not to the edification of the church in general. For what he received by revelation unto that end he freely and fully declared, Acts 20:20; Acts 20:27. Nor,2. That his manner of the declaration of it would be obscure and hard to be understood; as some have blasphemously accused his writings of obscurity and intricacy. Nor can any pretense be taken hence against the clearness and perspicuity of the Scriptures in the declaration of divine truths and revelations. For it is of things themselves, and not of the manner of their declaration, that he speaks, as also doth Peter in the place before mentioned. Two things, therefore, are intended by the apostle in this expression: — 1. That, in what he had to speak on this subject, there were some things in their own nature sublime and mysterious. In divine revelations there are great differences in the matter of them. For the manner of their declaration in the Scripture, they thus far agree, that every thing is declared absolutely as it ought to be, with respect unto the end of the Scripture; that is, the glory of God and the edification of the church. But among the things themselves revealed there is great difference. Some of them are nearer and more exposed unto our understandings and capacities; others of them are more sublime and mysterious, and more exceed our comprehension. And such are the things intended by the apostle. Wherefore,2. He doth not speak of these things only with respect unto their own nature, but unto our understandings, which are weak and imperfect. It is a difficult matter for us in any tolerable measure to comprehend divine mysteries, when plainly propounded unto us. But yet neither are these things spoken positively in this place with respect merely unto the understanding of them to whom they are delivered, but with respect unto a peculiar indisposition in the minds of some, hindering them in the discharge of their duty. This the apostle chargeth in particular upon these Hebrews in this verse; and then aggravation their fault, from its causes, nature, circumstances, and consequences, in those that follow to the end of this chapter and the midst of the next. And when he hath hereby prepared them to a more diligent attention, he returns to declare the things themselves which he here intends. And the Romanists do very weakly shield themselves from the force of an argument which ariseth up of its own accord against the great foundation of their superstition, from the nature of the apostle’s discourse in this epistle. For whereas he professedly treateth of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ in all their concerns, and in their whole use in the church of God, whence is it that he makes no mention in the least, nor gives the least intimation of their priesthood, mass, and sacrifice of it; by which alone, if you will believe them, the other things are communicated and made effectual to the church? I do not mention now what (God assisting) I shall prove afterwards, namely, that he declares those things which are utterly inconsistent with them, and destructive of them; but we only inquire at present whence it should come to pass that in this discourse, — which, if the things they pretend are true, is neither complete, nor useful, nor scarcely intelligible without them, — he should make no mention of them at all? ‘This,’say our Rhemists on this place, ‘was because the mass was too great mystery for St. Paul to acquaint these Hebrews withal; and therefore he here intimates that he would not acquaint them with it, or impart the doctrine of it unto them.’It seems, therefore, that the mass is a greater mystery than the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, or any thing that concerned his own personal priesthood! This seems to be a supposition of a competent boldness, wherein it is much if they should believe themselves. Besides, whereas the mass is one of the sacraments of the church, continually to be celebrated among the faithful, whence is it that the apostle should dread to speak of the nature of that unto them which they were made partakers of, and which they were exercised in every day, if it were then known, or in use in the church? They would make Christianity a very strange religion, wherein it should be a thing dangerous and unlawful to instruct men in their duty. But, as we have proved before, the things here intended by the apostle are all of them resumed and handled by him in the ensuing chapters; which makes it sufficiently evident that their mass and priesthood were none of them. Lastly, The reason of the foregoing assertion is added, “Seeing ye are slothful,” “slow,” or “dull in hearing.” Νωθροί. This word is nowhere used in the New Testament but here and Hebrews 6:12, where we render it “slothful.” Νωθρός est, “qui non facile potest ὠθεῖσθαι;” “one that is not easily stirred or moved, heavy, slothful, inactive, dull,” opposed to him that is diligent in his business; as Proverbs 22:29. Ταῖςἀκοαῖς. ᾿Ακοή is used both for the “ear,” the “faculty of hearing,” the “act of hearing,” and “things heard.” Wherefore “slothful in hearing,” whereby the apostle declares the fault of these Hebrews, is a metaphorical expression. ‘You are,’saith he, ‘in hearing of the word, like slothful persons, who do no work, accomplish no endeavours, attain no good end, because of their earthly, dull, inactive constitutions and inclinations.’The conditions and qualities of such persons Solomon paints to the life, Proverbs 12:27; Proverbs 18:9; Proverbs 19:24; Proverbs 21:25; Proverbs 22:13; Proverbs 24:30-34; Proverbs 26:13-15. He abounds in the reproof of it, as being one of the most pernicious vices that our nature is subject unto. And in the reproach that Christ will cast upon unfaithful ministers at the last day, there is nothing greater than that they were “slothful,” Matthew 25:26. Unto such persons, therefore, the apostle compares these Hebrews, not absolutely, but as to this one duty of hearing. The gospel, as preached, he calls λόγοντῆςἀκοῆς, “the word of hearing,” Hebrews 4:2; — the word that is communicated unto men by hearing, which they so receive, Romans 10:17; which ought to be heard and diligently attended unto. This duty the Scripture expresseth by προσέχειν, Acts 16:14; which is “diligently to hearken and attend, so as to cleave unto the things heard.” A neglect hereof the apostle chargeth the Hebrews withal. ‘You stir not up,’saith he, ‘the faculties of your souls, your minds and understandings, to conceive aright and comprehend the things that are spoken unto you; you attend not unto them according to their importance and your concernment in them; you treasure not them up in your hearts, consciences, and memories, but let them slip out, and forget them:’for the apostle intends all faults and negligences that concur unto unprofitable hearing. It is not natural imbecility of mind that he blames in them; nor such weakness of understanding as they might be obnoxious unto for want of improvement by education; nor a want of learning and subtilty to search into things deep and difficult: for these, although they are all defects and hinderances in hearing, yet are they not crimes. But it is a moral negligence and inadvertency, a want of the discharge of their duty according to their ability in attending unto the means of their instruction, that he chargeth them withal. The natural dulness of our minds in receiving spiritual things is, it may be, included; but it is our depraved affections, casting us on a neglect of our duty, that is condemned. And there are sundry things wherein we are hereby instructed; as, — Obs. 1. There are revealed in the Scripture sundry deep and mysterious truths, which require a peculiar diligence in our attendance unto their declaration, that we may rightly understand them or receive them in a due manner. To evince this proposition, I shall lay down and confirm the ensuing observations: —1. There are some things or truths revealed in the Scripture which have a peculiar remark put upon them, as those which are deep and mysterious. 1 Timothy 3:16; Ephesians 5:32; 1 Corinthians 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 15:51; Ephesians 3:4-5.2. The doctrines concerning these things are not dark and obscure, but clear, evident, and perspicuous. We may safely grant that what is not clearly delivered in the Scripture is of no indispensable necessity to be known and believed. And there are reasons innumerable why God would not leave any important truth under an obscure revelation. And none pretend they are so but those who first reject the things revealed; then all things spoken of them seem dark and obscure unto them. There are two practices about these things that are equally pernicious: —(1.) A pretense of things mysterious, that are not clearly revealed. This the apostle calls a curious prying or “intruding into things which we have not seen;” which who so do are “vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind,” Colossians 2:18; and which he cautioneth us against, Romans 12:3. The mysteries that are clearly revealed in the Scripture, as to the doctrine of them, are sufficient to exercise the utmost of our sober inquiries and humble speculations. To create heavenly mysteries, like the pretended Areopagite, in our own imaginations, — to squeeze them out of single letters, words, or expressions, like the cabbalistical Jews, into vent our own fancies for mysteries, — or to cover plain and sober truths with raw and uncouth terms, that they may put on the vizard of being mysterious, — is to forsake the word, and to give up ourselves to the conduct of our own imaginations. (2.) A neglect and contempt of clear, open revelations, because the things revealed are mysterious. And as this is the foundation of the most outrageous errors that at this day infest Christian religion, as in the Socinians and others, so it is that poison which secretly influenceth many amongst ourselves to an open contempt of the most important truths of the gospel. They will not, indeed, declare them to be false; but they judge it meet that they should be let alone where they are, as things not by us to be understood.3. The depths and mystery of the things intended lie in themselves and their own nature. They are effects of divine wisdom, yea, the greatest which ever God will either work or declare. Hence the doctrine of them is called his “wisdom,” 1 Corinthians 2:7; his “manifold wisdom,” Ephesians 3:10; as having put the most eminent characters of infinite wisdom upon them. We can see other things by the light of the sun better than we can see the sun itself; not because the sun is less visible and discernible in itself, but because our visive faculty is too weak to bear its resplendent light. So is it with these mysterious things: they are great, glorious, true, evident in themselves; but our understandings are weak, and unable fully to comprehend them. 4. The principal of these mysteries concern the person, offices, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. So as to his person, it is declared by our apostle, 1 Timothy 3:16; as to his work and office, Philippians 2:7-11; and as to his grace, Ephesians 3:8-11. And therefore, —5. Of all things which we are to learn in the dispensation of the word, these are we with most diligence to attend unto, Philippians 3:8-10, as those wherein the glory of God and our own obedience are most concerned. Some suppose that we should wholly content ourselves with the plain lessons of morality, without any further diligent inquiry into these mysteries; which is at once to reject, if not the whole, yet the principal part of the gospel, and that without which what remains will not be available. Sad indeed would be the condition of the church of God, if preachers and hearers should agree in the neglect and contempt of the mysteries of the gospel. These, I say, are the things which our utmost diligence, in reading, hearing, and meditating on the word, in prayer and holy supplications for light and wisdom, that we may know them, and grow in the knowledge of them, is indispensably required of us. Obs. 2. It is necessary for the ministers of the gospel sometimes to insist on the most abstruse and difficult truths, that are revealed for our edification.The apostle doth not only insist upon the sacerdotal office of Christ, the nature and exercise of it in his own person, but he judgeth it necessary to explain the mystical prefiguration of it in the priesthood of Melchisedec. Why might not that have been omitted, seeing he expressly acknowledgeth that the things concerning it were hard and difficult in the sense before explained, and the doctrine which he proposed in general might be declared and taught without it? Is not this a needless curiosity, and such as tended rather to the amusing and perplexing of his disciples than their edification? ‘No,’saith he; ‘there may be curiosity in the manner, but there can be none in the matter, when we declare and expound only what is revealed in the Scripture. It was not in vain that the Holy Ghost recorded these things concerning the person and office of Melchisedec. The faith and obedience of the church are concerned in the due understanding of them; and therefore this explanation is not to be neglected.’Wherefore, to clear and direct our duty in this matter, we may consider, — 1. That it ought to be the design of every faithful minister, in the course of his ministry, to withhold nothing from those committed unto his charge that belongs unto their edification, as do all things that are written in the Scripture, but to declare unto them “the whole counsel of God,” so far as he himself hath attained, Acts 20:20; Acts 20:27. To give times and seasons unto especial truths, doctrines, expositions, is committed unto his own prudence by Him by whom he is made an “overseer, to feed the church of God;” but his design in general is, to “keep back nothing that is profitable,” — as is the sense of all the Scripture, even in its most abstruse and difficult passages, 2 Timothy 3:16.2. That his duty is, as much as in him lieth, to carry on his hearers unto perfection, Hebrews 6:1 : for the ministry itself being given to the church “for the perfecting of the saints,” Ephesians 4:12-13, or the bringing of them all “unto a perfect man” in Christ Jesus, every one who is faithful in that office ought to make it his design and work. And hereunto doth their growth in light and knowledge, and that of the most mysterious truths, in an especial manner belong. And whereas some, through the blessing of God on their holy diligence and endeavors, do thrive and grow in light and knowledge above others, they are not to be clogged in their progress, by being bound up always unto their lines and measures who, it may be, are retarded through their own sloth and negligence. This we shall have afterwards occasion to speak unto. But, 3. Whereas the greatest part of our congregations, it may be, frequently are such as stand in need of milk, and are not skillful as yet in the word of righteousness, it is our duty also to insist on those plainer truths which are suited unto their edification.4. Those who are called by the state of their flocks to engage sometimes in the exposition of abstruse and mysterious passages of Scripture, may do well to observe the ensuing rules, all which may be evidently gathered from the way and manner of our apostle’s treating concerning Melchisedec and his office: —(1.) That their interpretations be openly and evidently conformable to the analogy of faith. To search after new opinions in, or to found new or peculiar doctrines on, abstruse and mystical passages of Scripture, is a pestilent curiosity.(2.) That the exposition of them be necessary from present circumstances, which are principally two: —[1. That the things contained in them do belong unto some important truth, which is plainly declared for the substance of it in other places, although from them it may receive light and illustration. Thus our apostle doth not designedly, and on set purpose for its own sake, choose out that abstruse and mysterious passage about Melchisedec; but whereas he was engaged in the declaration of the priesthood of Christ, he taketh in the consideration thereof, as that which did belong thereunto, and which would add light and argument to the truth he had in hand. And herein consists the greatest wisdom in the treating of such places, namely, when we can reduce them to that proper head and seat of doctrine in other places whereunto they do belong, which is our sure guide in their interpretation. To choose out such places for our subjects to speak on separately, and to make them the sole basis of our discourse, may have somewhat of an unwarrantable curiosity. [2. When they offer themselves in the course of our work or ministry, where God gives light into the sense of the Holy Ghost in them, they are not to be waived, as we would be esteemed faithful in our work (3.) Always to remember that what is so abstrusely expressed is so on purpose, for the exercise, as of our faith, humility, and subjection of mind unto the authority of the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scripture, so of our diligence and dependence on him for instruction; which calls for an especial frame of spirit in the work we undertake. (4.) That the difficulty and necessity of treating concerning such things be intimated unto them who are to be instructed, that so they may be prepared to attend with diligence, and judge with sobriety of what is delivered. So deals our apostle with the Hebrews on this occasion in this place. Under a due observation of these rules, it will be necessary sometimes for ministers of the gospel to insist on the most abstruse and difficult truths that are revealed in the Scripture, and that because their doing so is necessary unto the edification of the church.Obs. 3. There is a glorious light and evidence in all divine truths, but by reason of our darkness and weakness, we are not always able to comprehend them. Our want of that acquaintance with them which it is our duty to have, and which is needful unto our edification, is from ourselves alone, and for the most part from our sinful neglect of what is required thereunto. Obs. 4. Many who receive the word at first with some readiness, do yet afterwards make but slow progress either in knowledge or grace. This the apostle here chargeth on the Hebrews; which we must further afterwards consider. Obs. 5. It is men’s slothfulness in hearing that is the sole cause of their not improving the means of grace, or not thriving under the dispensation of the word; or, all our miscarriages, with respect unto the gospel, are to be resolved into our own sloth, negligence, and depraved affections. For it is not any one particular vice, fault, or miscarriage in hearing, that the apostle intendeth and reproveth; but the want in general of such an attendance to the word as to be edified thereby, proceeding from corrupt affections and neglect of duty. And whereas this is a sin of so perilous a nature as to deprive us of all benefit by the gospel, it will be necessary to give a summary account of the duty of hearing the word in a due manner, so as to discover those defects and faults which constitute this sloth that we are thus warned of. Unto hearing, therefore, as intended and enjoined in the gospel, belong all things required on our part to make the word useful, and to give it its proper effect upon our souls: “Faith cometh by hearing,” Romans 10:17. Whatever is required of us that we may believe and obey the word, it belongs in general to this duty of hearing; and from a neglect of any thing material thereunto we are denominated νωθροὶταῖςἀκοαῖς, and do contract the guilt of the vice hero reproved. Three things in this sense do concur to the duty intended: —1. What is preparatory thereunto; 2. Actual hearing, or attendance on the word preached; 3. What is afterwards required to render our hearing useful and effectual. Which I shall speak unto in one or two instances under each head: —1. We may consider what is necessary hereunto in way of preparation, that we be not slothful hearers. There is a preparation due unto the right sanctification of the name of God in any obedience in general, which I do not now intend, and I have spoken unto it elsewhere. Prayer, meditation, and a due reverence and regard to the authority and especial presence of God, with faith exercised on his promises, are necessary hereunto. These things, therefore, I here suppose, and shall only give one or two instances of what peculiarly respects the duty of hearing, peculiarly in way of preparation: — (1.) Scarce any sort of persons fall under such fatal miscarriages in this great concernment of souls, as those whose hearts are inordinately influenced by the love, business, and cares of this world; for besides that the matter of them, — which, being earthly, is diametrically opposite unto that of the word, which is heavenly, — doth alienate and keep the mind at a distance from the proposals and reasonings of it, there are so many secret colourable pretences whereby these things will insinuate themselves into the thoughts and affections so disposed, as that there is no contending against them where they are habitually fixed. Wherefore the Scripture doth not draw up so heavy a charge against any one cause or occasion of unprofitable hearing as it doth against these cares and love of the world. Where men are over diligent in and about these things, they do but certainly deceive themselves, if on any supposition they judge that they are not slothful in hearing. Either before, or under, or after this duty, they will discover themselves to have been predominant. “Covetousness,” the apostle tells us, “is idolatry,” Colossians 3:5. And the covetous hearts of men do never worship the idol of this world with so much solemnity and devotion as when they set it up in the ordinances of God, as under the preaching of the word; for then they actually erect it in the room of God himself. Nay, they do it with a contempt of God, as flattering him with their outward appearance, which he despiseth, and giving up their inward affections to their endeared idol. And this is done not only when the thoughts and affections of men are actually engaged and exercised about earthly things during the dispensation of the word, but when their minds, through a love unto them and fullness of them,, are previously indisposed unto that frame and temper which the nature of this duty doth require. Unless, therefore, these cares and businesses of the world are effectually cast out, and our hearts are duly exonerated of them, we shall be νωθροὶταῖςἀκοαῖς, and fall under the guilt of the sin here reproved.(2.) Antecedent unto hearing, and in way of preparation for it, there is required in us a desire after the word “that we may grow thereby,” 1 Peter 2:2. The end which we propose unto ourselves in hearing hath a great influence into the regulation of the whole duty. Some hear to satisfy their convictions; some, their curiosity and inquiry after notions; some, to please themselves; some, out of custom; some, for company; and many know not why, or for no end at all. It is no wonder if such persons be slothful in and unprofitable under hearing. Wherefore, in order unto a right discharge of this duty, it is required of us that we consider what is our condition or stature in Christ; how short we come of that measure in faith, knowledge, light, and love, which we ought and hope to attain unto. To supply us with this growth and increase, the preaching of the word is appointed of God as food for our souls; and we shall never receive it aright unless we desire it and long for it to this end and purpose. When we know our weakness, imbecility, and manifold defects, and come to the word to obtain supplies of strength suited unto our condition, we are in the way of thriving under it. And as for them who have not this desire and appetite, who understand not a suitableness between the word and their spiritual condition, answerable to that of food to his natural state who is hungry and desires growth and strength, they will be “dull in hearing,” as to all the blessed and beneficial ends of it. (3.) It is required of us to free our minds, what lies in us, from being prepossessed with such corrupt affections as are apt to repel the word, and deny it an entrance into our hearts. “Intus existens prohibet alienum;” — when the mind is filled with things of another nature, there is no room whereinto the seed of the word may have admission. And these things are of two sorts: —[1. Corrupt lusts or sins indulged. The ejection of these is enjoined us, James 1:21, “Lay apart all filthiness, and superfluity of naughtiness, andreceive with meekness the ingrafted word.”If the one be not done, the other will not. If “filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness” be not cast away and thrust from us, the word will not be “received,” at least not with “meekness.” We must put away πᾶσανῥμπαρίαν, “all filthiness.” ῾Ρυπαρία, “sorties,” belongs first to the body, as ῥύπος; doth, 1 Peter 3:21. And from the ἀπόθεσιςῥύπου there mentioned, the “doing away the filth of the body” by the washing of water, is this ἀποθέμενοιπᾶσανῥυπαρίαν: which, as applied unto the mind, answers unto the spiritual part of baptism, in the cleansing of the soul from spiritual filth and corruption. See Isaiah 4:4. Καὶπερισσείανκακίας, “and the superfluity of naughtiness.” ‘It should seem that some “naughtiness” may remain, only the “superfluity” of it must be cast away.’ No; but “all naughtiness” in the mind is as a superfluous humor in the body, which corrupts and destroys it. It is the corrupting, depraving power and efficacy of prevailing lusts in the mind which is intended; and this is to be “laid apart,” if we intend to receive τὸνἔμφυτονλόγον, “the ingrafted (implanted) word;” that is, the word of the gospel, which was not designed of God to be “written in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of our hearts,” 2 Corinthians 3:3. Hence is that great promise of taking away the heart of stone, figured by the tables of stone wherein the law was written, and giving a heart of flesh, wherein the word of the gospel should be written and ingrafted. See this text further interpreted, 1 Peter 2:1-2. He, therefore, that comes with his mind filled and prepossessed with noisome lusts, as they are all, will be dull and slothful in hearing, seeing his heart will be sure to wander after its idols. For men’s minds, filled with their lusts, are like Ezekiel’s chambers of imagery, which were full of all manner of representations, “pourtrayed upon the wall;” — which way soever they turned their eyes they had idolatrous objects to entertain them, Hebrews 8:10; Hebrews 8:12. Such pictures do the corrupt imaginations of sensual, earthly persons fill their minds withal, that every thought has an object ready for its entertainment, effectually diverting the soul from the entertainment of the ingrafted word. Without this we may receive it as a notional word, as a truth in our understandings, but we cannot receive it as an implanted word in our hearts to save our souls. [2. Cares and businesses of the world having prepossessed the mind, produce in it the same indisposition in hearing. God himself giveth this reason why a professing people profited not by the dispensation of the word, namely, because “their hearts went after their covetousness,” Ezekiel 33:31. The prophet preached, and the people sat diligentlybefore him as his hearers; but their minds being prepossessed with the love of the world, the word was unto them as wind, and of no use. Partly it was kept out by the exercise of their minds about other things; and what was received was quickly choked, — which is the proper effect of the cares of the world, Matthew 13:22.2. In the act or duty of hearing itself, there are sundry things required of them who would not incur the guilt of the crime reproved; as, —(1.) A due reverence of the word for its own sake. Spiritual reverence is our humble, religious respect of any thing upon the account of its authority and holiness. So is it due unto every thing that God hath put his name upon, and to nothing else. Whereas, therefore, God hath “magnified his word above all his name,” Psalms 138:2, or every other ordinance whereby he reveals himself unto us, it is thereunto due in an especial manner. So is this duty expressed in the instance of 1 Thessalonians 2:13 : “When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe.”The apostle commendeth their receiving of the word when preached unto them, from the manner of their attention unto it, with that respect and reverence which was due unto its relation to God; which also had a great influence unto its efficacy on them. ‘Ye have received λόγοςἀκοῆςπαρ᾿ἡμῶντοῦΘεοῦ, — “verbum auditus;” γְּ ?αַ ?ψΰּ ?ωξַ ?ς, word of hearing.’Because preaching and hearing were the constant way that God had appointed for the communication and receiving of the gospel, the word itself was so denominated. To despise them, therefore, is for really to despise the gospel. And this word they are said to receive παρ᾿ἡμῶν, “of us;” that is, as instruments of its promulgation and declaration. On this account he sometimes calls it “our word,” and “our gospel;” — ‘that word and gospel of God which we have preached;’as it is added, Θεοῦ, “of God;” not concerning God, but whereof God is the author, and which he hath appointed to be so preached and dispensed in his own name, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. This, therefore, they attended unto, “not as the word of men,” but, according to the truth, “as the word of God.” The opposition may be either to the original of the word, or unto the dispensation of it. If unto the original, then the sense is, ‘Not as unto a word that was devised or invented by men;’as Peter declares that in the preaching of the gospel “they did not follow cunningly-devised fables,” 2 Peter 1:16. Yet this seems not here to be intended, though it may be included. But the opposition is unto the administrators or preachers of it; as if he had said, ‘In your attention to the word, you did not consider it merely as dispensed by us, but ascended in your minds to Him whose word originally it is, by whom it was appointed, and in whose name it was preached unto you.’ And this gives us the just nature of that reverence which is required of us in hearing, namely, a humble respect unto the authority and holiness of the word, impressed upon it by Him whose word it is. It may be objected, ‘That this reverence is due only to the word as written, which is purely and wholly the word of God; but not unto it as preached by men, wherein there is, and must needs be, a mixture of human infirmities.’ Hence some have been charged with arrogancy for expressing those words of the apostle’s in their prayers, ‘That the word preached by them might be received, “not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God.”’ Ans. [1. It is true, “we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of men,” 2 Corinthians 4:7. The ministry whereby the word is conveyed unto us is but a “vessel;” and ministers are but “earthen vessels,” — frail, weak, brittle, and it may be sometimes defiled. But. still, in and by them the word of God is a “treasure,” a heavenly treasure, enriching our souls. [2. We may consider how far the word, as preached, is the pure word of God; and so, having his name upon it, is the object of our reverence. And, 1st. It is his originally; it proceeds from him, and not from the invention of men, as was showed before.2dly. It is his word materially. The same things are preached that are declared in the Scripture, only they are explained and accommodated unto our understanding and use; which is needful for us.3dly. The preaching of it is the ordinance of God, which his name is upon, in the same kind as on his word; and therein an especial reverence and respect unto the name and authority of God is due thereunto.4thly. By virtue of this institution of God, the word preached, which is in itself only materially the word of God, becomes formally so; for it is the application of the word of God unto our souls, by virtue of his command and appointment. Wherefore there is the same reverence due to God in the word as preached, as in the word as written; and a peculiar advantage attends it beyond reading of the word, because God hath himself ordained it for our benefit. It may be further objected, ‘That we find by experience that the preachers of it will sometimes immix their own infirmities, and it may be mistakes in judgment, with their preaching of the word; and this must needs abate of the regard which is proposed as our duty.’ Ans. [1. God hath been pleased to ordain that the word should be dispensed unto us by weak, sinful men like ourselves; whence it unavoidably follows that they may, and probably sometimes will, mix some of their infirmities with their work. To except, therefore, against this disposition of things, is to except against the wisdom of God, and that especial order which he hath designed unto his own glory, 2 Corinthians 4:7. [2. In a pipe which conveys water into a house there may be such a flaw as will sometimes give an entrance unto some dust or earth to immix itself with the water; will you therefore reject the water itself, and say, that if you may not have it just as it riseth in the fountain you will not regard it, when you live far from the fountain itself, and can have no water but such as is conveyed in pipes liable to such flaws and defects? Your business is to separate the defilement and use the water, unless you intend to perish with thirst. [3. That such a thing may fall out, and that it doth ever so, gives us an opportunity of exercising sundry graces, and for the performance of sundry duties, whereby it turns to our advantage. For, — 1st. Here lies the proper exercise of our spiritual understanding in the gospel, whereby we are enabled to “try all things, and hold fast that which is good.” To this end our apostle requires that we should “have senses exercised to try” (or “discern”) “both good and evil.” Hereby, according to our duty, we separate the chaff from the wheat; and no small exercise of grace and spiritual light, to the great improvement of them, doth consist herein. 2dly. Tenderness towards men in the infirmities which we discern in their work, proceeding either from weakness or temptation.3dly. The consideration hereof ought to keep us in a constant dependence on and prayer unto the Lord Christ for the communication of his Spirit unto us, to “lead us,” according to his promise, “into all truth;” which is the great reserve he hath given us in this matter. And hence follows, —(2.) An immediate subjection of soul and conscience unto whatever is delivered in the dispensation of the word. A readiness hereunto Cornelius declared when he was to hear Peter preach: Acts 10:33, “Now are we all here present, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God;” that is, so to hear as to give up our souls in obedience unto the word, because of the authority of God, whose word it is. And when we are not in this frame we shall be unprofitable hearers; for the immediate end of our hearing is practice. And the Scripture doth so fully testify hereunto, that in sundry places it positively declares that no kind of hearing, whatever appearance of zeal or diligence it may be accompanied withal, which doth not issue in practical obedience, is in the least to be esteemed of. But I intend not at present this practice, which is in order of nature consequential unto the hearing of the word, but that practical subjection of the soul and conscience to the word which alone will make way for it. For even that practice or obedience which proceeds not from hence is faulty and corrupt, as having certainly a false foundation or a wrong end. Herein, then, lies the great wisdom of faith in hearing, namely, in delivering up the soul and conscience unto the commanding authority of God in the word, Romans 6:17. And hereunto, among other things, it is required, —[1. That the heart hath no approved reserve for any lust or corruption, whose life it would save from the sword of the word; [2. That it be afraid of no duty on the account of the difficulties and dangers with which it may be attended: for where these things are, the heart will close itself against the influences of God’s authority in his word. [3. A diligent watchfulness against distractions and diversions, especially such as are growing to be habitual from temptations and sloth. This is much spoken unto by others, and therefore is here dismissed without further consideration. And where we are negligent in these things, or any of them, we shall be found “dull in hearing.” 3. There are duties also belonging hereunto which are consequential unto actual hearing; whose discharge is required to free us from the guilt of the evil reproved; as, —(1.) A due examination of what is new or doubtful in the things delivered unto us. When the gospel itself was first preached, and so was new unto them to whom it was delivered, the Bereans are commended for examining what was delivered unto them by the Scriptures which they had before received, Acts 17:11. And in case of things doubtful is the command given us, to “try all things, and to hold fast that which is good,” 1 Thessalonians 5:21; as also to “try the spirits,” 1 John 4:1, or what is taught under pretense of any spiritual gift whatever. Not that any thing is spoken to encourage that cavilling humor which so abounds in some as that they will be excepting and disputing against every thing that is delivered in the dispensation of the word, if not absolutely suited to their sentiments and conceptions, or because they think they could otherwise, and it may be better, have expressed what they have heard; which kind of persons well may be reckoned amongst the worst sort of unprofitable hearers, and such as are most remote from subjecting their consciences unto the authority of God in his word, as they ought. We may therefore give some rules in this matter; as, —[1. Some things there are which are such fundamental principles of our profession, that they ought to be so far from being exposed unto a doubting examination, that they are part of that rule whereby all other doctrines are to be tried and examined, as those also by whom they are taught, 2 John 1:9-11. And,[2. Other doctrines also there are, so evidently deduced from the Scripture, and so manifest in their own light, carrying the open conviction of their truth along with them, as that they ought not at any time to be made the matter of a doubtful trial. Only what is delivered concerning them may be compared with the Scriptures, to their further illustration and confirmation. [3. Neither ought what is delivered by any faithful, approved minister of the gospel, whose way, and course, and doctrine, and zeal for the truth, have been known, be lightly called into question; nor, without manifest evidence of some failing or mistake, be made the matter of “doubtful disputations.” For whereas every man is obnoxious unto error, and some we have found, after a long course of their profession of the truth, to fall actually into such as are perilous to the souls of men, it not pernicious, it is not meet that any thing which they teach should, on just occasion, be exempt from a sober trial and examination; so whereas such ministers of the gospel as those mentioned have the word of truth committed unto them by Christ himself, and his promise of direction in the discharge of their duty, whilst they behave themselves as his stewards and dispensers of the mysteries of God, what they declare in his name is not lightly to be solicited with every needless scruple. Wherefore this duty, which in some cases and seasons is of so great importance, may in other cases and at other seasons be less necessary; yea, a pretense of it may be greatly abused to the ruin of all profitable hearing. When errors and false teachers abound, and when, by our best attendance unto the rule, we cannot avoid the hearing of them sometimes; or when things new, uncouth, or carrying an appearance of an opposition to the analogy of faith, or those doctrines of the gospel wherein we have been instructed and settled, are imposed on us; it is necessary we should stand upon our guard, and bring what is taught unto a due examination. But where there is a settled approved ministry, and the things delivered evidence in a good manner their own consonancy unto the Scripture and analogy of faith, a disposition and inclination, under pretense of trying and examining what is delivered, to except against it and dispute about it, is the bane of all profitable hearing. (2.) Let us be sure to learn what we are learning. The apostle complains of some who are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,” 2 Timothy 3:7. Of this sort are many still amongst us. And hence it is that, after they have been long under the means of instruction in sound truth and knowledge, they are ready to hearken after and greedily embrace any fancy that is contrary thereunto. The reason hereof is, because they did not learn what they were so long in learning. To learn any truth as we ought, is to learn it in its proper principles, true nature, and peculiar use; to learn it in the respect it hath unto, and the place it holds in the system of gospel truths; so to learn it as to get an experience of its usefulness and necessity unto a life of holy obedience. Unless we thus learn what we hear, in its compass and circumstances, it will not prove an “ingrafted word” unto us, and we shall lose the things which we seem to have wrought. Our duty herein may be reduced unto heads: [1. That we learn doctrinally what respect every truth hath unto Christ, the center of them all. [2. Practically what influence they have into our obedience and holiness, [3. A diligent heedfulness to retain the thing which we have heard is also required hereunto. But this hath been sufficiently spoken unto, Hebrews 2:1, where it is expressly enjoined us. The like also may be said concerning meditation and holy conference; whereof see Hebrews 3:12. [4. A diligent care to avoid partiality in obedience unto what we hear. All men, it is hoped, design to obey in some things, most in most things, but few in all. God blamed the priests of old that they were “partial in the law,” Malachi 2:9. Either they taught not men the whole law, and therein the whole of their duty, but reserved such things from them as, if known and practiced, might turn to their own disadvantage; for they had learned in those days to “eat up,” and so to live on, “the sin of the people,” Hosea 4:8 : or they taught them according as they knew they would be pleased to hear, therein accepting their persons, as the words seem to import. And for this God says he would make them “contemptible and base before all the people.” It shall be no otherwise with them who are partial in their obedience. Such are persons who will do as much as consists in their own judgment with their interests, societies, inclinations, and the liberty they have fancied unto themselves. For we are fallen into such days wherein some professors do judge it a great freedom and liberty to be exempted from obedience unto sundry commands of Christ, and those such as they cannot but know to be so. Alas for the pride and folly of the heart of man! — to serve sin, to serve vanity and unbelief, which are the things alone that keep us off from a universal compliance with all the commands of the gospel, and submission unto all the institutions of Christ, shall be accounted liberty and freedom, when it is a part of the vilest bondage in the world. What are such persons afraid of? Is it that they shall engage themselves too far in a way towards heaven, so as that they cannot retreat when they would? Is it that they shall have too many helps against their corruptions and temptations, and for the furtherance of their faith and obedience? Or is it lest they should give over themselves wholly to Christ, and not be at liberty, when a better master comes, to lay a claim to a share in him? How great is the misery of such poor souls! This is the generation of perishing professors in our days. Out of them proceed Quakers, worldlings, and at last scoffers. This is the field wherein all apostasy visibly grows. Those that are openly profane cannot apostatize or fall away. What should they fall from? Christ is pleased to secure his churches in some good measure, so as that we have not frequent instances in them of this fatal miscarriage; but from among the number of professors who will walk at large, and are partial in their obedience, we have multitudes of examples continually. Let not such persons think they shall profit under the dispensation of the word; for they will at last be found to have been “slothful in hearing,” and that in one of the worst instances of that sin. Where there is a neglect of these things, — which are all necessary and required unto profitable hearing, — it cannot be but that men will be νωθροὶταῖςἀκοαῖς, and fall deservedly under the rebuke here given by the apostle unto the Hebrews, as we see multitudes to do every day. And whereas all this proceedeth from the sinful and wilful carelessness of men about their own eternal concernments, it is evident that all want of a due progress and improvement under the means of grace must be resolved into their own sloth and depraved affections.Obs. 6. It is a grievous matter to the dispensers of the gospel, to find their hearers unapt to learn and thrive under their ministry, through their negligence and sloth. The apostle complaineth of it here as that which was a cause of sorrow and trouble unto him. And so is it unto all faithful ministers whose lot it is to have such hearers As for others, who are themselves negligent or slothful in their own work, it cannot be but that they will be regardless of the state of their flock. The three ensuing verses, as they all treat of the same matter with that foregoing, so they have all the same design in themselves, and cannot be severed in their exposition. The reasons of the reproof entered on in the 11th verse are here expressed, and the crime reproved is laden with sundry aggravations. And these aggravations are taken from such circumstances of the persons, and such consequents and effects of their fault, as make it evident that the reproof given was both just and necessary. Hebrews 5:12-14. — Καὶγὰρὀφείλοντεςεἷναιδιδάσκαλοιδιὰτὸνχρόνον, πάλινχρείανἔχετετοῦδιδάσκεινὑμᾶς, τίνατὰστοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆςτῶνλογίωντοῦΘεοῦ, καὶγεγόνατεχρείανἔχοντεςγάλακτος, καὶοὐστερεᾶςτροφῆς. Πᾶςγὰρὁμετέχωνγάλακτος, ἄπειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνης·νήπιοςγάρἐστι. Τελείωνδέἐστινἡστερεὰτροφή, τῶνδιὰτὴνἑξιντὰαἰσθητήριαγεγυμνασμέναἐχόντωνπρὸςδιάκρισινκαλοῦτεκαὶκακοῦ.Καὶγὰρἀφείλοντεςεἷναι, “etenim debentes esse,” Arias; “etenim cum deberetis esse,” Vulg.; “etenim cure debeatis,” Eras.; “vos enim quos oportuit,” Beza. All to the same purpose. “For when you ought,” or rather, “for when as you ought to be.” δּ ?ιָּ ?αִ ?ιοηֲ ?εַֹ ?ιְ ?ϊεּ ?οβֵּ ?ιψ, Syr., “debitores estis enim.” The word denotes a debt of any kind, in things real or moral; whatever is due from us, or justly required of us, is so expressed. Διδάσκαλοι. Vulg. Lat., Rhem., “magistri,” “masters.” Eras., Bez., “doctores.” Syr., ξμְ ?τָ ?πֵ ?ΰ, “teachers,” instructors of others. Διὰτὸνχρόνον. Vulg. Lat., “propter tempus.” Rhem., “for your time;” supplying “your” needlessly. “Pro temporis ratione,” Bez., Eras.; “considering the time.” “For the time,” is proper in our language. The Syriac paraphraseth this expression, ξֶ ?θεּ ?μγְּ ?ζַ ?αְ ?πָ ?ΰμְ ?λεּ ?οαִּ ?ιεּ ?μְ ?τָ ?πָ ?ΰ, “seing you have had time in,”or “under institution,” discipline, instruction, doctrine; — ‘for the time wherein you have been taught and instructed.’ Arab., “for the length of the time;” which is intended, but not expressed. One of late, “jamdudam,” “now long ago;” — ‘you have been so long since taught, that you might have been teachers long ago;” — Πάλιν, “rursum.” Syr., δָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰγֵּ ?ιοϊּ ?εּ ?α, “but now again.” “Contra,” “on the other side;” — ‘whereas you ought to have been teachers, on the other side.’Χρείανἔχετε, “indigetis,” Vulg.; “you need,” Rhem.; “opus habetis,” “opus est ut;” “you have need,” “you stand in need,” it is necessary.Τοῦδιδάσκεινὑμᾶς, “ut vos doceamini,” “that you should be taught;” in the passive voice. Syr., γְּ ?ϊִ ?ΰμְ ?τεּ ?ο, “that you should learn.” Properly, “to teach you;” — ‘that I should, that we should, that one should teach you.’ ΤίνατὰστοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆςτῶνλογίωντοῦΘεοῦ. Vulg. Lat., “quae sint elementa exordii sermonum Dei.” Rhem., “what be the elements of the beginning of the words of God;” improperly and obscurely. Syr., ξֶ ?μָּ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιεַּ ?ΰμָ ?δָ ?ΰΰִ ?ιμֵ ?ιοΰֵ ?πֵ ?ιολְ ?ϊִ ?ιαָ ?ϊָ ?ΰχַ ?γְ ?ξְ ?ιָ ?ϊָ ?ΰγְּ ?ψִ ?ιωׁ, “the very first writings of the beginning of the words of God;” supposing στοιχεῖα to intend the letters of the alphabet. “Quae sint elementa initii eloquiorum Dei,” Eras., Beza; that is,”oraculorum.” Λόγιαθέσφατα. Ours, “which be the first principles of the oracles of God;” — ‘which are the fundamental principles of divine revelation.’Πᾶςγὰρὁμετέχωνγάλακτος. “Qui lactis est particeps,” Vulg. Lat. Rhem., “that is partaker of milk.” “Cui cum lacte res est,” Bez. Which we render, “that useth milk;’that is, for his food: as Syr., γְּ ?ξֵ ?ΰλεּ ?μְ ?ϊֵ ?δּ ηַ ?μְ ?αַּ ?ΰδεּ, “whose food is milk;” who, as we speak, liveth on milk.῎Απειροςλόγουδικαιοσύνης. “Expers est sermonis justitiae,” Vulg. Rhem., “is unskilful of the word of justice.” “Rudis est;” is “unskilful in,” or rather, “hath no experience of the word of righteousness.” The Syriae somewhat otherwise, μָ ?ΰξַ ?τֵ ?ραְּ ?ξֶ ?μְּ ?ϊָ ?ΰγְּ ?λִ ?ΰπεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ; “is not taught,” persuaded, instructed, “in the word of righteousness.”Νήπιοςγάρἐστι. “Parvulus enim est,” Vulg.; “for he is a little one.” Rhem., “a child.” “Infans enim est.” Syr., γְּ ?ωַׁ ?αְ ?ιָ ?ΰδεּ, “he is unskilful,” “unexperienced.” “For he is a babe.”Τελείων. “Perfectorum,” Vulg.; “the perfect.” “Adultorum,’Eras., Beza. “Those of full age.” Syr., γּ ?βְ ?ξִ ?ιψֵ ?ΰ, “perfectorum;” so ad verbum. ῾Ηστερεὰτροφή, “cibus solidus,” “solida slimonia;” “strong meat,” “strong nourishment.” Τῶνδιὰτὴνἕξιν. “Eorum qui pro ipsa consuetudine,” Vulg. Lat.; “them that by custom.” “Propter habitum,” Bez.; “by reason of a habit,” properly. “Of use,” say ours; which is the way whereby a habit is obtained. Syr., γּ ?ξְ ?γַ ?ψְ ?ωִׁ ?ιο, “who have much inquired;” who are ready in inquiries. Τὰαἰσθητήριαγεγυμνασμέναἐχόντων. “Exercitatos habent sensus;” “sen-suum organa;” “the organs or instruments of their senses;” — who have their senses ready and expedite.Hebrews 5:12-14. — For whereas for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one should teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth unto them that are of full age. even those who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.The charge of a crime or fault intimated in the preceding verse is, as was said, improved and manned for a fuller and more unavoidable conviction. These two things, therefore, doth the apostle design in these words: — 1. To give the rein of the general charge he had burdened them withal, and to prove the equity of it in particular instances. This he declareth in that causal conjunction, γάρ, “for where,”2. To enlarge and further declare the nature of the fault charged on them, from its effects and consequents, with other circumstances. And this is done, —(1.) From an aggravating circumstance of time, or the duration of the season of instruction and growing in knowledge which they had enjoyed: “Whereas for the time.”(2.) From the consideration of a duty which might justly be expected from them, with respect unto that time and season “Ye ought to have been teachers.”(3.) From a contrary event, or how things were indeed fallen out with them on the other side: “They had need to be taught what were the first principles of the oracles of God.” And, (4.) The whole is enforced by an antithesis between two sorts of hearers of the word, expressed in an elegant similitude or metaphor. The instructive nature of this similitude consists,[1. In that likeness or conformity which is between bodily food and the word of the gospel as preached. [2. In the variety of natural food, as suited unto the various states and conditions of them that feed thereon; answered by the doctrines of truth in the gospel, which are of various kinds. And in the exemplification hereof natural food is reduced unto two kinds, — [1. “Milk;” [2. “Strong meat:” and those that feed thereon unto two sorts, — children, and men of ripe age; both which are applied unto the hearers of the word. Wherefore the apostle, in the application of this similitude, represents unto us two sorts of professors of the gospel, or hearers of the word, and gives a description of them by their several qualities. For, [1. Some there are who are νήπιοι, “babes,” and continue so; and some are τέλειοι, such as are “of full age,” or “perfect.”[2. These νήπιοι, or “babes,” are described by a double property: for,1st. They are νωθροὶταῖςἀκσαῖς, verse 11, “dull in hearing;”2dly. They are ἄπειροιλόγουδικαιοσύνης, “unskilful in the word of righteousness.” In opposition hereunto, τέλειοι those who are spiritually adult, are,1st. Supposed to be ἔχοντεςνοῦν, such as have understandings, so as to be capable of instruction;2dly. Are said to have αἰσθητήριαγεγυμνασμένα, senses exercised to discern good and evil. The different means to be applied unto these different sorts for their good, according to their respective conditions, are expressed in the terms of the metaphor: to the first, γάλα, “milk;” to the other, στερεὰτροφή, “strong food,’or nourishment; all comprised in the ensuing scheme: — 1. Νήπιοι. Suntque.(1.) Νωθροὶταῖςἀκοαῖς.(2.) ῎Απειροιλόγουδικαιοσύνης. Opus habent Γάλακτος.2. Τέλειοι. Suntque(1.) Φρόνιμοι.(2.) Τὰαἰσθητήριαγεγυμνασμέναἔχοντες. Opus habent Στερεᾶςτροφῆς.And the intention of the apostle is to represent unto the Hebrews herein their state and condition, arising from their being “dull in hearing.” And this he doth both absolutely and comparatively, with respect unto what others were, and what they themselves might and ought to have been. For he shows that they were yet “babes, unskilful in the word of righteousness,” and such had need “to be fed with milk.” First, The first thing considerable in these words, is an aggravation of the fault reproved in the Hebrews, from a circumstance of time: Διὰτὸνχρόνον, “pro ratione temporis.” ‘Considering the time and season you Hebrews have had, you might have been otherwise long ago;’— “jamdudum,” as one renders the words. Or διὰτὸνχρόνον may not intend the space of time, but the nature of the season which they were under. ‘The season is such, whether you consider the opportunities of it, or the dangers of it, or the shortness of its continuance, as that you ought so diligently to have improved it, that yourselves might have been at work in the teaching of others, had you been zealous for the gospel, as you ought to be, or careful about your own duty.’Such times as were then come on and passing over the Hebrews, as to their profession of the gospel, called for more than ordinary diligence in their improvement. There is no inconvenience in this sense, and it hath good instruction in it; but I shall rather adhere unto that which is more commonly received, Διὰτὸνχρόνον, “for the time,” is as much as ‘with respect unto the time past and gone since their first calling unto and profession of the gospel.’But men may have time enough, and yet have no advantage by it, for want of other necessary helps and assistances. A tree may have been planted a long time in a dry and barren wilderness, and yet it would be a vanity to expect any great growth or thriving from thence, as having the benefit neither of rain nor a fruitful soil. And when God expects fruit from his vineyard, he gives it not time only, but all other things necessary to its improvement, Isaiah 5:1-4. Wherefore it is supposed, that during the time intended, these Hebrews wanted no necessary means of instruction. This the apostle had before declared, Hebrews 2:1; Hebrews 2:3. The word of the gospel was both “preached” and “confirmed” unto them. And as they had for a season the ministry of all the apostles, and of sundry of them for a longer continuance, so it is justly supposed they had yet one of them surviving and abiding among them. Moreover, they had in common use the scriptures of the Old Testament, which testified unto all that they had been taught concerning Jesus Christ; and most of the writings of the New Testament were before this time communicated unto them. Wherefore, during the season intended, they enjoyed sufficient means of “growing in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Without a supposition hereof they could not have been justly reproved for a want of proficiency. Yea, in every expression of their crime this is supposed. They were “dull in hearing;” which they could not have been had not the word been constantly preached unto them, for without preaching there can be no hearing. And all this the apostle makes evident, Hebrews 6:7, where he compares them unto the earth, which hath frequent showers of rain falling upon it, because of the abundant waterings which they had received by the constant preaching of the word unto them.As for the duration of this season in particular, it was not equal unto them all. Every one had only the time since his own conversion to account for. If we shall take the words with respect unto the whole church at Jerusalem, then the date of this time is to be fixed on the day of Pentecost, when, upon the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the apostles, testified and evidenced by the miracle of tongues, with the sermon of Peter unto them that ensued thereon, so many thousands of them were converted to the faith, Acts 2. And if this be allowed, the space of time intended was about thirty years. But, not to bind up the expression unto any especial epocha, it is enough that they had, all and every one of them whom the apostle intends, more time than they had well used or improved. And we ought to observe, that, — Obs. 1. The time wherein we enjoy the great mercy and privilege of the dispensation of the gospel unto us, is a matter which must in particular be accounted for.This time is variously dispensed, its measure being given by the sovereign will and wisdom of God. All who have time given them to this purpose, have not the same time. The day of the gospel is not of the same length unto all nations, churches, persons, unto whom it is granted. But all have time and light enough to do the work that is required of them. And it is a talent to be accounted for. Neither must we account for it only in general, but as to our improvement of it in particular duties. These Hebrews had such a time. And it was not enough, it did not answer the design of God in it, that they professed the gospel, and did not renounce Jesus Christ, as some among them did; it was moreover expected from them, that they should grow and thrive in knowledge and holiness proportionable to their time and means: and not doing so, it is charged on them as a great aggravation of their guilt. An evil it was that they had not profited under the dispensation of the gospel, but especially it was so, in that they had not answered the time that God had graciously intrusted them withal. And we may all do well to consider it, who have the like day of grace, mercy, and patience, with what they enjoyed. See our exposition of Heb 3:13; Hebrews 3:15. Secondly, A duty is expressed, the want of whose performance is charged also as an aggravation of the sin insisted on. εἷναι — διδάσκαλοι, “you ought to have been teachers.” Διδάκαλος is the word whereby the writers of the New Testament express “Rabbi,” which was the usual name of the public teachers of the law among the Jews. He is such a one, not only that is fit and meet to teach and instruct others occasionally, but also hath disciples committed to him, depending on him, and learning from him. So is our Savior himself called in the Gospel; and so he termed himself with respect unto his disciples, Mark 4:38, John 13:13. And John tells us that it is the same name with the Hebrew “Rabbi,” and the Syriac “Rabboni,” John 1:38; John 20:16. And it is the name of the teaching officer given by Christ unto the church, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11. Nor is it anywhere used but for a public teacher, preacher, or instructor of disciples in the knowledge of God. ᾿Οφείλοντεςεἷναι, “you ought to be.” He doth not only say that they had enjoyed such a time and season of instruction as that they might have been able to teach and instruct others; but this he declares was expected from them as their duty. And the right understanding hereof depends on the consideration of the state and condition of the churches in those days. For this reproof would now seem uncouth and unreasonable. Our hearers do not look upon it as their duty to learn to be teachers; at least not in the church, and by means of the knowledge to be attained therein. They think it enough for them, if at best they can hear with some profit to themselves. But this was not the state of things in primitive times. Every church was then a seminary, wherein provision and preparation was made, not only for the continuation of the preaching of the gospel in itself, but for the calling, gathering, and teaching of other churches also, When, therefore, a church was first planted by the ministry of the apostles, it was for a while continued under their own immediate care and inspection, and then usually committed by them unto the ministry of some evangelists. By them were they instructed more and more in the mysteries of religion, and directed in the use of all means whereby they might grow in grace and knowledge. And in this state were they continued, until some were found meet among themselves to be made overseers and instructors of the rest, 2 Timothy 2:2; Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5. Upon their decease, others were to be called and chosen from among themselves to the same work by the church. And thus were the preservation and successive propagation of the churches provided for; it being suited to the nature and law of all societies, as also to the institution and love of Christ unto his churches, that, in compliance with his appointment, they should be able to continue and preserve their being and order. And this course, namely, that teachers of the church should be educated thereunto in the church, continued inviolate until the public school at Alexandria, which became a precedent unto other places for a mixed learning of philosophy and religion; which after a while corrupted both, and at length the whole church itself. And this also was the manner before in the synagogues of the Jews They had in them public teachers of the law, who were their rabbis, or διδάσκαλοι. By these, others, their disciples, sitting at their feet whilst they taught and preached, were instructed in the knowledge thereof; as Paul giveth an instance in himself and his teacher Gamaliel, Acts 22:3. And among these disciples, those who profited above others in an especial manner, as Paul affirmeth he did “above his equals” (that is, those who had enjoyed the same time and means with him), Galatians 1:14, were afterwards themselves designed and called to be διδάσκαλοι, or teachers.And men in those days did not only learn in the church that they might be able afterwards to teach in the same, but also that they might be instrumental in the work of the gospel in other places: for out of the churches went those who were made use of in the propagation of the gospel ordinarily; which cannot now well be imitated, unless the whole ancient order were restored, which we are not yet to expect. Wherefore hearers in the church were not only taught those things which might be sufficient unto their own edification, but every thing also that was necessary to the edification of others; an ability for whose instruction it was their duty to aim at. I do not say that this was the duty of all hearers. Every one was not to labor to profit by the word that he might himself be a teacher. Many things might invincibly incapacitate sundry persons from any such work or office. But yet in those days it might be the duty of many, especially in that church of the Hebrews; for this was the great seminary of preachers for the whole world all that time wherein the law was to go forth from Zion, and healing waters from Jerusalem. And there were two reasons why the ministry of the Jews was so necessary and useful to the world, whereby the Gentiles were made debtors unto them, by a participation of their spiritual things; not only which were theirs originally, and possessed by them before the Gentiles had any interest in them, but also because by their ministry they were communicated unto them, Romans 15:27 : —1. Because, upon their conversion to Christ, they immediately made a great progress in knowledge. For they had before received the seeds and foundations of all evangelical truths in the scriptures of the Old Testament; and so soon as the light of the gospel shined into their hearts, all things were cleared up unto them, from, the true sense of those principles wherein they had before been instructed which was now made manifest unto them. And our apostle immediately blames these Hebrews for the want of an acquaintance with those principles. But hence were those who did really profit by the word quickly ready for this work. On the other side the Gentile converts, — setting aside the consideration of extraordinary illumination, revelation, and inspiration by the Spirit of God, which many in those days were made partakers of, — must needs require a longer time to be perfectly instructed in the mysteries of the gospel, whereunto they had been such utter strangers. 2. It was in the Jews’synagogues, throughout their dispersions in the world, that the preachers of the gospel began to divulge their message. For God had so ordained, that in all places the accomplishment of the promise made unto their fathers should first be declared unto them, Acts 13:32-33; Acts 13:46. Now this could not be done but by those that were Jews; for the Gentile converts, being uncircumcised, could neither have access unto their synagogues nor acceptance with them. On this account it was greatly incumbent on these Hebrews to thrive in knowledge, that they might be able to teach others, when God in his providence should call them thereunto. And hence it was, that when this church, not long after its first planting, was scattered by persecution, all the members of it went up and down preaching the gospel with great success, first to the Jews, and then to the Grecians also, Acts 8:4; Acts 11:19-20. After this those that succeeded, as it seems, were remiss and negligent in learning, and so unfit for this work; which the apostle blames in them. This I take to be the meaning of the place. But if you will suppose that the apostle useth the word διδάσκαλοι in a larger sense, for any that are able to instruct others, as their neighbors, families, or relations, as occasion should require, then it was the duty of all these Hebrews to have been such teachers, and their sin it was wherein they were not able so to be.Obs. 2. Churches are the schools of Christ, wherein his disciples are trained up unto perfection, every one according to the measure appointed for him, and his usefulness in the body.We may consider the church in general, and with respect unto some particular members of it. First, In general, every one that belongs unto it ought to have a double aim; first his own edification, and then his usefulness in respect of others. The first is the principal end, both of the ministry and the administration of all ordinances in the church, Ephesians 4:11-13. This, therefore, in the first place, is that which everyone ought to attend diligently unto; which also they are continually exhorted, encouraged, and persuaded unto in the Scripture, as that which is indispensably required of them, 2 Peter 3:18. And those who are negligent herein do frustrate all the ends of Christ’s love and care towards them in his church; which they must answer for. And the want of it, in some good measure, is a dreadful symptom of approaching eternal ruin, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 6:7-8. The church is the garden of Christ, enclosed and watered; and every plant which continueth in a withering, unthrifty condition will at length be plucked up and cast out. Herein, therefore, ought all to be trying and examining themselves who have any care of their own souls, and who intend not to make use of the ordinances of the gospel only to countenance them in their security, and so to hasten and aggravate their destruction. And there is nothing more lamentable, in the present profession of Christian religion, than the woful negligence of most herein. They hear the word, for the most part, as company, or custom, or their lusts, or ease, direct them. And they content themselves in hearing of it, without any endeavors for its improvement. So do many souls under the best of means come to the worst of ends. But this is not all. We are so to learn in the church as that we may be useful to others; a matter which few think of or trouble themselves about. But this Christ expects of all the members of his churches in an especial manner. For every church is “the body of Christ, and members in particular,” 1 Corinthians 12:27; that is, of the whole body, and unto one another. And the apostle there shows what a monstrous thing it is for a member to be useless in the body. Every one is to contribute to the growth of the whole, Ephesians 4:16; Colossians 2:19. He that doth not so is dead. One way or other every one may contribute to this building, cast into this sanctuary, some their talents, some their mites Times, seasons, opportunities, advantages for usefulness, are in the hand of God; but our duty it is to be prepared for them, and then to lay hold upon them. It is not every one’s lot or call to be public teachers of others; and the undertaking of that work without a due ability and an orderly call is forbidden, James 3:1 : but every one may have occasion to make use of the utmost of that light and knowledge which is communicated unto them in the dispensation of the word. They who have not flocks to watch over may yet have families, relations, children, servants, masters, whom, by their light and knowledge, they may benefit; and it is required of them that so they should do. It may not be the duty of every one, at all times, to “convince gainsayers,” and to stop the mouths of them that oppose the truth; but it is so to be “always ready to give an answer unto every man that asketh a reason of the hope that is in them, with meekness and fear,” 1 Peter 3:15;and it will be so, to plead for and defend the truth, if they are called to suffer for it, like the martyrs in former days In these and such like things lies that usefulness in the body of Christ which every member of it ought to aim at under the means of instruction which he affords in his church. And those who do not will have their portion with the unprofitable. See Philippians 2:15-16. It is a sad condition, when a person can return no tolerable answer unto that inquiry, ‘Of what use are you in the church of Christ?’Secondly, In particular, it were doubtless well if some persons in every church might be trained up under instruction with this very design, of being made meet to be teachers of others. The Lord Christ will indeed provide laborers for his harvest, but in his own way, and not in a compliance with our negligence. Obs. 3. It is the duty of ministers of the gospel to endeavor their hearers’increase in knowledge, until they also are able to instruct others, according to their calls and opportunities. So did those who taught these Hebrews, whence they are reproved for failing their expectation. Some, it may be, are apt to fear lest their hearers should know too much. Many corrupt lusts and affections may prompt them hereunto; which are all resolved into self, with respect unto profit or reputation. And this hath proceeded so far in the degeneracy of the church of Rome, as to produce the commendation of blind obedience and ignorance, as the mother of devotion; than which nothing could be invented more contrary to the whole course and design of the gospel And it is well if no others are tainted with the same disease. Even good men had need to watch against discomposures of mind, when they find on trial, it may be, some of their hearers to be like David, “wiser” in the things of God “than their teachers.” And Joshua himself was earnest with Moses to forbid Eldad and Medad from prophesying; out of no good frame, as appeareth by the reply of Moses, “Enviest thou for my sake?” Numbers 11:29. But this occasioned the prayer of that holy man, which is unto us a rule of duty, “Would God that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!” And to a faithful minister, there is no greater crown nor cause of rejoicing, than when he can be instrumental so to carry on any of his hearers towards perfection, as that their gifts and abilities may outshine his own, especially if they are accompanied with humility and holiness. And for those who are either negligent in this work, or, taking upon them the place and duty of teachers, are unable for it, they betray the souls of men, and shall bear their own judgment. The Second branch of the apostolical reproof consists in a declaration of the consequent or effect of the negligence reproved: “You have need that one should teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God.”Χρείανἔχετε, “you have need;” — ‘There is need of it on your account; if you are not thus taught again, you will not know the “principles of the oracles of God.”’We are said χρείανἔχειν, to need those things naturally without which we cannot well live, as Matthew 6:8; and morally without which we cannot perform our duty. Τοῦδιδάσκεινὑμᾶς. There is an antithesis herein, between their duty and the event, or unto what was before mentioned as expected from them. It was expected justly, that they should be διδάσκαλοι, “teachers;” but they had need τοῦδιδάσκειναὐτοῦς, “that one should teach them.” And so πάλιν, which we render “again,” may be well rendered, “on the contrary,” or “on the other side:” ‘It is thus fallen out, by your negligence, that instead of being “teachers of others,” of being masters of the assemblies, you, “on the other hand,” had need to be placed on the lowest form of those who learn; — the highest evidence of your dulness and want of proficiency.’Τοῦδιδάσκειν, — that is, say we, “that one should teach you;” τίνα, that “some one or other should do it.” Or μέ may be supplied; “that I should teach you.” So he useth the same kind of expression, Οὐχρείανἔχετεγράφεινὑμῖν, — “Ye have no need to write unto you;” that is, ‘that I should write unto you,’1 Thessalonians 4:9. As he expressly speaks, 1 Thessalonians 1:8, ῝ΩστεμὴχρείΑνἡμᾶςἔχεινλαλεῖντι, — “That we should not need to speak any thing.” But yet whereas the apostle treats not about his own personal ministry towards them, but of their continued instruction by the constant means they enjoyed, it may be left indefinitely, that “one,” or “some,” should do that work, — ‘That you should be taught.’ Τίνατὰστοιχεῖα, “which be the first principles;” not only which they are, but what they are, is intended. The words, as they lie in our translation, seem to intimate that this alone is aimed at, namely, that they should be taught to distinguish between the first principles of Christian religion and the superstructions on them, or necessary deductions from them; but the very nature of the things themselves is intended. They were to be instructed in the principles of Christian religion in the sense to be explained. Στοιχεῖον is used by our apostle indifferently, so as that it may be taken in a good or bad sense, according as its adjuncts require. Frequently he applies it to the principles and rudiments of the Jewish religion, or Mosaical institutions: Galatians 4:3, Στοιχεῖατοῦκόσμου, — “The rudiments of the world;” earthly, carnal, worldly, as opposed to the spiritual, heavenly principles of the gospel: Galatians 4:9, Ασθενῆκαὶπτωχὰστοιχεῖα, “Weak and beggarly elements,” which could not enrich the souls of men with grace. See Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20. Nor doth he at any time make use of this word but when he treateth with the Jews, or those that did Judaize. By Peter the word is used in another sense; either properly or metaphorically, 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:12.Στοιχεῖα are the “first principles” of anything, natural or artificial, or the first ground of any science; as the letters of the alphabet are the στοιχεῖα of reading, — the principles, rudiments, elements.Στοιχεῖατῆςἀρχῆς, — that is, τὰστοχεῖατὰπρῶτα, the “first principles,” as in our translation; “the principles of the beginning.” ΤῶνλογίωντοῦΘεοῦ, “of the oracles of God,” “eloquiorum Dei.” ΛόγιαΘεοῦ are the Scriptures; usually in the New applied unto these of the Old Testament: Acts 7:38, ῞Οςἐδέξατολόγιαζῶνταδοῦναιἡμῖν, — “Who received the living oracles to give unto us;” that is, the law, “which if a man do, he shall live therein.” The Jews ἐπιστεύθησαντὰλόγιατοῦΘεοῦ, — “were intrusted with the oracles of God,” Romans 3:2; that is, all the scriptures of the Old Testament: so that what was not committed unto them in the same way is not to be reckoned among the “oracles of God” belonging unto the Old Testament. 1 Peter 4:11, Εἵτιςλαλεῖ, ὡςλόγιαΘεοῦ, — “If any man speak, as the oracles of God;” that is, let them that teach, speak with gravity and authority, and every way conformably to the Scriptures. And the Scriptures are thus called, because as oracles they were given out from God by inspiration, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21.We may now, therefore, inquire what it is that the apostle intends by these “first rudiments” or “principles of the oracles of God.” It is generally apprehended that he designs the catechetical principles of Christian religion, — which also, as it is supposed, he reckons up in the beginning of the next chapter; such principles as converts, or young children, are usually instructed and catechised in. And it may be he calls them “principles,” as the Jews call the principal heads of their religion “fundamenta legis,” the “foundations of the law;” as he also calls these principles θεμέλιον, the “foundation,” Hebrews 6:1. But yet, upon the consideration of the words, and his use of them in other places, before declared, I judge that he hath another design. Στοιχεῖα he elsewhere declares to be the institutions of the law; and λόγιατοῦΘεοῦ peculiarly denote the scriptures of the Old Testament. The use and end of these institutions, as appointed and declared in the oracles of God, was to type out Jesus Christ, as our apostle will more fully afterwards prove and confirm. This was the first thing that the Jews were to learn in them, by them, and from them; namely, that unto the Lord Christ, his person, his office, his death and sacrifice, testimony was given by Moses and the prophets; as also that these things alone were represented in the institutions of the law. These were “the rudiments of the oracles of God” committed unto the Jews; and these, — that is, the meaning, sense, end and use of them, — they had not learned, but had need to be taught them again. This made them incline to their old Judaism, make little progress in the perception of the mysteries of the gospel, and desire to mix the ceremonies of the law with the ordinances thereof. But as this was peculiar unto them, so I deny not but that, by just analog, it may be extended unto the first necessary principles of Christian religion. And from the whole of this discourse we may observe, — Obs. 4. That the holy Scriptures are to be looked on, consulted, and submitted unto, as “the oracles of God.”The consideration of their being so adds to our duty, and directs us in its discharge. For we are called by it to weigh aright what is ascribed unto them and what belongs to them as such. And this will influence us with that due regard and reverence which is required towards them. Thus we may consider, — 1. Their efficacy and power. Stephen calls them τὰλόγιαζῶντα, the “living oracles” of God, Acts 7:38. They are so in respect of their Author, — they are the oracles of “the living God;” whereas the oracles wherewith Satan infatuated the world were most of them at the shrines and graves of dead men; whence, in their idolatries, the Israelites were charged to have “ate the sacrifices of the dead,” Psalms 106:28. And they are so in respect of their use and efficacy; they are “living,” because life-giving oracles unto them that obey them. “Keep this word,” saith Moses, “for it is your life,” Deuteronomy 32:47 And God says that he gave the people precepts, “which if a man do, he shall live in them,” Ezekiel 20:11. And it hinders not that Stephen speaks of the law given by Moses, concerning which our apostle, says that it was “the ministry of death,” 2 Corinthians 3:7; for it was not so in itself, but by reason of the sin and inability of men to keep it. So the law could not give life, in that it was weak through sin, Romans 8:3. Besides, Paul speaks only of the preceptive part of the law, with the curse annexed unto its transgression. Stephen treats of the whole, as it had respect unto Jesus Christ. They are words accompanied with divine power and efficacy, to quicken and give life unto them that obey them; which proceeds from their Author, and his power in them, as Hebrews 4:12. The Scriptures are not a “dead letter,” as some have blasphemed, but the “living oracles of God,” — that is, life-giving, quickening; or they are accompanied with a living power, which they will put forth and exert toward the souls of men. For God still speaks in them unto us So saith, Stephen: “Moses received the living oracles of God to give unto us; ‘— ‘not to our fathers only, who lived in those days, but unto us also, now so many generations after.’And in the same manner doth God, by his prophets and apostles, continue to speak to us; which gives power and efficacy unto their word. 2. Authority. They are the “oracles of God,” who hath supreme authority over the souls and consciences of us all. So the Thessalonians are commended, that“when they received the word, they received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” 1 Thessalonians 2:13;that is, absolutely submitting their souls and consciences unto the authority of God, speaking therein and thereby. And without this respect we can never read nor hear the Scripture in a due manner. 3. Infallible truth and absolute certainty. They are the “oracles of God,” who is the first truth, whose being is truth, and who cannot lie. Every thing that may be false hath an inconsistency with his being. To suppose that any thing which is not absolutely true can proceed from him, is to deny him to be God. Peter gives no other proof that in the preaching of the gospel they “followed not cunningly-devised fables,” but that they were confirmed by the oracle of God, 2 Peter 1:16-21. God is “a God of truth,” Deuteronomy 32:4; and all his words are “words of truth,” Ecclesiastes 12:10. Herein then, alone, the souls of men can find assured rest and peace. Whatever else they may lean upon, whatever appearance of truth it may have, yet falsehood and a lie may be in it. Before God gave his oracles unto men, — that is, before he sent out his light and truth to lead and guide them, — they did nothing but perpetually wander in ignorance, error, and darkness, unto destruction. And so far as any yet take any thing else but the oracles of truth for their guide, they must continually fluctuate; and though they are not always actually deceived, they are never certain but that they are so. “I will show thee what is noted in the scripture of truth,” Daniel 10:21, is the only guide we have for our souls.4. Mysteries. “Oracles” have mysteries in them, and under this covert Satan endeavored to hide his delusions. For whereas the oracles of God were mysterious from the matter contained in them, which is sacred, holy, sublime, and incomprehensible, he delivered himself in dark, enigmatical, dubious expressions, that, making an appearance of something mysterious, he might draw a cloud of darkness over his lies and falsehoods. And it is in opposition unto all the pretended mysteries of Gentile worship, that our apostle, summing up the principal doctrines concerning the person and mediation of Christ Jesus, says, “Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness,” 1 Timothy 3:16. The oracles of God are mysterious from the depths and excellency of the things revealed, delivered in words of truth and soberness. And this will teach us how we ought to behave ourselves with respect unto the word, these oracles of God. It is generally owned to be our duty to read it, to study it, to meditate upon it, and to attend unto its dispensation in preaching; and those by whom these things are neglected shall bear their own judgment: but as to the manner of the discharge of these duties, there may be a great failure among the best. That diligence, that reverence, that submission of mind and conscience, that dependence on God for the revelation of his mind and will, which ought constantly to accompany all them who consider and attend unto the oracles of God, we are too often at a loss in. Obs. 5. God hath, in infinite love and wisdom, so disposed of his word as that there are first principles, plain and necessary, laid down in it, to facilitate the instruction he intends thereby.Men have learned this wisdom in teaching of all arts and sciences. They first lay down general principles and theorems, which they make the basis and foundation of all their following instructive deductions. And so there are “first principles of the oracles of God.” And, — 1. They are plain, and easy to be learned. The things themselves contained in them, as hath been showed, are deep and mysterious; but they are all of them so plainly declared, as that he who runs may read them. It is an unquestionable truth, that what is not clearly and plainly revealed in the word, though it be true, and the knowledge of it very useful, yea, necessary to some persons in some circumstances, yet it doth not belong unto those “principles of the oracles of God,” which it is the duty of all men expressly to know and believe. I could go over all the principles that are of this nature, and evince that they are all of them so plainly, so fully, so clearly revealed, taught, and expressed, and that in words and terms so suited unto the reason and understandings of men, that none unto whom the word of God comes can be ignorant of them without the guilt of supine negligence and horrible sloth; nor will any err about them, unless their minds are prepossessed with invincible prejudices, or carnal, corrupt, and earthly affections. And this is necessarily required unto the nature of first principles. They must be maxims plainly and evidently declared and asserted, or they are very unmeet to be the first principles of knowledge in any kind. 2. They are such as being learned, received, believed in a due manner, the way is plain for men towards perfection; they have such an influence into all other sacred truths, — which, indeed, are but deductions from them, or lesser streams from that blessed fountain which is contained in them, — and do so suit and prepare the mind for them, — that they have an easy access unto it. The minds of men being duly inlaid with these “first principles of the oracles of God,” it is unconceivable how they may thrive in the knowledge of the deepest mysteries, and that in a due manner. If, indeed, when men have been instructed in these principles, they grow careless and negligent, as though they halt obtained enough, and need seek no farther, as is the manner of many, they will be of no advantage unto them. He that lays the foundation of a house, and neglects the carrying on of the building, will find it but a sorry shelter in a storm. And whereas God hath designed the knowledge of these principles as a means unto a further growth and improvement, from whence they are so termed, where that end is neglected, he will blast the other attainment, that it shall be utterly useless. But where this foundation is well laid, where these principles are duly learned, and improved as they ought to be, they make the way smooth and easy unto greater degrees of knowledge; I mean, unto such as are industrious in the use of means. And this, as it makes evident what is our duty concerning them, so it gives great encouragement unto the discharge thereof. We ought to learn them, because they are principles; and we are encouraged to learn them, because they open the way to further improvement. 3. They are such, as that if they are not duly learned, rightly understood, and if the mind be not possessed with them, all endeavors after higher attainments in light and knowledge are preposterous, and will prove fruitless. Yea, some are reaching; and among others, sundry consequents, all of them dangerous, and some of them pernicious, do ensue on this neglect. For,(1.) Some are apt to be reaching after abstruse speculations, both in themselves and in the manner of their revelation, before they have any acquaintance with those “first principles of the oracles of God.” And constantly one of these events doth ensue; for either they are “always learning, and never come to the knowledge of the truth,” wearying themselves in the search of such things as they cannot comprehend nor be led into a right understanding of; or else are “vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds,” upon a presumption that they know some marvellous thing beyond the common rate of other men, when they know nothing as they ought, nothing with respect unto its proper principles, (2.) This is the cause whence so many persons, using industry and diligence in the hearing of the word, do yet learn, thrive, and profit so little as they do. All preaching, at least for the most part, supposeth a knowledge of these first principles; without which not one word that is spoken therein can well be understood. Many, therefore, being unacquainted with them, must of necessity lose that advantage by the preaching of the word which otherwise they might attain. And this was the very case in hand between our apostle and the Hebrews, which put him to such a strait. He knew that it was his duty to declare, to the church “the whole counsel of God,” and that in the deepest and most mysterious truths of the gospel, so carrying them on to perfection; but he also found that these things would prove unprofitable to many, because their minds were not as yet well inlaid with the “first principles of the oracles of God.” This put him to the strait he expresseth in the beginning of the sixth chapter. And so it falls out among ourselves. It is ofttimes a grief unto us, to consider how many of our hearers seem to have little advantage by the best of our endeavors, because of their ignorance in the supposed principles and foundations of what we deliver. Hence they hear, and go away altogether unconcerned in what they have heard; and,it may be, complain of the sermon or preacher, when the fault was solely in their own understandings. But as we ought, for the sake of some who are real beginners, to divert unto their instruction in those fundamental principles of religion; so we ought not, in a compliance with their sloth and negligence who have carelessly omitted the acquainting of themselves with them, cease our endeavor to carry on more diligent and thriving souls toward perfection, — nor would Paul do so in this place. In the meantime, parents, masters, ministers, all in their several stations and capacities, ought to consider of how great importance it is to have all those committed to their care, or under their inspection, well instructed in those “first principles of the oracles of God.” (3.) Hence it is that multitudes are so easily seduced unto foolish and sottish errors, and such as overthrow the foundation of truth and faith in them who do entertain them. Things are proposed unto them under specious pretences, which at first seem to have somewhat excellent and peculiar in them, and, as far as they can discern, are of no evil tendency; but after they have embraced them, and are brought under their power, it is found, when it is too late, that they have virtually renounced the foundation of the gospel, and are now taken in the snare that cannot be broken, for it is for their life. 4. These principles are such, as that if they alone are known, received, believed, obeyed, provided their progress in knowledge be not obstructed by men’s own negligence, prejudices, or lusts, they may attain the end of faith and obedience, in the salvation of their souls. They are such, as without the express knowledge whereof in those that are adult, the Scripture speaks nothing of any possibility of attaining unto life and immortality. And as was declared before, the knowledge of them, where they are not duly improved unto an increase of light, according to the means we do enjoy, is no way available; but upon a supposition that a man is brought unto an acquaintance with these principles of the oracles of God, in the want of means and advantages to carry him on towards perfection in the knowledge of other principles of truth, useful and necessary in their places and circumstances, though he should be ignorant of them, or fall into errors about them, not inconsistent with or destructive of the principles he hath received, they are sufficient in their own kind to lead and conduct him unto rest with God. And as this consideration will not give the least countenance unto the sloth or negligence of any who do or may enjoy the advantage of growing in the knowledge of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ; so it is a relief with respect unto their condition who, by reason of the blindness of their pretended guides, or on any other occasion, are not supplied with the means of a further improvement. And from what hath been discoursed it appears, both of what great importance it is unto our faith and obedience, to be well instructed in the chief principles of religion, as also what an inexcusable fault it is, in those who for any season have enjoyed the means of instruction, to be found defective herein. Obs. 6. Those who live under the preaching of the gospel are obnoxious to great and provoking sins, if they diligently watch not against them. Such was that of these Hebrews here mentioned. But hereof, as also of the danger of such sins, we must treat more afterwards.Thirdly, It follows, as an illustration of what was before charged on the Hebrews, and to the same purpose, “And are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” This allusion the apostle chose, to represent unto them the state or condition whereinto they were brought by their sinful negligence, as also to give life and strength unto his reproof; and therefore pursues it to the end of the chapter. Γεγόνατε, “ye are become.” The word may be taken in a twofold sense; for, — 1. It may signify, ‘It appears what you are, and what you stand in need of. It may be some have had other thoughts of you, by reason of your profession, and the time of instruction you have enjoyed. You have had “a name to live,” and possibly to be in a very flourishing condition, as being the first church in the world, the mother in some sort of all other churches, and such as have had privileges which no other church ever had, or ever shall enjoy. But, upon trial, it is made manifest how dull and slothful you have been, how ignorant you are, and how little you have improved your season.’And it will in like manner be one day evident, that many churches and persons who make a goodly appearance, on the account of their outward privileges and enjoyments, will be found, when they are brought into the balance of the sanctuary, to be light, empty, dead, and every way insufficient. But things are changed in the world. Churches are now esteemed of, or pretend unto an esteem, by their pleas of antiquity, outward order, solemnity of forms, and a seemingly sacred grandeur, without the least respect unto the light, knowledge, and holiness of their members. In the days of the apostles it was not so. Unless churches in their members did thrive in grace, knowledge, and holiness, they had no respect unto outward things, though never so good in their place and order, but as aggravations of the sin and judgment of unprofitable professors. And this may be the sense of that expression, γεγόνατε, “ye are become;” for so are many things in the Scripture said then to be, when they are made manifest, or appear so to be.2. It may be the apostle by this expression denotes a decay and declension in them. ‘You are become,’that is now, ‘what formerly you were not. So Chrysostom on the place: Οὐκεἴπεχρείανἔχετε, ἀλλὰγεγόνατεχρείανἔχοντες·τούτεστιὑμεῖςἠθελήσατε, ὑμεῖςἑαυτοὺςεἰςτοῦτοκατεστήσατε, — “This is that which you have now brought yourselves unto.” They had been taught, and they had learned the things of the gospel; but now, through their carelessness, forgetfulness, and want of industry to grow in grace and knowledge, they were decayed into great darkness, ignorance, and confusion. And it is known that this is no unusual thing among professors. Through their inadvertency, sinful negligence, worldly-mindedness, they lose the knowledge which they had attained; and, on a perverse continuance in such an evil course, through the righteous judgment of God, even all that they seemed to have is taken from them. Knowledge may be lost as well as holiness, at least as unto the degrees of it. And it is most probable, from the nature and tenor of his whole discourse, that this is the evil which the apostle chargeth them withal; which sufficiently manifests the greatness of their sin and the danger of their condition. For it is worse with them who have, through their own default, lost what they had attained in the ways of God, than with those who never attained what was their duty so to do; for the loss of light and knowledge proceeds from causes of a more enormous guilt than a mere ignorance of them ordinarily doth, or indeed can do. What they were thus become, as to their state and condition, the apostle in the same similitude expresses. 1. Positively; they were such as had need γάλακτος, of “milk.”2. Negatively; καὶοὐστερεᾶςτροφῆς, “and not of strong meat.”Κρείανἔχοντες, in the same sense as χρείανἔχετε before; only, as joined with γεγόνατε, it may intend their decay and declension into a worse estate than what they were in formerly: ‘You are come to stand in need.’In the similitude proposed, the word of God is compared to food, and the several sorts of it, both as to their nature and use; for it is the food of our souls. And natural food is distinguished by the apostle in this place into “milk” and “strong meat;” which gives us a distribution of the oracles of God into two general heads also, answering in respect of use unto these two sorts of food.1. Positively, “You have need of milk.” The whole word of God is, it may be, sometimes compared absolutely unto milk, because of its purity and freedom from corrupt mixtures, whence it is fit for nourishment: 1 Peter 2:2, “As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” Nothing is of a more natural nourishment than milk; and it is never hurtful but where the body is prepossessed with obstructions. These in the mind, with respect to the word, the apostle in that place warns us to cast out. Verse 1, “Wherefore, laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and evil speakings, as new-born babes.” So James doth in like manner, James 1:21. In this place, I say, it is supposed that the whole gospel, the whole word of God, which is the food of our souls, is compared unto milk. But I rather judge that even here some especial parts or doctrines of the word, suited to the condition of them to whom the apostle speaks, are intended. He calls them “new-born babes;” that is, persons newly converted to Christ, and it may be but weak in the faith. These he adviseth to seek after suitable food in the word, for the nourishment of their souls, or the strengthening of them in faith and obedience; and that is those plain doctrines of truth which were meet for them who as yet were not capable of higher mysteries. It is therefore some parts of the word only, and some things taught therein, which are compared to milk, both with respect unto the nature and common use of it. It is a kind of food that is easy of digestion, needs no great strength of nature to turn it into nutriment; and is therefore the common nourishment of babes, and children, and sick persons, not sufficing to maintain the health and strength of persons of full age and a healthy constitution. So our apostle useth the same similitude, 1 Corinthians 3:1-2, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.”The same similitude, the same distribution of the parts of it, is used as in this place. The reason why babes are fed with milk is because they want strength of nature to digest stronger meat; so he says they were able to bear milk, but not strong meat spiritually. It is evident, therefore, what the apostle here understandeth by “milk,” namely, such doctrines of truth as he calls “the first principles of the oracles of God,” — plain and fundamental truths; such in some measure they might be capable of, but not of the great and deep mysteries of the gospel. And he declares whom he intends by these “babes,” even such as are “carnal;” that is, such as, by reason of their indulgence unto their carnal affections, had kept their souls in a weak and distempered condition as unto spiritual things. This condition of theirs, as it was a consequent of their own sin, so it was a grief and discouragement unto him who designed and earnestly desired to carry them on unto perfection, “unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” And this being the great end of the ministry towards the church, Ephesians 4:12-13, it is no small trouble unto all that are faithful in the discharge of their office, when they find their hearers not so to thrive as to be capable of receiving the highest mysteries of truth. It is grievous unto them, either always to dwell on the first rudiments of religion, or to treat of things which they fear to be above the capacity of their auditors. Their delight and satisfaction is to be dispersing the mysteries of the gospel and of the kingdom of God. Hereof we have a most eminent instance in our apostle. His writing and his preaching to the churches were of the same kind, as in sundry places he doth declare. And we see that the greatest part of his epistles is taken up with the declaration of the deepest mysteries of the will, wisdom, and counsel of God. And for this cause he is now by some reflected on, as a person whose writings are obscure, and hard to be understood; for men begin not to fear to cast the shame and guilt of their own ignorance on a pretended obscurity in his writings. Thus these Hebrews had need of milk, and that not through the tenderness of their constitution, but by having contracted an ill habit of mind. 2. Negatively, he says they had not need of “strong meat;” that is, it was not expedient, in their present condition, to set it before them, unless they were first sufficiently excited out of their stupid negligence. Στερεὰτροφή is “meat yielding solid nourishment.” Now, as in general all the principal mysteries of the gospel, that whole wisdom which he preached ἐντοῖςτελείοις 1 Corinthians 2:6, — “unto” (or “among”) “them that were perfect” or adult, and grown up unto some good measure in the stature of Christ, — are intended hereby; so in especial he hath respect unto the things which belong unto the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. These are solid meat unto the souls of sound believers. And hereby Christians may take a due measure of their spiritual health, strength, and growth. If the solid doctrines concerning the offices of Christ, especially his priesthood and sacrifice, are suited to their minds and affections, if they find food and spiritual nourishment in them, it is a good evidence of their progress in the knowledge of Christ and the gospel. But if such things have neither taste nor relish in them unto their spiritual appetite; if they do not readily digest them, nor find benefit by them, it is manifest they are but weak and feeble, as the apostle further proves in the following verses. And we may observe from the first sense of that expression, “You are become,” — Obs. 7. There will be a time when false and unprofitable professors will be made manifest and discovered, either to their present conviction or their eternal confusion.And from the second sense of it, it may be observed, — Obs. 8. That men do oftentimes secretly wax worse and worse under profession and means of grace. Of the causes and ways hereof see our exposition on Hebrews 4:13. Obs. 9. There are provisions of truth in the Scripture, suitable to the spiritual instruction and edification of all sorts of persons that belong to Jesus Christ. There is in it both “milk” and “strong meat.”The disciples of Christ ever were, and ever will be, in this world, of several sorts, sizes, and capacities. In the house of God there are all sorts of vessels, of lesser and greater quantity, cups and flagons, Isaiah 22:24. There are in the church babes, young men, and fathers, 1 John 2. There are among the hearers of the gospel persons sound, healthy, thriving; and those that are weak, sickly, and feeble. Their different ages and capacities, with their distinct measures of opportunities and diligence, their temptations and occasions of life, make this diversity necessary and unavoidable; — as in the same flock of sheep there are lambs, and strong sheep, and ewes great with young. Now, in a house where there dwell together old men, and strong men, and children or babes, those that are healthy and those that are sick, if they should be all of them bound up unto the same diet or food, some of them must necessarily perish. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ This whole chapter is a continuation of the digression which the apostle had occasionally entered into in the 11th verse of the preceding chapter. For upon the consideration of the greatness of the mystery and difficulty of the doctrine which he designed to instruct these Hebrews in, and his fear of their disability or unpreparedness (at least of some) to receive it in a due manner unto their edification, he engageth into a new discourse, filled up with reasons and arguments to excite them unto a diligent attendance. And this he so doth, as in the very last words of this chapter to return, by an artificial connection of his discourse, unto what he had asserted in the 10th verse of that foregoing. There are four general parts of this chapter: — 1. The proposition of what he intended to do, or discourse concerning; with an opposition thereunto of what was by him to be omitted, Hebrews 6:1-3. 2. An excitation of the Hebrews unto singular diligence in attending unto the most perfect doctrines of Christianity, and making a progress in the knowledge of Christ. And this he doth from the consideration of the greatness of the sin and the inevitableness of the destruction of apostates. For this sort of persons do commonly arise from among such as, having received the truth, and made a profession thereof, do not diligently endeavor a progress towards perfection, according to their duty, Hebrews 6:4-8. 3. A lenifying of the severity of this commination in respect of its application unto these Hebrews. For he expresseth his hope that it did not so belong unto them, or that the sin condemned should not be found in them, nor the punishment threatened fall on them. But the warning itself contained in the commination was, as he shows, good, wholesome, and seasonable. And of this his hope and judgment concerning the Hebrews he expresseth his grounds, taken from the righteousness of God, their own faith and love; which he prays they may persevere in, Hebrews 6:9-12.4. An encouragement unto faith and perseverance, from the example of Abraham, who first received the promises; from the nature of the promises themselves, and their confirmation by the oath of God, with the assistance we may have by our hope in Christ thereunto, Hebrews 6:13-20; which last discourse he issueth in the principal matter he intended to insist upon, whereunto he now returns again, having digressed necessarily into those exhortations and arguings from the first proposal of it in the 11th verse of the foregoing chapter. In the first part of the chapter, comprised in the first three verses, there are three things considerable: — 1. A general proposition of the apostle’s resolution to proceed unto the more perfect doctrines of the gospel, as also of his passing over the first principles of Christianity, Hebrews 6:1.2. An amplification of this proposition, by an enumeration of those doctrines which he thought meet at present to pass by the handling of, Hebrews 6:1-2.3. A renovation of his resolution to pursue his proposition, with a submission to the will and good pleasure of God as to the execution of his purpose; the expression whereof the present state of these Hebrews peculiarly called him unto, Hebrews 6:3. In the remainder of the first verse and the next that follows, the apostle declares in particular instances what were the things and doctrines which he called in general before, “the beginning of the doctrine of Christ,” whose further handling he thought meet at present to omit. Hebrews 6:1-2.— Μὴπάλινθεμέλιονκαταβαλλόμενοιμετανοίαςἀπὸνεκρῶνἔργων, καὶπίστεωςἐπὶΘεὸν, βαπτισμῶνδιδαχῆς, ἐπιθέσεώςτεχειρῶν, ἀναστάσεώςτενεκρῶν, καὶκρὶματοςαἰωνίου. The Syriac translation proposeth these words in the way of an interrogation, “Will you again lay another foundation?” and the Ethiopic, omitting the first clause, in the way of a precept, “Attend therefore again to the foundation, that you dispute not concerning repentance from dead works, in the faith of God.” But neither the text nor scope of the apostle will bear either of these interpretations. Μὴπάλιν. Syr., ΰֻ ?εμְ ?ξָ ?ΰϊּ ?εּ ?α, “an numquid rursum?”, or “whether again?” All others, “non rursum,” “non iterum.” Arab., “nee amplius,” “not again;” not any more. Θεμέλιονκαταβαλλόμενοι. Syr., ωֶׁ ?ϊַ ?ΰρְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊָ ?ΰξַ ?ψְ ?ξִ ?εּ ?ο, “will you lay another foundation ?” That term of “another,” is both needless, because of “again” that went before, and corrupts the sense, as though a foundation different from what was formerly laid were intended. Besides, that is made an expostulation with the Hebrews which is indeed expressive of the apostle’s intention, “fundamentum jacientes,” “laying the foundation.” Μετανοίαςἀπὸνεκρῶνἔργων. Syr., “unto repentance from dead works;” and so in all the following instances. There is no difference among translators about the rest of the words. Only the Ethiopic reads “baptism,” in the singular number, as the Syriac doth, and placeth “doctrine” distinctly by way of apposition: “baptism, doctrine, and the imposition of hands.” ᾿Αναστα.σεώςτενεκρῶν, the Syriac renders by an Hebraism, χְ ?ιָ ?ξְ ?ϊָ ?ΰγְ ?ξֵ ?οαֵּ ?ιϊξַ ?ιְ ?ϊֵ ?ΰ, “the resurrection that is from the house of the dead;” that is, the grave, the common dwelling- place of the dead: as also, κρίματοςαἰωνίου by γιπָ ?ΰγַּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?μַ ?ν, “the judgment which is for ever; the sentence whereof is eternally irrevocable, and whose execution endures always. [1] [1] VARIOUS Readings. — Δικαχ. Lachmann, on the authority of Β, prefers διδαχήν. Conybeare and Howson adopt the punctuation of Chrysostom, — βαπτισμῶν, διδαχῆς, ἐπιθέσεως. . — According to Ebrard, the passage is not an intimation of the author’s intention, but an admonition to his readers. He understands καταβαλλόμενοι, not in the sense of “laying down,” but of” demolishing.” ‘Strive after perfection, while you do not again demolish the foundation of repentance, and faith,’etc. Luther and, as we have seen, Conybeare and Howson, understand “doctrine” as separate from and in apposition with “baptisms.” Calvin, Beza, Storr, Bleek, and Ebrard, connect it with βαπτισμῶν, and supply it to ἐπιθέσεως, ἀναστάσεως, and κρίματος. — ED. Hebrews 6:1-2. — Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of baptisms, doctrine, and the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. There are two things in these words added concerning “the doctrine of the principles of Christ,” or “the first doctrines of Christianity:” 1. Their general nature with respect to the whole truth of the gospel, metaphorically expressed; they are the “foundation.”2. Their nature in particular is declared in sundry instances; not that all of them are mentioned, but these instances are chosen out to show of what kind they are. In the first, two things are proposed:1. The expression of the thing itself intended, which is “the foundation.”2. The apostle’s design with respect unto it, “not laying it again.”FIRST, Μὴπάλινθεμέλιονκαταβαλλόμενοι. Θεμέλιος is, as was said, in this matter metaphorical, including an allusion unto an architect and his building. First he lays the foundation; and he is a most foolish builder who either doth not so, or who rests therein, or who is always setting it up and pulling it down, without making a progress. Indeed, that foundation which is all the building, which hath not an edifice erected on it, is no foundation; for that which is materially so, becomes so formally only with respect unto the building upon it. And those who receive the doctrines of Christ here called the “foundation,” if they build not on them, they will prove none unto them, whatever they are in themselves.There are two properties of a foundation: — 1. That it is that which is first laid in every building. This the natural order of every building requires.2. It is that which bears the whole weight of the superstructure; the whole, and all the parts of it, being laid upon it, and firmly united unto it. With respect unto the one or other of these properties, or both, are the doctrines intended called the “foundation.” But in the latter sense they cannot be so. It is Christ himself, and he only, who is so the foundation as to bear the weight and to support the whole building of the church of God. Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:10-11; Ephesians 2:20-22;1 Peter 2:4-5. He is so personally, the life and being of the church consisting in its spiritual union unto his person, 1 Corinthians 12:12; and doctrinally, in that all truth is resolved into what is taught concerning him, 1 Corinthians 3:10; 1 Corinthians 3:13. Wherefore it is in allusion unto a foundation with respect unto its first property, namely, that it is first laid in the building, that these doctrines are called “the foundation” (so the Jews term the general principles of their profession ιρεγιϊεψδ, “the foundations of the law,” or the principal doctrines taught therein), — the first doctrines which are necessary to be received and professed at men’s first entrance into Christianity. And the apostle intends the same things by the threefold expression which he maketh use of: —1. ΣτιοχεῖατῆςἀρχῆςλογίωντοῦΘεοῦ, Hebrews 5:12, — “the first principles of the oracles of God:”2. ῾ΟτῆςἀρχῆςτοῦΧριστοῦλόγος: and, 3. Θεμέλοις, Hebrews 6:1; — “the beginning of the doctrine of Christ,” and “the foundation.” Concerning these things he says, Μὴπάλινκαταζαλλόμενοι, “not laying it again.” His saying that he would not lay it again, doth not infer that he himself had laid it before amongst them, but only that it was so laid before by some or other. For it was not by him that they received their first instruction, nor doth he mention any such thing in the whole epistle; whereas he frequently pleads it unto those churches which were planted by himself, 1 Corinthians 3:5-6; 1 Corinthians 3:10; 1 Corinthians 4:15. And it is known from the story that his ministry was not used in their first conversion. But he knew that they had faithful instructors, who would not leave them unacquainted with these necessary things; and that they would not have been initiated by baptism, or admitted into the church, without a profession of them. Besides, they were such as in general they owned in their former church- state. He might, therefore, well say that he would not lay this foundation again. ‘These things,’saith he, ‘you have already been instructed in by others, and therefore I will not (as also on other considerations) go over them again.’Wherefore let the hearers of the gospel carefully look to it, that they learn those things whereof they have had sufficient instruction; for if any evil ensue from their ignorance of them, they must themselves answer for it. Such ignorance is their sin, as well as their disadvantage. Preachers may take it for granted, that what they have sedulously and sufficiently instructed their hearers in, they have also received and learned, because it is through their sinful negligence if they have not so done. And they are not bound always to wait on some in their negligences, to the disadvantage of others. , The apostle declares in particular what were those doctrinal principles, which he had in general so described, which were taught unto them who were first initiated into Christianity, and which he will not now again insist upon. “Repentance from dead works,” etc.We must first consider the order of these words, and then their sense, or the things themselves intended. Some here reckon up six principles, some make them seven, some but four, and by some they are reduced unto three. The first two are plain and distinct, “Repentance from dead works,” and “faith towards God.” The next that follow are disputed as to their coherence and sense: Βαπτισμῶνδιδαχῆςἐπιθέσεώςτεχειρῶν. Some read these words with a note of distinction between them, Βαπτισμῶν, διδαχῆς, both the genitive cases being regulated by θεμέλιον, “The foundation of baptisms, and of doctrine;” which are put together by apposition, not depending one upon another, Διδαχή is “the preaching of the word.” And this was one of the first things wherein believers were to be instructed, — namely, that they were to abide ἐντῇδιδαχῇ, Acts 2:42; in a constant attendance unto the doctrine of the gospel, when preached unto them. And as I shall not assert this exposition, so I dare not positively reject it, as not seeing any reason cogent to that purpose. But another sense is more probable. Take the words in conjunction, so as that one of them should depend on and be regulated by the other, and then, 1. We may consider them in their order as they lie in the original: Βαπτισμῶνδιδαχῆςἐπιθέσεώςτεχειρῶν (supposing the first to be regulated by θεμέλιος, and both the latter by it), — “The baptisms of doctrine and imposition of hands.” There were two things peculiar to the gospel, — the doctrine of it, and the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. Doctrine is compared to and called baptism, Deuteronomy 32:2; hence the people were said to be “baptized unto Moses,” when they were initiated into his doctrines, 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. The baptism of John was his doctrine, Acts 19:3. And the baptism of Christ was the doctrine of Christ, wherewith he was to “sprinkle many nations,” Isaiah 52:15. This is the first baptism of the gospel, even its doctrine. The other was the communication of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 1:5. That this, and this alone, is intended by “the laying on of hands,” I shall prove fully afterwards. And then the sense would be, ‘The foundation of gospel baptisms, — namely, preaching, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.’And I know but one argument against this sense, — namely, that it is new and singular. To avoid this,2. The order of the words must be inverted in their exposition. Not the “baptisms of doctrine,” but the “doctrine of baptisms,” must be intended. But then two things must be observed: —(1.) That βαπτισμῶν, “baptisms,” is not immediately regulated by θεμέλιον, the “foundation;” and so “baptisms” are not asserted absolutely to be a foundation, as is “repentance from dead works,” but only the doctrine about it is so.(2.) It cannot be readily conceived why διδαχή, “doctrine,” should be prefixed unto “baptisms” alone, and not to “repentance” and “faith,” the doctrines whereof also are intended; for it is not the grace of repentance and faith, but the doctrine concerning them, which the apostle hath respect to. There is, therefore, some peculiar reason why “doctrine” should be thus peculiarly prefixed unto “baptisms and the laying on of hands,” and not to the other things mentioned; for that “imposition of hands” is placed in the same order with “baptisms,” the conjunctive particle doth manifest, ἐπιθέσεώς. The following instances are plain, only some would reduce them unto one principle, — namely, the resurrection of all unto judgment.There is, therefore, in these words nothing peculiar nor difficult, but only what concerns “baptisms,” and “the imposition of hands,” the “doctrine” whereof is specified. Now, I cannot discover any just reason hereof, unless it be, that by “baptisms,” and “the imposition of hands,” the apostle intendeth none of those rudiments of Christian religion wherein men were to be first instructed, but those rites whereof they were made partakers who were so instructed. As if the apostle had said, ‘These principles of the doctrine of Christ, — namely, repentance, faith, the resurrection, and judgment, are those doctrines wherein they are to be instructed who are to be baptized, and to have hands laid on them.’According to this sense, the words are to be read as in a parenthesis: “Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, (namely, the doctrine of baptisms, and of the imposition of hands,) of the resurrection from the dead, and eternal judgment.” When men began to attend unto the gospel, and thereon to give up their names to the church, there were certain doctrines that they were thoroughly to be instructed in, before they were admitted unto baptism; see Galatians 6:6. These being the catechetical rudiments of Christian religion, are called here διδαχὴβαπτισμῶνἐπιθέσεώςτεχειρῶν, or the doctrines that were to be taught in order unto the administration of those rites.Taking this for the design of the apostle in the words, as is most probable, there are four instances given of those principal rudiments of Christian religion, wherein all men were to be instructed before they were admitted unto baptism, who came thereunto in their own personal right, having not been made partakers thereof by their covenant right, through the profession of their parents, in their infancy. In these were persons to be fully instructed before their solemn initiation; the doctrine concerning them being thence called the “doctrine of baptisms, and of the imposition of hands,” because previously necessary unto the administration of these rites. There is a difficulty, I confess, that this exposition is pressed with, from the use of the word in the plural number, βαπτισμῶν, “of baptisms;” but this equally concerns all other expositions, and shall be spoken unto in its proper place. And this I take to be the sense of the words which the design of the place and manner of expression lead us unto. But yet, because sundry learned men are otherwise minded, I shall so explain the words as that their meaning may be apprehended, supposing distinct heads of doctrine to be contained in them. Our next work is to consider the particular instances in their order. And the first is, μετανοίαςἀπὸνεκρῶνἔργων “repentance from dead works.” This was taught in the first place unto all those who would give up themselves to the discipline of Christ and the gospel. And in the teaching hereof, both the nature and necessity of the duty were regarded. And in the nature of it two things were declared, and are to be considered:1. What are “dead works;” and, 2. What is “repentance from them.”1. This expression of “dead works” is peculiar unto our apostle, and unto this epistle. It is nowhere used but in this place and Hebrews 9:14. And he useth it in answer unto what he elsewhere declares concerning men’s being dead in sin by nature, Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13. That which he there ascribes unto their persons, here he attributeth unto their works. These Peter calls men’s “old sins,” namely, which they lived in before their conversion: 2 Peter 1:9, an Δήθηνλαβὼντοῦκαθαρισμοῦτῶνπάλαιαὐτοῦἁμαρτιῶν, — “Forgetting that he was purged from his old sins.” He hath respect unto what is here intended. They were, before their initiation, instructed in the necessity of forsaking the sins wherein, they lived before their conversion, which he calls their “old” or “former sins;” which he hath also respect unto, 1 Peter 4:3, “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries” The necessity of repentance from these and the like sins was taught them, and which they made profession of, before they were admitted unto baptism, wherein they received a token of their being purged from them. And a relapse into those sins which men had openly professed their repentance and relinquishment of, was ever esteemed dangerous, and by some absolutely pernicious; whereon great contests in the church did ensue. For the controversy was not, whether men falling into any sin, yea, any open or known sin, after baptism, might repent, — which none was ever so foolishly proud as to deny, — but the question was about men’s open falling again into those sins, suppose idolatry, which they had made a public profession of their repentance from before their baptism. And it came at last to this, not whether such men might savingly repent, obtain pardon of their sins, and be saved; but whether the church had power to admit them a second time to a public profession of their repentance of those sins, and so take them again into full communion. For some pleaded, that the profession of repentance for those sins, and the renunciation of them, being indispensably necessary antecedently unto baptism in them that were adult, — the obligation not to live in them at all being on them who were baptized in their infancy, — baptism alone was the only pledge the church could give of the remission of such sins; and therefore, where men fell again into those sins, seeing baptism was not to be repeated, they were to be left unto the mercy of God, — the church could receive them no more. But whereas the numbers were very great of those who in time of persecution fell back into idolatry, who yet afterwards returned and professed their repentance, the major part, who always are for the many, agreed that they were to be received, and reflected with no small severity on those that were otherwise minded. But whereas both parties in this difference ran into extremes, the event was pernicious on both sides, — the one in the issue losing the truth and peace, the other the purity of the church. The sins of unregenerate persons, whereof repentance was to be expressed before baptism, are called “dead works,” in respect of their nature and their end. For, (1.) As to their nature, they proceed from a principle under the power of spiritual death; they are the works of persons “dead in trespasses and sins.” All the moral actings of such persons, with respect unto a supernatural end, are dead works, being not enlivened by a vital principle of spiritual life. And it is necessary that a person be spiritually living before his works will be so. Our walking in holy obedience is called “the life of God,” Ephesians 4:18; that is, the life which God requires, which by his especial grace he worketh in us, whose acts have him for their object and their end. Where this life is not, persons are dead; and so are their works, even all that they do with respect unto the living God. And they are called so,(2.) With respect unto their end; they are “mortua,” because “mortifera,” — “dead, because deadly;” they procure death, and end in death. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth truth death,” James 1:15. They proceed from death spiritual, and end in death eternal. On the same account are they called “unfruitful works of darkness,” Ephesians 5:11. They proceed from a principle of spiritual darkness, and end in darkness everlasting. We may, therefore, know what was taught them concerning these dead works, namely, their nature and their merit. And this includes the whole doctrine of the law, with conviction of sin thereby. They were taught that they were sinners by nature, “dead in sins,” and thence “children of wrath,” Ephesians 2:1-3; that in that estate the law of God condemned both them and their works, denouncing death and eternal destruction against them. And in this sense, with respect unto the law of God, these dead works do comprise their whole course in this world, as they did their best as well as their worst. But yet there is no doubt an especial respect unto those great outward enormities which they lived in during their Judaism, even after the manner of the Gentiles. For such the apostle Peter, writing unto these Hebrews, describes their conversation to have been, 1 Peter 4:3, as we showed before. And from thence he describes what a blessed deliverance they had by the gospel, 1 Peter 1:18-21. And when he declares the apostasy of some to their former courses, he shows it to be like the returning of a dog to his vomit, after they had escaped them that live in error, and the pollutions that are in the world through lust, 2 Peter 2:18-22. These were the works which converts were taught to abandon, and a profession of repentance for them was required of all before their initiation into Christian religion, or before they were received into the church. For it was not then as now, that any one might be admitted into the society of the faithful, and yet continue to live in open sins unrepented of. 2. That which is required, and which they were taught, with respect unto these dead works, is μέτάνοια, “repentance.” “Repentance from dead works” is the first thing required of them who take upon them the profession of the gospel, and consequently the first principle of the doctrine of Christ, as it is here placed by the apostle. Without this, whatever is attempted or attained therein is only a dishonor to Christ and a disappointment unto men. This is the method of preaching, confirmed by the example and command of Christ himself: “Repent, and believe the gospel,” Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15. And almost all the sermons that we find, not only of John the Baptist in a way of preparation for the declaration of the gospel, as Matthew 3:2, but of the apostles also, in pressing the actual reception of it on the Jews and Gentiles, have this as their first principle, namely, the necessity of repentance, Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19; Acts 14:15. Thence, in the preaching of the gospel it is said, that “God commandeth all men everywhere to repent,” Acts 17:30. And when the Gentiles had received the gospel, the church at Jerusalem glorified God, saying, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life,” Acts 11:18. Again, this is expressed as the first issue of grace and mercy from God towards men by Jesus Christ, which is therefore first to be proposed unto them: “Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance unto Israel,” Acts 5:31. And because it is the first, it is put synecdochically for the whole work of God’s grace by Christ: “God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities,” Acts 3:26. It is therefore evident, that this was the first doctrinal principle, as to their own duty, which was pressed on and fixed in the minds of men on their first instruction in the gospel. And in the testimonies produced, both the causes of it and its general nature are expressed. For, (1.) Its supreme original cause is the good-will, grace, and bounty of God. He grants and gives it to whom he pleaseth, of his own good pleasure, Acts 11:18. (2.) It is immediately collated on the souls of men by Jesus Christ, as a fruit of his death, and an effect of that “all power in heaven and in earth” which was bestowed on him by the Father. “He giveth repentance unto Israel,” Acts 5:31. The sovereign disposal of it is from the will of the Father; and the actual collation of it is an effect of the grace of the Son. And,(3.) The nature of it is expressed in the conversion of the Gentiles: it is “unto life,” Acts 11:18. The repentance required of men in the first preaching of the gospel, and the necessity whereof was pressed on them, was “unto life;” that is, such as had saving conversion unto God accompanying of it. This kind of repentance is required unto our initiation in the gospel-state. Not an empty profession of any kind of repentance, but real conversion unto God, is required of such persons.But, moreover, we must consider this μετάνοια, or “repentance,” in its own nature, at least in general, that we may the better understand this first principle of catechetical doctrine. In this sense it respects, —(1.) The mind and judgment;(2.) The will and affections; and,(3.) The life or conversation of men.(1.) It respects the mind and judgment, according to the notation of the word, which signifies a change of mind, or an after-consideration and judgment. Men, whilst they live in dead works, under the power of sin, do never make a right judgment concerning either their nature, their guilt, or their end. Hence are they so often called to remember and consider things aright, to deal about them with the reason of men; and for want thereof are said to be foolish, brutish, sottish, and to have no understanding. The mind is practically deceived about them. There are degrees in this deceit, but all sinners are actually more or less deceived. No men, whilst the natural principle of conscience remains in them, can cast off all the convictions of sin, Romans 2:14-15; and that it is “the judgment of God that those who commit such things are worthy of death,” Romans 1:32. But yet some there are who so far despise these convictions as to give up themselves unto all sin with delight and greediness. See Ephesians 4:17-19. Practically they call good evil, and evil good; and do judge either that there is not that evil in sin which is pretended, or, however, that it is better to enjoy “the pleasures of it for a season,” than to relinquish or forego it on other considerations. Others there are who have some further sense of those dead works. In particular they judge them evil, but they are so entangled in them as that they see not the greatness of that evil, nor do make such a judgment concerning it as whereon a relinquishment of them should necessarily ensue. Unto these two heads, in various degrees, may all impenitent sinners be reduced. They are such as, despising their convictions, go on in an unbridled course of licentiousness, as not judging the voice, language, and mind of them worth inquiring into. Others do in some measure attend unto them, but yet practically they refuse them, and embrace motives unto sin, turning the scale on that side as occasion, opportunities, and temptations do occur. Wherefore, the first thing in this repentance is a thorough change of the mind and judgment concerning these dead works. The mind, by the light and conviction of saving truth, determines clearly and steadily concerning the true nature of sin, and its demerit, that it is an evil thing and bitter to have forsaken God thereby. Casting out all prejudices, laying aside all pleas, excuses, and palliations, it finally concludes sin, — that is, all and every sin, every thing that hath the nature of sin, — to be universally evil; evil in itself, evil to the sinner, evil in its present effects and future consequents, evil in every kind, shamefully evil, incomparably evil, yea, the only evil, or all that is evil in the world. And this judgment it makes with respect unto the nature and law of God, to its own primitive and present depraved condition, unto present duty and future judgment. This is the first thing required unto repentance, and where this is not, there is nothing of it. (2.) It respects the will and affections. It is our turning unto God; our turning from him being in the bent and inclination of our wills and affections unto sin. The change of the will, or the taking away of the will of sinning, is the principal part of repentance. It is with respect unto our wills that we are said to be “dead in sin,” and “alienated from the life of God.” And by this change of the will do we become “dead to sin,” Romans 6:2; that is, whatever remainder of lust and corruption there may be in us, yet the will of sinning is taken away. And for the affections, it works that change in the soul, as that quite contrary affections shall be substituted and set at work with respect unto the same object. There are “pleasures” in sin, and also it hath its “wages.” With respect unto these, those that live in dead works both delight in sin, and have complacency in the accomplishment of it. These are the affections which the soul exerciseth about sin committed, or to be committed. Instead of them, repentance, by which they are utterly banished, sets at work sorrow, grief, abhorrency, self-detestation, revenge, and the like afflictive passions of the mind Nothing stirs but they affect the soul with respect unto sin. (3.) It respects the course of life or conversation. It is a repentance from dead works; that is, in the relinquishment of them. Without this no profession of repentance is of any worth or use. To profess a repentance of sin, and to live in sin, is to mock God, deride his law, and deceive our own souls. This is that change which alone doth or can evidence the other internal changes of the mind, will, and affections, to be real and sincere, Proverbs 28:13. Whatever without this is pretended, is false and hypocritical; like the repentance of Judah, “not with the whole heart, but feignedly,” Jeremiah 3:10, — αְּ ?ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?ψ. There was a lie in it; for their works answered not their words. Neither is there any mention of repentance in the Scripture wherein this change, in an actual relinquishment of dead works, is not expressly required. And hereunto three things are necessary: — [1. A full purpose of heart for the relinquishment of every sin. This is “cleaving unto the Lord with purpose of heart,” Acts 11:23; Psalms 17:3. To manifest the stability and steadfastness which is required herein, David confirmed it with an oath, Psalms 119:106. Every thing that will either live or thrive must have a root, on which it grows and whence it springs. Other things may occasionally bud and put forth, but they wither immediately. And such is a relinquishment of sin from occasional resolutions. Upon some smart of conviction, from danger, sickness, trouble, fear, affliction, there blooms in the minds of many a sudden resolution to forsake sin; and as suddenly for the most part it fades again. True repentance forms a steady and unshaken resolution in the heart, which respects the forsaking of all sin, and at all times and occasions. [2. Constant endeavors to actuate and fulfill this purpose. And these endeavors respect all the means, causes, occasions, temptations, leading unto sin, that they may be avoided, opposed, and deliverance obtained from them; as also all means, advantages, and furtherance of those graces and duties which are opposed to these dead works, that they may be improved. A heartless, inactive purpose, is that which many take up withal, and ruin their souls by. Where, therefore, there is not a sedulous endeavor, by watchfulness and diligence, in the constant use of all means to avoid all dead works, in all their concerns, from their first rise and principle to their finishing or consummation, there is no true repentance from them. [3. An actual relinquishment of all sins in the course of our walking before God. And hereunto is required, 1st. Not an absolute freedom from all sin; for there is no man living who doeth good, and sinneth not.2dly. No absolute and precise deliverance even from great sins, whereinto the soul may be surprised by the power of temptations. Examples to the contrary abound in the Scripture. But yet such sins, when any one is overtaken with them, ought,(1st.) To put the sinner upon a severe inquiry whether his repentance were sincere and saving; for where it is, usually the soul is preserved from such falls, 2 Peter 1:10. And,(2dly.) Put him upon the renewing his repentance, with the same care, diligence, sorrow, and humiliation, as at the first. But,1st. It is required that this property of repentance be prevalent against the common sins of the world, men’s “old sins,” which they lived in before their conversion. Those sins which are expressly declared in the gospel to be inconsistent with the profession, ends, and glory of it, it wholly excludes, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 1 John 3:14-15. And, 2dly. Against a course in any sin or sins, either spiritual or fleshly, internal or external, 1 John 3:9; Romans 6:2.3dly. For the most part, against all outward sins in the course of our conversation in the world; in which things our sincerity or perfection is exercised. And these things were necessary to be touched on, to manifest the nature of this first principle wherein men are to be instructed.Obs. 1. There is no interest in Christ or Christian religion to be obtained without “repentance from dead works;” nor any orderly entrance into a gospel church-state without a credible profession thereof.This was one of the first things that were preached unto sinners, as was before declared; and without a compliance herewith they were not further to be treated with. For, — 1. The Lord Christ came not only to save men from their sins, but to turn them from their sins, — to turn them from their sins, that they may be saved from them. When he comes out of Sion as a Redeemer, a Deliverer, a Savior, he “turns away ungodliness from Jacob;” that is, he turns Jacob from ungodliness, Romans 11:26, — namely, by repentance. This was one principal end of the birth, life, death, and exaltation of Christ. His work in all these was to make peace and reconciliation between God and man. Hereunto belongeth the slaying, destruction, or removal of the enmity that was between them. This, with respect unto God, was done by the atonement he made, the sacrifice he offered, and the price of redemption that he paid, 2 Corinthians 5:21. But the whole work is not hereby completed. The enmity on our part also must be taken away, or reconciliation will not be finished. Now, we were “enemies in our mind by wicked works,” Colossians 1:21; and thereby “alienated from the life of God,” Ephesians 4:18. The removal hereof consists in this repentance; for that is our turning unto God upon the terms of peace tendered unto us. They, therefore, do but deceive their own souls who trust unto peace with God on the mediation of Christ, but are not at peace with God in their own souls by repentance; for the one is not without the other. As he who is at peace with God on his own part by repentance, shall never fail of peace from God by the atonement, — for he that so lays hold on his arm and strength, that he may have peace, shall be sure to obtain it, Isaiah 27:5, — so without this, whatever notions men may have of reconciliation with God, they will find him in the issue as “devouring fire,” or “everlasting burnings.” All doctrines, notions, or persuasions that tend to alleviate the necessity of that personal repentance which was before described, or would substitute any outward penance, or corporeal, pecuniary, penal satisfaction in the room thereof, are pernicious to the souls of men. And there is nothing so much to be dreaded or abhorred as a pretense taken unto sin, unto any sin without repentance, from the grace or doctrine of the gospel. “Shall we continue in sin,” saith our apostle, “that grace may abound? God forbid.” Those who do so, and thereby “turn the grace of God into lasciviousness,” are among the number of them “whose damnation sleepeth not.” 2. That any person living in sin without repentance, should have an interest in Christ or Christian religion, is inconsistent with the glory of God and the honor of Jesus Christ, and would render the gospel, if taught therein, a doctrine fit to be rejected by all men. For where is the glory of the righteousness or holiness of God, if impenitent sinners may be accepted with him? Besides that it is contrary unto the whole declaration of himself, that he “will not acquit the guilty,” that he will not justify the wicked, nor accept the ungodly, it hath an absolute inconsistency with the especial righteousness of his nature, and which he exerciseth as the supreme rector and judge of all, that any such persons should approach before him, or stand in his sight, Psalms 5:4-6; Romans 1:32. And for the Lord Jesus Christ, it would plainly make him the “minister of sin;” — the thought whereof our apostle so detests, Galatians 2:17. Nay, a supposition hereof would make the coming of Christ to be the greatest means of letting in and increasing sin on the world, that ever was since the fall of Adam. And the gospel must then be looked on as a doctrine meet to be abandoned by all wise and sober persons, as that which would tend unavoidably to the debauching of mankind and the ruin of human society. For whereas it doth openly and avowedly propose and declare the pardon and remission of sin, of all sorts of sin, to all sorts of persons that shall believe and obey it; if it did this without annexing unto its promise the condition of repentance, never was there, nor can there be, so great an encouragement unto all sorts of sin and wickedness. There is much to that purpose in the doctrines of purgatory, penances, and satisfactions; whereby men are taught that they may come off from their sins at a cheaper rate than eternal ruin, without that repentance which is necessary. But this is nothing in comparison to the mischief which the gospel would produce, if it did not require “repentance from dead works.” For besides those innumerable advantages that otherwise it hath to evidence itself to be from God, whereas these other pretences are such as wise and considering men may easily look through their daubing, and see their ground of falsehood, the gospel doth certainly propose its pardon freely, “without money, and without price;” and so, on this supposition, would lay the reins absolutely free on the neck of sin and wickedness: whereas those other fancies are burdened and charged with such inconveniencies as may lay some curb upon them in easy and carnal minds. Wherefore, I say, on such a false and cursed supposition, it would be the interest of wise and sober men to oppose and reject the gospel, as the most effectual means of overflowing the world with sin and ungodliness. But it doth not more fully condemn idolatry, or that the devil is to be worshipped, than it doth any such notion or apprehension. It cannot be denied but that some men may, and it is justly to be feared that some men do, abuse the doctrine of the gospel to countenance themselves in a vain expectation of mercy and pardon, whilst they willingly live in a course of sin. But as this, in their management, is the principal means of their ruin, so, in the righteous judgment of God, it will be the greatest aggravation of their condemnation. And whereas some have charged the preachers of gospel grace as those who thereby give countenance unto this presumption, it is an accusation that hath more of the hatred of grace in it than of the love of holiness. For none do nor can press the relinquishment of sin and repentance of it upon such assured grounds, and with such cogent arguments, as those by whom the grace of Jesus Christ in the gospel is fully opened and declared. From what hath been discoursed, we may inquire after our own interest in this great and necessary duty; to assist us wherein I shall yet add some further directions; as,— Repentance is twofold: first, Initial; secondly, Continued in our whole course; and our inquiry is to be after our interest in both of them. The former is that whose general nature we have before described, which is the door of entrance into a gospel-state, or a condition of acceptance with God in and through Christ. And concerning it we may observe sundry things: — 1. That as to the properties of it, it is, —(1.) Solemn; a duty that in all its circumstances is to be fixed and stated. It is not to be mixed only with other duties, but we are to set ourselves on purpose and engage ourselves singularly unto it. I will not say this is so essential unto it, that he can in no sense be said sincerely to have repented who hath not separately and distinctly been exercised herein for some season; yet I will say, that the repentance of such a one will scarce be ever well cleared up unto his own soul. When the Spirit of grace is poured out on men, they shall “mourn apart,” Zechariah 12:12-14; that is, they shall peculiarly and solemnly separate themselves to the right discharge of this duty between God and their souls. And those who have hitherto neglected it, or failed herein, may be advised solemnly to address themselves unto it, whatever hopes they may have that they have been carried through it already. There is no loss of time, grace, nor comfort, in the solemn renovation of initial repentance.(2.) Universal, as to the object of it. It respects all sin and every sin, every crooked path, and every step therein. It absolutely excludes all reserves for any sin. To profess repentance, and yet with an express reserve for any sin, approacheth very near the great sin of lying to the Holy Ghost. It is like Ananias his keeping back part of the price when the whole was devoted. And these soul-destroying reserves, which absolutely overthrow the whole nature of repentance, commonly arise from one of these pretences or occasions: — [1. That the sin reserved is small, and of no great importance. It is a little one. But true repentance respects the nature of sin, which is in every sin equally, the least as well as the greatest. The least reserve for vanity, pride, conformity to the world, inordinate desires or affections, utterly overthrows the truth of repentance, and all the benefits of it. [2. That it is so useful as that, at least at present, it cannot be parted withal. So Naaman would reserve his bowing before the king in the house of Rimmon, because his honors and preferments depended thereon. So it is with many in their course of life or trading in the world; some advantages by crooked ways seem as useful to them as their right hand, which they cannot as yet cut off and cast from them. This, therefore, they have a secret reserve for; though it may not be express, yet it is real and effectual But he who in this case will not part with a right eye, or a right hand, must be content to go with them both into hell-fire. [3. Secrecy. That which is hidden from every eye may be left behind. Some sweet morsel of this kind may yet be rolled under the tongue. But this is an evidence of the grossest hypocrisy, and the highest contempt of God, who seeth in secret. [4. Uncertainty of some things whether they are sins or no. It may be some think such neglects of duty, such compliances with the world, are not sins; and whereas themselves have not so full a conviction of their being sinful as they have of other sins which are notorious and against the light of nature, only they have just reason to fear they are evil, — this they wilt break through, and indulge themselves in them. But this also impeacheth the truth of repentance. Where it is sincere, it engageth the soul against “all appearance of evil.” And one that is truly humbled hath no more certain rule in his walking, than not to do what he hath just cause to doubt whether it be lawful or no. True repentance, therefore, is universal, and inconsistent with all these reserves. 2. Unto the same end, that we may be acquainted with our own interest in this initiating repentance, we must consider the season when it is wrought. And this is,— (1.) Upon the first communication of gospel light unto us by the Holy Ghost. Christ sends him to “convince us of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” John 16:8. And if upon the first participation of light and conviction by the Holy Ghost, this repentance is not wrought in us, it is to be feared that we have missed our season. And so it falls out with many. They receive light and convictions, but use them unto other ends. They put them, it may be, upon a profession, and a relinquishment of some ways and parties of men, but further they use them not. Their first proper end is to work our own souls unto saving repentance; and if we miss their first impressions, their power and efficacy for that end is hardly recoverable.(2.) It never fails on the first saving view of Jesus Christ as crucified, Zechariah 12:10. It is impossible that any one should have a saving view of Christ crucified, and not be savingly humbled for sin. And there is no one single trial of our faith in Christ whether it be genuine or no, that is more natural than this: What have been the effects of it as to humiliation and repentance? Where these ensue not upon what we account our believing, there we have not had a saving view of Christ crucified.3. Whereas we call this repentance initial, we must consider that it differs not in nature and kind from that which we ought to be exercised in whilst we are in this world; whereof afterwards. That which we intend thereby, is the use of repentance in our first admission into an interest in a gospel- state. And with respect hereunto its duration may be considered; concerning which we may observe, —(1.) That with some, especially in extraordinary cases, this work and duty may be over in a day, as to its initiating use and efficacy. So was it with many primitive converts, who at the same time were savingly humbled and comforted by the promises of the gospel, Acts 2:37-42; Acts 16:31-34. Now, although in such persons the things we have ascribed unto this repentance are not wrought formally and distinctly, yet are they all wrought virtually and radically, and do act themselves on all future occasions. (2.) Some are held longer unto this duty as it is initiating. Not only did Paul continue three days and nights under his sore distress without relief, but others are kept days, and weeks, and months ofttimes, in the discharge of this duty, before they have a refreshing entrance given them thereby into an estate of spiritual rest in the gospel. There is, therefore, no measure of time to be allotted unto the solemn attendance unto this duty, but only this, that none faint under it, wax weary of it, or give it over, before there be thereby administered unto them an entrance into the kingdom of God. And these considerations of the nature of repentance from dead works as it is initiating, may give us some direction in that necessary inquiry concerning our own personal interest in it. Now there are several ways whereby men miss their duty with respect unto this first principle, and thereby ruin their souls eternally: — 1. Some utterly despise it. Such are the presumptuous sinners mentioned, Deuteronomy 29:19-20. As they disregard the curse of the law, so they do also the promise of the gospel, as unto any repentance or relinquishment of sin with respect unto them. Such folly and brutish foolishness possesseth the minds of multitudes, that they will have some expectation of benefit by the gospel, and will give it an outward compliance, but will not touch on the very first thing which it indispensably requireth of all that intend any concernment in it. It were easy to open and aggravate this deplorable folly; but I must not stay on these things. 2. Some will repent in their dead works, but not from them. That is, upon convictions, afflictions, dangers, they will be troubled for their sins, make confession of them, be grieved that they have contracted such guilt and dangers, with resolutions to forego them; but yet they will abide in their sins and dead works still. So Pharaoh more than once repented him in his sins, but never had repentance from them. And so it was expressly with the Israelites themselves, Psalms 78:34-37. And this kind of repentance ruins not fewer souls than the former total contempt of it. There are not a few unto whom this kind of repentance stands in the same stead all their days, as confession and absolution do to the Papists; it gives them present ease, that they may return to their former sins. 3. Some repent from dead works in some sense, but they repent not of them. They will come, through the power of their convictions, to a relinquishment of many of their old sins, as Herod did upon the preaching of John Baptist, but are never truly and savingly humbled for sin absolutely. Their lives are changed, but their hearts are not renewed. And their renunciation of sin is always partial; whereof before. There are many other ways whereby men deceive their souls in this matter, which I must not now insist upon. Secondly, This repentance, in the nature and kind of it, is a duty to be continued in the whole course of our lives. It ceaseth as unto those especial acts which belong unto our initiation into a gospel-state; but it abides as to our orderly preservation therein. There must be no end of repentance until there is a full end of sin. All tears will not be wiped from our eyes until all sin is perfectly removed from our souls. Now repentance, in this sense, may be considered two ways: — 1. As it is a stated, constant duty of the gospel; 2. As it is occasional: —1. As it is stated, it is our humble, mournful walking with God, under a sense of sin, continually manifesting itself in our natures and infirmities. And the acts of this repentance in us are of two sorts: —(1.) Direct and immediate;(2.) Consequential and dependent, The former may be referred unto two heads: —[1. Confession;[2. Humiliation.These a truly penitent soul will be continually exercised in. He whose heart is so lifted up, on any pretense, as not to abide in the constant exercise of these acts of repentance, is one whom the soul of God hath no delight in. The other, which are immediate acts of faith, but inseparable from these, are, [1. Supplications for the pardon of sin; [2. Diligent watchfulness against sin. It is evident how great a share of our walking with God consists in these things, which yet I must not enlarge upon. 2. This continued repentance is occasional, when it is heightened unto a singular solemnity. And these occasions may be referred unto three heads: — (1.) A personal surprisal into any great actual sin. Such an occasion is not to be passed over with the ordinary actings of repentance. David, upon his fall, brings his renewed repentance into that solemnity, as if it had been his first conversion to God. On that account he deduceth his personal sins from the sin of his nature, Psalms 51:5, besides many other circumstances whereby he gave it an extraordinary solemnity. So Peter, upon the denial of his Master, “wept bitterly;” which, with his following humiliation and the renovation of his faith, our Savior calls his conversion, Luke 22:32, — a new conversion of him who was before really converted. There is nothing more dangerous unto our spiritual state, than to pass by particular instances of sin with the general duties of repentance.(2.) The sin or sins of the family or church whereunto we are related, calls unto us to give a solemnity unto this duty, 2 Corinthians 7:11. The church having failed in the business of the incestuous offender, when they were convinced by the apostle of their sinful miscarriage therein, most solemnly renewed their repentance towards God.(3.) Afflictions and sore trials call for this duty, as we may see in the issue of all things between God and Job, Job 42:6.And lastly, we may observe, that this repentance is a grace of the Spirit of Christ, a gospel grace; and therefore, whatever unpleasantness there may be in its exercise unto the flesh, it is sweet, refreshing, satisfactory, and secretly pleasant, unto the inner man. Let us not be deterred from abiding and abounding in this duty. It is not a morose, tetrical, severe self- maceration, but a humble, gracious, mournful walking with God, wherein the soul finds rest, sweetness, joy, and peace, being rendered thereby compliant with the will of God, and benign, useful, kind, compassionate, towards men, as might be declared. The necessity of a profession of this repentance from dead works in order unto an admission into the society of the church, that an evidence be given of the power and efficacy of the doctrine of Christ in the souls of men, that his disciples may be visibly separated by their own profession from the world that lies in evil, and be fitted for communion among themselves in love, hath been elsewhere spoken unto. The second instance of the doctrinal foundation supposed to be laid among the Hebrews, is “of faith towards God.” And this principle, with that foregoing, are coupled together by the conjunctive particle καί, — “of repentance and of faith.” Neither ought they to be, nor can they be severed. Where the one is, there is the other; and where either is not, there is neither, whatever be pretended. He repenteth not who hath not faith towards God; and he hath no faith towards God who repenteth not. And in this expression, where repentance is first placed, and faith in God afterwards, only the distinction that is between them, but neither an order of nature in the things themselves, nor a necessary order in the teaching of them, is intended. For in order of nature “faith towards God” must precede “repentance from dead works” No man can use any argument to prevail with others unto repentance, but it must be taken from the word of the law or the gospel, the precepts, promises, and threatenings of them. If there be no faith towards God with respect unto these things, whence should repentance from dead works arise, or how can the necessity of it be demonstrated? Besides, that the order of nature among the things themselves is not here intended is evident from hence, in that the very last principles mentioned, concerning “the resurrection from the dead and eternal judgment,” are the principal motives and arguments unto the very first of them, or the necessity of repentance, as our apostle declares fully, Acts 17:30-31. But there is some kind of order between these things with respect unto profession intended. For no man can or ought to be esteemed to make a due profession of faith towards God, who does not first declare his repentance from dead works. Nor can any other have the comfort of faith in God, but such as have in themselves some evidence of the sincerity of their repentance.Wherefore, omitting any further consideration of the order of these things, we must inquire what is here intended by “faith in God.” Now this cannot be faith in the most general notion of it; because it is reckoned as a principle of the doctrine of Christ, but faith in God absolutely taken is a duty of the law of nature. Upon an acknowledgment of the being of God, it is thereby required that we believe in him as the first eternal truth; that we submit unto him and trust in him, as the sovereign Lord, the judge and rewarder of all. And a defect herein was the beginning of Adam’s transgression. Wherefore faith in this sense cannot be called a principle of the doctrine of Christ, which wholly consists in supernatural revelations. Nor can it be so termed with respect unto the Jews in particular. For in their Judaism they were sufficiently taught faith in God, and needed not to have been instructed therein as a part of the doctrine of Christ. And there is a distinction put by our Savior himself between that faith in God which they had, and the peculiar faith in himself which he required: John 14:1, “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.” Besides, where these two, repentance and faith, are elsewhere joined together, as they are frequently, it is an especial sort of faith in God that is intended. See Luke 24:46-47; Acts 19:4; Acts 20:21.It is therefore faith in God as accomplishing the promise unto Abraham in sending Jesus Christ, and granting pardon or remission of sins by him, that is intended. The whole is expressed by, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel,” Mark 1:15; that is, the tidings of the accomplishment of the promise made to the fathers for the deliverance of us from all our sins by Jesus Christ. This is that which was pressed on the Hebrews by Peter in his first sermon unto them, Acts 2:38-39; Acts 3:25-26. Hence these two principles are expressed, by “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” Acts 20:21. As repentance is here described by the “terminus a quo,” — it is “repentance from dead works;” so there it is described by its “terminus ad quem,” — it is “repentance toward God,” in our turning unto him. For those who live in their lusts and sins, do it not only against the command of God, but also they place them, as to their affections and expectation of satisfaction, in the stead of God. And this faith in God is there called, by way of explication, “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;” that is, as him in whose giving and sending the truth of God was fulfilled, and by whom we believe in God, 1 Peter 1:21. This, therefore, is the faith in God here intended; namely, that whereby we believe the accomplishment of his promise, in sending his Son Jesus Christ to die for us, and to save us from our sins. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Καὶτοῦτοποιήσομεν, ἐανπερἐπιτρέπῃὁΘεός. [2] [2] Various Reading. — Manuscripts A C D E read ποιήσωμεν. — ED. And this will we do, if so be that God permit. These words contain two things: — 1. The resolution of the apostle as to the matter and occasion before him: “And this will we do.”2. A limitation of that resolution by an express submission to the will and pleasure of God: “If so be that God permit.”As to the sense of the First, it is plain that the apostle in the foregoing verses had proposed or mentioned two things of very diverse natures. The first whereof is, “going on to perfection;” and the other, the “laying again of the foundation,” verse 1. Hence it is doubted and inquired whether of these it be that the apostle hath respect unto in these words, “And this will we do.”“This will we do;” that is either, “We will go on to perfection,” which was exhorted unto, verse 1, and so is the more remote antecedent; or “This will we do, laying again the foundation,” which is the next antecedent, whereunto τοῦτο seems to relate. And this sundry expositors adhere unto. But there are some things which make it evident that respect is had herein to the former and more remote antecedent, namely, “going on to perfection.” And they are, first, what the apostle saith, and then what he doth.1. In what he saith, his manner of expressing these things is considerable; for as to the latter, he twice intimates his intention to omit their further handling: “Therefore leaving,” or at present omitting, “the principles of the doctrine of Christ;” and, “not laying again the foundation,” verse 1. Hereunto if we refer these words, “And this will we do, if God permit,” they rather signify the present leaving of them than their further handling; and he not only declares his resolution to omit them, but also gives a sufficient reason why he would do so. And this is expressed in the last verses of the chapter foregoing. They had already had both time and means sufficient for their instruction in these principles: so that to inculcate them on those by whom they were learned and received was needless; and for those who had either not received them or rejected them, it was to no purpose further to treat with them about these things; which he confirms with a severe reason and dreadful consideration, verses 4-8. But things are otherwise expressed concerning the other antecedent. He speaks of it positively as that which was in his purpose and design. ‘“Let us,” saith he, “go on to perfection,” I in teaching, you in learning; “and this will we do, if God permit.”’ 2. His intention is no less evident from what he doth in this epistle. There is, indeed, in this chapter and the last chapter of it, mention made about repentance, faith, patience, obedience, the worship of God, and the like; but not as principles of doctrine, to be laid as a foundation, but as graces to be practiced in the course of their edification. But the main business he undertakes, and the work which he pursues, is the carrying on of these Hebrews to perfection by the declaration of the most sublime mysteries of the gospel, especially that which is among the chiefest of them, namely, the priesthood of Christ, and the prefiguration of it by that of Melchisedec. The whole series of this discourse depends on Hebrews 5:10-11. Having declared unto them that he had many things to instruct them in concerning the priesthood of Christ, as shadowed out in the person and office of Melchisedec, he lets them know that he had also sundry discouragements in his design; which yet were not such but that he would break through them and pursue his intention. Only, to make his way as smooth and plain as conveniently he could, he deals with them a while about the removal of those hinderances which lay in his way on their part, and then returneth directly to his first proposal, and the handling of it, in the last verse of this chapter. This, therefore, is the sense of these words:‘For the reasons before insisted on, and afterwards to be added, I will proceed unto the declaration of the principal mysteries of the gospel, especially those which concern the priesthood of Christ; and thereby raise up the building of your faith and profession upon the foundation that hath been laid; whereby, through the grace of God, you may be carried on to perfection, and become skillful in the word of righteousness.’ Obs. 1. No discouragements should deter the ministers of the gospel from proceeding in the declaration of the mysteries of Christ, whose dispensation is committed unto them, when they are called thereunto. — Among the various discouragements they meet withal, the least is not what ariseth from the dulness of them that hear. This our apostle had now in his eye in a particular manner, yet resolved to break through the consideration of it in the discharge of his duty. So it is with many still. Neither is any thing more irksome and grievous unto faithful preachers, than the incapacity of their hearers to receive gospel mysteries through their own negligence and sloth. But in this condition they have here an example for their guidance and direction. And these things lie plain therein: 1. That they use all means, by warnings, persuasions, encouragements, and threatenings, to stir up their people out of their slothful, careless frame and temper. So doth our apostle with the Hebrews in this chapter, leaving nothing unsaid that might excite them unto diligence and a due improvement. of the means of knowledge which they enjoyed. So will they do with them that “watch for their souls as those who must give an account;” and ministers of another sort have no concern in these matters.2. As occasion offers itself, to proceed in their work. And that, —(1.) Because there are among their hearers some concerning whom they are “persuaded of better things, and such as accompany salvation,” as our apostle speaks, verse 9, whose edification is not to be neglected for the sinful sloth and ignorance of others.(2.) God is pleased sometimes to convey saving light to the minds of men, before very dark and ignorant, in and by the dispensation of the deepest mysteries of the gospel, without such preparatory instruction in the more obvious principles of it as is ordinarily required. Not knowing, therefore, by what ways or means, how or when, God will work upon the souls of men, it is their duty to proceed in the declaration of the whole counsel of God committed unto them, and leave the success of all unto Him by whom they are employed. Secondly, The limitation of this resolution is expressed in those words, ᾿᾿ΕάνπερἐπιτρέπῃὁΘεός, — “If God permit.” There may be a threefold occasion of these words, or a respect unto three things in the will of God, and consequently a threefold ‘exposition of them. For, —1. Respect may be had merely and solely unto the unknown sovereign will and pleasure of God, and so no more is intended but that general limitation and expression of our absolute dependence on him, which we ought to bound all our resolutions withal. This our nature, and the nature of all our affairs, as they are in the hand of God, and at his disposal, do require of us. And therefore also it is expressly enjoined us, as a duty to be continually minded in all we undertake or do, James 4:13-15. If this be intended (as it is also, if not only), then it is as if he had said, ‘If He in whose hand are my life, and breath, and all my ways, whose I am, whom I serve, and to whose disposal I willingly submit myself in all things, see good, and be pleased to continue my life, opportunity, his assistance, and all other things necessary to this work, I will proceed with my design and purpose to acquaint you with and instruct you in the great mysteries of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ.’See 1 Corinthians 16:7.2. Respect may be had unto the condition of the Hebrews, whose sloth and negligence in hearing the word he hath now under reproof, and the will or purpose of God concerning them. For he seems to intimate unto them that there may be some fear lest God should be so provoked by their former miscarriages as that he would not afford them the means of further instruction. For this is a thing which God often threatens, and which falls out oftener than we are aware of, yea, most nations of the earth are examples of this severity of God. So a word of the stone importance is used unto this purpose, as to the turning away of the gospel from any persons or people, Acts 16:7, “They assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not,” — he permitted it not; which is the same with forbidding them to preach the word in Asia, verse 6. And so the sense of the expression amounts to this, ‘If God, whom I fear you have much provoked by your negligence and contempt of his word, will yet exercise patience and long-suffering towards you, and not east you out of his care by forbidding me to proceed in my design, or depriving me of my opportunity, — if God hinder me not by reason of your unworthiness, but be graciously pleased to be with me in my designed work.’ 3. There is a μείωσις in the words, wherein a further respect unto the will of God is included rather than expressed. For it is not a mere naked permission in God that the apostle intends, as if he should have said, ‘If God let me alone, and, as it were, wink at what I am doing.’But there is a supposition in it of the continuance of God’s gracious assistance and especial presence with him; without which he frequently declared that he could neither undertake nor accomplish any thing that lay before him. God can, in the beginning or middle of an epistle or a sermon, take us off when he pleaseth, if he do but withdraw his assistance from us. And all these respects unto the will of God are not only consistent, so as that the closing with one excludeth not another, but they are all of them plainly included in the apostle’s intention, and are necessary to be taken in unto the right understanding of his words. Obs. 2. As it is our duty to submit ourselves in all our undertakings unto the will of God, so especially in those wherein his glory is immediately concerned. — In general we have a rule given us as to the most ordinary occasions of life, James 4:13-15. Not to do it, is to disavow our dependence on God; a fruit of carnal wisdom and security which God greatly abhorreth. Neither is there any thing which will so fill our lives with disappointment and vexation; for in vain shall any man, be his condition at present what it will, seek for rest or peace in any thing but the will of God. But especially is this required of us in those things wherein the glory of God himself is immediately concerned. Such are those here, with respect whereunto our apostle makes this deference unto the sovereign pleasure of God, “This will we do, if God permit,” — namely, the things which concern the instruction and edification of the church, which regard the glory of God in an especial manner. For, — 1. All these things are under the especial care of God, and are ordered by peculiar wisdom. Not to submit ourselves absolutely in these things unto him, is to take his own things out of his hand, and to exalt our wisdom against his, as though we knew better what belonged unto his affairs than himself.2. We come not to have any concernment in the things of God but upon his call, and hold it at his pleasure. That is the rise and tenor of our ministry in the church, whatever it be. And is it not just and equal that we should wholly submit in our work unto his will, and rest in his pleasure? It may be we have many things in our view that are desirable unto us, many things we would think meet to engage our endeavors in, as supposing them to have a great tendency to the glory of God, in all which he hath determined contrary to our desires and aims. All our satisfaction lies in, and all our duty is to be bounded by, this submission. Obs. 3. Let them who are intrusted with means of light, knowledge, and grace, improve them with diligence, lest, upon their neglect, God suffer not his ministers further to instruct them. ῞Αδύνατονγάρτοὺςἅπαξφωτισθέντας, γευσαμένουςτετῆςδωρεᾶςτῆςἐπουρανίου, καὶμετόχουςγενηθένταςΠνεύματοςἁγίου, καὶκαλὸνγευσαμένουςΘεοῦῥῆμα, δυνάμειςτεμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος, καὶπαραπεσόντας, πάλινἀνακαινίζεινεἰςμετάνοιαν, ἀνασταυροῦνταςἐαυτοῖςτὸνΨἱὸντοῦΘεοῦκαὶπαραδειγματίζοντας.᾿Αδύνατονγάρ, “impossibile enim;” that is, “est,” — “it is impossible.” Syr., ΰֶ ?μָּ ?ΰμָ ?ΰξֶ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?ηִ ?ιο, “but they cannot.” This respects the power of the persons themselves, and not the event of things; it may be not improperly as to the sense. Beza and Erasmus, “fieri non potest,”” it cannot be.” The same with “impossible;” but the use of the word ἀδύνατον in the New Testament, which signifies sometimes only what is very difficult, not what is absolutely denied, makes it useful to retain the same word as in our translation, “for it is impossible.”Τοὺςἅπαξφωτισθέντας. Syr, δָ ?πεּ ?ογָּ ?ηֲ ?γָ ?ΰζְ ?αַ ?ομְ ?ξַ ?ςֲ ?ξεּ ?γִ ?ιϊָ ?ΰπְ ?ηֵ ?ϊεּ, “those who one time” (or “once”) “descended unto baptism;” of which interpretation we must speak afterwards. All others, “qui semel fuerint illuminati,” “who were once illuminated.” Only the Ethiopic follows the Syriac. Some read “illustrati,” to the same purpose.Γευσαμένουςτετῆςδωρεᾶςτῆςἐπουρανίου. Vulg. Lat., “gustaverant etiam donum coeleste;” “etiam” for “et” Others express the article by the pronoun, by reason of its reduplication: “Et gustaverint donum illud coeleste,” “and have tasted of that heavenly gift.” Syr., “the gift that is from heaven.” And this the emphasis in the original seems to require. “And have tasted of that heavenly gift.” Και, μετόχουςγενηθένταςΠςεύματοςἁγίου. “Et participes facti sunt Spiritus Sancti,” Vulg. Lat.; “and are made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” All others, “facti fuerint,” “have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” Syr., γְּ ?χεּ ?γְ ?ωָׁ ?ΰψεּ ?ηָ ?ΰ, “the Spirit of holiness.”ΚαὶκαλὸνγευσαμένουςΘεοῦῥῆμα. Vulg. Lat., “et gustaverunt nihilominus bonum Dei verbum.” Rhem., “have moreover tasted the good word of God.” But “moreover” doth not express “nihilominus;” [it must be rendered] “and have notwithstanding,” which hath no place here. Καλὸνῥῆμα, “verbum pulchrum.”Δυνάμειςτεμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος. “Virtutesque seculi futuri.” Syr., ηιְ ?μָ ?ΰ, “vir-tutem,” “the power.” Vulg., “seculi venturi.” We cannot in our language distinguish between “futurum” and “venturum,” and so render it, “the world to come.” Καὶπαραπεσόντας. Vulg., “et prolapsi sunt.” Rhem., “and are fullen.” Others, “si prolabantur;” which the sense requires, — “if they fall,” that is, “away,” as our translation, properly. Syr., γְּ ?ϊεּ ?απֶ ?ηְ ?θεּ ?ο, “that sin again;” somewhat dangerously, for it is one kind of sinning only that is included and expressed.Πάλινἀνακαινίζεινεἰςμετάνοιαν. Vulg, “rursus renovari ad poenitentmm, “to be renewed again to repentance,” rendering the active verb passively. So Beza also, “ut denuo renoventur ad resipiscentiam;” “that they should again be renewed to repentance.” The word is active as rendered by ours, “to renew them again to repentance.”ΑνασταυροῦνταςἑαυτοῖςτὸνΥἱὸντοῦΘεοῦ. “Rursum crucifigentes sibimetipsis Filium Dei.” Καὶπαραδειγματίζοντας. Vulg., “et ostentui habentes.” Rhem., “and making him a mockery.” Eras., “ludibrio habentes.” Beza, “ignominim exponentes.” One of late, “ad exemplum Judaeorum excruciant;” “torment him as did the Jews.” [3] [3] Exposition. — Turner holds that these verses “describe a true Christian condition and character, and recognize the danger, and of course the possibility, of falling therefrom irrecoverably.” The verses, as Owen shows, in his remarks on them in his work on the Perseverance of the Saints, present no small difficulty, even if interpreted according to the Arminian principle of the possible defectibility of the saints; for they would thus imply not merely that a saint may fall away, but, — what no Arminian holds, or at least can hold consistently, — that, once falling away, he cannot be renewed. Doddridge appears to lean to the exegesis of Owen, expounding the privileges and attainments mentioned as not implying a state of grace. Stuart differs from them, and admits that true believers are intended by the apostle, but meets the difficulty thus: “Whatever may be true in the divine purposes, as to the final salvation of all those who are once truly regenerated, — and this doctrine I feel constrained to admit, — yet nothing can be plainer than that the sacred writers have everywhere addressed saints in the same manner as they would address those whom they considered as constantly exposed to fall away and to perish for ever.....God treats Christians as free agents, as rational beings; he guards them against defection, not by mere physical power, but by moral means adapted to their nature as free and rational agents.” — Ed. Hebrews 6:4-6. — For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they fall away [for any] to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify again to themselves the Son of God, and put him unto open shame [or treat him ignominiously].That this passage in our apostle’s discourse hath been looked upon as accompanied with great difficulties is known to all; and many have the differences been about its interpretation. For, both doctrinally and practically, sundry have here stumbled and miscarried. It is almost generally agreed upon, that from these words, and the colorable but indeed perverse interpretation and application made of them by some in the primitive times, occasioned by the then present circumstances of things, to be mentioned afterwards, the Latin church was so backward in receiving the epistle itself, that it had not absolutely prevailed therein in the days of Jerome, as we have elsewhere declared. Wherefore it is necessary that we should a little inquire into the occasion of the great contests which have been in the church, almost in all ages, about the sense of this place. It is known that the primitive church, according to its duty, was carefully watchful about the holiness and upright walking of all that were admitted into the society and fellowship of it. Hence, upon every known and visible failing, they required an open repentance from the offenders before they would admit them unto a participation of the sacred mysteries. But upon flagitious and scandalous crimes, such as murder, adultery, or idolatry, in many churches they would never admit those who had been guilty of them into their communion any more. Their greatest and most signal trial was with respect unto them who, through fear of death, complied with the Gentiles in their idolatrous worship in the time of persecution. For they had fixed no certain general rules whereby they Should unanimously proceed, but every church exercised severity or lenity, according as they saw cause, upon the circumstances of particular instances. Hence Cyprian, in his banishment, would not positively determine concerning those of the church in Carthage who had so sinned and fallen, but deferred his thoughts until his return; when he resolved to advise with the whole church, and settle all things according to the counsel that should be agreed on amongst them. Yea, many of his epistles are on this subject peculiarly; and in them all, if compared together, it is evident that there was no rule agreed upon herein; nor was he himself resolved in his own mind, though strictly on all occasions opposing Novatianus; wherein it had been well if his arguments had answered his zeal. Before this, the church of Rome was esteemed in particular more remiss in their discipline, and more free than other churches in their re-admission unto communion of notorious offenders. Hence Tertullian, in his book de Poenitentia, reflects on Zephyrinus, the bishop of Rome, that he had admitted adulterers unto repentance, and thereby unto the communion of the church. [4] [4] See quotations from Tertullian, and others, in works, vol. 7. p. 14. — Ed. But that church proceeding in her lenity, and every day enlarging her charity, Novatus and Novatianus taking offense thereat, advanced an opinion on the contrary extreme. For they denied all hope of church pardon, or of a return unto ecclesiastical communion, unto them who had fallen into open sin after baptism; and, in especial, peremptorily excluded all persons whatsoever who had outwardly complied with idolatrous worship in time of persecution, without respect unto any distinguishing circumstances. Yea, they seem to have excluded them from all expectation of forgiveness from God himself. But their followers, terrified with the uncharitableness and horror of this persuasion, tempered it so far as that, leaving all persons absolutely to the mercy of God upon their repentance, they only denied such as we mentioned before a re-admission into church communion, as Acesius speaks expressly in Socrates, lib. 1. cap. 7. Now this opinion they endeavored to confirm, as from the nature and use of baptism, which was not to be reiterated, whereon they judged that no pardon was to be granted unto them who fell into those sins which they lived in before, and were cleansed from at their baptism; so principally from this place of our apostle, wherein they thought their whole opinion was taught and confirmed. And so usually doth it fall out, very unhappily, with men who think they see some peculiar opinion or persuasion in some singular text of Scripture, and will not bring their interpretations of it unto the analogy of faith, whereby they might see how contrary it is to the whole design and current of the word in other places. But the church of Rome, on the other side, though judging rightly, from other directions given in the Scripture, that the Novatians transgressed the rule of charity and gospel discipline in their severities, yet, as it should seem, and is very probable, knew not how to answer the objection from this place of our apostle: therefore did they rather choose for a season to suspend their assent unto the authority of the whole epistle, than to prejudice the church by its admission. And well was it that some learned men afterward, by their sober interpretations of the words, plainly evinced that no countenance was given in them unto the errors of the Novatians; for without this it is much to be feared that some would have preferred their interest in their present controversy before the authority of it: which would, in the issue, have proved ruinous to the truth itself; for the epistle, being designed of God unto the common edification of the church, would at length have prevailed, whatever sense men, through their prejudices and ignorance, should put upon any passages of it. But this controversy is long since buried; the generality of the churches in the world being sufficiently remote from that which was truly the mistake of the Novatians, yea, the most of them do bear peaceably in their communion, without the least exercise of gospel discipline towards them, such persons as concerning whom the dispute was of old whether they should ever in this world be admitted into the communion of the church, although upon their open and professed repentance. We shall not, therefore, at present need to labor in this controversy. But the sense of these words hath been the subject of great contests on other occasions also. For some do suppose and contend that they are real and true believers who are deciphered by the apostle, and that their character is given us in and by sundry inseparable adjuncts and properties of such persons. Hence they conclude that such believers may totally and finally fall from grace, and perish eternally. Yea, it is evident that this hypothesis, of the final apostasy of true believers, is that which influenceth their minds and judgments to suppose that such are here intended. Wherefore others, who will not admit that, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace in Christ Jesus, true believers can perish everlastingly, do say, that either they are not here intended, or if they are, the words are only comminatory, wherein although the consequence in them in a way of arguing be true, — namely, that on the supposition laid down, the inference is certain, — yet the supposition is not asserted in order unto a certain consequent, whence it should follow that true believers might so really fall away and absolutely perish. And these things have been the matter of many contests among learned men. Again; there have been sundry mistakes in the practical application of the intention of these words unto the consciences of men, mostly made by themselves who are concerned. For whereas, by reason of sin, they have been surprised with terrors and troubles of conscience, they have withal, in their darkness and distress, supposed themselves to be fallen into the condition here described by our apostle, and consequently to be irrecoverably lost. And these apprehensions usually befall men on two occasions. For some having been overtaken with some great actual sin against the second table, after they have made a profession of the gospel, and having their consciences harassed with a sense of their guilt (as it will fall out where men are not greatly hardened through the deceitfulness of sin), they judge that they are fallen under the sentence denounced in this scripture against such sinners as they suppose themselves to be, whereby their state is irrecoverable. Others do make the same judgment of themselves, because they have fallen from that constant compliance with their convictions which formerly led them unto a strict performance of duties, and this in some course of long continuance. Now, whereas it is certain that the apostle in this discourse gives no countenance unto the severity of the Novatians, whereby they excluded offenders everlastingly from the peace and communion of the church; nor to the final apostasy of true believers, which he testifieth against in this very chapter, in compliance with innumerable other testimonies of Scripture to the same purpose; nor doth he teach any thing whereby the conscience of any sinner who desires to return to God, and to find acceptance with him, should be discouraged or disheartened; we must attend unto the exposition of the words in the first place, so as not to break in upon the boundaries of other truths, nor transgress against the analogy of faith. And we shall find that this whole discourse, compared with other scriptures, and freed from the prejudices that men have brought unto it, is both remote from administering any just occasion to the mistakes before- mentioned, and is a needful, wholesome commination, duly to be considered by all professors of the gospel. In the words we consider, — 1. The connection of them unto those foregoing, intimating the occasion of the introduction of this whole discourse. 2. The subject described in them, or the persons spoken of, under sundry qualifications, which may be inquired into jointly and severally. 3. What is supposed concerning them. 4. What is affirmed of them on that supposition.FIRST, The connection of the words is included in the causal conjunction, γὰρ, “for.” It respects the introduction of a reason, for what had been before discoursed, as also of the limitation which the apostle added expressly unto his purpose of making a progress in their further instruction, “If God permit.” And he doth not herein express his judgment that they to whom he wrote were such as he describes, for he afterwards declares that he “hoped better things concerning them;” only it was necessary to give them this caution, that they might take due care not to be such. And whereas he had manifested theft they were slow as to the making of a progress in knowledge and a suitable practice, he lets them here know the danger that there was in continuing in that slothful condition. For not to proceed in the ways of the gospel, and obedience thereunto, is an untoward entrance into a total relinquishment of the one and the other. That therefore they might be acquainted with the danger hereof, and be stirred up to avoid that danger, he gives them an account of those who, after a profession of the gospel, beginning at a non-proficiency under it, do end in apostasy from it. And we may see, that the severest comminations are not only useful in the preaching of the gospel, but exceeding necessary towards persons that are observed to be slothful in their profession. , The description of the persons that are the subject spoken of is given in five instances of the evangelical privileges whereof they were made partakers; notwithstanding all which, and against their obliging efficacy to the contrary, it is supposed that they may wholly desert the gospel itself. And some things we may observe concerning this description of them in general; as, —1. The apostle, designing to express the fearful state and judgment of these persons, describes them by such things as may fully evidence it to be, as unavoidable, so righteous and equal. Those things must be some evident privileges and advantages, whereof they were made partakers by the gospel. These being despised in their apostasy, do proclaim their destruction from God to be rightly deserved.2. That all these privileges do consist in certain especial operations of the Holy Ghost, which were peculiar unto the dispensation of the gospel, such as they neither were nor could be made partakers of in their Judaism. For the Spirit,” in this sense, was not “received by the works of the law, but by the hearing of faith,” Galatians 2:2; and this was a testimony unto them that they were delivered from the bondage of the law, namely, by a participation of that Spirit which was the great privilege of the gospel.3. Here is no express mention of any covenant grace or mercy in them or towards them, nor of any duty of faith or obedience which they had performed. Nothing of justification, sanctification, or adoption, is expressly assigned unto them. Afterwards, when he comes to declare his hope and persuasion concerning these Hebrews, that they were not such as those whom he had before described, nor such as would so fall away unto perdition, he doth it upon three grounds, whereon they were differenced from them: as, —(1.) That they had such things as did “accompany salvation;” that is, such as salvation is inseparable from. None of these things, therefore, had he ascribed unto those whom he describeth in this place; for if he had so done, they would not have been unto him an argument and evidence of a contrary end, that these should not fall away and perish as well as those. Wherefore he ascribes nothing to these here in the text that doth peculiarly “accompany salvation,” Hebrews 6:9. (2.) He describes them by their duties of obedience and fruits of faith. This was their “work and labor of love” towards the name of God, verse 10. And hereby, also, doth he difference them from these in the text, concerning whom he supposeth that they may perish eternally, which these fruits of saving faith and sincere love cannot do.(3.) He adds, that in the preservation of those there mentioned the faithfulness of God was concerned: “God is not unrighteous to forget.” For they were such he intended as were interested in the covenant of grace, with respect whereunto alone there is any engagement on the faithfulness or righteousness of God to preserve men from apostasy and ruin; and there is so with an equal respect unto all who are so taken into the covenant. But of these in the text he supposeth no such thing; and thereupon doth not intimate that either the righteousness or faithfulness of God was any way engaged for their preservation, but rather the contrary. The whole description, therefore, refers unto some especial gospel privileges, which professors in those days were promiscuously made partakers of; and what they were in particular we must in the next place inquire: — 1. The first thing in the description is, that they were ἅπαξφωτισθέντες, “once enlightened;” saith the Syriac translation, as we observed, “once baptized.” It is very certain that, early in the church, baptism was called φωτισμός, “illumination;” and φωτίζειν, “to enlighten,” was used for “to baptize.” And the set times wherein they solemnly administered that ordinance were called ἡμέραιτῶνφωτῶν, “the days of light.” Hereunto the Syriac interpreter seems to have had respect. And the word ἅπαξ, “once,” may give countenance hereunto. Baptism was once only to be celebrated, according to the constant faith of the churches in all ages. And they called baptism “illumination,” because it being one ordinance of the initiation of persons into a participation of all the mysteries of the church, they were thereby translated out of the kingdom of darkness into that of grace and light. And it seems to give further countenance hereunto, in that baptism really was the beginning and foundation of a participation of all the other spiritual privileges that are mentioned afterwards. For it was usual in those times, that upon the baptizing of persons, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and endowed them with extraordinary gifts, peculiar to the days of the gospel, as we have showed in our consideration of the order between “baptism” and “imposition of hands.” And this opinion hath so much of probability in it, having nothing therewithal unsuited to the analogy of faith or design of the place, that I should embrace it, if the word itself, as here used, did not require another interpretation. For it was a good while after the writing of this epistle, and all other parts of the New Testament, at least an age or two, if not more, before this word was used mystically to express baptism. In the whole Scripture it hath another sense, denoting an inward operation of the Spirit, and not the outward administration of an ordinance. And it is too much boldness, to take a word in a peculiar sense in one single place, diverse from its proper signification and constant use, if there be no circumstances in the text forcing us thereunto, as here are not. And for the word ἅπαξ, “once,” it is not to be restrained unto this particular, but refers equally unto all the instances that follow, signifying no more but that those mentioned were really and truly partakers of them.Φωτίζομαι, is “to give light or knowledge by teaching;” — the same with δεֹ ?ψֶ ?δ, which, therefore, is so translated ofttimes by the Greeks; as by Aquila, Exodus 4:12; Psalms 119:33; Proverbs 4:4; Isaiah 27:11, as Drusius observes. And it is so by the LXX., Judges 13:8; 2 Kings 12:2; 2 Kings 17:27. Our apostle useth it for “to make manifest;” that is, “bring to light,” 1 Corinthians 4:5, 2 Timothy 1:10. And the meaning of it, John 1:9, where we render it “lighteth,” is to teach. And φωτισμός is “knowledge upon instruction:” 2 Corinthians 4:4, Εἰςτὸμὴαὐγάσαιαὐτοῖςτὸνφωτισμὸντοῦεὐαγγελίου, — “That the light of the gospel should not shine into them;” that is, the knowledge of it. So 2 Corinthians 4:6, Πρὸςφωτισμὸντῆςγνώσεως, — “The light of the knowledge.” Wherefore to be “enlightened,” in this place, is to be instructed in the doctrine of the gospel, so as to have a spiritual apprehension thereof. And this is so termed on a double account: —(1.) Of the object, or the things known and apprehended. For “life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel,” 2 Timothy 1:10. Hence it is called “light;” “the inheritance of the saints in light.” And the state which men are thereby brought into is so called in opposition to the darkness that is in the world without it, 1 Peter 2:9. The world without the gospel is the kingdom of Satan: ῾Οκόσμοςὅλοςἐντῷπονηρῷκεῖται, 1 John 5:19. The whole of the world, and all that belongs unto it, in distinction and opposition unto the new creation, is under the power of the wicked one, the prince of the power of darkness, and so is full of darkness. It is τόποςαὐχμηρός, 2 Peter 1:19; — “a dark place,” wherein ignorance, folly, error, and superstition do dwell and reign. By the power and efficacy of this darkness are men kept at a distance from God, and know not whither they go. This is called “walking in darkness,” 1 John 1:6; whereunto “walking in the light,” that is, the knowledge of God in Christ by the gospel, is opposed, 1 John 1:7. On this account is our instruction in the knowledge of the gospel called “illumination,” because itself is light. (2.) On the account of the subject, or the mind itself, whereby the gospel is apprehended. For the knowledge which is received thereby expels that darkness, ignorance, and confusion, which the mind before was filled and possessed withal. The knowledge, I say, of the doctrine of the gospel, concerning the person of Christ, of God’s being in him reconciling the world unto himself, of his offices, work, and mediation, and the like heads of divine revelation, doth set up a spiritual light in the minds of men, enabling them to discern what before was utterly hid from them, whilst “alienated from the life of God through their ignorance.” Of this light and knowledge there are several degrees, according to the means of instruction which they do enjoy, the capacity they have to receive it, and the diligence they use to that purpose. But a competent measure of the knowledge of the fundamental and most material principles or doctrines of the gospel is required unto all that may thence be said to be illuminated; that is, freed from the darkness and ignorance they once lived in, 2 Peter 1:19-21.This is the first property whereby the persons intended are described; they are such as were “illuminated” by the instruction they had received in the doctrine of the gospel, and the impression made thereby on their minds by the Holy Ghost; for this is a common work of his, and is here so reckoned. And the apostle would have us know that, — Obs. 1. It is a great mercy, a great privilege, to be enlightened with the doctrine of the gospel, by the effectual working of the Holy Ghost. But, —Obs. 2. It is such a privilege as may be lost, and end in the aggravation of the sin, and condemnation of those who were made partakers of it. And, —Obs. 3. Where there is a total neglect of the due improvement of this privilege and mercy, the condition of such persons is hazardous, as inclining towards apostasy.Thus much lies open and manifest in the text. But that we may more particularly discover the nature of this first part of the character of apostates, for their sakes who may look after their own concernment therein, we may yet a little more distinctly express the nature of that illumination and knowledge which is ascribed unto them; and how it is lost in apostasy will afterwards appear. And, — (1.) There is a knowledge of spiritual things that is purely natural and disciplinary, attainable and attained without any especial aid or assistance of the Holy Ghost. As this is evident in common experience, so especially among such as, casting themselves on the study of spiritual things, are yet utter strangers unto all spiritual gifts. Some knowledge of the Scripture, and the things contained in it, is attainable at the same rate of pains and study with that of any other art or science.(2.) The illumination intended, being a gift of the Holy Ghost, differs from, and is exalted above this knowledge that is purely natural; for it makes nearer approaches unto the light of spiritual things in their own nature than the other doth. Notwithstanding the utmost improvement of scientifical notions that are purely rural, the things of the gospel, in their own nature, are not only unsuited to the wills and affections of persons endued with them, but are really foolishness unto their minds. And as unto that goodness and excellency which give desirableness unto spiritual things, this knowledge discovers so little of them, that most men hate the things which they profess to believe. But this spiritual illumination gives the mind some satisfaction, with delight and joy, in the things that are known. By that beam whereby it shines into darkness, although it be not fully comprehended, yet it represents the way of the gospel as a way of righteousness, 2 Peter 2:21, which reflects peculiar regard of it on the mind.Moreover, the knowledge that is merely natural hath little or no power upon the soul, either to keep it from sin or to constrain it unto obedience. There is not a more secure and profligate generation of sinners in the world than those who are under the sole conduct of it. But the illumination here intended is attended with efficacy, and doth effectually press in the conscience and whole soul unto an abstinence from sin, and the performance of all known duties. Hence persons under the power of it and its convictions do ofttimes walk blamelessly and uprightly in the world, so as not with the other to contribute unto the contempt of Christianity. Besides, there is such an alliance between spiritual gifts, that where any one of them doth reside, it hath assuredly others accompanying of it, or one way or other belonging unto its train, as is manifest in this place. Even a single talent is made up of many pounds. But the light and knowledge which is of a mere natural acquirement is solitary, destitute of the society and countenance of any spiritual gift whatever. And these things are exemplified unto common observation every day. (3.) There is a saving, sanctifying light and knowledge, which this spiritual illumination riseth not up unto; for though it transiently affects the mind with some glances of the beauty, glory, and excellency of spiritual things, yet it cloth not give that direct, steady, intuitive insight into them which is obtained by grace. See 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 4:6. Neither doth it renew, change, or transform the soul into a conformity unto the things known, by planting of them in the will and affections, as a gracious saving light doth, 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 6:17; Romans 12:2.These things I judged necessary to be added, to clear the nature of the first character of apostates. 2. The second thing asserted in the description of them is, that they have “tasted of the heavenly gift,” — γευσαμένουςτετῆςδωρεᾶςτῆςἐπουρανίου. The doubling of the article. gives emphasis to the expression. And we must quire,(1.) What is meant by the “heavenly gift;” and,(2.) What. by “tasting of it.”(1.) The “gift of God,” δωρεά, is either δόσις, “donatio,” or δώρημα, “donum.” Sometimes it is taken for the grant or giving itself, and sometimes for the thing given. In the first sense it is used, 2 Corinthians 9:15, Thanks be to God, ἐπὶτῇἀνεκδιηγήτῳαὐτοῦδωρεᾷ,” — “for his gift that cannot be declared;” that is, fully or sufficiently. Now this gift was his grant of a free, charitable, and bountiful spirit to the Corinthians, in ministering unto the poor saints. The grant hereof is called God’s gift. So is the gift of Christ used also, Ephesians 4:7, “According to the measure of the gift of Christ;” that is, according as he is pleased to give and grant of the fruits of the Spirit unto men. See Romans 5:15-17; Ephesians 2:7. Sometimes it is taken for the thing given, properly δῶρον or δώρημα, as James 1:17. So is used, John 4:10, “If thou knewest the gift of God, τὴνδωρεάντοῦΘεοῦ:” — “the gift of God;” that is, the thing given by him, or to be given by him. It is, as many judge, the person of Christ himself in that place which is intended. But the context makes plain that it is the Holy Ghost; for he is the “living water” which the Lord Jesus promiseth in that place to bestow. And so far as I can observe, δωρεά, “the gift,” with respect unto God, as denoting the thing given, is nowhere used but only to signify the Holy Ghost. And if it be so, the sense of this place is determined, Acts 2:38, “Ye shall receive,” τὴνδωρεὰντοῦἀγίουΠνεὺματος— “the gift of the Holy Ghost;” not that which he gives, but that which he is. Acts 8:20, “Thou hast thought δωρεὰντοῦΘεοῦ,” — “that the gift of God may be purchased with money;” that is, the power of the Holy Ghost in miraculous operations. So expressly, Acts 10:45; Acts 11:17. Elsewhere δωρεά, so far as I can observe, when respecting God, doth not signify the thing given, but the grant itself. The Holy Spirit is signally “the gift of God” under the new testament. And he is said to be ἐπουράνιος, “heavenly,” or from heaven. This may have respect unto his work and effect, — they are heavenly as opposed to carnal and earthly. But principally it regards his mission by Christ after his ascension into heaven, Acts 2:33. Being exalted, and having received the promise of the Father, he sent the Spirit. The promise of him was, that he should be sent “from heaven,” or “from above;” as God is saint to be “above,” which is the same with “heavenly,” Deuteronomy 4:39; 2 Chronicles 6:23; Job 31:28; Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 24:18. When he came upon the Lord Christ, to anoint him for his work, “the heavens were opened,” and he came from above, Matthew 2:16. So, Acts 2:2, at his first coming on the apostles, “there came a sound from heaven.” Hence he is said to be ἀποσταλεὶςοὐρανοῦ, — that is, to be ἡδωρεὰτοῦΘεοῦἐπουράνιος, “sent from heaven,” 1 Peter 1:12. Wherefore, although he may be said to be heavenly upon other accounts also, which therefore are not absolutely to be excluded, yet his being sent from heaven by Christ, after his ascension thither, and exaltation there, is principally here regarded. He, therefore, is this ἡδωρεὰἡἐπουράνιος, the “heavenly gift” here intended, though not absolutely, but with respect to an especial work. That which riseth up against this interpretation is, that the Holy Ghost is expressly mentioned in the next clause, “And were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” It is not therefore probable that he should be here also intended. Ans. [1. It is ordinary to have the same thing twice expressed in various words, to quicken the sense of them; and it is necessary it should be so when there are divers respects unto the same thing, as there are in this place. [2. The following clause may be exegetical of this, declaring more fully and plainly what is here intended, which is usual also in the Scriptures; so that nothing is cogent from this consideration to disprove an interpretation so suited to the sense of the place, and which the constant use of the word makes necessary to be embraced. But, — [3. The Holy Ghost is here mentioned as the great gift of the gospel times, as coming down from heaven, not absolutely, not as unto his person, but with respect unto an especial work, namely, the change of the whole state of religious worship in the church of God; whereas we shall see in the next words he is spoken of only with respect unto external, actual operations. But he was the great, the promised heavenly gift, to be bestowed under the new testament, by whom God would institute and ordain a new way, and new rites of worship, upon the revelation of himself and will in Christ. Unto him was committed the reformation of all things in the church, whose time was now come, Hebrews 9:10. The Lord Christ, when he ascended into heaven, left all things standing and continuing in religious worship as they had done from the days of Moses, though he had virtually put an end unto it [the Mosaical dispensation.] And he commanded his disciples that they should attempt no alteration therein until the Holy Ghost were sent from heaven to enable them thereunto, Acts 1:4-5. But when he came, as the great gift of God promised under the new testament, he removes all the carnal worship and ordinances of Moses, and that by the full revelation of the accomplishment of all that was signified by them, and appoints the new, holy, spiritual worship of the gospel, that was to succeed in their room. The Spirit of God, therefore, as bestowed for the introduction of the new gospel-state, in truth and worship, is “the heavenly gift” here intended. Thus our apostle warneth these Hebrews that they “turn not away from him who speaketh from heaven,” Hebrews 12:25; that is, Jesus Christ speaking in the dispensation of the gospel by “the Holy Ghost sent from heaven.” And there is an antithesis included herein between the law and the gospel; the former being given on earth, the latter being immediately from heaven. God in the giving of the law made use of the ministry of angels, and that on the earth; but he gave the gospel church- state by that Spirit which, although he worketh in men on the earth, and is said in every act or work to be sent from heaven, yet is still in heaven, and always speaketh from thence, as our Savior said of himself, with respect unto his divine nature, John 3:13.(2.) We may inquire what it is to “taste” of this heavenly gift. The expression of tasting is metaphorical, and signifies no more but to make a trial or experiment; for so we do by tasting, naturally and properly, of that which is tendered unto us to eat. We taste such things by the sense given us naturally to discern our food; and then either receive or refuse them, as we find occasion. It doth not, therefore, include eating, much less digestion and turning into nourishment of what is so tasted; for its nature being only thereby discerned, it may be refused, yea, though we like its relish and savor, upon some other consideration. Some have observed, that to taste is as much as to eat; as 2 Samuel 3:35, “I will not taste bread, or ought else.” But the meaning is, ‘I will not so much as taste it;’whence it was impossible he should eat it. And when Jonathan says he only tasted a little of the honey, 1 Samuel 14:29, it was an excuse and extenuation of what he had done. But it is unquestionably used for some kind of experience of the nature of things: Proverbs 31:18, “She tasteth that her merchandise is good;” or hath experience of it, from its increase. Psalms 34:8, “O taste and see that the LORD is good:” which Peter respects, 1 Peter 2:3, “If so be that ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious,” or found it so by experience. It is therefore properly to make an experiment or trial of any thing, whether it be received or refused; and is sometimes opposed to eating and digestion, as Matthew 27:34. That, therefore, which is ascribed unto these persons, is, that they had an experience of the power of the Holy Ghost, that gift of God, in the dispensation of the gospel, the revelation of the truth, and institution of the spiritual worship of it; of this state, and of the excellency of it, they had made some trial, and had some experience; — a privilege which all men were not made partakers of. And by this taste they were convinced that it was far more excellent than what they had been before accustomed unto; although now they had a mind to leave the finest wheat for their old acorns. Wherefore, although tasting contains a diminution in it, if compared with that spiritual eating and drinking, with that digestion of gospel truths, turning them into nourishment, which are in true believers; yet, absolutely considered, it denotes that apprehension and experience of the excellency of the gospel as administered by the Spirit, which is a great privilege and spiritual advantage, the contempt whereof will prove an unspeakable aggravation of the sin, and the remediless ruin of apostates. The meaning, then, of this character given concerning these apostates is, that they had some experience of the power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit from heaven, in gospel administrations and worship. For what some say of faith, it hath here no place; and what others affirm of Christ, and his being the gift of God, comes in the issue unto what we have proposed. And we may observe, further to clear the design of the apostle in this commination, that, — Obs. 1. All the gifts of God under the gospel are peculiarly heavenly, John 3:12, Ephesians 1:3; and that in opposition, — (1.) To earthly things, Colossians 3:1-2;(2.) To carnal ordinances, Hebrews 9:23. Let them beware by whom they are despised.Obs. 2. The Holy Ghost, for the revelation of the mysteries of the gospel, and the institution of the ordinances of spiritual worship, is the great “gift of God” under the new testament.Obs. 3. There is a goodness and excellency in this heavenly gift, which may be tasted or experienced in some measure by such as never receive them, in their life, power, and efficacy. They may taste, —(1.) Of the word in its truth, not its power;(2.) Of the worship of the church in its outward order, not its inward beauty;(3.) Of the gifts of the church, not its graces.Obs. 4. A rejection of the gospel, its truth and worship, after some experience had of their worth and excellency, is a high aggravation of sin, and a certain presage of destruction.3. The third property whereby these persons are described is added in these words, ΚαὶμετόχουςγενηθένταςΠνεύματοςἀγίου, — “And were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” This is placed in the middle or center of the privileges enumerated, two preceding it, and two following after, as that which is the root and animating principle of them all. They all are effects of the Holy Ghost, in his gifts or his graces, and so do depend on the participation of him. Now men do so partake of the Holy Ghost as they do receive him. And he may be received either as unto personal inhabitation or as unto spiritual operations. In the first way “the world cannot receive him,” John 14:17; where “the world” is opposed unto true believers, and therefore those here intended were not in that sense partakers of him. His operations respect his gifts. So to partake of him is to have a share, part, or portion, in what he distributes by way of spiritual gifts; in answer unto that expression,“All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing unto every man severally as he will,” 1 Corinthians 12:11.So Peter told Simon the magician, that he had no part in spiritual gifts, he was not partaker of the Holy Ghost, Acts 8:21. Wherefore to be “partaker of the Holy Ghost,” is to have a share in and benefit of his spiritual operations.But whereas the other things mentioned are also gifts or operations of the Holy Ghost, on what ground or for what reason is this mentioned here in particular, that they were made partakers of him, which if his operations only be intended, seems to be expressed in the other instances? Ans. (1.) It is, as we observed before, no unusual thing in the Scripture to express the same thing under various notions, the more effectually to impress a consideration and sense of it on our mind, especially where an expression hath a singular emphasis in it, as this hath here used; for it is an exceeding aggravation of the sins of those apostates, that in these things they were partakers of the Holy Ghost.(2.) As was before intimated, also, this participation of the Holy Ghost is placed, it may be, in the midst of the several parts of this description, as that whereon they do all depend, and they are all but instances of it. They were “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” in that they were “once enlightened;” and so of the rest.(3.) It expresseth their own personal interest in these things. They had an interest in the things mentioned not only objectively, as they were proposed and presented to them in the church, but subjectively, — they themselves in their own persons were made partakers of them. It is one thing for a man to have a share in and benefit by the gifts of the church, another to be personally himself endowed with them. (4.) To mind them in an especial manner of the privileges they enjoyed under the gospel, above what they had in their Judaism; for whereas then they had not so much as heard that there was a Holy Ghost, — that is, a blessed dispensation of him in spiritual gifts, Acts 19:2, — now they themselves in their own persons were made partakers of him; than which there could be no greater aggravation of their apostasy. And we may observe in our way, that, —Obs. The Holy Ghost is present with many as unto powerful operations, with whom he is not present as to gracious inhabitation; or, many are made partakers of him in his spiritual gifts who are never made partakers of him in his saving graces, Matthew 7:22-23. 4. It is added, fourthly, in the description, that they had “tasted καλὸνΘεοῦῥῆμα, — the good word of God.” And we must inquire, —(1.) What is meant by “the word of God;”(2.) How it is said to be “good;” and,(3.) In what sense they “tasted” of it.(1.) ῾Ρῆμα is properly “verbum dictum,” “a word spoken;” and although it be sometimes used in another sense by our apostle, and by him alone, — Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 11:3, where it denotes the effectual active power of God, — yet both the signification of the word and its principal use elsewhere denote words spoken; and when applied unto God, his word as preached and declared. See Romans 10:17, John 6:68. The word of God, that is the word of the gospel as preached, is that which they thus tasted of. But it may be said, that they enjoyed the word of God in their state of Judaism. They did so, as to the written word; for “unto them were committed the oracles of God,” Romans 3:2; but it is the word of God as preached in the dispensation of the gospel that is eminently thus called, and concerning which such excellent things are spoken, Romans 1:16; Acts 20:32; James 1:21.(2.) The word is said to be καλόν, “good,” desirable, amiable, as the word here used signifieth. Wherein it is so we shall see immediately. But whereas the word of God preached under the dispensation of the gospel may be considered two ways: —[1. In general, as to the whole system of truths contained therein; and [2. In especial, for the declaration made of the accomplishment of the promise in sending Jesus Christ for the redemption of the church, — it is here especially intended in this latter sense. This is emphatically called ῥῆμα, 1 Peter 1:25. So the promise of God in particular is called his “good word:” Jeremiah 29:10,“After seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you;”as he calls it “the good thing which he had promised,” Jeremiah 33:14. The gospel is the “good tidings of peace and salvation” by Jesus Christ, Isaiah 52:7.(3.) Hereof they are said to “taste,” as they were before of the heavenly gift. The apostle as it were studiously keeps himself to this expression, on purpose to manifest that he intendeth not those who by faith do really receive, feed, and live on Jesus Christ, as tendered in the word of the gospel, John 6:35; John 6:49-51; John 6:54-56. It is as if he had said, ‘I speak not of those who have received and digested the spiritual food of their souls, and turned it into spiritual nourishment; but of such as have so far tasted of it, as that they ought to have desired it as “sincere milk, to have grown thereby.”’But they had received such an experiment of its divine truth and power, as that it had various effects upon them. And for the further explication of these words, and therein of the description of the state of these supposed apostates, we may consider the ensuing observations, which declare the sense of the words, or what is contained in them: —Obs. 1. There is a goodness and excellency in the word of God, able to attract and affect the minds of men, who yet never arrive at sincere obedience unto it.Obs. 2. There is an especial goodness in the word of the promise concerning Jesus Christ, and the declaration of its accomplishment. [5] [5] See four additional pages on the preceding topic, works, vol. 7:28-32. 5. Lastly, It is added, Δυνάμειςτεμέλλοντοςαἰῶνος, — “And the powers of the world to come.” Δυνάμεις are βְּ ?αεּ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ, or πִ ?τְ ?μָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ; the mighty, great, miraculous operations and works of the Holy Ghost. What they were, and how they were wrought among these Hebrews, hath been declared in our exposition on Hebrews 2:4, whither I shall refer the reader; and they are known from the Acts of the Apostles, where sundry instances of them are recorded. I have also proved on that chapter, that by “the world to come,” our apostle in this epistle intends the days of the Messiah, that being the usual name of it in the church at that time, as the new world which God had promised to create. Wherefore these “powers of the world to come,” were the gifts whereby those signs, wonders, and mighty works, were then wrought by the Holy Ghost, according as it was foretold by the prophets that they should be so. See Joel 2, compared with Acts 2. These the persons spoken of are supposed to have “tasted;” for the particle τε refers to γευσαμένους foregoing. Either they had been wrought in and by themselves, or by others in their sight, whereby they had an experience of the glorious and powerful working of the Holy Ghost in the confirmation of the gospel. Yea, I do judge that themselves in their own persons were partakers of these powers, in the gifts of tongues and other miraculous operations; which was the highest aggravation possible of their apostasy, and that which peculiarly rendered their recovery impossible. For there is not in the Scripture an impossibility put upon the recovery of any but such as peculiarly sin against the Holy Ghost: and although that guilt may be otherwise contracted, yet in none so signally as this, of rejecting that truth which was confirmed by his mighty operations in them that rejected it; which could not be done without an ascription of his divine power unto the devil. Yet would I not fix on those extraordinary gifts exclusively unto those that are ordinary. They also are of the powers of the world to come. So is every thing that belongs to the erection or preservation of the new world or the kingdom of Christ. To the first setting up of a kingdom, great and mighty power is required; but being set up, the ordinary dispensation of power will preserve it. So is it in this matter. The extraordinary, miraculous gifts of the Spirit were used in the erection of Christ’s kingdom, but it is continued by ordinary gifts; which, therefore, also belong unto the powers of the world to come. THIRDLY, From the consideration of this description, in all the parts of it, we may understand what sort of persons it is that is intended here by the apostle. And it appears, yea is evident, —1. That the persons here intended are not true and sincere believers, in the strict and proper sense of that name, at least they are not described here as such; so that from hence nothing can be concluded concerning them that are so, as to the possibility of their total and final apostasy. For, (1.) There is in their full and largo description no mention of faith, or believing, either expressly or in terms equivalent; and in no other place in the Scripture are such intended, but they are mentioned by what belongs essentially to their state. And,(2.) There is not any thing ascribed to these persons that is peculiar to them as such, or discriminative of them, as taken either from their especial relation unto God in Christ, or any such property of their own as is not communicable unto others. For instance, they are not said to be called according to God’s purpose; to be born again, not of man, nor of the will of flesh, but of God; nor to be justified, or sanctified, or united unto Christ, or to be the sons of God by adoption; nor have they any other characteristical note of true believers ascribed to them. (3.) They are in the following verses compared to the ground on which the rain often falls, and beareth nothing but thorns and briers. But this is not so with true believers. For faith itself is an herb peculiar to the enclosed garden of Christ, and meet for him by whom we are dressed. (4.) The apostle afterwards discoursing of true believers, doth in many particulars distinguish them from such as may be apostates; which is supposed of the persons here intended, as was before declared. For,[1. He ascribeth unto them in general “better things, and such as accompany salvation,” verse 9. [2. He ascribes a “work and labor of love,” as it is true faith alone which worketh by love, verse 10; whereof he speaks not one word concerning these. [3. He asserts their preservation; — 1st, On the account of the righteousness and faithfulness of God, verse 10; 2dly, Of the immutability of his counsel concerning them, verse 17, 18. In all these and sundry other instances doth he put a difference between these apostates and true believers. And whereas the apostle intends to declare the aggravation of their sin in falling away by the principal privileges whereof they were made partakers, here is not one word, in name or thing, of those which he expressly assigns to be the chief privileges of true believers, Romans 8:27-30. 2. Our next inquiry is more particularly whom he doth intend. And,(1.) They were such who not long before were converted from Judaism unto Christianity, upon the evidence of the truth of its doctrine, and the miraculous operations wherewith its dispensation was accompanied.(2.) He intends not the common sort of them, but such as had obtained especial privileges among them. For they had received extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, as speaking with tongues or working miracles. And,(3.) They had found in themselves and others convincing evidences that the kingdom of God and the Messiah, which they called “the world to come,” was come unto them; and had satisfaction in the glories of it.(4.) Such persons as these, as they have a work of light on their minds, so, according to the efficacy of their convictions, they may have such a change wrought upon their affections and in their conversation, as that they may be of great esteem among professors; and such those here intended might be. Now it must needs be some horrible frame of spirit, some malicious enmity against the truth and holiness of Christ and the gospel, some violent love of sin and the world, that could turn off such persons as these from the faith, and blot out all that light and conviction of truth which they had received. But the least grace is a better security for heaven than the greatest gifts and privileges whatever. These are the persons concerning whom our apostle discourseth, and of whom it is supposed by him that they may “fall away,” — καὶπαραπεσόντας. The especial nature of the sin here intended is afterwards declared in two instances or aggravating circumstances. This word expresseth the respect it had to the state and condition of the sinners themselves; they fall away, do that whereby they do so. I think we have well expressed the word, “If they shall fall away.” Our old translations render it only, “If they shall fall:” which expressed not the sense of the word, and was liable to a sense not at all intended; for he doth not say, “If they shall fall into sin,” — this, or that, or any sin whatever that can be named, suppose the greatest sin imaginable, namely, the denial of Christ in the time of danger or persecution. This was that sin (as we intimated before) about which so many contests were raised of old, and so many canons were multiplied about the ordering of them who had contracted the guilt thereof. But one example well considered had been a better guide for them than all their own arbitrary rules and imaginations, — when Peter fell into this sin, and yet was “renewed again to repentance,” and that speedily. Wherefore we may lay down this in the first place, as to the sense of the words: There is no particular sin that any man may fall into occasionally, through the power of temptation, that can cast the sinner under this commination, so that it should be impossible to renew him to repentance. It must, therefore, secondly, be a course of sin or sinning that is intended. But there are various degrees herein also, yea, there are divers kinds of such courses in sin. A man may so fall into a way of sin as still to retain in his mind such a principle of light and conviction that may be suitable to his recovery. To exclude such from all hopes of repentance is expressly contrary to Ezekiel 18:21, Isaiah 55:7, yea, and the whole sense of the Scripture. Wherefore men, after some conviction and reformation of life, may fall into corrupt and wicked courses, and make a long abode or continuance in them. Examples hereof we have every day amongst us, although it may be none to parallel that of Manasseh. Consider the nature of his education under his father Hezekiah, the greatness of his sins, the length of his continuance in them, with his following recovery, and he is a great instance in this case. Whilst there is in such persons any seed of light or conviction of truth which is capable of an excitation or revival, so as to put forth its power and efficacy in their souls, they cannot be looked on to be in the condition intended, though their case be dangerous. 3. Our apostle makes a distinction between πταίω and πίπτω, Romans 11:11, — between “stumbling” and “falling;” and would not allow that the unbelieving Jews of those days were come so far as πίπτειν, — that is, to fall absolutely: Λέγωου῏ν·Μὴἔπταισανἵναπέσωσι; μὴγένοιτο,— “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid;” that is, absolutely and irrecoverably. So, therefore, doth that word signify in this place. And παραπίπτω increaseth the signification, either as to perverseness in the manner of the fall, or as to violence in the fall itself.From what hath been discoursed, it will appear what falling away it is that the apostle here intendeth. And, — (1.) It is not a falling into this or that actual sin, be it of what nature it will; which may be, and yet not be a falling away. (2.) It is not a falling upon temptation or surprisal; for concerning such fallings we have rules of another kind given us in sundry places, and those exemplified in especial instances: but it is that which is premeditated, of deliberation and choice. (3.) It is not a falling by a relinquishment or renunciation some, though very material principles of Christian religion, by error or seduction; as the Corinthians fell, in denying the resurrection of the dead; and the Galatians, by denying justification by faith in Christ alone. Wherefore, —(4.) It must consist in a total renunciation of all the constituent principles and doctrines of Christianity, whence it is denominated. Such was the sin of them who relinquished the gospel to return unto Judaism, as it was then stated, in opposition unto it, and hatred of it. This it was, and not any kind of actual sins, that the apostle manifestly discourseth concerning.(5.) For the completing of this falling away according to the intention of the apostle, it is required that this renunciation be avowed and professed; as when a man forsaketh the profession of the gospel and falls into Judaism, or Mohammedanism, or Gentilism, in persuasion and practice. For the apostle discourseth concerning faith and obedience as professed; and so, therefore, also of their contraries And this avowment of a relinquishment of the gospel hath many provoking aggravations attending it. And yet whereas some men may in their hearts and minds utterly renounce the gospel, but, upon some outward, secular considerations, either dare not or will not profess that inward renunciation, their falling away is complete and total in the sight of God; and all they do to cover their apostasy in an external compliance with Christian religion, is in the sight of God but a mocking of him, and the highest aggravation of their sin. This is the falling away intended by the apostle: — a voluntary, resolved relinquishment of and apostasy from the gospel, the faith, rule, and obedience thereof; which cannot be without casting the highest reproach and contumely imaginable upon the person of Christ himself, as is afterwards expressed. , Concerning these persons, and their thus falling away, two things are to be considered in the text:1. What is affirmed of them. 2. The reason of that affirmation.1. The first is, That “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.” The thing intended is negative; — to “renew them again to repentance,” this is denied of them. But the modification of that negation turns the proposition into an affirmation: “It is impossible so to do.” ᾿Αδύνατονγάρ. The importance of this word is dubious; some think an absolute, and others a moral impossibility is intended thereby. This latter most fix upon; so that it is a matter rare, difficulty, and seldom to be expected, that is intended, and not that which is absolutely impossible. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ What the apostle had doctrinally instructed the Hebrews in before, in these verses he layeth before them under an apposite similitude. For his design herein is to represent the condition of all sorts of persons who profess the gospel, and live under the dispensation of its truths, with the various events that do befall them. He had before treated directly only of unfruitful and apostatizing professors, whom here he represents by unprofitable ground, and God’s dealing with them as men do with such ground when they have tilled it in vain. For the church is a vine or vineyard, and God is the husbandman, John 15:1; Isaiah 5:1-7. But here, moreover, for the greater illustration of what he affirms concerning such persons, he compriseth in his similitude the contrary state of sound believers and fruitful professors, with the acceptance they have with, and blessing they receive from God. And contraries thus compared do illustrate one another, as also the design of him who treateth concerning them. We need not, therefore, engage into a particular inquiry what it is which the word “for,” whereby these verses are annexed and continued unto the precedent, doth peculiarly and immediately respect, concerning which there is some difference among expositors. Some suppose it is the dealing of God with apostates, before laid down, which the apostle regards, and in these verses gives an account of the reason of it, or whence it is they come unto such a woful end. Others, observing that in his whole ensuing discourse he insists principally, if not only, on the state of sound believers and their acceptance with God, suppose he hath immediate respect unto what he had declared in the beginning of the chapter, verses 1-3, concerning his design to carry them on unto perfection. But there is no need that we should restrain his purpose to either of these intentions exclusively unto the other; yea, it is contrary to the plain scope of his discourse so to do. For he compriseth both sorts of professors, and gives a lively representation of their condition, of God’s dealing with them, and the event thereof. The reason, therefore, that he gives is not to be confined to either sort exclusively, but extends itself equally to the whole subject treated of. Hebrews 6:7-8. — Γῆγὰρἡπιοῦσατὸνἐπ᾿αὐτῆςπολλάκιςἐρχόμενονὑετὸν, καὶτίκτουσαβοτάνηνεὔθετονἐκείνοιςδι᾿οὕςκαὶγεωργεῖταιμεταλαμβάνειεὐλογίαςἀπὸτοῦΘεοῦ·ἐκφέρουσαδὲἀκάνθαςκαὶτριβόλουςἀδόκιμοςκαὶκατάραςἐγγὺς, ἧςτὸτέλοςεἰςκαῦσιν.There is not any firing materially to be observed concerning these words in any translations, ancient or modern. They all agree, unless one or two that openly depart from the text; and which, therefore, are of no consideration. Only δι᾿οὕς is by the Syriac rendered γְּ ?ξֶ ?θεμָ ?ϊְ ?δεּ ?ο, “propter quos,” “for whom;” all others read “per quos,” or “a quibus, “ by whom;” only ours mark “for whom” in the margin, which indeed is the more usual signification of διά with an accusative case. But that is not infrequently put for the genitive. And although this be not usual in other authors, yet unquestionable instances of it may be given, and amongst them that of Demosthen. Olynth. 1 cap. 6 is eminent: Καὶθεωρῖτὸντρόπον, δι᾿ὅνμέγαςγέγονενἀσθενὴςὤντοκαταρχὰςΦίλιππος, “And seeth the way whereby (by which) Philip, who at first was weak became so great.” But into the proper sense of this expression in this place we must inquire afterwards.Hebrews 6:7-8. — For the earth, which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. Some things must be observed concerning this similitude in general before we inquire into the particulars of it. 1. The ἀπίδοσις, or application of it, is left included in the πρότασις, or proposition of the similitude itself, and is not expressed. A description is given of the earth, by its culture, fruit, or barrenness; but nothing is especially added of the things signified hereby, although those are principally intended. And the way of reasoning herein, as it is compendious, so it is plain and instructive, because the analogy between the things produced in the similitude and the things signified is plain and evident, both in itself and from the whole discourse of the apostle. 2. There is a common subject of the whole similitude, branched out into distinct parts, with very different events ascribed unto them. We must therefore consider both what is that common subject, as also wherein the distinct parts whereinto it is branched do agree on the one hand and differ on the other. (1.) The common subject is “the earth,” of the nature whereof both branches are equally participant. Originally and naturally they differ not, they are both the earth.(2.) On this common subject, in both branches of it, the rain equally falls; not upon one more and the other less, not upon one sooner and the other later.(3.) It is equally dressed, tilled, or manured, by or for the use of sortie; one part doth not lie neglected whilst the other is cared for.In these things there is an agreement, and all is equal in both branches of the common subject. But hereon a partition is made, or a distribution of this common subject into two parts or sorts, with a double difference between them; and that, (1.) On their parts;(2.) Of God’s dealing with them. For,(1.) The one part brings forth “herbs;” which are described by their usefulness, they are “meet for them by whom it is dressed.”’The other beareth “thorns and briers,” — things not only of no use or advantage, but moreover noxious and hurtful.(2.) They differ in the consequent, on the part of God: for the first sort “receiveth blessing from God;” the other, in opposition unto this blessing from God (whence we may also learn what is contained therein), is first “rejected,” then “cursed,” then “burned.”Before I proceed to the particular explication of the words, inquiry must be made into the especial design of the apostle in them with respect unto these Hebrews. For here is not only a threatening of what might come to pass, but a particular prediction of what would come to pass, and a declaration of what was already in part accomplished. For by the “earth” he understands in an especial manner the church and nation of the Jews. This was God’s vineyard, Isaiah 5:7. Hereunto he sent all his ministers, and last of all his Son, Matthew 21:35-37; Jeremiah 2:21. And to them he calls, “O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD,” Jeremiah 22:29. Upon this earth the rain often fell, in the ministerial dispensation of the word unto that church and people. With respect; hereunto Christ says unto them, ποσάκις, “how often would I have gathered thy children,” Matthew 23:37; as here the rain is said to fall πολλάκις, often upon it. This was the earth wherein were the plants of God’s especial planting. And these were all now distributed into two parts. 1. Those who, believing and obeying the gospel, brought forth the fruits of repentance, faith, and new obedience. These being effectually wrought upon by the power of God in the new creation, our apostle compares to the earth in the old creation, when it was first made by God and blessed of him. Then, in the first place, it brought forth γֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ΰ; that is, βότάνην, as the LXX. render the word, — “herb” meet for Him that made and blessed it, Genesis 1:11. And these were still to be continued the vineyard of God, a field which he cared for. This was that gospel church gathered of the Hebrews, which brought forth fruit to the glory of God, and was blessed of him.This was the remnant among them according to the election of grace, which obtained mercy when the rest were blinded, Romans 11:5; Romans 11:7.2. For the remainder of this people, the residue of this earth, it was made up of two sorts, which are both of them here cast under the same lot and condition. There were obstinate unbelievers on the one hand, who pertinaciously rejected Christ and the gospel; with hypocritical apostates on the other, who having for a season embraced its profession, fell off again unto their Judaism. All these the apostle compares unto the earth when the covenant of God with the creation was broken by the sin of man, and it was put under the curse. Hereof it is said χεֹ ?Σεְ ?γַ ?ψְ ?γַּ ?ψϊַּ ?φְ ?ξִ ?ιηַ, Genesis 3:18; ἀκάνθαςκαὶτριβόλουςαυνατελεῖ, as the LXX. renders it, — the very words here used by the apostle; it “beareth thorns and briers.” Such was this church and people, now they had broken and rejected the covenant of God by their unbelief, — earth that brought forth thorns and briers. “The best of them was as a brier, and the most upright of them as a thorn hedge.” Then was the day of their prophets nigh, — the day of their visitation foretold by the prophets, their watchmen, Micah 7:4. So God threatened that when he rejected his vineyard it should bring forth briers and thorns, Isaiah 5:6.And of these unbelieving and apostate Hebrews, or this barren earth, the apostle affirmeth three things: — 1. That it was ἀδόκιμος, “rejected,” or not approved; that is, of God. Hereof they had boasted, and herein they continued yet to pride themselves, that God owned them, that they were his people, and preferred above all others. But although God was pleased yet to exercise patience towards them, he had pronounced concerning them in general that they were not his people, that he owned them not. Thorns and briers were come upon their altars, so that both their persons and worship were rejected of God. 2. It was “nigh unto cursing.” And this curse, which it was now very nigh unto, had in it, —(1.) Barrenness; and,(2.) An unalterable and irrevocable destination unto destruction.(1.) It had in it barrenness; for this church of the Jews, made up now of infidels and apostates, was represented by the fig-tree cursed by our Savior: Matthew 21:19, “He said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig-tree withered away.” After this time, the gospel having been sufficiently tendered unto them, and rejected by them, there was no more of saving faith, repentance, or obedience, nothing that was acceptable unto God in holiness or worship, ever found amongst them to this day. Many Jews were after this converted, but the church of the Jews never bare any more fruits unto God. And, (2.) They were devoted unto destruction. The close of the Old Testament, and therein of the immediate solemn revelation of God unto that church, was, that if they received not the Lord Christ after the coming and ministry of Elijah, — that is, of John the Baptist, — God would “come and smite the earth with a curse,” Malachi 4:6. He would make it a thing anathematized, or sacredly devoted unto destruction, — ξָ ?ηְ ?ψָ ?ν.When God first brought them into his land, which was to be the seat of his ordinances and solemn worship, the first town that they came unto was Jericho. This, therefore, God anathematized, or devoted to perpetual destruction, with a curse upon him that should attempt its re-edification, Joshua 6:17. The whole land thereby was alienated from its former possessors, and devoted unto another use, and the place itself utterly destroyed. Jerusalem, and consequently the whole church, was now to be made as Jericho; and the curse denounced was now speedily to be put in execution, wherein the land was to be alienated from their right unto it, and be devoted to desolation.3. The end of all this was, that this earth should be “burned.” A universal desolation, according to the prediction of our Savior, by fire and sword, representing the eternal vengeance they were liable unto, was to come upon them. This was now approaching, namely, the end of their church and state, in the destruction of the city, temple, and nation. This was the especial design of the apostle with respect unto these Hebrews; and he adds this scheme or delineation of the present and approaching condition of that apostatized church, to give terror unto the commination that he gave unto unprofitable professors. But whereas all things unto the very last happened unto them as types, and the condition of the churches of the gospel is represented in their sin and punishment; and whereas the things reflected on are such as it is the common and constant concernment of all professors heedfully to consider, I shall open the words in the whole latitude of their signification, as they are peculiarly instructive unto us. FIRST, The subject of the proposition in the similitude, is the “earth;” and that which is represented thereby, is the hearts and minds of all those to whom the gospel is preached. So it is explained in that parable of our Savior wherein he expresseth the word of the gospel as preached by seed, and compares the hearers of it unto several sorts of ground whereinto that seed is cast. And the allusion is wonderfully apposite and instructive.For, — 1. Seed is the principle of all things living, of all things that, having any kind of natural life, are capable of natural increase, growth, and fruit; and whatever they arrive unto, it is but the actuating of the vital seed from whence they do proceed. So is the word of the gospel unto all spiritual life, 1 Peter 1:23. And believers, because of their growth, increase, and fruit, from this vital principle or seed of the word, are called “vines,” “plants of God’s planting,” and the like.2. The earth is the only fit and proper subject for seed to be put into, and alone is capable of the culture or husbandry that is to be used about it. God hath made no other matter or subject to receive the seeds of things that may bring forth fruit; no man casts seed into the air or water. It was of the earth alone that God said, “Let it bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth,” Genesis 11, 12. The earth alone hath a passive power to be made fruitful; it hath that matter in it which, being cultivated, disposed, excited, sowed, planted, blessed, may bring forth fruit. So it is with the souls of men with respect unto the seed of the word. Their minds, and they alone, are a subject capable of receiving of it, and improving it. They are the only meet object of divine care and culture. The faculties of our souls, our minds, wills, and affections, are meet to entertain the gospel, and to bring forth the fruits of it; whereof nothing is found in any other creatures on the earth. Hence we are Θεοῦγεώργιον, 1 Corinthians 2:9, “God’s husbandry,” the ground or field that he tilleth; as Christ mystical, comprising all professors, is the vine, and his Father is the husbandman, John 15:1, by whom it is dressed and pruned.3. The earth by and of itself, in the state wherein it is, brings forth nothing that is good or useful. Upon its first creation it was inlaid and impregnated, by the blessing of God, with all seeds of useful herbs and fruits; but after the entrance of sin, its womb was cursed with barrenness as unto its first usefulness, and it brings forth nothing of itself but thorns, briers, and noxious weeds, — at least those in such abundance as to choke and corrupt all the remainders of useful seeds and plants in it. It is, like the field of the slothful, grown over with thorns, and nettles cover the face thereof. Especially it is condemned to utter barrenness if the rain fall not on it; whereof afterwards. And such are the hearts and minds of men by nature. They are dark, barren, unprofitable, and which, without divine culture, will bring forth no fruits of righteousness, that are acceptable unto God. All that of themselves they can bring forth are noxious weeds. Among the weeds of unmanured earth some are painted with alluring colors, but they are but weeds still; and among the fruits of unsanctified minds some may carry a more specious appearance than others, but they are all, spiritually considered, sins and vices still. So, then, the common subject of the similitude is plain and instructive. And we may in our passage observe, that, — Obs. 1. The minds of all men by nature are universally and equally barren with respect unto fruits of righteousness and holiness, meet for and acceptable unto God.They are all as the earth under the curse. There is a natural difference among men as unto their intellectual abilities. Some are of a far more piercing and sagacious understanding, and of a sounder judgment than others. Some have a natural temper and inclination disposing them unto gentleness, sobriety, and modesty, when others from their constitution are morose, passionate, and perverse. And hereon some make a good progress in morality and usefulness in the world, whilst others lie immersed in all vicious abominations. There are therefore, on these and the like accounts, great differences among men, wherein some are incomparably to be preferred above others. But as to the fruits of spiritual holiness and righteousness, all men by nature are equal and alike; for our nature, as unto a principle of living unto God, is equally corrupted in all. There are no more sparks or relics of grace in one than another. All spiritual differences between men are from the power and grace of God in the dispensation of the word. But we must proceed. , Of this earth it is said, that it “drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it.” Something is wanting, something must be done to this barren earth to make it fruitful; and this is done by rain. And that is described by, —1. Its communication or application unto the earth, — it falls upon it; 2. An especial adjunct thereof in its frequency: — it falls often on it; 3. By that reception which the earth is naturally fitted and suited to give unto it, — it drinketh it in.The thing itself is rain. This is that whereby alone the earth, otherwise dry and barren, is impregnated and made fruitful. For, there is therein a communication of moisture, absolutely requisite to apply the nourishing virtue of the earth unto the radical principles of all fruits whatever; and therefore before any rain did fall God caused a vapor to arise, which supplied the use of it, and watered the earth, Genesis 2:6. So the poetexpresseth it: —“Tum Pater omnipotens fecundis imbribus AEther, Conjugis in greraium laetae descendit, et omnes Magnus alit, magno commistus corpore, fetus.” — Georg, 2:325.And μ῾ετός is a “wetting shower;” not a storm, not a violence of rain causing an inundation, which tends to barrenness and sterility; nor such as is unseasonable and spoils the fruits of the earth; but a plentiful shower is intended: for ὑετός exceeds ὄμβρος, as Aristotle observes.1. This rain falls on the ground. And, 2. It is said to fall often or frequently, “iteratis vicibus.” The land of Canaan is commended that it was not like the land of Egypt, where the seed was sowed, and watered with the foot, but that it was “a land of hills and valleys, and did drink water of the rain of heaven,” Deuteronomy 11:10-11. And they had commonly two seasons of it, the former whereof they called ιεֹ ?ψֶ ?δ, Joreh, and the latter ξμְ ?χεֹ ?ωׁ, Malcosh, Deuteronomy 11:14. The former fell about October, in the beginning of their year, when their seed was cast into the ground, and the earth, as it were, taught thereby, as the word signifies, to apply itself unto the seed, and to become fruitful. The other fell about March, when their corn was grown up, filling the straw and ear for the harvest, as the word probably signifies. Hence it is said, that “Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,” Joshua 2:15, 1 Chronicles 12:15; which was occasioned by the falling of Malcosh, or this latter rain. And that this was in the first month, or March, which was the entrance of their harvest, is evident from hence, in that immediately after they had passed over Jordan, during the swelling of its waters, they kept the passover at Gilgal on the fourteenth of that first month, Joshua 5:10. Whilst they had these rains in their proper seasons, the land was fruitful; and it was by withholding of them that God punished them with the barrenness of the earth, and famine thereon ensuing. Besides these, in good seasons, they had many other occasional showers; as mention is made of the “showers on the mown grass.” Hence it is here supposed that the rain falls πολλάκις, “often,” on this earth. Again, —3. The earth is said to drink in the rain. The expression is metaphorical but common: ῾Ηγῆμέλαιναπίνει. And the allusion is taken from living creatures, who by drinking take in water into their inward parts and bowels. To do thus is peculiar unto the earth. If the rain falls upon rocks or stones, it runs off from them, it hath no admission into them; but into the earth it soaks more or less, according as the condition of the ground is more or less receptive of it. And it is the nature of the earth, as it were, to suck in these moistening rains that fall upon it, until it be even inebriated: Psalms 65:9-10, “Thou visitest the earth, and waterest it, ...... Thou waterest the ridges thereof abundantly: thou settlest the furrows thereof; — ϊְּ ?μָ ?ξֶ ?ιδָ ψַ ?εֵּ ?δ, “thou inebriatest (or “makest drunk”) “the furrows thereof.” This is the πρότασις, or proposition of the similitude. The ἀπόδοσις is included in it; that is, the application of it unto the matter in hand. That by the “earth,” the minds and consciences of men are intended, was before declared; and it is as evident what is meant by the “rain.” Yet some suppose that the gifts of the Holy Ghost, before treated of, may be designed by the apostle; for in the communication of them the Holy Spirit is frequently said to be poured out; that is, as water or rain. But, 1. This rain is said to fall often on the earth (yea, upon that earth which continueth utterly barren), in one shower after another. And this can be no way accommodated unto the dispensation of the gifts of the Spirit; for they being once communicated, if they be not exercised and improved, God gives no more showers of them. It is therefore the administration of the word that is intended. And in other places the doctrine of the Scripture is frequently compared unto rain and watering: Deuteronomy 32:2,“My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass.”And where God denies his word unto any people, he says, “Upon them shall be no rain,” Zechariah 14:17. And hence πָ ?θַ ?σ, “to drop” as the rain doth, is an expression for prophesying or preaching, Ezekiel 21:2, Amos 7:16; the showers whereof are sometimes more soft and gentle, sometimes more earnest and pressing. And those words, ιַ ?ςְ ?θֶ ?δξεֹ ?ψֶ ?δβּ ?νΰּ ?αְּ ?ψָ ?λεֹ ?ϊ, Psalms 84:7, because of the ambiguity of the words, and the proportion that is between the things, are rendered by some, “The rain also filleth the pools;” and by others, “The teachers shall be filled with blessings.” This is that whereby God watereth and refresheth the barren souls of men, that whereby he communicates unto them all things that may enable them to be fruitful; in brief, not to enlarge on the allegory, the word of the gospel is every way unto the souls of men as the rain to the barren earth. 2. This rain is said to fall often on the earth. And this may be considered either with respect unto the especial concernment of these Hebrews, which was laid open before, or unto the ordinary dispensation of the gospel. In the first way it regards and expresseth the frequent addresses made unto the people of the Jews in the ministry of the word, for their healing and recovery from those ways of ruin wherein they were engaged. And so it may include the ministry of the prophets, with the close put unto it by that of Christ himself; concerning which see our exposition on Hebrews 1:1-2. And concerning this whole ministry it is that our Savior so expostulates with them, Matthew 23:37, “How often would I have gathered your children !” And this also he at large represents in the parable of the householder and his vineyard, with the servants that he sent unto it from time to time to seek for fruit, and last of all his Son, Matthew 21:33-37. Take it in the latter way, for the dispensation of the word in general, and the manner of it, with frequency and urgency, is included in this expression. Where the Lord Christ sends the gospel to be preached, it is his will that it should be so “instantly, in season and out of season,” that it may come as abundant showers of rain on the earth. 3. This rain is said to be drunk in: “The earth drinketh in the rain.” There is no more intended in this expression but the outward hearing of the word, a naked assent unto it. For it is ascribed unto them who continue utterly barren and unhealed; who are therefore left unto fire and destruction. But as it is the natural property of the earth to receive in the water that is poured on it, so men do in some sense drink in the doctrine of the gospel, when the natural faculties of their souls do apprehend it and assent unto it, though it work not upon them, though it produce no effects in them. There are, indeed, in the earth rocks and stones, on which the rain makes no impression; but they are considered in common with the rest of the earth, and there needs no particular exception on their account. Some there are who, when the word is preached unto them, do obstinately refuge and reject it; but the hearers in common are said to drink it in, and the other sort shall not escape the judgment which is appointed for them. And thus far things are spoken in general, what is common unto both those sorts of hearers, which he afterwards distinctly insists upon. The word of the gospel, in the preaching of it, being compared unto rain, we may observe, that, — Obs. 2. The dispensation of it unto men is an effect of the sovereign power and pleasure of God, as is the giving of rain unto the earth.There is nothing in nature that God assumeth more into his prerogative than this of giving rain. The first mention of it in the world is in these words, “The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,” Genesis 2:5. All rain is from the Lord God, who causeth it to rain or not to rain, at his pleasure. And the giving of it he pleads as a great pledge of his providence and goodness. “He left not himself” of old “without witness, in that he did good, and gave rain from heaven,” Acts 14:17. Our Savior also makes it an argument of his goodness that he “causeth his rain to fall,” Matthew 5:45. And whatever thoughts we have of the commonness of it, and whatever acquaintance men suppose they have with its causes, yet God distinguisheth himself, as to his almighty power, from all the idols of the world, that none of them can give rain. He calls his people to say in their hearts, “Let us fear the LORD our God, who giveth rain,” Jeremiah 5:24.“Are there any among the vanities of the Gentiles that can cause rain? or can the heavens give showers?” Jeremiah 14:22.And he exerciseth his sovereignty in the giving of it: Amos 4:7-8, “I caused it to rain upon one city, and not to rain upon another: one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered. So two or three cities wandered unto one city to drink water.” And thus is it absolutely as to the dispensation of the gospel to nations, cities, places, persons; it is at God’s disposal alone, and he useth a distinguishing sovereignty therein. He sendeth his word unto one people and not to another, to one city and not to another, at one time and not at another; and these are those matters of his whereof he giveth no account. Only some things we may consider, which give us a prospect into the glory of his wisdom and grace herein: and this I shall do in two instances; first, in the principle of his dispensation; secondly, in the outward means of it. As, — 1. The principal end which he designeth in his disposal of the dispensation of the gospel in that great variety wherein we do behold it, is the conversion, edification, and salvation of his elect. This is that which he aimeth to accomplish thereby; and therefore his will and purpose herein is that which gives rule and measure unto the actings of his providence concerning it. Wherever there are any of his elect to be called, or in what time soever, there and then will he cause the gospel to be preached; for the purpose of God, which is according to election, must stand, whatever difficulties lie in the way, Romans 9:11. And the election must obtain, Romans 11:7. So the Lord Christ prayed that he would take care of all those that he had given unto him, which were his own by election (“Thine they were, and thou gavest them unto me”), and sanctify them by his word, John 17:17. In pursuit of his own purpose, and in answer unto that prayer of our Lord Jesus, he will send his word to find them out wherever they are, that so not one grain of his chosen Israel shall be lost or fall to the ground. So he appointed our apostle to stay and preach at Corinth, notwithstanding the difficulties and oppositions he met withal, because “he had much people in that city,” Acts 18:9-10. They were his people by eternal designation, antecedently unto their effectual vocation; and therefore he will have the word preached unto them. And in the hard work of his ministry, the same apostle, who knew the end of it, affirms that “he endured all things for the elect’s sakes,” 2 Timothy 2:10. That they might be called and saved was the work he was sent upon. For “whom he did predestinate, them he also calleth,” Romans 8:30. Predestination is the rule of effectual vocation; all and only they are so called by the word who are predestinated. So speaks our Savior also,“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice,” John 10:16.He had some sheep in that fold of the church of the Jews; to them, therefore, he preached the word, that they might be gathered unto him. But he had other sheep also, even all his elect among the Gentiles, and saith he, “Them must I gather also.” There is a necessity of it, upon the account of the purpose of God concerning them; and they are to be gathered by hearing of his voice, or the preaching of the word. In that sovereignty, therefore, which God useth in the disposal thereof, causing the rain of the doctrine of his word to fall upon one place and not upon another, at one time and not at another, he hath still this certain end before him; and the actings of his providence are regulated by the purposes of his grace. In what place or nation soever, in what time or age soever, he hath any of his elect to be brought forth in the world, he will provide that the gospel of peace be preached unto them. I will not say that in every individual place where the gospel is preached there are always some of the elect to be saved. For the enjoyments of one place may be occasioned by the work that is to be done in another, wherewith it is in some kind of conjunction: or the word may be preached in a place for the sake of some that are there only accidentally; as when Paul first preached at Philippi, Lydia only was converted, who was a stranger in those parts, belonging to the city of Thyatira in Asia, Acts 16:14-15 : and a whole country may fare the better for one city, and a whole city for some part of it, as Micah 5:7. God concealeth this secret design under promiscuous outward dispensations. For he obligeth those by whom the word is preached to declare his mind therein unto all men indefinitely, leaving the effectual work of his grace in the pursuit of his purpose unto himself; whence “they believe who are ordained to eternal life,” and “those are added to the church that are to be saved,” Acts 2:47; Acts 13:48. Besides, God hath other ends also in the sending of his word, though this be the principal. For by it he puts a restraint unto sin in the world, gives a visible control to the kingdom of Satan, and relieves mankind, by sending light into those dark places of the earth which are filled with habitations of cruelty. And by the convictions that he brings thereby on the minds and consciences of men, he makes way for the manifestation of the glory of his justice in their condetonation. Coming and speaking unto them, he leaves them without pretense or excuse, John 15:22. Yet will I not say that God sends the word for any continuance for these ends and designs only. For a short time he may do so; as our Savior, sending forth his disciples to preach, supposeth that in some place their message may be totally rejected, and thereon appointed them to “shake off the dust of their feet as a testimony against them,” or their being left without excuse. But these are but secondary and accidental ends of the word where it is constantly preached. Wherefore God doth not so send it for their sakes alone. But on the other side, I dare say, that where God doth not, by any means, nor in any degree, send his word, there are none of his elect to be saved; for without the word they can neither be called nor sanctified. And if any of them are in any such place as whereunto he will not grant his word, he will, by one providence or other, snatch them like brands out of the fire, and convey them under, the showers of it. And this we find verified by experience every day. The gospel, therefore, doth not pass up and down the world by chance, as we know in how great variety it hath visited and left nations and people, ages and times; nor is the disposal of it regulated by the wisdom and contrivance of men, whatever their work and duty may be in the dispensation of it; but all this, like the falling of the rain, is regulated by the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God, wherein he hath respect only unto the purpose of his own eternal grace. 2. He doth, according to his sovereign pleasure, call and send persons to the preaching of it unto those to whom he will grant the privilege thereof. Every man may not upon his own head, nor can any man upon his own abilities, undertake and discharge that work. This is the eternal rule and law of the gospel: “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” But “how shall men call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? Romans 10:13-15, — that is, by God himself: for neither doth the apostle discourse, nor hath he any occasion in that place to discourse, concerning the ordinary call of persons unto an office in the church, whereunto the ministry of the church itself is required; but he treats of preaching the gospel in general unto all or any parts of the world, and of the love and care of God in sending of men unto that purpose, whereby others coming to hear of him, may believe in him, call upon his name, and be saved. Hence he compares the work of God herein unto that of his sending forth light and natural instructions unto all the world by the luminaries of heaven, wherein the ministry of man hath no place, verse 18. Wherefore the preaching of the gospel depends absolutely on the sovereign pleasure of God in sending men unto that work; for “how should they preach except they be sent?” And he doth send them, — (1.) By endowing them with spiritual gifts, enabling them unto that work and duty. The gospel is “the ministration of the Spirit;” nor is it to be administered but by virtue of the gifts of the Spirit. These God gives unto them whom he sends, by Jesus Christ, Ephesians 4:7-8, etc. And these gifts are a sort of especial, peculiar, yea, supernatural abilities, whereby men are fitted to and enabled for the dispensation of the gospel. It is sad to consider what woful work they make who undertake this duty, and are yet unfurnished with these abilities; that is, such who are sent of men, but are not sent of God. They harness themselves with external order, ecclesiastical mission, according to some rules agreed upon among themselves, with some other implements and ornamental accoutrements; whereon they undertake to be preachers of the gospel, as it were whether God will or no. But these vanities of the Gentiles cannot give rain; the preaching of the gospel, as unto its proper ends, depends on God’s sending alone. When they betake themselves to their work, they find themselves at a loss for God’s mission; at least they do so unto whom they pretend to be sent. I speak it not as though outward order and a due call were not necessary in a church unto the office of a teacher, but only to show that all order without a concurrence of the divine vocation is of no validity nor efficacy. Now, the dispensation of these spiritual gifts, without which the rain of the doctrine of the gospel falleth not, depends solely on the sovereignty of God. The Spirit divideth unto every one as he pleaseth, 1 Corinthians 12:11. And it is evident that he doth not herein follow the rule of any human preparation. For whereas it is most certain, that the improvement of men’s intellectual abilities, in wisdom, learning, oratory, and the like, is exceedingly subservient unto the use and exercise of these spiritual gifts, yet it is evident that God doth not always and regularly communicate them unto those who are so prepared; no, though they were acquired in a rational way, in order unto the work of the ministry. For how many may we see so qualified, and yet destitute of all relish of spiritual gifts, God preferring before them persons, it may be, behind and beneath them in those qualifications! So it was whilst all these affairs were transacted in an extraordinary manner at the first planting of the gospel. He did not choose out eminently the philosophers, the wise, the learned, the scribes, the disputers of this world, to communicate spiritual gifts unto; but generally fixed on persons of another condition and more ordinary capacity. Some were so, that none might think themselves excluded because of their wisdom and learning, — things excellent in themselves; but many of this sort, as our apostle informs us, were not called and chosen unto this work. So something in proportion hereunto may yet be observed in the distribution of the ordinary gifts of the Spirit; at least it is evident that herein God obligeth himself to no rules of such preparations or qualifications on our part. Nay, which is yet further, he walks not herein in the steps of his own sanctifying and saving grace; but as he worketh that grace in the hearts of many on whom be bestows not those gifts which are needful to enable men unto the dispensation of the gospel, so he bestows those gifts on many unto whom he will not vouchsafe his sanctifying grace. And these things make evident that sovereignty which God is pleased to exercise in his sending of persons unto the work of preaching the gospel, manifesting that the whole of it depends, like the giving of rain, absolutely on his pleasure. And when men exclusively unto this part of God’s call will keep up a ministry, and so make a preaching of the gospel, it is but a lifeless image of the true dispensation of it. (2.) This communication of gifts unto men is ordinarily accompanied with a powerful and effectual inclination of the minds of men to undertake the work and engage in it, against those objections, discouragements, oppositions, and difficulties, which present themselves unto them in their undertaking. There is so, I say, ordinarily: for there are more instances than one of those who, having the word of prophecy committed unto them, instead of going to Nineveh, do consult their own reputation, ease, and advantage, and so tack about to Tarshish; and there are not a few who hide and napkin up their talents, which are given them to trade withal, though represented unto us under one instance only: But these must one day answer for their disobedience unto the heavenly call. But ordinarily that inclination and disposition unto this work, which accompanies the communication of spiritual gifts, is prevalent and effectual, so that the minds of men are fortified by it against the lions that are in the way, or whatever may rise up to deter them from it. So our apostle affirms, that upon the revelation of Christ unto him, and his call thereby to preach the gospel, “immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood, but went into Arabia” about his work, Galatians 1:16-17. He would not so much as attend or hearken unto cavils and exceptions against the work whereunto he was inclined and disposed; which is the way of a well-grounded, firm resolution. And something in proportion hereunto is wrought in the minds of them who undertake this work upon an ordinary call of God. And where this is not, much success is not to be expected in the work of any, nor any great blessing of God upon it. When men go out hereunto in their own strength, without a supply of spiritual gifts, and engage in their work merely upon external considerations, without this divine inclination of their hearts and minds, they may seem to cast out water as out of an engine, by violent compression, — they will never be like clouds to pour forth showers of rain. This, therefore, also is from the Lord. Again, — Obs. 3. God ordereth things, in his sovereign, unsearchable providence, so as that the gospel shall be sent unto, and in the administration of it shall find admittance into, what places, and at what times, seem good unto himself, even as he orders the rain to fall on one place, and not on another. — We have not wisdom to search into the causes, reasons, and ends of God’s providential works in the world; and individual persons seldom live to see the issue of those which are on the wheel in their own days. But we have ground enough in the Scripture to conclude, that the principal works of divine providence in the world, and among the nations of the earth, do respect the dispensation of the gospel, either in the granting of it or the taking of it away. It were an easy matter to evince by evident instances that the principal national revolutions which have been in the earth, have been all of them subservient unto the counsel and purpose of God in this matter. And there are examples also manifesting how small occasions he hath turned unto great and signal use herein. But what hath been spoken may suffice to evince who is the Father and Author of this rain. And how this consideration may be improved unto the exercise of faith, prayer, and thankfulness, is manifest. This rain is said to fall upon the earth; which respects the actual dispensation of the word by them unto whom it is committed. And we may thence observe, that, — Obs. 4. It is the duty of those unto whom the dispensation of the word is committed of God, to be diligent, watchful, instant in their work, that their doctrine may, as it were, continually drop and distil upon their hearers, that the rain may fall often on the earth. So hath God provided that “the ridges of it may be watered abundantly, to make it soft” (or “dissolve it”) “with showers; and so he blesseth the springing thereof,” Psalms 65:10. In a hot, parching, and dry season, one or two showers do but increase the vehemency of the heat and drought, giving matter of new exhalations, which are accompanied with some of the remaining moisture of the earth. Of no other use is that dead and lazy kind of preaching wherewith some satisfy themselves, and would force others to be contented.The apostles, when this work was committed unto them, would not be diverted from a constant attendance unto it by any other duty, much less any other occasion of life, Acts 6:2-4. See what a charge our apostle gives unto Timothy to this purpose, 2 Timothy 4:1-5. And a great example hereof we have in the account he gives concerning his own ministry in Asia, Acts 20:1. He declares when he began his work and ministry, — “ the first day he came into Asia,” Acts 20:18; that is, on the first opportunity: he omitted no season that he could possibly lay hold upon, but engaged into his work, as his manner was in every place that he came unto. And, 2. In what manner did he teach? He did it, (1.) Publicly, in all assemblies of the church, and others also where he might have a quiet opportunity of speaking; and,(2.) Privately, “from house to house,” Acts 20:20. All places were alike to him, and all assemblies, small or great, so he might have advantage of communicating unto them the knowledge of God in Christ. And,3. What did he so declare unto them, or instruct them in? It was “the whole counsel of God,” Acts 20:27; “the gospel of the grace of God,” Acts 20:24; all things that were “profitable unto them,” Acts 20:20; in sum, “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” Acts 20:21. And, 4. How did he dispense the word unto them? It was by a declaration of the will of God, Acts 20:27; by testifying the necessity of gospel duties, Acts 20:21; by constant warnings and admonitions, to stir men up unto diligence in obedience, and to caution them of their dangers, Acts 20:31. And,5. When, or at what season, did he thus lay out himself in the discharge of this duty? He did it “night and day,” Acts 20:31; that is, continually, upon all occasions and advantages. He was one by whom God watered his vineyard every moment. And,6. In what outward condition was he, and with what frame of spirit did he attend his work? He was in “many temptations, which befell him by the lying in wait of the Jews,” Acts 20:19, or in continual danger of his life by the persecutions they stirred up against him. And as unto himself, and the frame of his heart in this work, he carried it on “with all humility of mind, and with many tears,” Acts 20:19; Acts 20:31. He was not lifted up with conceits of the glory, greatness, and power of his office, of the authority over all the churches committed unto him by Christ; but with lowliness of mind and meekness was as the servant of them all; with that love, tenderness, compassion, and fervency, as he could not but testify by many tears. Here is the great example for dispensers of the gospel. We have not his grace, we have not his gifts, we have not his ability and assistance, and so are not able to come up unto him; but yet certainly it is our duty to follow him though “baud passibus aequis,” and to conform ourselves unto him according to our opportunity and ability. I confess I cannot but admire to think what some men conceive concerning him, or themselves. Can they say, that from the first day of their coming into their dioceses or dignities, or parishes or places, they have thus behaved themselves? Have they so taught, so preached, so warned, and that “with tears, night and day,” all sorts of persons whom they suppose themselves to relate unto? Have they made it their work to declare the mysteries of the gospel, and “the whole counsel of God,” and this both publicly and privately, night and day, according to their opportunities? It will be said, indeed, that these things belonged unto the duty and office of the apostles, but those that succeed them as ordinary overseers of the church may live in another manner, and have other work to do. If they should carry it with that humility of mind as he did, and use entreaties with tears as he did, and preach continually as he did, they should have little joy of their office; and besides, they should be even despised of the people. These things, therefore, they suppose not to belong unto them. Yea, but our apostle gives this whole account concerning himself unto the ordinary bishops of the church of Ephesus, Acts 20:17; Acts 20:28; and in the close of it tells them, that he had showed them all things how they ought to do, Acts 20:35. And what he apprehended to be the duty of all to whom the dispensation of the word is committed, he manifests in his last solemn charge that he left with his son Timothy a little before his death: 2 Timothy 4:1-2,“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word, be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine;”so 2 Timothy 4:5. He did no more himself than what he requires in Timothy, according to the proportion of his abilities. And the discharge of this work is not to be measured by particular instances of the frequency of preaching, but by that purpose, design, and frame of heart, which ought to be in ministers, of laying out themselves to the utmost in the work of the ministry on all occasions, resolving “to spend and to be spent” therein. I could easily show on how many accounts frequency and urgency in preaching of the word are indispensably required of those unto whom the work is committed, that therein the rain may fall oft upon the earth; but I must not too far digress. The command of God; the love and care of Christ towards his church; the ends of God’s patience and long-suffering; the future manifestation of his glory in the salvation of believers and the condemnation of those that are disobedient; the necessities of the souls of men; the nature and kind of the way whereby God gives spiritual supplies by the ministry of the word; the weakness of our natural faculties of the mind in receiving, Hebrews 5:11, Isaiah 28:9-10, and of the memory in retaining spiritual things, Hebrews 2:1; Hebrews 12:5; the weakness of grace, Revelation 2:2, requiring continual refreshments, Isaiah 27:3; the frequency and variety of temptations, interrupting our peace with God, nor otherwise to be repelled, 2 Corinthians 12:8-9; the design of Christ to bring us gradually unto perfection, — might all be pleaded in this case: but the law of this duty is in some measure written in the hearts of all faithful ministers, and those who are otherwise shall bear their own burdens. Again; it is common to the whole earth often to drink in the rain that falls upon it, though but some parts only of it prove fruitful, as it will appear in the following distribution of them. Whence we may observe, that, — Obs. 5. Attendance unto the word preached, hearing of it with some diligence, and giving of it some kind of reception, make no great difference among men; for this is common unto them who never become fruitful. — This is so plainly exemplified by our Savior in the parable of the several sorts of ground that receive the seed of the word, yet on various occasions lose the power of it, and never come to fruit-bearing, that it needs no further consideration. And I intend not those only who merely hear the word, and no more. Such persons are like stones, which when the rain falleth on them it makes no impression into them; they drink it not in at all. It is no otherwise, I say, with many hearers, who seem not to have the least sense of what customarily they attend unto. But those are intended in the text and proposition who in some measure receive it and drink it in. They give it an entrance into their understandings, where they become doctrinally acquainted with the truth of the gospel; and they give it some entrance into their affections, whence they are said to “receive the word with joy;” and moreover, they allow it some influence on their conversations. — as even Herod did, who heard the preachings of John Baptist “gladly, and did many things” thereon. All these things men may do, and yet at length prove to be that part of the earth which drinks in the rain and is yet absolutely barren, and brings forth thorns and briers. There is yet wanting the “receiving of it in a good and honest heart;” which what it includes will afterwards appear. And again we may observe, that, — Obs. 6. God is pleased to exercise much patience towards those whom he once grants the mercy and the privilege of his word unto. — He doth not presently proceed against them for and on their barrenness, but stays until the rain hath often fallen upon the ground. But there is an appointed season and period of time, beyond which he will not wait for them any more, as we shall see. Thirdly, The distribution of this earth into several parts, with the different lots and events of them, is nextly to be considered. The first sort the apostle describes two ways: 1. By its fruitfulness;2. By its acceptation with God. And this fruitfulness he further manifests: (1.) From the fruit itself which it bears, — it is “herb,” or “herbs;” (2.) From the nature and use of that fruit, — it is “meet for them by whom it is dressed;”(3.) The manner of it, — it “bringeth it forth.” These things we must a little open in their order, as they lie in the text: —1. Τίκτει, it “bringeth forth.” Τίκτουσαβοτάνην. This word properly signifies the bringing forth of a woman that hath conceived with child: Συλλήψῃἐνγαστρὶ, καὶτέξῃυἱόν, Luke 1:31. And so it is constantly used in the New Testament, and not otherwise but only in this place and James 1:15, ῾Ηἐπιθμυίασυλλαβοῦσατίκτειἀμαρτίαν. In an elegant similitude, he compareth the work of lust in temptation unto an adulterous conception in the womb of the adulteress, when at length actual sin is brought forth. The seeds of it are cast into the mind and will by temptation; where, after they are warmed, fomented, and cherished, sin, that ugly monster, comes forth into the world. So is this earth said to “bring forth,” as a womb that is naturally and kindly impregnated, in its appointed season. And therefore, when the apostle speaks of the other sort, he changeth his expression for such a word as may suit a deformed and monstrous production. But the native power of the earth, being cherished by the rain that falls on it, brings forth as from a teeming womb the fruits of those seeds it is possessed withal. 2. It” bringeth forth βοτάνην,” “generans herbam.” The Rhemists render it “grass,” causelessly and amiss. The word signifies such “green herbs” as are usually produced by careful culture, tilling, or dressing; such as are for the proper and immediate use of men, and not of their cattle. The same with γֶּ ?ωֶׁ ?ΰ, Genesis 1:11, — all sorts of useful green herbs, whether medicinal or for food, or beauty and ornament.3. The nature of this herbal fruit is, that it is εὔθετος. Some render it by “opportuna,” and some by “accommoda;” “meet” answers both. Those that use the former word seem to respect the season wherein it brings forth the fruit. And this is the commendation of it, that it makes no delay, but brings forth in its proper time and season, when its owners and tillers have just ground and reason to expect and look for it. And it is an especial commendation of any thing that beareth fruit; and what is out of season is despised, Psalms 1:3. The latter word intends the usefuless and profitableness of the fruit brought forth, in what season soever it be. We may comprise both senses, and justly suppose both of them to be intended. The Syriac expresseth it by a general word, γְּ ?ηָ ?ωָׁ ?η, “which is” or “may be of use.” And the fruits of the earth are not profitable unless they are seasonable. So James calls it τίμιονκαρπὸντῆςγῆς, “the precious fruit of the earth,” which the husbandman waiteth for, until the earth hath received the former and latter rain, James 5:7.4. Lastly, These herbs thus brought forth are “meet ἐκείνοιςδι᾿οὕςκαὶγεωργεῖται,” “unto them by whom it is tilled,” or “even by whom;’or “by whom it is also tilled.” The particle καί is not superfluous or insignificant. It declares an addition of culture to the rain. For besides the falling of rain on the earth, there is likewise need of further culture, that it may be made fruitful, or bring forth herbs seasonably, which shall be profitable unto men. For if only the rain fall upon it, it will bring forth many things indeed; but if it be not tilled withal, for one useful herb it will bring forth many weeds; as he speaks in the case of husbandry, Virg. Georg. lib. 1:155: — “Quod nisi et assiduis terram insectabere rastris, Et sonitu terrebis aves, et ruris opaci Falce premes umbras, votisque vocaveris imbrem; Heu magnum alterius frustra spectabis acervum.”The earth must be tilled, from its nature and the law of its creation, And therefore Adam was to have tilled and wrought the ground in the garden even before the fall, Genesis 2:15. And this is the principal concernment of him that intends to live on the field. The falling of rain upon the earth is common unto the whole. That which gives a field a peculiar relation unto any one is, that he dresseth, and fenceth, and tilleth it. Unto these dressers the herbs that are brought forth are said to be “meet;” they belong unto them, and are useful for them. Δι᾿οὕς may be rendered “for whom,” or “by whom.” In the first way, the chief owner of the ground, the lord of the field or vineyard, is signified. The ground is tilled or manured for his use, and he eats of the fruits of it. In the latter sense, those who immediately work about the ground in the tilling of it are intended. But there is no need to distinguish in this place between owner and dresser; for God as he is the great husbandman is both. He is the Lord of the vineyard, it is his, and he dresseth and pruneth the vines, that they may bring forth fruit, John 15:1-2. Again; the ground, thus made fruitful, “receiveth blessing of God.” And the blessing of God with respect unto a fruitful field is twofold, — (1.) Antecedent, in the communication of goodness, or fruit-causing virtue to it. “The smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed,” Genesis 27:27; — a field that abounds with blossoms, flowers, and fruits, yielding a sweet savor; being so made fruitful by the singular blessing of God. But this is not the blessing here intended; for it is supposed that this field is already made fruitful, so as to bring forth useful herbs; and therefore it must be antecedently interested in this kind of blessing, without which nothing can thrive or prosper. Wherefore,(2.) God’s benediction is taken for consequent acceptation or approbation, with care and watchfulness for a further improvement. The blessing of God is at large described, Isaiah 27:2-3.And there are three things included in this blessing of a fruitful field: — (1.) The owning, acceptation, or approbation of it. Such a field God owns, and is not ashamed that it should be looked on as his. And this is opposed to the rejection of the barren ground afterwards mentioned, — “is rejected.”(2.) The care, watchfulness, and diligence that are used about it. God watcheth over such a field or vineyard to keep it night and day, that none should hurt it, watering it every moment, and purging the branches of its vines, to make them yet more fruitful; — opposed to “being nigh unto cursing;” that is, wholly neglected, or left unto salt and barrenness.(3.) A final preservation from all evil; — opposed to the burning up of the barren earth, with the thorns and briers that grow upon it.These things being spoken only of the ground, whence the comparison is taken, the application of them, though not expressed, unto the spiritual things intended is plain and easy. For, — 1. The ground thus dressed, thus bearing fruit, and blessed of God, is true and sound believers. So our Savior declares it to be in the interpretation of his own parable to this purpose, Matthew 13. They are such as “receive the word of God in good and honest hearts,” and bring forth fruits of it in several degrees; — such as, having been ministerially planted and watered, have an increase wrought in them by the grace of God, 1 Corinthians 2:6-7. 2. There is included herein the manner how they bring forth the fruits intended; and that is, that they bring forth in their lives what was before conceived and cherished in their hearts. They have the root in themselves of what they bring forth. So doth the word here used signify, namely, to bring forth the fruit of an inward conception. The doctrine of the gospel, as cast into their hearts, is not only rain, but seed also. This is cherished by grace as precious seed; and, as from a natural root or principle in the heart, brings forth precious fruit. And herein consists the difference between the fruit-bearing of true believers and the works of hypocrites or false professors: These latter bring forth fruits like mushrooms; — they come up suddenly, have ofttimes a great bulk and goodly appearance, but they are only a forced excrescency, they have no natural seed or root in the earth. They do not proceed from a living principle of them in their hearts. The other sort do first conceive, cherish, and foment them in their hearts and minds; whence they bring them forth as from a genuine and natural principle. This is on either side fully declared by our Savior himself, Luke 6:43-45.3. There are the herbs or fruits intended. These are they which elsewhere in the Scripture are called “the fruits of the Spirit,” “the fruits of righteousness,” of “holiness,” and the like. All that we do in compliance with the will of God, in the course of our profession and obedience, is of this kind. All effects of faith and love, of mortification and sanctification, that are holy in themselves and useful to others, whereby we express the truth and power of that doctrine of the gospel which we do profess, are the fruits and herbs intended. When our hearts are made holy and our lives useful by the gospel, then are we fruitful.4. These herbs are said to be “meet for them by whom” (or “for whom”) “the earth is dressed.” As it is neither useful nor safe to press similitudes beyond their principal scope and intention, and to bring in every minute circumstance into the comparison; so we must not neglect what is fairly instructive in them, especially if the application of things one to another have countenance and guidance given it in other places of the Scripture, as it is in this case. Wherefore, to clear the application of this part of the similitude, we may observe, —(1.) That God himself is the great husbandman, John 15:1; and all believers are “God’s husbandry,” 1 Corinthians 2:9. He is so the husbandman as to be the sovereign Lord and Owner of this field or vineyard; and he puts workmen into it to dress it. This our Savior sets out at large in his parable, Matthew 21:33, etc. Hence he calls his people his “portion,” and “the lot of his inheritance,” Deuteronomy 32:9. He speaks as though he had given up all the world besides into the possession of others, and kept his people only unto himself. And so he hath, as to the especial blessed relation which he intendeth.(2.) It is God himself who taketh care for the watering and dressing of this field. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Expositors generally agree in giving these verses as an instance of the great wisdom and prudence used by the apostle in his dealing with these Hebrews. Chrysostom in especial insists upon it, making observations unto that purpose on all the considerable passages in the context. What is really of that nature will occur unto us, and shall be observed in our progress. His design in general is twofold: — First, To mollify the severity of the preceding commination, and prediction contained therein, that it might not have an effect on their minds beyond his intention. He knew that, all circumstances considered, it was necessary for him to make use of it; but withal he was careful that none of them who were sincere should be terrified or discouraged. For if men are disanimated in the way wherein they are engaged, by those on whose guidance they depend, and unto whose judgment they are to submit, it makes them despond and give over thoughts of a cheerful progress. Wherefore in all cases our apostle was exceeding careful not in any thing to make heavy or sorrowful the hearts of his disciples, unless it were in case of extreme necessity. Hence is his apology or excuse, as it were, to the Corinthians for having put them to sorrow by some severe reproofs in his former letter to them, 2 Corinthians 2:1-2 :“But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again unto you in heaviness. For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me?”He lets them know, that whatever sorrow he had put them to, it was so unto himself no less than unto them, seeing they were the chiefest causes of his joy and gladness. And thus dealeth he in this place with the Hebrews. Lest they should be amazed with the terror of the preceding commination, and the prediction therein contained of the inevitable and dreadful ruin of slothful apostates and hypocrites, he lets them know that he did no way therein determine or pass a judgment on them, their state and condition. But having far other thoughts and hopes concerning them, and the end of their profession, he yet judged it necessary to excite them unto that diligence which some among them had neglected to use, by declaring the miserable end of those who always abide unfruitful under, or do apostatize from, the profession of the gospel. Herein doth he steer a direct and equal course between the extremes in admonition. For he neither useth so much lenity as to enervate his reproof and warning, nor so much severity as to discourage or provoke those who are warned by him. In a word, he layeth weight upon things, and spareth persons; the contrary whereunto is the bane of all spiritual admonition. Secondly, He maketh use of this discourse for a transition unto the second part of his design. And this was, to propose unto them who were true believers such encouragements and grounds of consolation as might confirm and establish them in their faith and obedience; which are the subjects of the remaining part of this chapter. Wherefore, as, to make way for the severe threatenings which he hath used, it was necessary for him to describe the persons unto whom they did in an especial manner belong, so it was no less requisite that he should describe those also unto whom the ensuing promises and consolations do pertain; which he doth in these verses.Hebrews 6:9. — Πεπείσμεθαδὲπερὶὑμῶν, ἀγαπητοί, τὰκρείττονακαὶἐχόμενασωτηρίας, εἰκαὶοἵτωλαλοῦμεν.Πεπείσμεθα, “persuasi sumus,” “confidimus.” Bez., “persuasimus nobis,” “we are persuaded.” ᾿Αλαπητοί. Syr., ΰֲ ?ηַ ?ι, “my brethren.” Vulg., “dilectissimi.” Rhem., “we confidently trust of you, my best beloved.” Τὰκρείττονα, “meliora.” Syr., ΰֵ ?ιμֵ ?ιογְּ ?ωַׁ ?τִ ?ιψֵ ?ιο, “ea quae sunt bona, pulchra;” “the things that are good or comely.” Καὶἐχὸμενασωτηρίας. Syr., εְ ?χַ ?ψַ ?ιְ ?αָ ?ομְ ?ηַ ?ιֵּ ?ΰ, “and such as draw near to life;” that is, eternal. Vulg. Lat., “et viciniora saluti.” Rhem., “and nearer to salvation.” Others generally, “et cum salute conjuncta.” Ours, “and such as accompany salvation;” very properly.Hebrews 6:9. — But we are persuaded of you, beloved, better things, and such as accompany salvation, although we thus speak.The especial design of the apostle, in this and the following verses, is to declare his good-will towards the Hebrews, his judgment of their state and condition, the reasons and grounds of that judgment, with the proper use and end of the commination before laid down, that neither theft might be neglected nor themselves discouraged. This verse contains, 1. An expression of his love and good-will towards them; 2. His judgment of them; 3. The reason of his present declaration of both these, with respect unto what he had spoken before unto them, namely, that although he had spoken it unto them, he did not speak it of them.1. His love and good-will he testifies in his compellation, ἀγαπητοί, “beloved.” It is an expression of most entire affection, and is never used in the Gospels but to express the love of God the Father unto his Son Jesus Christ, Matthew 3:17; Matthew 12:18; Matthew 17:5; Mark 1:11; Mark 9:7; Mark 12:6; Luke 3:22; Luke 9:35; Luke 20:13. By the apostles in their epistles it is frequently applied unto believers, especially by Paul, in all those written by him: we might therefore pass it over, as that word which it was usual with him to express his sincere affection by towards all saints. But there seems to be a twofold reason of its especial introduction in this place, both of them respected in the wisdom of our apostle. (1.) Perhaps these Hebrews were ready enough to entertain jealousies concerning him, that he had not that affection for them which he had for others. For he had now spent a long time with and among the Gentiles, for their conversion and edification. Among them he had planted very many churches, and that on one point contrary to the judgment of most of these Hebrews, namely, in a liberty from the law and the ceremonies of Moses. In this long converse and work, they might suspect that he had lost his natural love to his countrymen, as is usual in such cases, and as he was much accused to have done. To root this evil surmise out of their minds, as he useth frequently other affectionate compellations in this epistle, so he here calls them his “beloved;” than which he had used no expression of greater endearment towards any of his Gentile converts. And notwithstanding all the provocations and injuries he had received from them, he gave on all occasions the highest demonstration of the most intense affection towards them; never opposing them nor reflecting on them with any severity, but only then and wherein they opposed the gospel and the liberty thereof. This affection was such for them, as his countrymen and kinsmen in the flesh, as that he could willingly have died that they might be saved, Romans 9:2-3. And for this he prayed continually, Romans 10:1. And the addition of love that was made in him upon their conversion cannot be expressed. (2.) He hath respect unto his preceding severe expressions, as is plain from the close of this verse, “though we thus speak.” As if he had said,‘Notwithstanding this severe admonition, which I have, upon the consideration of all circumstances, been forced to use, yet my heart stands no otherwise affected towards you but as towards my countrymen, brethren, and saints of God.’And thus, — Obs. 1. It is the duty of the dispensers of the gospel to satisfy their hearers in and of their love in Jesus Christ to their souls and persons.2. The apostle expresseth his judgment concerning these Hebrews, “We are persuaded better things of you, and such as accompany salvation;” wherein we have, first, the act of his mind in this matter: Πεπείσμεθα, “We are persuaded.” Chrysostom insists much on the force of this word. The apostle, as he observes, doth not say, ‘We think,’or ‘We hope;’but he was fully “persuaded.” He lets them know that he was fully satisfied in this matter. And he useth not this word anywhere in his epistles (as he useth it often), but he intends a full and prevalent persuasion. Now this a man may have in spiritual things on three grounds:(1.) By especial revelation; so he was certain of the truth of the gospel that was revealed unto him, which he discourseth of, Galatians 1:7-8.(2.) By the evidence of faith; when any thing is believed on grounds infallible, namely, the revelation of the mind of God in the Scripture, or the promises of the gospel. So he useth this word, Romans 8:38, Πεπείσμεθαγάρ, — “For I am persuaded that neither death nor life,” etc. This he believed, and had an infallible certainty thereof, because God had so promised. So also, 2 Timothy 1:12 : Οι῏δαγὰρᾧπεπίτεωκα, καὶπέπεισμαιὅτιδυνατόςἐστιτὴνπαρακαταθήκηνμουφυλάξαι — “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him.” He useth the same expression in matter of faith, Romans 14:14.(3.) There is a certain persuasion of mind, that is founded on moral arguments, such as may bring a man to a full satisfaction in his mind, but yet so as it is possible he may be deceived. Of this nature is that persuasion, that trust or confidence, which we have of the good condition of other men. So our apostle speaks of Timothy and his faith, 2 Timothy 1:5 : “The faith that dwelt in thy mother Eunice, πέπεισμαιδὲὅτικαὶἐνσοί,” — “and I am persuaded in thee also.” He was not persuaded of any sincere faith in Timothy by especial revelation, nor was it the object of his faith from any express word of Scripture, but he was satisfied of it upon such unquestionable grounds and motives as left no room for doubt about it. Some urge to the same purpose Philippians 1:6, Πέποιθὼςαὐτὸτοῦτο, — “Being confident of this very thing,” (persuaded of it), “that he who hath begun a good work in you, will perform it to the day of Jesus Christ.” But this persuasion, being built on a supposition that a good work was begun in them, was an act of faith infallible, built on the promises of God and the changeableness of his covenant. His persuasion here concerning the Hebrews was of this latter kind, even that which he had satisfactory reasons and grounds for, which prevailed against all contrary objections. In like manner he speaks of the Romans, Romans 15:14. Πέποιθὼςαὐτὸτοῦτο, — “And I myself am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye are full of goodness.” The grounds of this persuasion with respect unto the Hebrews, he expresseth in the next verse, where we shall consider them.Obs. 2. It is our duty to come unto the best satisfaction we may in the spiritual condition of them with whom we are to have spiritual communion.There is not any thing of our mutual duties that the gospel more presseth, or more supposeth. And it is necessary both unto ministers and private Christians. For the former, they are concerned in the advice of the wise man, Proverbs 27:23, “Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks.” They are not only to provide good pasture and feeding for them, but they must know their state and condition, that what they provide for them may be suitable and seasonable. And unto this end there were at first some in the church who had the immediate inspection of the state and walking of the members of it, and were thereby enabled, as Moses said to his father-in-law, Numbers 10:31, to be “instead of eyes” unto the teachers, to look into the condition of all sorts of persons. Nor can they without it discharge any one duty of their office in a due manner. For ministers to walk towards their people at “peradventure,” and to “fight uncertainly, as men beating the air,” without an acquaintance with their state, and especial consideration of their condition, and what therein is suited unto their edification (as is the manner of many), will leave them at a great uncertainty how to give in their account. See Hebrews 13:17. Unless a man have some good satisfaction concerning the spiritual condition of those that are committed unto his charge, he can never approve himself among them “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” to give unto all their proportion. And the work of the ministry is not by any means more evacuated and rendered ineffectual, than when men have not a certain design to deal with their hearers according unto what they are persuaded that their spiritual state doth require. How shall they instruct, how shall they warn, how shall they comfort any, but on a supposition of an acquaintance with the state and condition wherein they are? A general preaching at random, without a special scope, directed by the persuasion mentioned, turns the whole work for the most part, both in preachers and hearers, into a useless formality. In brief, this persuasion principally regulates the whole work of the ministry. He that is a physician unto the bodies of men, must acquaint himself with the especial state and condition of his patients, as also of their distempers, wherein his skill and judgment are especially to be exercised. Without that, let him be furnished with the greatest store of good medicines, if he give them out promiscuously unto all comers, all that he doth will be of little use. It may be, his medicines being safe, they will do no harm; and it is as probable they will do as little good. Nor will it be otherwise with the physicians of souls in the like case. Four things are required to make the dispensation of the word proper and profitable; a good spring, a safe rule, a distinct design, and enlivening affections.(1.) The first is the dispenser’s own light and experience. He is to see in his work with his own eyes, and not those of other men. And when he is by his own light as a scribe instructed unto the kingdom of God, it is out of the good treasure of his own heart that he is to bring forth good things, new and old.(2.) His safe rule is the infallible word of truth. This must be the touchstone of his light and experience. And it is suited unto his whole work, unto all the duties of it, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. In nothing but what is regulated hereby are any to be attended unto, Isaiah 8:20.(3.) His distinct design lies in the due consideration of the spiritual state and condition of them unto whom the word is to be dispensed. And herein consists the greatest part of the ministerial skill. This is that which secretly differenceth the constant ministerial dispensation of the word from the occasional exercise of the gifts of any. And this doth God make use of to convey unexpected relief or repose unto the souls of men, wherewith they are surprised and affected. If we have not this scope continually before us, we may run apace, but never know whether we are in or out of the way. (4.) The enlivening affections that ought to accompany the dispensation of the word, are zeal for the glory of God and compassion for the souls of men. But these things must not here be insisted on. And for private Christians among themselves, their mutual duties are referred unto love and the fruits of it. That special love which ought to be among the disciples of Christ as such, takes up, in the description, injunctions, and directions of it, a great part of the writings of the New Testament. Nothing doth the Lord Christ himself and his apostles so urge upon them as this of mutual love. Upon the right discharge of this duty he frequently declares that his honor in them and by them in this world doth principally depend. And whatever we have besides this, our apostle declares that it is nothing, or of no use in the church of God, 1 Corinthians 13. And the greatest evidence of the degeneracy of Christianity in the world, consists in the open loss of this love amongst those who make profession thereof. [1. Now this love is founded in our persuasion concerning the spiritual state and condition of each other. I mean, that especial mutual love is so which ought to be among the disciples of Christ as such. For although we are on other grounds obliged unto a love towards all mankind, whether friends or enemies, yet that peculiar love which the gospel so chargeth on the disciples of Christ is an effect of, and is built upon their common and mutual interest in Christ. They are to love one another as members of rite same mystical body, and united unto the same spiritual Head. Whatever love there may be on other accounts among any of them, which doth not arise from this spring and fountain, it is not that gospel love which ought to be among believers. And how can this be in us, unless we have a good persuasion concerning our mutual interest and in-being in Christ? God forbid that any should press that peculiarly intense love that ought to be among the members of the body of Christ, to take off or derogate from that general love and usefulness which not only the law of our creation but the gospel also requireth of us in an especial manner towards all men; yea, he who professeth love unto the saints, that peculiar love which is required towards them, and doth not exercise love in general towards all men, — much more if he make the pretense of brotherly love the ground of alienating his affection from the residue of mankind, — can have no assurance that the love he so professeth is sincere, incorrupt, genuine, and without dissimulation. But this special love is the special duty of us all, if we believe the gospel, and without which foundation well laid we can rightly discharge no other mutual duty whatever. Now this, as is evident, we cannot have unless we have a persuasion of the only ground of this love, which is our mutual relation unto Jesus Christ. And to act this love aright as to its object, as grounded on this persuasion, take heed of “evil surmises;” — these are the bane of evangelical love, though some seem to make them their duties. Those concerning whom we hear that they make profession of faith and obedience towards our Lord Jesus Christ, and know not that they any way contradict their profession by wicked works, we are obliged to bear the same love towards as if we knew them sincere. For “charity hopeth all things,” namely, that are good, if we have no certain evidence to the contrary. And thus in general we may have this persuasion concerning “all that in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.” We have no obligation, indeed, hereunto, towards such as visibly and evidently walk unworthy of that high calling whereby we are called. For concerning such our apostle assures us, that whatever they profess, they are “enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is their shame, who mind earthly things,” Philippians 3:18-19.It is a dishonor, a reproach to Christ and the gospel, that we should persuade ourselves that they are his disciples, and members of his mystical body, whom we see to walk after the manner of the world, and to have their conversation in the lusts of the flesh. These we are still to love, as those who once had, and are yet capable of the renovation of, the image of God upon them; but they proclaim themselves destitute of all those qualifications which are the formal object and reason of this peculiar love. [2. The Lord Christ hath, by his institution, secured us as to a certain rule of this persuasion and love, by the disposal of his disciples into church societies upon such grounds as are a sufficient warranty for it. Thus our apostle, in all his epistles unto the churches, salutes, esteems, judgeth them all to be “saints, and called in Christ Jesus.” For although some of them might not be so really and in the sight of God, yet his persuasion and his love being directed according to the rule, were acceptable unto Christ. And whereas our Lord Jesus hath commanded that all his disciples should join themselves unto and walk in such societies, were there not great confusion brought into the world in and about gospel institutions, we should not be atloss about this persuasion and love; for we should be obliged unto them towards all that are called Christians, until they had openly declared themselves to be “enemies of the cross of Christ.” But we are yet suffering under the confusion of a fatal apostasy, which God in his good time will deliver his churches from. [3. As we cannot direct our love aright without this persuasion, no more can we exercise any of the duties or fruits of it in a due manner. The fruits of mutual love among Christians are either in things spiritual, which concern edification; or in things temporal, which concern outward relief. Of the first sort, are admonition, exhortation, instructions, and consolations, mutually administered. Now, how can any man order or make use of these in a right manner, unless he have some directive persuasion of the spiritual condition of them unto whom he doth administer? It is true he may sometimes be therein mistaken; yet it is far better so to be than never to consider what is meet and requisite with respect thereunto. And as for the fruits of the same love in outward things, although they ought to be brought forth in the temporal supplies of all, according to our opportunities and abilities, yet without this persuasion they will want the quickening form and soul of them; which is a design to place our love in them ultimately on Jesus Christ. Obs. 3. We may, as occasions require, publicly testify that good persuasion which we have concerning the spiritual condition of others, and that unto themselves.Our apostle here acquaints these Hebrews with his good persuasion concerning them; and likewise in all his epistles he still declares his hope and confidence of their blessed interest in Christ unto whom he wrote; and spares not to give them all the titles which really belong only to elect believers. Now, as this is not to be done lightly, not in a way of flattering compliance, not but upon just and firm grounds from Scripture, least of all to give countenance unto any to continue in an evil way or practice; yet in three cases it is warrantable and requisite: — (1.) When it is done for their due encouragement. Gracious persons, through their temptations, fears, and sense of sin; yea, whole churches, upon occasion of trials, distresses, and backslidings among them; may so be cast down and despond, as to be discouraged in their duties and progress. In this case it is not only lawful, but expedient, yea necessary, that we should testify unto them that good persuasion which we have concerning their state and condition, with the grounds thereof, as the apostle doth in this place. So in like case testified our Savior himself concerning and unto the church of Smyrna: “I know thy poverty,” what thou complainest of, and art ready to sink under; “but thou art rich,” Revelation 2 (2.) It may and ought to be done for their just vindication. The disciples and churches of Christ may be falsely accused and charged, and yet it may be with so much probability, or at least appearance of evil, as that they may greatly suffer in their just reputation, whereby the holy name of the Lord Christ is also dishonored. He who falsely accuseth all the brethren before God continually, wants not instruments to fix calumnies upon them among men here below. In such a case it is our indispensable duty to testify our good persuasion concerning them, be they persons or churches, who are so traduced. And if we do it not, we have a copartnership in the guilt of their enemies’false accusations.(3.) When we have any necessary duty to discharge towards them, which this testification of our persuasion concerning them may render more effectual, or prevent it having another end than what we aim at, or remove any prejudice out of its way. This was the very case wherein the apostle testifieth his persuasion concerning them unto these Hebrews. His design was to admonish them of some faults, sins, and miscarriages, that had already been among them; and, moreover, to charge them with a care about apostasy from the gospel, which the way wherein some of them were seemed to have a tendency unto. But lest this his dealing with them, which had an appearance of much severity, should have begotten prejudices in their minds against his person and ministry on the one hand, or too much dejected and cast them down on the other, he secures his procedure on both sides with this testification of his confidence concerning their spiritual condition; thereby at once assuring them of his love, and evidencing the necessity of his admonition. And herein hath he, in the example of the wisdom bestowed on him for this end, given us an inviolable rule of our proceeding in like cases. Obs. 4. The best persuasion we can arrive unto concerning the spiritual condition of any, leaves yet room, yea, makes way for, gospel foreatenings, warnings, exhortations, and encouragements. There is nothing more common than to charge the ways of some, that, by persuading men of their regeneration and saintship, they render them secure, and the threatenings of the gospel in an especial manner unuseful unto them. Neither is there any question but that this, as all other ways of God and his grace, may be abused. But those who manage the charge in general may do well to fix it in the first place on the apostles. For there are not any of them but testify the same persuasion concerning all them to whom they wrote; and there is no doubt but that their way of preaching and writing was the same. But yet this hindered them not from the use of all sorts of evangelical comminations, exhortations, and encouragements; from whence we are to take our example and warranty for the same practice. This, therefore, lies evident in their procedure, which is our instruction and rule, namely, that looking on men as believers, or being persuaded of their good spiritual condition, we yet ought to apply unto them all the means appointed by Christ for the begetting, increase, and continuance of grace in them. And the reasons hereof are evident; for, (1.) Although that persuasion which men may have of their spiritual condition, or which others may have or declare concerning them, may strengthen their peace, yet it neither doth nor ought to incline them unto security. “Thou standest by faith,” saith the apostle; “be not high-minded, but fear,” Romans 11:20; — ‘Take the peace and comfort of thy faith, but be neither proud nor secure.’Where there is any such effect hereof, towards a Laodicean security, there is a just ground to suspect that the persuasion itself is a pernicious mistake. And it is the duty of all professors to give heed diligently lest any such “root of bitterness” spring up amongst them and defile them. If once a persuasion of this good condition begins to influence towards security and a neglect of duty, then ought they to be in the highest jealousy concerning their condition itself.(2.) Whatever men’s state and condition be under the gospel, they are still obliged unto the means appointed for their edification and preservation. Amongst all the vain imaginations about religious things vented in these latter days, there is none savours more rankly of satanical pride and human folly than that of such a state of perfection attainable in this life, wherein, as it is phrased, men should be “above ordinances;” that is, should be “vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds,” above the authority, and wisdom, and truth of God. Whilst we are in the way, under the conduct of the gospel, we need all the advantages it affords in our progress. Of this sort are all the threatenings, promises, exhortations, encouragements, contained in it. And the proper use of gospel threatenings in particular, such as that here insisted on by our apostle, I have declared at large on the first and second verses of the fourth chapter, and shall not here again insist thereon. It followeth hence, (1.) That whatever be the state and condition of them unto whom we dispense the word, or whatever we may conceive it to be, we are not, with respect thereunto, to baulk or waive the delivery and pressing of any evangelical warning, or the severest threatening contained in the gospel, much less encouragements and motives unto faith and obedience, though we are persuaded they both believe and obey. For as it is not impossible but that both they and we may be mistaken in their condition, and that the severest menaces may be their proper portion in the world; so, be their condition what it will, all these things have not only their proper use towards them, but are necessary for them in their several kinds. For although they, every one of them as singly laid down, are of the same signification in themselves, yet in their application unto men they have a sense suited unto their condition. For instance: — the same threatening, as applied unto unbelievers, tends to beget dread, terror, and fear of wrath in them, to fill them with evidences of God’s displeasure: as applied unto believers, it tends only to fill them with reverential fear of God, care to avoid the sin threatened, and to excite diligence in the use of means for its avoidance. All of them are good for all. As, therefore, if we should always, in the dispensation of the word, insist on the threatenings of the law and gospel, — whose denunciation multitudes do certainly stand need of, — we might weaken and discourage those whom God would not have to be discouraged; so, on the other hand, if, out of an apprehension that our people or congregations are made up of believers, we should continually insist on the promises of the gospel, with the like springs of consolation, seldom or never pressing on them the threatenings and severe menaces thereof, we should certainly defraud them of a blessed means which God hath ordained for their edification and preservation in faith. The holy intermixture of all these things in the Scripture itself is to be our rule, and not any imagination of our own. (2.) That others should not think themselves severely dealt with, when they are pressed on and urged with the severest threatenings of the gospel. Let them not say or think in their hearts, ‘This preacher looks upon us as persons unregenerate, or hypocrites; perhaps out of ill-will unto us.’It is certain that on such occasions men are apt to give place to such surmises; for an apprehension thereof is the reason why the apostle maketh as it were this apology for the use of the foregoing severe commination. As if he had said, ‘Do not you entertain any hard thoughts or evil surmises concerning me or my dealing with you in this matter. There are other reasons of my thus dealing with you; for as unto your personal interest in the grace of Christ, I have as yet a good persuasion, although I thus speak.’And let others take heed lest they fall into any such apprehension, which will certainly defeat them of the wholesome fruit of the word. Sharp frosts are needful to make the ground fruitful, as well as the clearest sunshine. And if a tree be not sometimes pressed on by the wind, it will never well firm its roots in the ground. Sharp reproofs, and earnestness in pressing gospel comminations, are sometimes as needful for the best of us as the administration of the richest and most precious promises, Hosea 10:11.3. Having considered in general the good persuasion of the apostle concerning those Hebrews, we may consider in especial his expression of the things which he was so persuaded to be in them. And this is double:(1.) Τὰκρείττονα, — “Better things;”(2.) ᾿Εχόμενασωτηρίας, — “Such as accompany salvation.”(1.) He was persuaded concerning them τὰκρείττονα, — “better things.” There seems to be a comparison included in this expression, and not only an opposition unto what was [formerly] spoken. If so, then there is a supposition of some good things granted unto those [formerly] treated of. This therefore cannot refer unto the verses immediately before, which express only their barrenness and destruction, but it must relate unto verses 4-6, where the spiritual gifts collated on them are enumerated. They are “good things” in themselves, but yet such good things as may perish, and they also on whom they are bestowed. Those who enjoy them may yet be barren ground, and so cursed and burned. But the apostle is persuaded “better things” of those to whom he speaks, namely, “such things as accompany salvation;” — such as whosoever is made partaker of shall never perish eternally. Or τὰκρείττονα may be put for τὰχρηστά, “good things,” as Chrysostom supposeth. But yet neither is there any need of supposing an impropriety in the expression; for it is usual to express excellent things in words of the comparative degree, although no comparison be included, especially when they are made mention of with respect unto others who have no interest in them. However, here is certainly an opposition unto what was before affirmed concerning others. And that may be reduced unto two heads: [1. That they were barren and destitute of all saving grace and fruits. [2. That they should in the end be destroyed. These “better things” must be opposed to the one or other of these, or unto them both. If they are opposed unto the first, then especial saving grace and fruit-bearing, such as are peculiar unto God’s elect, proceeding from the real sanctification of the Spirit, such as no perishing gifted hypocrites can be partakers of, are intended. If unto the latter, then those “better things” respect not their qualification, but their condition; that is, freedom from the curse and wrath of God, and from perishing under them: ‘I am persuaded it will go better with you than with such apostates.’It may be both are included; but the first is certainly intended, namely, that these Hebrews were not barren, but such as brought forth the saving fruits of the Spirit of grace. (2.) For of these things it is added, Καὶἐχόμενασωτηρίας, — “Such as accompany salvation:” literally, “such as have salvation;” that is, such as have saving grace in them, and eternal salvation infallibly annexed unto them, — things that are not bestowed on any, such as are not wrought in any, but those that shall be saved; that is, in brief, true faith and sincere obedience. For in whomsoever these are found, they shall be saved, by virtue of the faithfulness of God in the covenant of grace. And we may observe hence, —Obs. 5. That among professors of the gospel some are partakers of “better things” than others. They were all professors concerning whom the apostle discourseth in this and the preceding verses; and yet, notwithstanding any good things that some might have had, or might be supposed to have had, others of them had better things than they. And this difference may be observed, first in the degrees, and secondly in the kinds of the things intended: — (1.) Spiritual gifts are of one kind. For although there are several sorts of them, yet they have all the same general nature; they are all gifts, and no more. The difference, therefore, that is amongst them being not to be taken from their own especial nature, but their use and tendency unto the common end of them all, I take it only to be gradual. For instance, to speak with tongues and to prophesy, are two gifts of different sorts; but whereas they are both gifts of the Spirit, and are designed unto the furtherance of the gospel and edification of the church, the true difference between them is to be taken from their usefulness unto this end. Those, therefore, who have only gifts in the church, as they have different gifts, so they have some of them better gifts than others; some as to the especial kinds of gifts, but mostly as to the degrees of their usefulness unto their proper end. Hence our apostle, having reckoned up the various and manifold gifts of the Spirit, adds this advice unto the Corinthians, upon the consideration of them, Ζηλοῦτεδὲτὰχαρίσματατὰχρείττονα, 1 Corinthians 12:31; “Covet earnestly the best gifts,” — those that tend most to the edification of the church. Thus ever it was, and ever it will be, in the church of God; some have had, and some have better gifts than others. And as the whole church is hence to learn to acquiesce in, and submit to the sovereignty of the Spirit of God, “who divideth unto every man severally as he will;” so those who have received these better and differing gifts, either in their especial nature or degrees of usefulness, have some duties singularly incumbent on them, and whose discharge will be required at their hands: as, — [1. To walk humbly, with a constant care that a sense of their gifts and abilities do not in their minds puff them up, fill them with conceits of themselves, as though they were somewhat, and so make them exalt themselves above their brethren, in the apostolical and primitive church, when there was nothing of that secular grandeur, promotion, preferments, dignities, amongst the ministers of the church, as now-a-days fill the world with pride and domination, all the danger of a hurtful elation of mind in one above another was from the eminency of gifts which some had received above others. And it cannot be denied but that the abuse hereof laid the foundation of all that swelling secular pride and cursed domination, or lordly rule, which afterwards pestered the church. The two things which the apostle Peter in one place cautions and chargeth the elders and guides of the church against, became their ruin, namely, filthy lucre, and love of domination over the Lord’s heritage, 1 Peter 5:2-3. And, indeed, it is a very hard and difficult matter for men totally to suppress those insinuations of a good conceit of themselves, and preferring themselves before others, which gifts singular in their use and kind will suggest. Neither will it be effected without a constant exercise of grace. For this cause the apostle would not have a “novice” called to the ministry, or public exercise of spiritual gifts, namely, “lest he be puffed up with pride, and fall into the condemnation of the devil,” 1 Timothy 3:6. Afflictions and temptations for the most part, are a needful balance for eminent gifts. This, therefore, the Scripture hath provided against, both warning us that knowledge, which is the matter of all spiritual gifts, will puff up; and forbidding us to boast in them, because they are things which are freely bestowed on us, without respect unto any thing of good or worth in ourselves, 1 Corinthians 4:7. And, if we reckon aright, those of us whose gifts are inferior unto those of other men, — provided we use and improve what we have received unto the best advantage we are able, — have no reason to envy them whose gifts outshine ours. For, if they are gracious, they have work enough cut out for them to keep them watchful over themselves unto humility; where yet it is to be feared that things do not always so well succeed, but that, by sinful surprisals of self-elating imaginations, there is work made for repentance and trouble. Yea, he who is eminently gifted, if he be not eminently humble, hath but an unquiet life within doors. And if such a person be not truly gracious, he is in the ready way to “fall into the condemnation of the devil.” Such a person is a prey to every temptation, and will also seduce himself into all evil. [2. It is required of such persons, as to be humble, so in an especial manner to be thankful. The things whereof they are partakers are gifts, and not to be thankful for gifts, is the most proper ingratitude. [3. A fruitfulness proportionable unto the excellency of their gifts. He who had received five talents was not only obliged to trade with them, but to get five talents more. The increase of one or two talents would not have served his turn. To whom much is given, of him not somewhat, but much is required. The hiding of many talents is a sin whereof there is no instance in the Scripture; it is a sin that hath a greatness in it not to be supposed; and those who may be concerned in it ought to tremble with the apprehensions of it. Our Lord is coming, and, alas! there is none of us who have traded with his talents as we ought to have done. We hope that, in his infinite mercy and compassion, he will spare and pardon, and accept of that little which we have endeavored after in sincerity; but in the. meantime we ought always to consider that labor and fruitfulness ought to be proportioned unto what we have received. But yet these are not the “better things” here directly intended. For from them, or any thing that is in the best of them, no such conclusion can be made as that here by our apostle, seeing he had showed before that they might all perish and be lost. (2.) There are spiritual things which differ in their whole kind and nature from other things, and are better than they as to their essence and being. Such is all saving grace, with all the fruits of it. I shall not now stay to prove that true saving grace differs specifically from all common grace, however advanced in its exercise by the company and help of spiritual gifts, much less to wrangle about what doth formally constitute a specifical difference between things. But this I say plainly, which I can prove assuredly, that true gospel faith and sincere obedience are better things than the most glorious hypocrite or most reformed unregenerate person was ever made partaker of. In the visible professing church all things outwardly seem to be equal. There are the same ordinances administered unto all, the same profession of faith is made by all, the same outward duties are attended unto, and scandalous offenses are by all avoided. But yet things are not internally equal. “Many are called, but few are chosen.” “In a great house there are vessels of wood and stone,” as well as of “gold and silver.” All that eat outwardly in ordinances of the bread of life, do not feed on the hidden manna. All that have their names enrolled in the church’s book may not yet have them written in the Lamb’s book. There are yet. “better things” than gifts, profession, participation of ordinances, and whatever is of the like nature. And the use hereof, in one word, is to warn all sorts of persons that they rest not in, that they take not up with an interest in or participation of, the privileges of the church, with a common profession, which may give them a name to live; seeing they may be dead or in a perishing condition in the meantime. Obs. 6. There are, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, such things bestowed on some persons as salvation doth infallibly accompany and ensue upon; better things, and such as have salvation accompanying of them. — This assertion is founded on the nature of the covenant of grace. In the first covenant it was not so. The best things bestowed by virtue of it might perish, and did so. Many excellent things were bestowed on us when we were created in the image of God: but they were all such things as we might lose, and did lose; and thereby came short of that glory of God which we were created for. But in the covenant of grace there is such a disposal and concatenation of spiritual things, that a real participation of some of them doth infallibly conclude unto an indefeasible interest in them all. This doth the apostle assure us in an express enumeration of them, Romans 8:29-30. For instance, there is a saving faith of this nature. For, (1.) It is an effect of God’s immutable purpose of election. If that, therefore, cannot be changed, this cannot utterly fail and be lost. “Whom he did predestinate, them he also calleth;” that is, to saving faith by Jesus Christ. Faith is of God’s elect; and they only believe truly who are “ordained to eternal life.”(2.) The Lord Christ intercedeth that this faith may never fail, or be utterly lost, John 17:9; John 17:11; John 17:15, etc.(3.) The power of God is engaged in the preservation of it, 2 Peter 1:3;1 Peter 1:5; Ephesians 1:19-20.(4.) The promises of the covenant are expressly multiplied unto this purpose, Jeremiah 31:31-34; Jeremiah 32:38-40. And the like may be said of all other saving graces. And on this ground doth the apostle call those “better things” that these Hebrews were made partakers of, being “such as accompany salvation.” Obs. 7. It is the duty of all professors strictly to examine themselves concerning their participation of those “better things which accompany salvation.” — Their condition is deplorable, who, under an outward profession, do satisfy themselves with those common gifts, graces, and duties, which are separable from salvation. Yet that it is so with many in the world, who thereon cry, “Peace, peace, whilst sudden destruction is coming upon them,” is openly manifest. See the advice of the apostle express to this purpose, 2 Corinthians 13:5.We may yet further observe how variously the apostle treats these Hebrews. Sometimes he styles them “holy brethren,” affirming them to be “partakers of the heavenly calling;” so also, that they had those “better things” in them “which accompany salvation.” Sometimes he tells them that they were “dull” and “slothful,” and “had need to be taught again what are the principles of the oracles of God;” and sets before them the final destruction of apostates, to ingenerate a fear and apprehension of the terror of the Lord in them. Now this variety in the apostle’s treating of them proceeds not from present commotions, nor from any rhetorical artifice, but from a regular and steady judgment concerning the condition of the whole church. For, (1.) There were, indeed, several sorts of professors among them, answering the several descriptions he gives of them. He spake, therefore, to the whole community indefinitely, leaving the especial application of what he speaks unto themselves in particular, according as their different conditions did require. And this is the only safe and prudent way for ministers to deal with their flocks. For when any conceive themselves by other circumstances to be singled out for reproof and threatening, they commonly draw forth disadvantage to themselves thereby. (2.) The best of the hearers of the gospel may have much to be blamed in them, although their sincerity in general ought to be highly approved.(3.) Severe threatenings in the dispensation of the gospel are usually proposed unto them who yet are not absolutely liable to the penalty threatened. They do not predict what will come to pass, but warn what is to be avoided. ΟὐγὰρἄδικοςὁΘεὸς, ἐπιλαθέσθαιτοῦἔργουὑμῶν, καὶτοῦκόπουτῆςἀγάπης, ἧςἐνεδείξασθεεἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ, διακονήσαντεςτοῖςἀγίοιςκαιδιακονοῦντες.The Syriac renders ἄδικος by ςָ ?εָּ ?μ, “perversus,” “iniquus.” It omitteth κόπου also, as doth the Vulgar Latin; but expresseth τῆςἀγάπης emphatically, — εְ ?ϊεּ ?αְ ?λεּ ?οδָ ?ε, and “that your love.” Other material differences among translators there are not. [7][7] VARIOUS READING — Τοῦκόπου are omitted by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, on the authority of the best MSS. — Ed.Hebrews 6:10. — For God is unrighteous, to forget your work, and the labor of that love which you have [evidently] shewed towards his name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister.The expositors of the Roman church do greatly perplex themselves and others in their comments on this text. They generally agree in an endeavor from hence to prove the merit of works against Protestants, because the council of Trent applies this text to that purpose. And none are more confident herein than our Rhemists; who, after their usual reproaches of Protestants, affirm, ‘That good works are meritorious, and the very cause of salvation; so that God should be unjust if he rendered not heaven for the same.’But they are greatly divided among themselves about the state of the persons and kind of the works here intended. Some contend that the apostle speaks to and of such as were fallen out of a state of justification into a state of deadly sin. And the works of which it is said that God will not forget them, are those which they wrought in that estate from whence they were now supposed to be fallen. For on the account of those former works God will spare them, and not destroy them. And although there be no present merit in these works, whilst those who wrought them are in a state of deadly sin, yet when they shall be recovered by penance, these works, which were before mortified by their falling from grace, and so became of no use as to present merit, shall recover their former meritorious virtue, as if they had never been forfeited by deadly sin. This, therefore, is the sense which these persons would affix unto these words: ‘Where any have been in a state of justification, and have wrought good works therein, meritorious of eternal life, if they fall into deadly sin, they immediately lose all the merit and benefit of those works. But notwithstanding, God in his righteousness keeps the remembrance of these works, so that when such sinners return again by penance into their first estate, these works shall revive into a condition of merit.’This sense is opposed by others. For they think those mentioned are justified persons, and the apostle expresseth the merit of their present works, with respect unto the righteousness of God. The reader who desires to see such chaff tossed up and down, may find these things debated in Aquinas, Adamus, Estius, a Lapide, Ribera, Maldonatus, de Tena, and others of them on the place. 1. How foreign these discourses are to the text and context is evident to every impartial considerer of it. They are only chimeras hatched out of the proud imaginations of the merit of their works, that these men’s minds are prepossessed withal. For,(1.) Our apostle treats of those whom he supposeth and judgeth to be in a present good spiritual condition. For with respect thereunto he ascribeth unto them “things that accompany salvation,” and prescribeth no other duty unto them, for the actual enjoyment of it, but only those of faith and love, and ministration unto the saints; which at present he commendeth in them. What they did formerly, that he affirms them to continue in the performance of: “You have ministered, and you do minister.”(2.) The apostle expressly distinguisheth them concerning whom he now speaks from those who were now fallen off from the profession of the gospel, or that state of justification which the Romanists suppose.(3.) He doth not direct these persons to seek after a recovery out of the condition wherein they were, but encourageth them unto a continuance therein, and to “show the same diligence” unto that purpose as formerly, “to the end,” verse 11. Nothing, therefore, is more fond than to suppose that any thing is here taught concerning the mortification of good works as to their merit by deadly sin, and the recovery thereof by penance, — a fiction which these men dream of to no purpose.2. Neither is countenance given unto the other imagination in general, concerning the merit of works, in these words. For, first, the design of the apostle is only to let them know that their labor in the work of the Lord, that their obedience unto the gospel, should not be lost, or be in vain. And hereof he gives them assurance from the nature of God, with whom they had to do, with respect unto that covenant whereinto he takes them that do believe. They had been sedulous in the discharge of the great duty of “ministering unto the saints,” in particular upon the account of the name of Jesus Christ that was upon them. These duties had been attended with trouble, danger, and charge. And it was needful to confirm them in a persuasion that they should not be lost. This they might be two ways: (1.) If themselves should fall away, and not persist in their course unto the end.(2.) If God should overlook, or forget, as it were, all that they had done.Against both these apprehensions the apostle secures them. From the first, in that the works mentioned having been truly gracious works, proceeding from faith and love, they evidence their persons to be in that state of grace wherein they should be effectually preserved unto the end, by virtue of God’s faithfulness in covenant; which he further pursues towards the end of the chapter. Nor, secondly, had they the least reason to doubt of their future reward. For who was it that called them to these duties, and on what account? Is it not God, and that according unto the tenor of the covenant of grace? and hath he not therein promised to accept their persons and their duties by Jesus Christ? If now he should not do so, would he not be unrighteous, must he not deny himself, and not remember his promise? Wherefore the righteousness of God here intended, is his faithfulness in the promises of the covenant. And he is not said to be righteous in rewarding or not rewarding, but in not forgetting: “He is not unrighteous to forget.” Now, to forget any thing doth not reflect immediately on distributive justice, but upon fidelity in making good of some engagement. But, not to engage into disputations in this place, let men acknowledge that the new covenant is a covenant of grace; that the constitution of a reward unto the obedience required therein is of grace; that this obedience is not accepted on its own account, but on account of the mediation of Christ; that all men’s good works will not make a compensation for one sin; that we are to place our trust and confidence in Christ alone for life and salvation, because he is “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth;” and let them please themselves for a while in the fancy of the merit of their works, at least of the high and necessary place which they hold in their justification before God; — after all their wrangling disputes it will be Christ and his grace alone that they will betake themselves unto, or their case will be deplorable. These things I have premised, that we may have no cause to divert unto them in the ensuing exposition of the words. The apostle in this verse gives an account of the grounds of his persuasion concerning these Hebrews, expressed in the verse foregoing. And these he declares unto them partly for encouragement, and partly that they might be satisfied of his sincerity, and that he did not give them fair words to entice or allure them by. And the reasons he gives to this purpose may be reduced unto two heads: — 1. The observation which he had made concerning their faith and love, with the fruits of them. 2. The faithfulness of God in covenant, whereon the final preservation of all true believers doth depend.These are the grounds of that persuasion concerning their state and condition which he expressed in the foregoing words. Hence that persuasion of his was of a mixed nature, and had something in it of a divine faith, and somewhat only of a moral certainty. As he drew his conclusion from, or built his persuasion on, God’s faithfulness or righteousness, so there was in it an infallible assurance of faith, that could not deceive him; for what we believe concerning God, as he hath revealed himself, is infallible. But as his persuasion had respect unto the faith, love, and obedience, which he had observed in them, so it was only a moral assurance, and such as in its own nature might fail; for God only is καρδιογνώστης and we who judge by the outward evidences of invisible things may be deceived. The proposition from God’s faithfulness is of infallible truth; the application of it unto these Hebrews of moral evidence only. Such a persuasion we may have in this case, which is prevalent against all objections, a certain rule for the performance of all duties on our part towards others; and such had the apostle concerning these Hebrews. FIRST, That which in the first place he confirms his persuasion with, is τὸἔργον, “their work: “God is not unrighteous, to forget your work.” It is not any singular work, but a course in working which he intends, And what that work is, is declared in that parallel place of the same apostle, 1 Thessalonians 1:3, Μνημονεύοντεςὑμῶντοῦἔργουτῆςπίστεως, καὶτοῦκόπουτῆςἀγάπης — (the same expressions with those in this place, which may be reckoned unto the multitude of other instances of coincidences of expressions in this and the other epistles of the same writer, all peculiar unto himself, arguing him to be the author of this also,) — “Remembering your work of faith, and labor of love.” The work here intended is the “work of faith,” the whole work of obedience to God, whereof faith is the principle and that which moves us thereunto. Hence it is called “the obedience of faith,” Romans 16:26.And this obedience of faith according to the gospel is called there, τὸἔργον, “their work.”1. Because it was their chief employment, their calling lay in it. They did not attend unto it occasionally, or when they had nothing else to do, as is the manner of some. Religion was their business, and gospel obedience their daily work. This was their “whole,” even to “fear God, and keep his commandments,” as it is expressed in the Old Testament.2. Because there is work and labor in it, or great pains to be taken about it. For hereunto our apostle in the next verse requires their “diligence,” verse 11; as Peter doth “all diligence,” 2 Peter 1:10. And we may observe in our way, —Obs. 1. That faith, if it be a living faith, will be a working faith.It is the “work of faith” which the apostle here commends. This case is so stated by James that it needs no further confirmation: James 2:20, “Wilt thou know,” (or “knowest thou not,”) “O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” He is a most vain man who thinks otherwise, who hopes for any benefit by that faith which doth not work by love. Satan hath no greater design in the world than to abuse gospel truths. When the doctrine of free justification by faith, through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, was first fully revealed and declared, his great design then was to persuade men that there was no need of obedience; and so they could attain any manner of persuasion of the truth of the gospel, or make profession thereof, they might live in sin as they pleased, and neglect all good works and duties of obedience. And although this be now condemned by all, yet indeed is it no more but what upon the matter most do practice according unto. For they suppose, that by being of this or that religion, Papists, or Protestants, or the like, they shall be saved, whatever their ways and works are. So Papists, for instance, are indeed the greatest Solifidians in the world. For to own the faith of the church is enough with them to secure the salvation of any. This abomination having been early started, was seasonably suppressed by the writings of James and John. For the former directly and plainly lays open the vanity of this pretense, declaring that that faith which they professed and boasted of was not the faith whereby any should be justified before God, nor of the same kind with it. For this faith is living, operative, and fruitful, and evidenceth itself unto all by its works and fruits; whereas that faith, whereof vain men living in their sins did boast, was so far from being a grace of the Spirit of God, that it was no other but what was in the devils themselves, and which they could not rid themselves of if they would. The latter, without expressing the occasion of it, spends his first epistle in declaring the necessity of love and obedience, or keeping the commandments of Christ. Wherefore the enemy of our salvation being defeated in this attempt, he betook himself unto the other extreme; contending that the works of faith had the same place in our justification with faith itself. ‘And why should they not? Are not faith and they equally acts of obedience in us? are not faith and they equally required by the gospel? why may they not be supposed to have an equal influence into our justification, — at least in the same kind, though faith on some considerations may have the pre-eminence?’I say these things are speciously pleaded; but in short, the design is not to advance works into an equality with faith, but to advance them into the room of Christ and his righteousness. For when we say we are justified by faith only, we do not say that faith is our righteousness, but as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ, as he is the end of the law for righteousness unto them that do believe. And this is the use that God hath designed faith unto, and which in its own nature it is suited for. But bring in the works of obedience into the same place, and they are of no use but to be imputed unto us for righteousness, and so to possess the place of Christ and his righteousness in our justification, unto their exclusion. But all this trouble might have been spared, if men had not been too ready and prone to receive impressions from the crafty actings of Satan against the purity and simplicity of the gospel. For nothing is more evidently expressed and taught therein than are these two things: — 1. That we are justified freely by faith, through the redemption that is in the blood of Christ, and so by the imputation of his righteousness unto us.2. That the faith which hath this effect, which is of this use, is living, operative, fruitful, and will evidence itself by works, in obedience unto the commands of God. And this is that which here we contend for, namely, that a living faith will be a working faith. And he is a vain man that deceives himself with any thing else in the room thereof. And yet this is the course of multitudes. But yet men do not deceive themselves herein notionally, but practically. I never yet met with any man in my life who professed it as his judgment, that so he believed aright, he might live as he pleased, follow his lusts, and neglect all good works or holy duties of obedience; for this implies a contradiction. So to believe, is so far from believing aright, as that it contains in it a total rejection of the gospel. But practically we see that the generality of men content themselves with that knowledge they have of religion, and that faith which they suppose they have in Christ, without once endeavoring after amendment of life or fruitfulness in good works. Now this is not from any conclusions they draw from any doctrines which they profess to believe, but from the power of darkness and the deceitfulness of sin that ruleth in them. And it is no otherwise among them who are taught to believe that they are justified by their works. For there is not a race of greater and more flagitious sinners than, for the most part, are the men of that persuasion. Only, for their relief, their leaders have provided them with a commutation of some other things instead of their good works, which shall do the deed for them, as penances, pardons, purgatory, confessions, pilgrimages, and the like. But be men’s persuasion what it will, right or wrong, where sin is predominant they will be wicked; and whatever be the object of their faith, if it be not living in the subject, it cannot work nor be fruitful. Obs. 2. We ought to look on obedience as our work, which will admit neither of sloth nor negligence.Here lies the occasion of the ruin of the souls of many who profess the gospel. The duties of profession are a thing out of course unto them, and that which lies without the compass of their principal work and business in the world. This makes their profession serve to no other end but to make them secure in a perishing condition. Now, that our obedience may indeed be our work, it is required, 1. That the carrying of it on, the attendance unto it, and furtherance of it in order unto the glory of God, be our principal design in the world. That is a man’s ἴδιονἔργον, his “proper work,” which is so. God severely threateneth those which walk with him at peradventures: Leviticus 26:21, εְ ?ΰִ ?νΰּ ?ϊֵּ ?μְ ?λεּ ςִ ?ξִּ ?ιχֶ ?ψִ ?ι, — “If you shall walk with me fortuito, at haphazard;” that is, ‘without making it your principal design, and using your utmost diligence and care to proceed in it in a right manner: εְ ?δָ ?μַ ?λְ ?ϊּ ?ιΰַ ?σΞΰָ ?πִ ?ιςִ ?ξָּ ?λֶ ?ναְּ ?χֶ ?ψִ ?ι, Leviticus 26:24, “then will even I myself walk with you at all adventures;” ‘though I continue with you, as one walking with you, in my outward ordinances and institutions, yet will I have no regard unto you, as to do you any good, yea, I will sorely punish you notwithstanding the appearance of our walking together,’as it follows in the place. Yet is this the course of many, who please themselves in their condition. They walk with God in outward appearance, by the performance of duties in their times, course, and order; but they walk “at all adventures,” as unto any especial design of their minds about it. Barnabas exhorted the disciples at Antioch, that “with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord,” Acts 11:23; τῇπροθέσειτῆςκαρδίας, — that is, with a firm resolution to abide in and pursue the obedience they were called unto. So Paul tells Timothy, that he “knew his doctrine, manner of life, and purpose,” 2 Timothy 3:10; namely, how his principal aim, design, and resolution, were to abide in and carry on his course of faith and obedience. And then is any thing the object of our purpose and principal design,(1.) When we subordinate all other things and occasions unto it, that they may not jostle, nor interfere, nor stand in competition with it; when to us to live is Christ, or he is the chief end of our life. When men do usually and ordinarily suffer other things to divert them from duties of obedience in their season, obedience is not their principal design. (2.) When it possesseth the chiefest place in our valuation and esteem. And this it doth absolutely where we attain that frame, that whilst the work of faith. and obedience thrives in our hearts and lives, we are not much moved with whatever else befalls us in this world. This was the frame of our apostle, Acts 21:13; Philippians 3:7-8. But because of the weakness and engagement of our natural affections unto the lawful comforts of this life, some are not able to rise unto that height of the undervaluation and contempt of these things, whilst the work of our obedience goes on, which we ought all to aim at. Yet we must say, that if there be any sincerity in making our obedience the principal design of our lives, there will be a constant preference of it unto all other things. As when a man hath many particular losses, he may be allowed to be sensible of them; yet if he have that still remaining wherein his main stock and wealth doth consist, he will not only be relieved or refreshed, but satisfied therewith. But if a man who pretends much unto a great stock and trade in another country, gives up all for lost upon some damages he receiveth at home in his house or shop, it is plain he hath no great confidence in the other treasure that he pretended unto. No more have men any especial interest in the work of obedience, which, whilst they suppose it to be safe, do yet lose all their comforts in the loss of other things. (3.) When any thing is the object of our chief design, the principal contrivances of our minds will be concerning it. And this makes the great difference in profession and duties. Men may multiply duties in a course of them, and yet their spirits not be engaged in and about them as their business. Consider how most men are conversant about their secular affairs. They do not only do the things that are to be done, but they beat, as we say, their heads and minds about them. And it is observed, that however industrious in their way many men may be, yet if they have not a good contrivance and projection about their affairs, they seldom prosper in them. It is so also in things spiritual. The fear of the Lord is our wisdom; it is our wisdom to keep his commandments and walk in his ways. Now the principal work of wisdom is in contriving and disposing the ways and methods whereby any end we aim at may be obtained. And where this is not exercised, there obedience is not our work. How temptations may be avoided, how corruptions may be subdued, how graces may be increased and strengthened, how opportunities may be improved, how duties may be performed to the glory of God, how spiritual life may be strengthened, peace with God maintained, and acquaintance with Jesus Christ increased, are the daily thoughts and contrivances of him who makes obedience his work. 2. Actual diligence and watchfulness is required in our obedience, if we do make it our work. And,3. A due consideration of what doth and will rise up in position unto it, or unto us in it: which things being commonly spoken unto, I shall not here enlarge upon them.The second thing whereon the apostle grounds his confidence concerning these Hebrews, is their “labor of love,” — καὶτοῦκόπουτῆςἀγάπηςἀγάπης: for the words express a distinct grace and its exercise, and are not exegetical of the preceding expression. It is not, “Your work, that is, your labor of love;” but this “labor of love” is distinguished from their “work” in general, as an eminent part or instance of it This the copulative conjunction after ὑμῶν evinceth: Τοῦἔργουὑμῶν, καὶτοῦκόπουτῆςἀγάπης· —of “your work,” that is, of obedience in general, the work of faith; “and of your labor of love,” namely, in particular and eminently. Κόπου, as we observed, is passed by in some translations, but without cause; the original copies are uniform in it, and the parallel place doth expressly require it, 1 Thessalonians 1:3. There is in the remaining part of this verse, which depends on these words: — 1. What the apostle ascribes unto these Hebrews; which is the “labor of love.” 2. The way whereby they evidenced this labor of love; they “showed” it. 3. The object of it; and that is the “saints.”4. The formal reason and principal motive unto it; which is the “name of God,” for his name’s sake. 5. The way of its exercise; it was by ministration, both past and present; “in that you have ministered, and do minister.”In the first of these the apostle observes the grace itself, and its exercise, — their “love,” and its “labor.” This grace or duty being excellent and rare, and its exercise in labor being highly necessary and greatly neglected, and both in conjunction being a principal evidence of a good spiritual condition, of an interest in those “better things which accompany salvation,” I shall a little divert unto the especial consideration of them: — First, ᾿Αγάπη, “love,” is the second great duty of the life of God which is brought to light by the gospel. It is faith that gives glory to God on high, and love that brings peace on the earth; wherein the angels comprised the substance of our deliverance by Jesus Christ, Luke 2:14. Neither is there any thing of it in the whole world but what is derived from the gospel.All things were at first made in a state of love. That rectitude, order, peace, and harmony, which were in the whole creation, was an impression from and an expression of the love of God. And our love towards him was the bond of that perfection, and the stability of that state and condition. The whole beauty of the creation below consisted in this, namely, in man’s loving God above all, and all other things in him and for him, according as they did participate of and express his glory and properties. This represented that love which was in God towards all his creatures, which he testified by declaring them to be all “very good.” When man by sin had broken the first link of this chain of love, when thereby we lost the love of God to us, and renounced our own love unto him, all things fell into disorder and confusion in the whole creation, — all things were filled with mutual enmity and hatred. The first instance of mutual love among the creatures was that between angels and men, as those which were in the nearest alliance, and made for the same end, of the glory of God. For as the angels rejoiced in the whole creation of God, when those “morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” Job 38:7; so man, being the most capable object of their love, was their especial delight: and man being made to love God above all, and all other things in him and for him, his principal love must be fixed on those who had the most of the image, and made the most glorious representation of God. But the bond of love being dissolved, mutual enmity succeeded in the room thereof. And the first act of angelical obedience we read of, was their keeping man from a return into Eden, and eating of the tree of life, Genesis 3:24; and man could look on them only as flaming swords, ready to execute the wrath of God and the curse upon him. And this state would have continued unto eternity, had not God gathered all things again into one, both which are in heaven and which are in earth, even in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 1:10. There could never more have been any love, nor any duties of love, between angels and men, had not God restored all things by Jesus Christ. This is the only foundation of the whole ministry of angels in love, Hebrews 1:14. For men themselves, mutual enmity and hatred possessed them; and he who first acted in that frame and spirit which came upon them was a murderer, and slew his brother. And this the apostle proposeth as the instance and example of that hatred and enmity which is among men under the curse, 1 John 3:11-12. And there is no greater evidence of any person’s being uninterested in the restoration of all things by Christ, than the want of that love which was again introduced thereby. So the apostle, describing the condition of men in their unregenerate condition, affirms that they “live in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another,” Titus 3:3. There ensued also an enmity between man and all the creation here below. The sin of man had brought all things into a condition of vanity and bondage; which they groan to be delivered from, Romans 8:20-22. And the earth, the common mother of them all, as it were to revenge itself on man, brings forth nothing but thorns and thistles, Genesis 3:18; and yields not her strength to his labor, Genesis 4:12. Hence is all that vanity, vexation, and sore travail, which the life of man is filled withal. After the entrance of this disorder and confusion there was nothing of true original love in the world, nor was it by any means attainable; for it all arose from the love of God, and was animated by our love unto him. But now all things were filled with tokens and evidences of the anger, displeasure, and curse of God for sin; and men were wholly alienated from the life of God. No new spring or life could be given unto love, but by a new discovery that God was love, and had a love for us. For so the apostle tells us, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John 4:10. But “if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another,” verse 11. No love could there be, until a fresh revelation was made that “God is love;” for the first which he had made, in the creation, was utterly lost. And this was done by Jesus Christ.There was some stop made unto that confusion which ensued on the loss of this universal love, by the first promise; without which the whole lower creation would have been a hell, and nothing else. This was the spring of all that love which was in the old testament, because it was a new discovery that there was yet love in God towards fallen mankind. And whatever in the world may pretend thereunto, yet if it proceed not from the new revelation and discovery that “God is love,” it is nothing of that divine love which is required of us. And this is only in Christ; in him alone the χρηστότης and φιλανθρωπία, the “benignity and love of God unto mankind,” appeared, Titus 3:4. And here is a foundation laid and a spring opened of a love far more excellent than that which our nature was furnished and adorned withal in the first creation. For the love of God being the cause and fountain of ours, which is a compliance with the manifestation of it, the more eminently the love of God is manifested the more eminent is that love which is the fruit thereof. And God’s love is far more gloriously displayed in Christ than it was in all the works of his hands. In him alone we know not only that God hath love, but that he is love; that he hath love for sinners, and that such a love as, in the spring, means, and effects of it, is every way ineffable and incomprehensible. The whole of what I intend is expressed by the apostle John, 1 John 4:7-12 : “Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is horn of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”All that we have before affirmed, and much more, is here declared by the apostle. It is God’s being love himself which is the eternal spring of all love in us. Neither could we have any thing of it, or interest in it, without some glorious effect and manifestation of the love of God; which he also gave in “sending his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” And the love which proceeds from hence hath all the glorious properties here ascribed unto it. Wherefore there is no such way and means whereby we may express the distinguishing light, grace, and power of the gospel, no such evidence of the reality of our interest in God, as love; or in the love of God by Christ, as by and in our own love to him and his. The mystical body of Christ is the second great mystery of the gospel. The first is his person, that “great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh.” In this mystical body we have communion with the Head, and with all the members; with the Head by faith, and with the members by love. Neither will the first complete our interest in that body without the latter. Hence are they frequently conjoined by our apostle, not only as those which are necessary unto, but as those which essentially constitute, the union of the whole mystical body, and communion therein, Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 6:23; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Timothy 1:14; 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2 Timothy 2:22 : wherefore without love we do no more belong to the body of Christ than without faith itself. And in one place he so transposeth them in his expression, to manifest their inseparable connection and use unto the union and communion of the whole body, as that it requires some care in their distribution unto their peculiar objects: Philemon 1:5, “Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints.” Both these graces are spoken of as if they were exercised in the same manner towards both their objects, Christ and the saints. But although Christ be the object of our love also, and not of our faith only, yet are not the saints so the object of our love as to be the object of our faith also. We believe a communion with them, but place not our trust in them. There is therefore a variation in the prepositions prefixed unto the respective objects of these graces, — πρὸςτὸνΚύριον᾿Ιησοῦν, and εἰςπάνταςτοὺςἀγίους. And this directs us unto a distribution of these graces in their operations unto their distinct objects; — faith towards the Lord Jesus, and love to the saints. But they are so mixed here, to declare the infallible connection that is between them in the constitution of the mystical body of Christ. This, therefore, is the form, life, and soul, of all mutual duties between the members of Christ’s mystical body. Whatever passeth between them in outward works, wherein they may be useful and beneficial unto one another, if it spring not from this principle of love, if it be not quickened and animated thereby, there is nothing of evangelical communion in it. Whereas, therefore, this grace and duty is the peculiar effect and glory of the gospel, the form and life of the mystical body of Christ, the pledge and evidence of our interest in those “better things which accompany salvation,” I shall briefly declare the nature of it, and show the reason of the necessity of its diligent exercise. Mutual love among believers is a fruit of the Spirit of holiness, and effect of faith, whereby, being knit together in the bond of entire spiritual affection, on the account of their joint interest in Christ, and participation of the same new, divine, spiritual nature from God, they do value, delight, and rejoice in one another, and are mutually helpful in a constant discharge of all those duties whereby their eternal, spiritual, and temporal good may be promoted. 1. It is a fruit of the Spirit of holiness, of the Spirit of Christ, Galatians 5:22. It is no more of ourselves than faith is; it is the gift of God. Natural affections are inlaid in the constitution of our beings. Carnal affections are grown inseparable from our nature as corrupted. Both, excited by various objects, relations, occasions, and interests, do exert themselves in many outward effects of love. But this love hath no root in ourselves, until it be planted in us by the Holy Ghost. And as it is so, it is the principal part of the renovation of our natures into the image of God, who is love. This “love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God,” 1 John 4:7. You are taught of God to love one another.2. It is an effect of faith. “Faith worketh by love,” Galatians 5:6. Hence, as we observed before, “love to the saints” is so frequently added unto “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” as the effect and pledge of it. And although it proceeds in general from faith as it respects the commands and promises of God, yet it derives immediately from faith as acted on the Lord Jesus Christ. For he being the head of the whole mystical body, it is faith in him that acts itself by love towards all the members. Holding him, the head, by faith, the whole body edifies itself in love, Ephesians 4:15-16. And the more sincere, active, and firm our faith in Christ is, the more abundant will our love be towards all his saints. For faith in Christ doth first excite love unto him; from whom, as it were, it descends unto all that it finds of him in any others. And our love of the saints is but the love of Christ represented and exhibited unto them in us. The Papists tell us that love, or charity, is the form or life of faith, without which it is dead. It is so far true, that, according to the apostle James, where it is not, there faith is dead. Not that it is the life of faith, but that faith, wherever it is living, will work by love. Faith, therefore, is the life, the quickening, animating principle of love, and not on the contrary. And that love which proceedeth not from, which is not the effect of, which is not enlivened by faith, is not that which the gospel requireth. 3. Believers are knit together in an entire affection. This is that cement whereby the whole mystical body of Christ is “fitly joined together and compacted,” Ephesians 4:16. This mutual adherence is by the uniting, cementing efflux of love. It is but an image of the body, or a dead carcass that men set up, where they would make a bond for professors of Christianity, consisting of outward order, rules, and methods of duties. A church without it is a heap of dead stones, and not living stones, fitly compacted and built up a temple unto God. Break this bond of perfection, and all spiritual church-order ceaseth; for what remains is carnal and worldly. There may be churches constituted in an outward, human order, on supposed prudential principles of union, and external duties of communion, which may continue in their order, such as it is, where there is no spiritual, evangelical love in exercise among the members of them; but where churches have no other order nor bond of communion but what is appointed by Christ, wherever this love faileth, their whole order will dissolve.4. This mutual love among believers springs from and is animated by their mutual interest in Christ, with their participation of the same divine nature thereby. It is from their union in Christ, the head, that all the members of the body do mutually contribute what they derive from him unto the edification of the whole in the exercise of love. Hereby are they all brought into the nearest relation to one another; which is the most effectual motive and powerful attractive unto love. For as the Lord Christ saith of every one that doth the will of God, “The same is my brother, and sister, and mother,” Matthew 12:50, — he is dearly beloved by him, as standing in the nearest relation unto him: so are all believers, by virtue of their common interest in Christ their head, as brothers, sisters, and mothers to each other; as members of the same body, which is yet nearer; whence the most intense affection must arise. And they have thereby the same new spiritual nature in them all. In love natural, he that doth most love and prize himself commonly doth least love and prize others. And the reason is, because he loves not himself for any thing which is common unto him with others, but his self-love is the ordering and centring of all things unto his own satisfaction. But with this spiritual love, he that loves himself most, — that is, doth most prize and value the image of God in himself, — doth most love others in whom it is. And we may know whether we cherish and improve grace in our own hearts, by that love which we have unto them in whom it doth manifest itself, 1 John 5:1.This love in the first place acts itself by valuation, esteem, and delight. So the psalmist affirms that “all his delight was in the saints, and in the excellent in the earth,” Psalms 16:3. The apostle carries this unto the height, in that instance wherein “we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren,” 1 John 3:16. For whereas life is comprehensive of all that is dear or useful unto us in this world, what we ought, if called thereunto, to part with our lives for, we ought to value and esteem above them all. It is true, the cases wherein this is actually required in us do not frequently occur, and they are such alone wherein the glory and interest of Christ are in an especial manner concerned; but such a love as will always dispose, and when we are called enable us unto this duty, is required to be in us, if we are disciples of Christ. So are we to prize and value them, as at least to be ready to share with them in all their conditions. For, —6. This love acts itself by all means, in all ways and duties whereby the eternal, spiritual, and temporal good of others may be promoted. And it would require a long discourse to go over but the principal heads of those ways and duties which are required unto this end. Something will be spoken afterwards to that purpose. At present I have aimed only at such a description of this love as may distinguish it from that cold, formal pretense of it in some outward duties, which the most satisfy themselves withal. This is that love which the gospel so earnestly commendeth unto, and so indispensably requireth in, all the disciples of Christ. This, with its exercise and effects, its labor and fruits, is the glory, life, and honor of our profession; without which no other duties are accepted with God. And the reason is manifest, from what hath been spoken, why the apostle giveth this as a ground of his good persuasion concerning these Hebrews, or that they had an especial interest in those better things from which salvation is inseparable. For if this love in general be so a grace of the gospel, if it so spring and arise from the love of God in Christ, as that there neither ever was nor can be the least of it in the world which is not an emanation from that love; and if in its especial nature it so particularly relates unto the Spirit of Christ, and our union with him; it must needs be among the principal evidences of a good spiritual condition. And the same will yet further appear if we consider the grounds whereon it is enforced in the gospel, which are principally these that follow: — 1. As the head of all other considerations, the Lord Christ expresseth it as that which was to be the great evidence unto the world of the truth and power of the gospel, as also of his own being sent of God: John 17:21, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” It is true, there is another especial principle of the union of believers, as they are one in God and Christ. This is that one Spirit whereby they are all united unto him, as their mystical head. But this alone is not here intended, as being that which the world can no way discern, nor consequently be convinced by. He intends, therefore, their unity among themselves; the life, and spirit, and bond whereof is this love, as hath been declared. There is no other kind of unity which may be among Christians that carrieth the least conviction with it of the divine mission, truth, and power of Christ. For they may be all carnal, from carnal principles and for carnal ends; wherein the world can see nothing extraordinary, as having many such unities of its own. Herein, therefore, doth the testimony consist which we give to the world that Jesus Christ was sent of God. And if we fail herein, we do what we can to harden the world in its impenitency and unbelief. To see believers live in love, according to the nature and acting the duties of it before mentioned, was in ancient times a great means of the conviction of the world concerning the truth and power of the gospel; and will be so again, when God shall afresh pour down abundantly that Spirit of light and love which we pray for. And in some measure it doth so at present; for whosoever shall consider the true church of Christ aright, will find the evidences of a divine power in this matter. For it doth, and ever did, consist of all sorts of persons, in all nations and languages whatever. High and low, rich and poor, Jews, Greeks, barbarians, Scythians, men of all interests, humors, oppositions, dividing circumstances, at distances as far as the east is from the west, do constitute this body, this society; yet is there among all these, known to each other or unknown, an ineffable love, ready to work and exercise itself on all occasions, in all the ways before insisted on. And this can be from no other principle but the Spirit and divine power of God giving testimony thereby unto the Lord Christ, whose disciples they are. 2. Our right unto, our privilege in, and evidence of our being the disciples of Christ, depend on our mutual love: John 13:34-35,“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”This especial commandment of Christ concerning mutual love among his disciples is here and elsewhere called “a new commandment.” When mankind by sin fell off from the love of God and out of it, from loving him and being loved of him, they fell into all manner of discord and enmity among themselves, “living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another,” Titus 3:3. And from the same root still springs all contention:“From whence come wars and fightings? come they not hence, even from your lusts?” James 4:1.In the former revelations of the will of God, as in the law, there was mutual love commanded; envy, hatred, and revenge, being forbidden. But yet there was a great defect and weakness in this matter; partly in the obscurity of the law; partly out of some forbearances which God was pleased to exercise towards that carnal people, by reason of the hardness of their hearts; and partly out of their darkness, that they did not understand the spirituality and holiness of the commands. But the principal imperfection of the law in this matter was, that it gave no example of that love which is necessary to restore us into that condition of the love of God and one another which we fell from. This was reserved for Christ, “that in all things he might have the pre-eminence.” Until he set us the example of it in his inexpressible love to us, which is so frequently proposed unto our imitation, we could not know what kind of love it was wherewith we ought to love one another. So saith he here, John 13:34, “That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” See 1 John 3:16. Hence the commandment of love becomes “a new commandment;” not only because it was newly revived by Christ in an especial manner, when the doctrine of the duties of it was cast under Pharisaical corruptions, Matthew 5, and the practice of it in the wickedness of the world; nor only because it was more plainly and clearly given by him than it had been under the law; nor only because he had revealed the love of God unto us; but principally because it was now founded, established, and animated by the example of the love of Christ himself, which gave it a new life and nature, making it “a new commandment.” And the first observation of it is the first evidence of the renovation of all things by Jesus Christ. He came to restore and renew all things; but the work whereby he doth it is for the most part secret and invisible, in the souls of men. What evidence and token of this great work is there given unto the world? It is principally this, the bringing forth of the practice of that love, which is in a manner the fulfilling of that original law of our creation which we broke, and from which we fell. For so he adds, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” ‘The great example which I have set you being that of love; the new commandment which I have given you being that of love; the design I have to accomplish in and by you being the renovation of love; how shall or can men otherwise know you to be my disciples but by your mutual love?’Without this, therefore, we can no way evidence ourselves to be the disciples of Christ. And this one consideration is of more weight with me than a thousand wrangling disputes that would furiously drive men into such outward forms and compliances as they call love. 3. This mutual love is that wherein the communion of saints doth consist. How great a thing that communion is, appears from the place which the acknowledgment of it hath always had in the ancient creeds of the church. I do not say this communion doth consist solely therein. There belong unto it a common participation of the same sanctifying Spirit, and a common interest in the same spiritual head, Christ Jesus, as to its principles, and common participation of the same ordinances as to its exercise. But herein doth this communion among themselves principally consist. That it hath no concernment in an outward compliance with certain rites and ceremonies, that are invented, not for the life of unity, but for a show of uniformity, I suppose all men are well enough satisfied. But this is the order of the communion of saints: The foundation of it is laid in a joint participation of the same quickening Spirit, and union with Christ thereby; it is acted and exercised by love arising from this spring; and it is expressed in our joint participation of the same ordinances of worship. Hence it is apparent, that where this love is not, there is no communion of saints, nor any thing belonging thereunto. For our participation together in the same ordinances is no part thereof, unless the influence of our original communion, in the participation of the same Spirit, be conveyed thereunto by love, by which alone it is acted. This the apostle fully expresseth, Ephesians 4:15-16 :“But speaking the truth in love, we may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”There is not a more eminent description of the communion of saints, especially as united in church order, in the whole Scripture. And we see that it begins and ends in love, and so is carried on from first unto last. The spring and fountain of it lies in our relation unto and union, with Christ, the head. And we are said to “grow up into him in all things,” when we expressly derive all from him and direct all to him; when, in the increase of every grace, our union with him is more express and confirmed, and our likeness with, nearness to him is enlarged. From him, as from the head, the whole body, and every member thereof, have all those spiritual supplies whereby their union with him is expressed, and their communion among themselves is acted and carried on, For the union and communion of the church do not consist in things of outward order and supposed decency, but in the fit joining and compacting of all the members in the same body, by an effectual communication of spiritual supplies from Christ, the head, which do naturally cast every part of the body into that place and use which is designed unto them. But what do the saints themselves, as members of this body? Why, “every joint,” every principal person, on the account of gifts, grace, or office, yea, every “part,” every member, contributes to the edification of the whole, and the increase of grace in it; which is the end of all this communion. But how is this done, how is their part acted? Saith the apostle, it is done by love. The foundation of it lies in their “speaking the truth in love,” — ἀληθεύοντεςἐνἀγάπῃ: holding, believing, professing the truth, so as to exercise mutual love thereby. In whatsoever we manage the truth, in all that we have to do in the profession of it, in speaking, preaching, conference, instruction, it is all to be managed in love to the whole body, or we had as good let it alone. And the end of all is “edification in love;” — that is, either “by love,” (ἐν for διὰ, which is frequent,) or “in love,” seeing in the increase or enlargement thereof doth our edification principally consist. For as “love edifieth,” 1 Corinthians 8:1, is the principal means of the edification of the church; so it is itself in its increase a principal part of edification. A church abounding in love, is a church well built up in its faith. And this also further evinceth the necessity of this duty and grace. The communion of saints in any thing else without this is a deceitful figment. 4. Without this love we are of no use in the church of God. Some men seem to be very useful by their gifts, — and I wish that none do pride themselves in them, or bear themselves high upon them, for of themselves they are apt to puff us up, — but the very truth is, that without this love, and the constant exercise of it, they are of little or no use unto the true spiritual edification of the church. This our apostle doth not only plainly affirm, but also so largely argue, as we need not further insist upon it, 1 Corinthians 13. For he doth not only compare the most excellent gifts of the Spirit with it, preferring it above them all; but also declares that without it no man, by virtue of those gifts, is of any better use in the church than a little “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal,” verses 1-3. Wherefore we may consider, — 5. That whatever grace any man seems to have, whatever profession he makes, of whatever use he appears to be, if he have not this love, if he live not in the exercise of it, he hath indeed no grace in truth, nor any real interest in the benefits of the gospel. Faith, where it is sincere, worketh by love, Galatians 5:6; and that which doth not so is vain, dead, and useless, James 2:14-17. If we love one another, we are born of God, and know God; if we do not, we know not God, whatever we pretend, for “God is love,” 1 John 4:7-8. And many other considerations of the like nature might be called over; from whence it is manifest what ground the apostle had to lay so great weight as he doth on that love which he had observed among the Hebrews.I cannot pass by this subject wholly without a little further pressing the necessity of the obtaining and due exercise of this grace. I know not how it comes to pass, but so it is, that men are harassed continually about want of love, with writings keen and invective; yet little fruit do we see to come thereof. And the plain reason of it is, because the love which men so contend for is confined to that practice in and of ecclesiastical communion whose measures they have fixed to themselves. If you will do thus and thus, go in such or such ways, so or so far, leave off such ways of fellowship in the gospel as you have embraced and think according unto the mind of God, then you have love; else you have none at all! How little either unity or love hath been promoted by such principles and practices is now evident; yea, how much divisions, animosities, and mutual alienations of mind and affections, have been increased by them. For my part, I should be sorry that any man living should outgo me in earnest desires that all the people of God were agreed and united, as in faith and love, so also in the same way of worship, in all things. However, I know my desires unto that end are sincere. But that there can be no love, or no due exercise of it, until that be accomplished, I am not persuaded, I do not believe; yea, I judge that if ever it be, it will rather be the effect and fruit of love than the. cause of it. Let us therefore all lay hold on the present season, and not lose the exercise of love whilst we contend about it. I know no way wherein I judge that any who fear God in the world do walk at this day, that is in and of itself inconsistent with gospel love, or a real obstruction to the exercise of it. If any such there be, it is really to be abhorred. And the more semblance there is of such an evil in any opinion, way, or practice, the more it is to be suspected. But to charge this upon the gathering of professors of the gospel and obedience unto Christ into particular congregations, or especial societies for church administrations, hath an appearance at least of envy, ill-will, and ignorance. For none of the institutions of Christ, such as this is, can, either directly or by any just consequences, obstruct that love which he requireth of his disciples, and which, indeed, they are all suited to promote. And this of particular churches is an effect of the wisdom of Christ, providing a way for the constant and due exercise of that love towards some which is to be extended unto all as opportunities are offered. And those who would persuade us to forsake these assemblies, and to break up these societies, that, returning into the larger communion of the many, we may have and exercise love, do but persuade us to cast away our food that we may be strong, and to throw away our clothes that we may be warm. Let us, therefore, not wait for other seasons, nor think any outward thing previously necessary unto the due discharge of this great duty of the gospel. We are in our way, let us go about our work. And I shall only at present give a few cautions against the common hinderances of it, because it must yet be spoken unto again immediately: — 1. Take heed of a froward natural temper. Wherever this is predominant, it either weakens love or sullies the glory of its exercise. Some good persons have naturally so much of the Nabal in them, that a man scarce knows how to converse with them. They mingle all the sweet fruits of love with so much harshness and sourness, as makes them ungrateful unto those who most need them. I think it is a mistake, that grace only subdues our sinful corruptions; it will, if cared for and used as it ought, cure our natural dispositions, so far as any evil or occasion of evil is as it were incorporated with them. If it make not the froward meek, the angry patient, the peevish and morose sweet and compliant, how doth it make the “wolf dwell with the lamb, and the leopard lie down with the kid?” Isaiah 11:6. And it is not enough considered how great a lustre is put upon the exercise of love, when it is accompanied with a natural condescension, compliance, and benignity.2. Watch against the disadvantages of an outward condition. Those of high degree are usually encompassed with so many circumstances of distance, that they know not how to break through them unto that familiarity of love that ought to be among believers. But as the gospel on all civil or secular accounts leaves unto men all their advantages, of birth, education, offices, power, manner of converse, free and entire, so with respect unto things purely spiritual it lays all level among believers. In Jesus Christ “there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free,” but “all are one in him;” and it is the new creature alone that makes the difference. Hence, in all affairs of the church, we are forbidden to have any respect unto the outward state and condition of men, James 2:1-5. We all serve the same common Lord and Master, who, “though he was rich, for our sakes became poor.” And if we for his sake lay not aside the consideration of all our riches, with that distance of mind and conversation from the poorest saints, we are not acting as his disciples. I speak not now of the laying out of men’s wealth for the use of the poor, but of lowliness of mind, in condescending unto a brotherly communion in love with the meanest of them. Let, therefore, the greatest know, that there is no duty of spiritual love that unbecomes them. And if their state and condition keeps them from that communion of love which is required of all believers, it is their snare and temptation. If they converse not familiarly with the lowest of them as they have occasion, if they visit them not when it is requisite, if they bear them not in their hearts and minds, as their especial church relation requires, they sin against the law of this holy love. 3. Watch against provocations. Whilst we and others are encompassed with the body of our infirmities, we shall meet with what we may be prone so to esteem. Where men are apt to turn every infirmity, every failing, every neglect, and, it may be, every mistake, into a provocation, and to take offense thereat, never expect anything of love from such persons. For as their frame is a fruit of pride and self-conceit, so it is diametrically opposite unto all the principal actings of love described by our apostle, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.4. Take heed of resting satisfied in the outward duties of love, without the inward workings of it; as also in an apprehension of inward affections, without outward fruits. Men may have a conviction that all the outward duties of love, in warning, admonishing, comforting, relieving with outward supplies, are to be attended unto, and may accordingly be exercised in them, and yet exercise little real love in them all. Hence our apostle supposeth that a man may give all his goods to feed the poor, and yet have no charity, 1 Corinthians 13:3. All fruit partakes of the nature of the root. If the good we do in these kinds proceed only from conviction of duty, and not from fervent love, it will prove but hay and stubble, that will burn in its trial.Secondly, With this love, as an eminent adjunct of it, the apostle expresseth the labor of it, the “labor of love,” — κόποςτῆςἀγάπης. “Laboriosa charitas,” “laborious love,” saith Beza. “Laboris ex charitate suscepti,” Erasmus, “the labor undergone on the account of love;” that is, in the exercise of it. Κόπος is such a kind of labor as is attended with much difficulty and trouble, a “painful labor.” A lazy love, like that described by the apostle James, James 2:15-16, and which most men satisfy themselves withal, is no evidence of a saving faith. But we are here taught, that love, if it be true, is laborious and diligent; or, great and difficult labor is required unto love in its due exercise. It is not unto love itself absolutely, but unto its exercise, that this “labor” is required; yet this exercise is such as is inseparable from the grace itself. And this is necessary upon the account of the difficulties that lie in its way, and the oppositions that it meets withal. These make a work laborious and painful. Faith and love are generally looked on as easy and common things; but it is by them who have them not. As they are the only springs of all obedience towards God, and usefulness towards men, so they meet with the greatest oppositions from within and from without. I shall name some few of those which are most effectual and least taken notice of; as, — 1. Self-love. This is diametrically opposed unto it. Self-love is the making a man’s self his own center, the beginning and ending of all that he doth. It makes men grudge every drop of good that falls besides themselves; and whoever is under the power of it will not willingly and cheerfully do that for another which he thinks he can do for himself. This is the measure of self: Whatever is added unto it, it doth not satisfy, — it would still have more; and whatever goeth from it, on one account or other, it is too much, it doth not please. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ ᾿Επιθυμοῦμενδὲἓκαστονὑμῶντὴναὐτὴνἐνδείκνυσθαισπουδὴνπρὸςτὴνπληροφορίαντῆςἐλπίδοςἄχριτέλους.There is not much difficulty as to the signification of these words, and therefore both ancient and modern translations generally are agreed in the interpretation of them. The Vulg. Lat. renders ἐνδείκνυσθαισπουδήν by “ostentare sollicitudinem.” But “ostentare” is most frequently used for“ostendere gloriandi causa,” as Festus saith; though properly it seems to be a frequentative, to “show often,” and is improper in this place. Nor doth “sollicitudinem” well answer σπουδήν, which the Syriac renders by ηֲ ?τִ ?ιθεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “sedulity,” “diligence,” “industry.” “Studium ostendere,” say most, and most properly. Τὴνπληροφορίαντῆςἐλπίδος. Syr., μְ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?ξְ ?μָ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “ad complementum; “to the completing” or “perfection of hope.” Vulg. Lat., “ad expletionem spei;” which our Rhemists render by the “accomplishing of hope;” the fulfilling of hope. Beza, “ad certain spei persuasionem;” whereunto answers our translation, “to the full assurance of hope.” Others, “ad plenam spei eertitudinem,” most properly ᾿᾿Επιθυμέω is “earnestly to desire;” whence is ἐπιθυμία, “concupiscence,” “libido,” an “earnest,” and mostly an “impetuous desire.” So the philosopher defined ὀργή, that it was ἐπιθυμίατιμωρίας; which Cicero renders, “ira, libido puniendi:” both from the original derivation of it, a “desire that invades the mind,” an “earnest, vehement desire.”Δέ we render “and,” — “and we desire;” “but yet,” or “moreover.” The same with what is more largely expressed, 2 Peter 1:5, Καὶαὐτὸτοῦτοδέ, — “And besides all this,” besides what is past.᾿Ενδείκνυσθαι, to” manifest;” that is, evince it unto all by the same performance of duties; that no decay in faith or love might be observed in them, or suspected of them.Σπουδή is rendered “study,” “diligence,” “endeavor.” But it is such a diligence as hath an earnestness accompanying it; that is, as it were making haste in pressing towards the end and accomplishment of any thing or business. And it doth always denote great and earnest diligence, with study and desire. It is used to this purpose, 2 Peter 1:5. Πληροφορία is, saith Hesychius, βεβαιότης, “firmitas,” “certitudo;” “stability.” It is “plena fides,” “plena persuasio,” “certa fides;” “a sure, stable, firm, certain faith or persuasion.” The Vulgar Latin constantly renders this word, as also the verb πληροφορέω, by some word denoting filling or completing, taking its signification from the first part in the composition. But whatever be the native signification of the single words whereof it is compounded, or with respect unto what allusion soever the signification was first fixed, it is certain that in the best authors, as in the Scripture, it expresseth a full, satisfactory persuasion of mind, or the highest assurance in any thing which, from the nature of it, we are capable of.Hebrews 6:11. — And we [earnestly] desire that every one of you do manifest the same diligence, unto the full assurance of hope, unto the end.Although the apostle, in these words and those ensuing, as is usual with him, taketh a prospect towards his farther progress, making way by them and in them unto his discourse concerning Melchisedec, which he hath intermitted (whence some would here begin the third part of the chapter), yet he plainly pursues his former argument, and gives an express account of his whole design therein. For, first, he manifests directly what was his intention in proposing unto them that terrible commination and prediction concerning apostates, verses 4-8. Although for certain ends he spoke those things unto them, yet he lets them know that he spake them not of them. He thought not that they were such at present as he had described, nor that that would be their future lot or portion which he had threatened and foretold. As he had freed them from any fears or apprehensions of that nature in the two verses foregoing, so in this he declareth what was his certain purpose and intention in the use of that commination. Now this was solely thereby to excite and provoke them unto a diligent, persevering continuance in faith and love, with their fruits and effects; which is the first and principal end whereunto the proposal of such threatenings is designed and sanctified of God. ‘All that I have said is unto this end.’ Again; he had newly given an account of his real thoughts and judgment concerning them and their spiritual condition. And upon his satisfaction therein, as that which was attended with “things which accompany salvation,” he had given them assurance of a blessed issue of their faith and profession, from the faithfulness of God; making therein an application of the promises of the gospel unto them. Hereon he lets them know what, by the appointment of God and the law of our obedience, is required of them, that they might answer the judgment which he had made concerning them, and be brought unto the enjoyment of the promises proposed unto them. And this was that diligent progress in faith and obedience unto the end which he describes in this and the next verse. And herein the apostle, with great wisdom, acquaints these Hebrews with the proper end and use of gospel threatenings and promises; wherein men are apt to be mistaken, and so to abuse the one and the other. For threatenings have been looked on as if they had no other end or use but to terrify the minds of men, and to cause them to despond, — as if the things threatened must unavoidably come upon them. Hence some have fancied that they belong not unto the dispensation of the gospel as it is to be preached unto believers; and few have known how to make a due application of them unto their consciences. And it is to be feared that the end and use of God’s promises have been so far mistaken, that some have suffered themselves to be imposed on by the deceitfulness of sin, and to be influenced by the consideration of them into carelessness and security, as though, do what they would, no evil could befall them. But our apostle here discovereth the joint end of them both towards believers, or professors of the gospel; which is to stir up and encourage them unto their utmost, constant, persevering diligence in all duties of obedience. And it is no small part of the duty and wisdom of the ministers of the gospel to instruct their hearers in, and press upon them the proper use and due improvement of the promises and threatenings of God. In this verse, or the words of it which are an exhortation unto duty, we may observe, 1. The connection of it unto the former discourse. 2. The duty exhorted unto: “The same diligence.” [3. The persons exhorted.]4. The manner of its performance: “That they would manifest” or“show it.” 5. The end aimed at in that duty: “The full assurance of hope.”6. The continuation of it: “Unto the end.”7. The manner of his exhortation unto it: “We desire.” But though the words may be thus resolved, I shall open the parts of them in that order wherein they lie in the text: — occasion of this discourse, in the particle δέ, it hath been spoken unto already. It is not here adversative, but rather illative, as was before declared.2. The next thing occurring in the words is the manner of the exhortation: ᾿Επιθυμοῦμεν, — “We desire.” Chrysostom is large in this place on the consideration of this word, and the wisdom of the apostle in the use of it. From him OEcumenius observes a difference between ἐπιθυμοῦμεν and βουλόμεθα. For they suppose that the word here used includeth both intense affections, and earnest, diligent, actual desire. And that it doth intend an earnest desire, we showed in the foregoing consideration of the word. And the word is never used in the New Testament but either in a bad sense, to express the impetuous acting of lust, as Matthew 5:28, Galatians 5:17, Romans 7:7; or a most fervent desiring of any thing that is good, Luke 15:16; Luke 16:21; Luke 17:22; Luke 22:15. And such ought to be the desire of ministers towards the profiting of their people. There will be a dead, cold, lifeless administration of the word, where ministers have not ardent desires after the profiting and stability of the hearers. How were it to be wished that all who are called unto the care and charge of the souls of men would continually propose unto themselves the example of this apostle! Do we think that the care, solicitude, watchfulness, tender love and affection, earnest and fervent desires for their good, expressed in prayers, tears, travails, and dangers, which he everywhere testifieth towards all the churches under his care, were duties prescribed unto him alone, or graces necessary for him only? Do we not think that they are all of them required of us, according unto our measure and the extent of our employment? The Lord help men, and open their eyes before it be too late; for either the gospel is not true, or there are few who in a due manner discharge that ministry which they take upon them. I say, without this earnest and fervent desire after the profiting and salvation of our people, we shall have a cold and ineffectual ministry among them. Neither is it our sedulity or earnestness in preaching that will relieve us, if that be absent. And this desire proceeds from three principles; and that which pretends thereto, and doth not so, is but an image and counterfeit of it. And these are, (1.) Zeal for the glory of God in Christ;(2.) Real compassion for the souls of men; respect unto its nature, trust, end, and reward. These are the principles that both kindle and supply fuel unto those fervent desires for the good of our people which oil the wheels of all other duties, and speed them in their course. According as these principles flourish or decay in our minds, so will be the acceptable exercise of our ministry in the sight of Christ, and the profitable discharge of it towards the church. And we have as much need to labor for this frame in our hearts, as for any thing in the outward discharge of our duty. We must, in the first place, “take heed unto ourselves,” if we intend to “take heed to the flock” as we ought, Acts 20:28. And herein especially do we, as we are charged, “take heed to the ministry we have received, that we do fulfill it,” Colossians 4:17.3. The persons exhorted unto the duty following are expressed by ἕχαστοςὑμῶν, — “every one of you.” He had so a care of the whole flock, as to be solicitous for the good of every individual person among them. As our Lord Jesus Christ gives an account unto his Father, that of all those who were committed unto his personal ministry in this world, he had not lost any one, — only the son of perdition, he who was designed to destruction; so our apostle labored that, if it were possible, not one of those whom he watched over should miscarry. And it is of great advantage when we can so manage our ministry that no one of those that are committed unto us may have any just cause to think themselves disregarded. And moreover, he shows hereby that the argument here insisted on concerned them all. For he doth not suppose that any of them were in such a condition of security and perfection as not to stand in need of the utmost diligence for their preservation and progress; nor that any had so fallen under decays, but that, in the use of diligence, they might be recovered. So should the love and care of ministers be extended unto all the individuals of their flocks, with an especial regard unto their respective conditions, that none on the one hand grow secure, nor any on the other hand despond or be discouraged. 4. The duty exhorted unto, wherewith we must take, —5. The manner of its performance is, that they would “show the same diligence.᾿Ενδεικςυσθαι, “ostentare, Vulg. Lat.; that is, to “make show of:” “ostendere,” “to show forth,” to manifest.’… Praestare, Eras., to act, to perform; so the word is sometimes used: John 10:32, Πολλὰκαλὰἔργαἔδειξαὑμῖν — “Many good things have I showed you;” that is, ‘wrought and performed among you.’ 2 Timothy 4:14, ᾿Αλέξανδροςὁχαλκεὺςπολλάμοικακὰἐνεδειξατο, — “Alexander the coppersmith showed me many evils;” ‘did the much evil.’It is so to do any thing, as that the doing of it may be evident and manifest. And the apostle respects not only the duty itself, but the evidence of its performance, whereon his judgment and persuasion of them was grounded. ‘Continue in the performance of these duties, to give the same evidence of your state and condition as formerly.’And the duty itself he expresseth by τὴναὐτὴνσπουδήν, — “idem studium;” the same diligent endeavor. Chrysostom much insists on the apostle’s wisdom in this expression, “the same diligence;” for by it he both insinuates his approbation of what they had done already, and manifests that he required nothing of them to secure their future condition but what they had already experience of. ‘You have used diligence in this matter; continue so to do:’which yet is not so to be interpreted as though the apostle limited them unto their former measures; but warning them to remit in nothing which before they had engaged into, he encourageth them to proceed and grow therein. That, indeed, which the apostle approves in them, and exhorts them unto a continuance in, is the “work of faith and labor of love, in ministering unto the saints;” but here he expresseth the manner wherein they had attended unto these duties, and which they must continue in, unless they intended to desert the duties themselves, — namely, with diligence and alacrity of mind. For such were the oppositions and difficulties that they would assuredly meet withal, as we have before declared, that unless they used all diligence and watchfulness, they would more or less faint in their duty. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 1. Our profession will not be preserved, nor the work of faith and love carried on unto the glory of God and our own salvation, without a constant studious diligence in the preservation of the one and the exercise of the other.The reasons hereof are manifest from what hath been discoursed before, concerning the greatness and difficulty of this work, and the opposition that is made unto it. Our apostle knew nothing of that lazy kind of profession which satisfies the generality of Christians at this day. They can show all diligence in their trades, in their callings, in their studies, it may be in their pleasures, and sometimes in the pursuit of their lusts; but for a watchful diligence, an earnest, studious endeavor in and about the duties of religion, the work of faith and love, they are strangers unto it, yea, cannot be persuaded that any such thing is required of them or expected from them. For the duties of divine worship, they will attend unto them out of custom or conviction; for some acts of charity, they may perhaps be sometimes drawn into them, or for their reputation they may do like others of their quality in the world: but to project and design in their minds how they may glorify God in the duties of faith and love, as “the liberal man deviseth liberal things;” to keep up an earnest bent and warmth of spirit in them; to lay hold on and rejoice in all opportunities for them, — all which are required unto this diligence, — they utterly reject all such thoughts. But what do we imagine? Is there another way for us to go to heaven than what was prescribed unto the primitive believers? Will God deal with us on more easy terms, or such as have a further compliance with carnal ease and the flesh, than those that were given to them of old? We shall but foolishly deceive ourselves with such imaginations. But let no man mistake; these two principles are as certain and as sacred as any thing in the gospel: (1.) Unless there be in us a work of faith in personal holiness, and a labor of love towards others, there is nothing in us that accompanies salvation, or will ever bring us thereunto. Let profane persons deride it whilst they please, and worldlings neglect it, and careless professors fancy to themselves an easier way unto a blessed eternity, this will be found to be the rule whereby they must all stand or fall for ever.(2.) That this work of faith and labor of love will not be persisted in, nor carried on, without studious diligence and earnest endeavors. Now unto this diligence is required,[1. The exercise of our minds with respect unto the duties of faith and love; 1st. In studying the rule of them, which is the word of God, wherein alone the matter of them all and the manner of their performance are declared;2dly. In studying and observing the occasions and opportunities for their exercise. [2. Watchfulness against oppositions, difficulties, and temptations, is also a part of this duty; for the reasons whereof our observations on the preceding verse may be considered. [3. Readiness to conflict with and to go through the dangers and troubles which we may meet withal in the discharge of these duties. And, as it is evident, all these argue a frame of mind continually intent upon a design to glorify God, and to crone unto the end of our course, in rest with him. That nominal Christianity which despiseth these things will perish with the real author of it, which is the devil. Again; the apostle exhorts them to show the same diligence which they had done, and which they continued in the exercise of; whence it appears, that,— Obs. 2. Ministerial exhortation unto duty is needful even unto them who are sincere in the practice of it, that they may abide and continue therein.It is not easy to be apprehended how God’s institutions are despised by some, neglected by others, and by how few duly improved; all for want of taking right measures of them. Some there are who, being profoundly ignorant, are yet ready to say that they know as much as the minister can teach them, and therefore it is to no purpose to attend unto preaching. These are the thoughts, and this is too often the language, of persons profane and profligate, who know little, and practice nothing of Christianity. Some think that exhortations unto duties belong only unto them who are negligent and careless in their performance; and unto them indeed they do belong, but not unto them only, as the whole Scripture testifieth. And some, it may be, like well to be exhorted unto what they do, and do find satisfaction therein. But how few are there who look upon it as an ordinance of God whereby they are enabled for and kept up unto their duty; wherein, indeed, their use and benefit doth consist. They do not only direct unto duty, but, through the appointment of God, they are means of communicating grace unto us for the due performance of duties. 6. The immediate end of the exercise of this diligence is, that we may attain εἰςπληροφορίαντῆςἐλπίδος, — “to the full assurance of hope.” And three things we must consider, to come unto the mind of the apostle in these words: (1.) What is that hope which he intends.(2.) What is the full assurance of this hope.(3.) How it is attainable in the exercise of this diligence: —(1.) The hope here intended, is a certain assured expectation of good things promised, through the accomplishment of those promises, accompanied with a love, desire, and valuation of them. Faith respects the promise; hope, the thing promised: wherefore it is a fruit and effect of faith, it being the proper acting of the soul towards things believed as good, absent, and certain. Wherefore, where our faith begets no hope, it is to be feared it is not genuine; and where our hope exceeds the evidence or assurance of our faith, it is but presumption. Now this hope concerns things absent and future; for, as our apostle saith, if we already enjoy any thing, why do we hope for it?” Romans 8:24. And this is the order of these things: —God hath in his promises declared his goodness, purpose, and grace, in the great things he will do unto all eternity for believers; namely, that they shall be perfectly delivered from every thing that is grievous or evil in sin or trouble, and be brought into the full enjoyment of everlasting glory with himself. In these promises faith resteth on the veracity and power of God. Hereon the soul considereth those “good things” which are so promised, and now secured by faith, as yet absent and unenjoyed. And the actings of the soul towards them, in desire, love, valuation, and a certain expectation of them as believed, is this hope. There may be a pretense of great hope where there is no faith, as it is with the most; and there may be a profession of great faith where there is no true hope, as it is with many: but in themselves these things are inseparable and proportionable. It is impossible we should believe the promises aright, but that we shall hope for the things promised; nor can we hope for the things promised, unless we believe the promises. And this discards most of that pretended hope that is in the world. It doth not proceed from, it is not resolved into, faith in the promises; and therefore it is presumption. Yea, none have greater hopes, for the most part, than such as have no faith at all. The great use, benefit, and advantage which believers have by this grace, is the supporting of their souls under the troubles and difficulties which they meet withal upon the account of the profession of what they do believe, Romans 5:4-5; 1 Corinthians 15:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:3. Hence in our Christian armor it is called the helmet: Ephesians 6:17, “The helmet of salvation;” that is, the hope of salvation, as it is expounded 1 Thessalonians 5:8, “And for an helmet the hope of salvation.” And this is because it bears off and keeps us from being wounded with the sharpness and weight of those strokes which do and will befall us, in troubles, persecutions, and afflictions. And hence it is manifest, that a valuation and esteem of the things hoped for are of the essence of hope. For whatever expectation we have of them, if we do not so value them as to find a satisfactory relief in them in all our troubles, and that which may outbalance our present sufferings, our hope is not genuine and truly evangelical. And this was now the condition of the Hebrews. They were exposed unto much tribulation upon the account of the profession of the gospel; and the apostle foresaw that they were yet to be exercised with things more grievous and terrible. That which they had to relieve themselves in this condition, to lay in the balance against all the evils they suffered or had to conflict withal, were the things that were promised by Christ unto them that believe and obey him. Wherefore, an assured expectation of these things, so infinitely above and beyond what they lost or underwent at present, was absolutely necessary, as to their supportment, so unto their encouragement unto a continuance in their profession. This alone was able to preserve them from fainting and despondencies under a confluence of evils; which also God himself directs unto, Isaiah 35:3-4. Wherefore this duty our apostle frequently exhorts the Hebrews unto in this epistle, as that which was peculiarly suited unto them, and necessary for them in their present condition. And he lets them know, that in its due exercise, it would not only relieve and support them, but enable them, in the midst of all their troubles, to rejoice and glory; as hath been declared on Hebrews 3:6.(2.) There is the πληροφορία of this hope, — the “full assurance” of it. Hope hath its degrees, as faith hath also. There is a weak or a little faith, and a strong or great faith. So there is an imperfect and a more perfect hope. This “full assurance” is not of the nature or essence of it, but an especial degree of it in its own improvement. A weak, imperfect hope, will give but weak and imperfect relief under trouble; but that which riseth up unto the full assurance will complete our relief. Wherefore, as hope itself is necessary, so is this degree of it, especially where trials do abound. Yet neither is hope in this degree absolute, or absolutely perfect. Our minds in this world are not capable of such a degree of assurance in spiritual things as to free us from assaults to the contrary, and impressions of fear sometimes from those assaults: but there is such a degree attainable as is always victorious; which will give the soul peace at all times, and sometimes fill it with joy. This, therefore, is the assurance of hope here intended; such a fixed, constant, prevailing persuasion, proceeding from faith in the promises concerning the good things promised, our interest in them, and certain enjoyment of them, as will support us and carry us comfortably through all the difficulties and troubles we have to conflict withal. And without this it is not possible that we should carry on our profession to the glory of God and the gospel, in the times of affliction and persecution. For although the least degree of sincere hope will preserve from utter apostasy, yet unless it be confirmed and fortified, and so wrought up unto this full assurance, it cannot be but that great and sore trials, temptations, and persecutions, will at one time or other take such impression on our minds, as to cause a manifold failing in the duties of profession, either as to matter or manner, as it hath fallen out with not a few sincere believers in all ages. (3.) It is to be inquired how the “diligence” before described tends unto this assurance of hope. And it doth so three ways:[1. It hath its efficacy unto this purpose from God’s institution. God hath appointed this as the way and means whereby we shall come to this assurance. So is his will declared, 2 Peter 1:10-11 :“Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”It is the same diligence with that here in the text which is intended, as is evident by the verses foregoing. And this hath God appointed as the means to secure unto ourselves our “calling and election,” which the good things we hope for do infallibly accompany. And hereby we shall be carried through all difficulties into the kingdom of God and of glory. [2. It hath a proper and natural tendency unto this end; for by the use of this diligence grace is increased in us, whereby our evidences of an interest in the promises of the gospel are cleared and strengthened. And herein doth our assurance of hope consist. [3. By our diligent attendance unto the duties of faith and love, every sin will be prevented whereby our hope would be weakened or impaired. 7. The last thing expressed in the words is the continuance in this duty which is required of us; and that is ἄχριτέλους, — “unto the end.” For these words belong not unto them that go immediately before, namely, the “assurance of hope;” which some supposing, have rendered them harshly and improperly, “unto its perfection,” “the assurance of hope unto perfection,” or “until it be perfected:” but the words plainly belong unto the precept itself, “Showing the same diligence ..... unto the end.” There is no time nor season wherein we may be discharged from this duty; no condition to be attained in this life wherein this diligence will not be necessary for us. We must therefore attend unto it until we are absolutely discharged of this whole warfare. And he who is discouraged because he cannot have a dispensation from this duty in this world, he hath a heart that “draweth back,” and “his soul is not upright in him.” And we may observe, — Obs. 3. Whereas there are degrees in spiritual saving graces and their operations, we ought continually to press towards the most perfect of them. — Not only are we to have “hope,” but we are to labor for the “assurance of hope.” It is one of the best evidences that any grace is true and saving in its nature and kind, when we labor to thrive and grow in it, or to have it do so in us. This the nature of the new creature, whereof it is a part, inclineth unto; this is the end of all the ordinances and institutions of the gospel, Ephesians 4:13. Hereby alone do we bring glory to God, adorn the gospel, grow up into conformity with Christ, and secure our own eternal welfare.Obs. 4. Hope, being improved by the due exercise of faith and love, will grow up into such an assurance of rest, life, immortality, and glory, as shall outweigh all the troubles and persecutions that in this world may befall us, on the account of our profession or otherwise.— There is nothing in the world so vain as that common hope whereby men living in their sins do make a reserve of heaven, when they can continue here no longer. The more it thrives in the minds of any, the more desperate is their condition, it being only an endless spring of encouragements unto sin. Its beginnings are usually, indeed, but small and weak; but when it hath been so far cherished as to be able to defeat the power of convictions, it quickly grows up into presumption and security. But this hope, which is the daughter, sister, and companion of faith, the more it grows up and is strengthened, the more useful is it unto the soul, as being a living spring of encouragements unto stability in obedience. For it being once fully confirmed, it will, on every occasion of trial or temptation, give such a present existence in the mind unto future certain glories, as shall deliver it from snares and fears, and confirm it in its duty. But this also must be spoken unto afterwards. ῞Ιναμὴνωθροὶγένησθε, μιμηταὶδὲτῶνδιὰπίΣτεωςκαὶμακροθυμίαςκληρονομούντωντὰςἐπαλλελίας.Νωθροί, “segnes;” “slothful,” “dull.” Γένησθε, “sitis,” “efficiamini;” “be” or “become,” or be made. Syr., εַ ?γְ ?μָ ?ΰϊֶּ ?ϊְ ?χַ ?θַ ?ς, “ut non praecidatur,” “ut non abseindatur;” “that it be not cut off:” which interpreters refer unto the diligence before mentioned. The translation in the Polyglot renders it, “neque torpeseatis,” as following the translation in the Jayan Bibles, without choice or alteration. Indeed, χְ ?θַ ?ς. is used sometimes in the same sense with to be “weary,” to “loathe,” to be affected with trouble, Habakkuk 2:3; whence sloth and neglect of diligence ensues: but its proper and usual signification is to “cut off;” the same with the Hebrew βָּ ?γַ ?ς, “that you be not slothful.” Μιμηταὶδέ, “imitatores;” and so the Rhemists render it “imitators:” which being a word not much in use among us, and when it is used commonly taken in an ill sense, “followers” doth better, as yet, with us express what is intended. “Who by faith καὶμακροθυμίας.”Syr., αְּ ?πβִ ?ιψεּ ?ϊψεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “in length of spirit;” “longanimitatem,” “patientiam,” “patientem animum,” “lenitatem;” “longanimity,” “patience,” “a patient mind,” “forbearance.” It is plain that the same grace is intended in all these various expressions; whose nature we shall inquire into. Κληρονομούντωντὰςἐπαγγελίας. Syr., ιָ ?ψְ ?ϊֵ ?ΰγְּ ?ξεּ ?μְ ?λָ ?πָ ?ΰηֲ ?εַ ?ε“fuerunt haeredes promissionis,” “were heirs of the promise;” referring it to believers under the old testament. Vulg. Lat., “haereditabunt promissiones,” “who shall inherit the promises;” which must respect present, sincere, persevering believers. Beza, “haereditario jure obtinent promissionem.” Others, “obtinent promissam haereditatem,” and “haereditatem accipiunt promissionis;” which Schmidius chooseth as most exact, though without reason. That of Beza is proper, for κληρονομεῖν is “jure haereditario obtinere.” See our exposition on Hebrews 1:4. We, “inherit the promises.”Hebrews 6:12. — That you be not slothful, but followers of them [their example] who through faith and patient long-suffering inherit the promises. This verse puts a full close to the former exhortation, built on the description given of unprofitable and apostate professors. And here is withal an entrance made into a discourse of somewhat another nature, but intended and applied unto the same end and purpose. We may therefore consider it as a continuation of the former exhortation, enforced with a new argument of great importance. For, — 1. The apostle gives a caution against an evil or vice directly opposite unto the duty he had been pressing unto, and which, if admitted, would obstruct its discharge: “That you be not slothful.” And therein the series of that discourse hath its connection with the beginning of verse 11: “We desire that you be diligent,” and “that you be not slothful;” diligence and sloth being the opposite virtue and vice, which are the matter of his exhortation.2. He gives a new direction and encouragement unto them for the performance of the duty exhorted unto, which also guides them in the manner of its performance. And herein he coucheth an introduction to a discourse of another nature which immediately ensues, as was observed: “But be ye followers.”3. ‘This direction and encouragement consists in the proposal of an example of others unto them, who performed the duty which he exhorts them unto. And as for their direction he declares unto them how they did it, even by faith and patience; so for their encouragement he minds them of what they obtained thereby, or do so, — they inherited the promises of God. First, The apostle cautions the Hebrews against that which would, if admitted, frustrate his exhortation, and effectually keep them off from the duty exhorted unto: ῞Ιναμὴγένησθενωθροί, — “That you be not segnes,” “molles,” “ignavi;” “heavy” and “slothful.” He had before charged them that they were νωθροὶταῖςἀκοαῖς, Hebrews 5:11, — “dull” or “slothful in hearing:” not absolutely, but comparatively; they were not so diligent or industrious therein as they ought to have been; or the reproof concerned some of them only. Here he warns them not to be νωθροὶτοῖςπράγμασι, “slothful in works” or working in practical duties. We are slothful in hearing, when we do not learn the truths of the gospel with diligence and industry, when we do not take them into our minds and understandings by the diligent use of the means appointed unto that end. And we are slothful in practice, when we do not stir up ourselves unto the due exercise of those graces, and discharge of those duties, which the truth wherein we are instructed directs unto and requires of us. And this sloth is opposed τῇσποῦδῃ, verse 11, — to a “diligent and sedulous endeavor” in the performance of our duty: “Show diligence, and be not slothful.” And this vice our holy apostle, according to his great wisdom and care, frequently warns the Hebrews against in this epistle. For he knew that the utmost intension of our spirits, and the utmost diligence of our minds and endeavors of our whole souls, are required unto a useful continuance in our profession and obedience. This God requireth of us, this the nature of the things themselves about which we are conversant deserveth, and necessary it is unto the end which we aim at. If we faint, or grow negligent in our duty, if careless or slothful, we shall never hold out unto the end; or if we do continue in such a formal course as will consist with this sloth, we shall never come to the blessed end which we expect or look for. The oppositions and difficulties which we shall assuredly meet withal, from within and without, will not give way unto faint and languid endeavours. Nor will the holy God prostitute eternal rewards unto those who have no more regard unto them but to give up themselves unto sloth in their pursuit. Our course of obedience is called running in a race, and fighting as in a battle; and those who are νωθροί on such occasions will never be crowned with victory. Wherefore upon a due compliance with this caution depends our present perseverance and our future salvation. For, —Obs. 1. Spiritual sloth is ruinous of any profession, though otherwise never so hopeful.The apostle was persuaded of “good things, and such as accompany salvation,” concerning these Hebrews; but yet he lets them know, that if they intended to enjoy them they must not be slothful. Sloth is a vicious affection, and one of the worst that the mind of man is subject unto; for where it takes place and is prevalent, there is no good principle or habit abiding. There is not any thing, any vice amongst men, that the heathen, who built their directions on the light of nature, and the observation of the ways of men in the world, do more severely give in cautions against. And indeed it were easy to manifest, that nothing more increaseth the degeneracy of mankind than this depraved affection, as being an inlet into all sordid vices, and a perfect obstruction unto all virtuous and laudable enterprises. But what shall he say who comes after the king? Solomon hath so graphically described this affection, with its vile nature and ruinous effects, in sundry passages of the Proverbs, that nothing need or can be added thereunto. Besides, it is spiritual sloth only that we have occasion to speak unto: — 1. Spiritual sloth is a habitual indisposition of mind unto spiritual duties in their proper time and season, arising from unbelief and carnal affections, producing a neglect of duties and dangers, remissness, carelessness, or formality in attendance unto them or the performance of them. The beginning of it is prejudicing negligence, and the end of it is ruining security: —(1.) It is in general an indisposition and unreadiness of mind, and so opposed unto the entire principle of our spiritual warfare. Fervency in spirit, alacrity of mind, preparation with the whole armor of God, — and therein girding up the loins of our minds, endeavoring to cast off every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us, — are required to be in us constantly, in the course of our obedience. But this sloth is that which gives us an indisposition of mind, in direct opposition unto them all. So it is described, Proverbs 26:15. A person under the power of this vicious distemper of mind is indisposed to every duty, which makes them grievous unto him.(2.) When it comes unto the height of it, it is habitual. There is no man but may be occasionally indisposed unto spiritual duties. The most healthy and athletic constitution is subject unto the incursion of some distempers. Sometimes bodily infirmities may indispose us, sometimes present temptations may do so. Such was the indisposition which befell the disciples in the mount, Matthew 26:40-41; which yet was not without their sin, for which they were reproved by our Savior. But where these things are occasional, when those occasions are endeavored to be prevented or removed, persons overtaken with them may not be said to be absolutely slothful. There may be many actual faults where there is not a habitual vice.(3.) But there is this sloth in a dangerous degree, —[1. When this is generally the frame of the mind, when it hath such an unreadiness unto holy duties as that it either neglects them or is cold and formal in the performance of them. This was the temper of Laodicea, Revelation 3:15. She did enough outwardly to satisfy herself, but insuch a way and manner as all that she did was disapproved by Christ. Lukewarmness is the soul and form of sloth. [2. When persons are generally uncompliant with such outward means as they cannot but acknowledge do contain warning from this and invitation unto another frame. So the spouse acknowledgeth that it was the voice of her Beloved that knocked, saying, “Open to me, my spouse, my love, my dove, my undefiled; for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night,” Son 5:2. Both the voice, and the love, and the long waiting of Christ, were manifest unto her; and yet she complies not with him, but makes her excuses, Son 5:2-3. And the sloth of persons will be reckoned in proportion unto the means of diligence which they do enjoy. Some may not be sleepy, worldly, careless, slothful, at as cheap a rate of guilt as others, though it be great in all. [3. When persons are as it were glad of such occasions as may justify them and satisfy their minds in the omission of duties or opportunities for them. This casts off the duty prescribed unto us, Hebrews 12:1; which yet is indispensably necessary unto the attaining of the end of our faith. When men will not only readily embrace occasions offered unto them to divert them from duty, but will be apt to seek out and invent shifts whereby they may, as they suppose, be excused from it; — which corrupt nature is exceedingly prone unto, — they are under the power of this vicious habit. Especially is this so when men are apt to approve of such reasons to this end, as, being examined by the rules of duty, with the tenders of the love of Christ, are lighter than vanity. So it is added of the slothful person, who hides his hand in his bosom, that he is “wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason,” Proverbs 26:15-16. He pleaseth himself with his foolish pretences for his sloth above all the reasons that can be given him to the contrary. And such is the reason pleaded by the spouse when overtaken with this frame for a season, Son 5:3.[4. When there is a great neglect of our own prayers, when at any time we have been enabled to make them. So the spouse, in whom we have an instance of a surprisal into this evil, prays earnestly for the coming and approach of Christ unto her in the holy dispensations of his Spirit, Son 4:16; but when he tenders himself unto her desire, she puts off the entertainment of him. So do men pray for grace and mercy sometimes; but when the seasons of the communication of them do come, they are wholly regardless in looking after them. They put off things unto another season, and meet ofttimes with the success mentioned, Son 5:6. [5. When, in conflicts about duties, the scale is often turned on the side of the flesh and unbelief. Sometimes it is so when duties are considered as future, and sometimes as present. When duties are considered as future, difficulties and objections against them, as for matter or manner, time or season, or degree, one thing or other, will be suggested by the flesh. Grace in believers will move for an absolute compliance. If the contrary reasons, insinuations, and objections, prevail, the soul “consulteth with flesh and blood,” and is under the power of spiritual sloth. And so are men, by frivolous pretences and arguings from self and the world, kept off from the most important duties. And sometimes there is a conflict in the entrance of the duties of God’s worship, as praying, hearing the word, and the like. Grace stirs up the soul to diligence, spirituality, and vigor of spirit. The flesh in all things is contrary unto it. Usually to give place unto the flesh, so as to be brought under the power of a cold formality, is an evidence of a prevalent sloth. 2. Although this sloth may have various causes and occasions, yet the principal of them are those which I have mentioned, namely, unbelief and carnal affections: —(1.) Unbelief is the principal cause of it, as faith is of that diligence and watchfulness which are opposed unto it. Yea, by faith alone are we excited unto the acting of all other graces, and the performance of all other duties. As it is in its nature to quicken us unto them, so it alone takes in all other motives unto vigorous obedience. Wherefore all indispositions unto duty arise from unbelief. This weakens the efficacy of every thing that should excite us unto it, and increaseth every difficulty that lies in the way of it. As faith will remove mountains out of our way, or help us to conquer the greatest oppositions, so unbelief will make mountains of mole-hills, — it will make every hinderance like an unconquerable difficulty. The soul made slothful by it, cries, “There is a lion in the way, a lion in the streets,” Proverbs 26:13. And its whole way “is as an hedge of thorns,”Proverbs 15:19; that is, so grievous and troublesome that he cares not to take one step in it. Hence is the opposition in these words, “That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith,” etc. If we grow slothful, it is an assured evidence of the decay of faith. (2.) Carnal affections do variously promote this evil frame of mind. Love of ease, wealth, profit, pleasure, will quickly make men spiritually slothful. Where these are prevalent, every thing in the way of holiness and obedience is difficult and irksome. Strange representations will be made unto the mind of all duties, if not in general, yet in all instances that offer themselves. They are difficult, or tedious, or unseasonable, or needless, or the loss we make at present may be retrieved at another time. Every prevalent carnal affection will be heard in the case, and hath something to offer to deter the mind from its duty. And the secret aversation of the flesh from communion with Christ in duties works in all of them. Wherefore, if we see a man slothful, negligent, careless in the duties of religion, we may be sure that one carnal affection or other is powerful in him.3. As to the general effects of this spiritual sloth, they may be reduced unto these three heads: —(1.) A neglect of known duties, in, matter or manner. Known duties of professors are either public or private; and I call them known, because they are both acknowledged by all so to be, and themselves are under the conviction of their so being. But where this sloth is predominant, clear duties will be debated. What more clear duty than that we should open our hearts unto Christ when he knocketh; or diligently receive those intimations of his love and his mind which he tendereth in his ordinances? Yet this will a soul dispute about and debate on, when it is under the power of sloth, Son 5:2-3. And it doth so actually when it doth not take diligent heed unto the dispensation of the word. Wherefore, omission of duties in their seasons and opportunities, whether public or private, whether of piety or charity, of faith or love, or the performance of them without life and delight, merely to comply with custom, or satisfy convictions, is an evidence of a soul growing up under a sinful sloth unto a ruining security.(2.) Regardlessness of temptations, and dangers by them, is another general effect hereof. These beset us on every hand; especially they do so with reference unto all duties of obedience. In watchfulness against them, a conflict with them, and prevalency over them, doth our warfare principally consist. And without a due regard unto them, we can neither preserve the life nor bring forth the fruits of faith. Herein spiritual sloth will make us careless. When men begin to walk as if they had no enemies, as if in their course of life, their converse, their callings and occasions, there were no snares nor temptations, spiritual sloth hath possessed their minds. (3.) Weariness and heartless despondencies in a time of troubles and difficulties is another effect hereof. — And unto these heads may all its particular pernicious effects and consequences be reduced.And this brief description of spiritual sloth, in its nature, causes, and effects, is a sufficient eviction of our assertion, so that I need to give no further confirmation. Secondly, In the positive direction given, and the encouragement adjoined, there is an example proposed, and a duty enjoined with respect thereunto. The persons whose example is prescribed are mentioned here only indefinitely, “Be followers of them;” which in the ensuing verse he brings down to the instance of Abraham. For dealing with them who greatly gloried in having Abraham for their father, no example more pertinent and cogent could be proposed unto them, to let them know that Abraham himself obtained not the promises any other way than what he now proposeth unto them. And as our Savior had told them, that if they would be the children of Abraham they must do the works of Abraham, otherwise their boast of his being their father would stand them in no stead; so our apostle shows them the like necessity of his faith and patience in particular. Besides, he was in the next chapter of necessity to prefer Melchisedec, as a type of Christ, before him and above him; and therefore, as he had in an alike case before dealt with Moses, he would take the advantage hereof, giving him his due commendation, that he might not seem to derogate any thing from him. And this he doth in that instance wherein he came to have his greatest honor, or to become “the father of the faithful.” The persons therefore included in the particle τῶν, τῶνκληρονομοῦντων, are the patriarchs of the old testament. It is true, it is so expressed as that those who were at present real, sincere, sound believers, might be intended, or those who had fallen asleep in the faith of the gospel; but as he deals on all occasions, with these Hebrews, with instances and examples out of the Old Testament, as we have seen and considered it at large in the third chapter, so his immediate expressing of Abraham as the principal of those which he intended, confines his design unto those under that dispensation. Plainly he designs those whom unto the same purpose he enumerates afterwards in particular, with the instances of their faith, Hebrews 11. Nor is there any difficulty in the variety of his expressions concerning them. Of those in the 11th chapter he says, that “all died in faith, and obtained a good report on the account thereof,” but “received not the promise,” verses 13, 39; of those in this place, that “through faith and patience they inherited the promises.” But it is one thing to “receive the promises,” and another to “inherit the promises.” By “receiving” the promises, Hebrews 11, the apostle respects the actual accomplishment of the great promise concerning the exhibition of Christ in the flesh. This they neither did nor could receive who died before his incarnation. But the “inheriting” of the promises, here intended, is a real participation of the grace and mercy proposed in them, with eternal glory. This they all received, being saved by faith, even as we, Acts 15:10-11; Hebrews 4:2.Concerning these persons, he proposeth to them the way that they took, and the end that they attained. The way they took was “by faith and patience,” or “long-suffering.” Some think that here is an ἕνδιὰδυοῖν, and that a constant, enduring faith is only intended. But their faith, and the constant exercise of it against oppositions, are rather proposed unto them under the name of faith. For that by μακροθυμία a distinct grace or duty is intended, is manifest from verse 15, where Abraham’s carriage upon his believing and receiving the blessing is expressed by οὕτωμακροθυμήσας, “after he had patiently endured.”What was that faith, or of what kind, which is here ascribed unto the patriarchs, is evident from the context. For it was that faith which had the especial promise of God in Christ for its object; — not a general, not a common faith, but that which respected the promise given from the foundation of the world, and expressly renewed unto Abraham. Some amongst us wholly deny this kind of faith, and beyond the belief of the truth or veracity of God in general, will not allow an especial faith with respect unto the covenant and the promise of grace in Christ Jesus; whereas indeed there is no other faith true, useful, saving, and properly so called in the world. It is true, this especial faith in the promise supposeth faith in general with respect unto the truth and veracity of God, nor can be without it. But this may be, and is in many where the other is not, yea, where it is despised. This, therefore, was the faith which was here recommended and proposed unto us, The especial object of it was the Messiah, or Christ himself, as a Savior from sin; with this especial limitation, as to come afterwards. The formal reason of it was the truth of God in his promises, with his unchangeableness and infinite power to give them an accomplishment. And the means of ingenerating this faith in them was the promise itself. By this faith were they justified and saved, Genesis 15:6. But it may be inquired how this faith could be proposed unto us for an example, seeing it respected the future exhibition of Christ, and we are to respect him as long since come in the flesh. But this circumstance changeth nothing in the nature of the things themselves; for although, as to the actual exhibition of the Messiah, they looked on it as future, yet as to the benefits of his mediation, they were made present and effectual unto them by the promise. And the faith required of us doth in like manner respect the Lord Christ and the benefits of his mediation; and by his actual exhibition in the flesh is not changed in its nature from what theirs was, though it be exceedingly advantaged as to its light.The next thing ascribed unto them is μακροθυμία. “Patience,” say we; that is, ὑπομονή. But these graces are expressly distinguished, 2 Timothy 3:10, Τῇπίστειτῇμακροθυμίᾳ, τῇὑπομονῇ, — “faith, long- suffering, patience.” So plainly Colossians 1:11, Εἰςπᾶσανὑπομονὴνκαὶμακροθυμίαν, — “Unto all patience and long-suffering.” And in very many places it is recommended as a special grace and duty, 2 Corinthians 6:6; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12. And it is often also ascribed unto God, Romans 2:4; Romans 9:22; to Christ, 1 Timothy 1:16. Μακρόθυμος is properly ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?κְ ΰַ ?τַ ?ιִ ?ν “longanimis:” or, as James speaks, βραδὺς, James 1:19, — “slow to anger;” opposed unto ὀξύθυμος, “hasty,” “soon angry,” “bitter in spirit.” It is a gracious, sedate frame of soul, a tranquillity of mind, on holy, spiritual grounds of faith, not subject to take provocations, not to be wearied with opposition. Wherefore, although the apostle saith in like manner in another place, that “we have need of patience, that, after we have done the will of God, we may receive the promise,” Hebrews 10:36; yet the longanimity here intended is distinct from it. For as patience is a gracious, submissive quietness of mind in undergoing present troubles and miseries; so this μακροθυμία, or “longanimity,” forbearance, tolerance, or long-suffering, is a sedate, gracious disposition of mind, able to encounter a series of difficulties and provocations without being exasperated by them so as to desert, or cease from the course wherein we are engaged. So where it is ascribed unto God, it signifies that goodness of his nature, and purpose of his will, that, notwithstanding their manifold provocations, and, as it were, daily new surprisals, yet he will bear with sinners, and not divert from his course of goodness and mercy towards them. And with us it hath a twofold object. For, 1. In the course of our faith and profession we shall meet with many difficulties and oppositions, with many scandals and offenses. These men are apt to take distaste at, to dislike, and so to be provoked as to leave the way wherein they meet with them. Upon various surprising occasions, they “fret themselves to do evil,” Psalms 37:8. So David was ὀξύθυμος, very short-spirited, when, upon the breach that God righteously made on Uzza, it is said that the thing which God had done displeased David. But this is that grace whereby the soul (if a believer is kept from taking offense, or admitting sinful provocations from cross accidents, oppositions, injuries, scandals, disappointments. So is the duty of it prescribed unto us in particular with respect unto one another, Ephesians 4:2. Besides,2. There are sundry things in the promises of God whereof believers earnestly desire, if it were possible, a present accomplishment, or a greater degree of evidence in their accomplishment, or a greater speed towards it. Such are the full subduing of their corruptions, success against or freedom from temptations, deliverance of the church from troubles, and the like. Now, when these things are delayed, when the heart is ready to be made sick by the deferring of its hopes, the soul is apt to despond, to give over its expectations; and if it do so, it will quickly also forsake its duties. The grace which keeps us up in a quiet waiting upon God for the fulfilling of all that concerns us in his own time and season, that preserves us from fainting and sinful despondencies, is this μακροθυμία, this “long-suffering” or forbearance.These were the ways whereby they came to inherit the promises. The heathen of old fancied that their heroes, or patriarchs, by great, and, as they were called, heroic actions, — by valor, courage, the slaughter and conquest of their enemies, usually attended with pride, cruelty, and oppression, — made their way into heaven. The way of God’s heroes, of the patriarchs of his church and people, unto their rest and glory, unto the enjoyment of the divine promises, was by faith, patience, long-suffering, humility, enduring persecution, self-denial, and the spiritual virtues generally reckoned in the world unto pusillanimity, and so despised. So contrary are the judgments and ways of God and men even about what is good and praiseworthy. Observe, as we pass on, that, — Obs. 2. Faith and patient long-suffering are the only way whereby professors of the gospel may attain rest with God in the accomplishment of the promises. — It is a sad consideration, which way and by what means some men think to come to heaven, or carry themselves as if they did so. They are but few who think so much as a naked profession of these things to be necessary thereunto; but living avowedly in all sorts of sins, they yet suppose they shall inherit the promises of God! But this was not the way of the holy men of old, whose example is proposed to us. Some think faith at least to be necessary hereunto; but by faith they understand little more than that they profess the true religion, about which there are so many contests in the world. This was not the faith of Abraham; that is, this alone was not so. Wherein it consisted, and how it was acted, we shall have occasion afterwards to declare. But what do men think of the long-suffering before described? Their relief against it, is to trust in such a faith as stands in no need of it. For that common faith which most men content themselves withal, seldom or never puts them upon the exercise of patient long-suffering. It is against the actings of a lively faith that those oppositions arise which the exercise of that other grace is needful to conflict withal. And I shall give some few instances of it, wherein the necessity of it will be made to appear; for if I should handle it at large, all the difficulties that lie in the way of our profession would fall under consideration. Of faith we shall treat afterwards. And,— 1. It is necessary with respect unto those reproaches which the profession of a saving faith will expose men unto. It hath done so always, and will do so whilst this world continues. And they are usually cast on believers in so great variety, on all sorts of occasions, as that it would be a long work to call over the principal of them; for they are the chief effects of the endeavors of Satan as he is “the accuser of the brethren.” I shall instance only in those of one kind; and they are those which, on their straits, difficulties, and temptations, the world reflects upon, as if their profession of faith in God were vain, false, and hypocritical. When men said unto David, “Where is now thy God?” or ‘What is become of thy religion and profession, thy pretended trust in God?’he says it was as “a killing sword in his bones;” it pierced deep, and pained greatly, Psalms 42:10. And it is spoken in the person of our Savior, “Reproach hath broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness,” Psalms 69:20. And this was the reproach that was cast upon him on the cross, as the next words manifest, “They gave me gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,” verse 21. And this reproach was that which we instance in, “They shook the head at him, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighteth in him,” Psalms 22:7-8; Matthew 27:43. And what befell the Lord Christ on the cross, teacheth the church what it is to expect under it. In this condition patient long- suffering is our only relief. If that be not in exercise, we shall either faint and despond, or “fret ourselves to do evil,” or say in our hearts, ‘We will do unto others what they have done unto us.’But hereby is the soul delivered. It is not made stupid and senseless of the sharpness and evil of them. David was not so, nor was Christ himself; nor is it the will of God that we should put them off with a careless regardlessness. The glory and honor of God and the gospel are so far concerned in them, and God so designs them for the exercise of our faith, as that they are not to be despised. But it will give a quietness and evenness of spirit under them, so that no duty shall be obstructed, nor that satisfaction. which we have in the ways of God be any way impeded. And in this case this patient long- suffering worketh three ways:(1.) By committing our whole cause to God; as it did in Christ, 1 Peter 2:23.(2.) By patient waiting for the pleading of our cause, under a sense of our own sin, and an acknowledgment of the righteousness of God, Micah 7:9-10.(3.) By supporting the soul with a testimony of its own sincerity, 1 Corinthians 4:3-4.2. With respect unto violence and persecutions. These also, that faith which tends to the enjoyment of the promises will expose men unto. And they prove great trials, sometimes from their violence, and sometimes from their continuance. Some come with the fury of a storm, as if they would bear down all before them; such were the primitive persecutions, and that at this day in many places under the papal power. Others, by their long duration in wasting, vexing, consuming troubles, are designed gradually to “wear out the saints of the Most High,” Daniel 7:25. And what; havoc hath been made in all ages by them, of the one sort and of the other, is known unto all. The number of apostates in such seasons hath for the most part exceeded that of martyrs. And many have insensibly withered and grown utterly weary under troubles of a long duration, when they could apprehend no end of them. Here we have need of patient long-suffering, if we intend to inherit the promises. This is that grace which calmeth and supporteth the soul under all these pressures: (1.) By keeping and preserving it from darkening, disturbing affections and passions of anger, worldly sorrow, carnal fear, and the inordinate love of present things. Hereby “in patience we possess our souls,” Luke 21:19; which if disorderly affections do as it were once carry out of our power, and possess the conduct of them, we shall quickly be at a loss in our profession.(2.) By enabling us to take a sedate prospect of eternal things, of the good things promised, and their glorious excellency in comparison unto what here we suffer in, 2 Corinthians 4:16-18.(3.) By preserving of us from all irregular ways and attempts for deliverance. For without this grace we shall choose either not to suffer, and so disinherit ourselves of the promises; or shall not suffer in a due manner, unto the glory of God or our own advantage; or shall turn aside unto unlawful reliefs.3. It is necessary with respect unto our waiting for the accomplishment of many great promises concerning the kingdom of Christ and interest of the gospel in this world. That there are such promises on record in the Scripture, and as yet unfulfilled, is, I suppose, generally granted. However, I speak of them who are satisfied in their minds beyond all hesitation that such there are; and of such as lived before the accomplishment of some of them, who are proposed for our example. For so did the fathers under the old testament, who lived before the coming of Christ in the flesh. In these promises and their accomplishment believers find themselves greatly concerned; and those who are not so, do disavow an interest in the spiritual body of Christ and his glory in the world. Now, because their accomplishment is deferred beyond the desires and expectations of men, as was of old the promise of the coming of Christ, many temptations do ensue thereon. And not a few have there been on the one hand, who have, in sad instances, made haste and antedated the accomplishment in unwarrantable practices; pretending unto faith, they have renounced patient long- suffering. And not fewer have cast away all expectation of them on the other hand, as though they would never be fulfilled. Herein, therefore, we have also need of patient long-suffering. Without it we shall fall into one of the extremes mentioned, both of which are attended with dangers ruinous unto profession. See Habakkuk 2:1-4. With respect unto these things, the days of the gospel are the time of “the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,” Revelation 1:9. He hath begun to set up his kingdom; and it shall never be prevailed against, Daniel 7:27. But yet many things that belong thereunto, especially unto its tranquillity and extent, are as yet unfulfilled; and whilst they are so, many outrages are committed in the world against his rule and interest. Wherefore it is at present the time of his patience as well as of his reign. And therefore are we required to “keep the word of his patience” Revelation 3:10; or to abide in the faith of those things concerning which he exerciseth patience in the world. So is it said with respect unto the judgments which God in his own time will execute on the antichristian, persecuting world,“He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints,” Revelation 13:10.While these things are accomplishing, and until they are accomplished, during that large season until their end be, the saints must exercise patient long-suffering, added unto faith in the promises, or they will not see the end of them. And this patient long-suffering with respect unto the accomplishment of these promises produceth these four effects: (1.) A quiet resignation of all times and seasons unto the sovereignty of God. The soul possessed of it quiets itself with this, ‘It is not for me to know the times and seasons, which God hath put in his own hand,’ Deuteronomy 29:29.(2.) A due valuation of present enjoyments; which is especially required, since the coming of Christ in the flesh.(3.) A ready application of mind unto present duties, John 21:22.(4.) Waiting in prayer for what we have not yet received.4. It is necessary also with respect unto our own personal obedience and all the principal concerns of it. There are three things which believers principally aim at in the course of their obedience: (1.) That their corruptions may be thoroughly subdued.(2.) That their graces may be quickened and strengthened unto all fruitfulness.(3.) That, temptations being removed, their spiritual consolations may abound. These are the things which they are continually pressing after, longing for, and endeavoring. And sometimes in some, if not all of them, they seem to have made so great a progress as to be ready for an entrance into perfect rest. But yet again they find new storms arise; corruptions grow strong, and grace is under decays; temptations abound, and consolations are far away. Yea, and it may be they are frequently exercised with these changes and disappointments. This fills them with many perplexities, and ofttimes makes them ready to faint. Unless this patient long-suffering accompany us in our whole course, we shall not finish it with glory to God, or comfort to our own souls. But it may be inquired, on what grounds and for what reasons the apostle doth propose unto these Hebrews the example of their predecessors in this matter. Wherefore he doth it, or he might do it, for these ends: — that they might know that he exhorted them, 1. Unto nothing but what was found in them who went before them, whom they so loved and admired; and this he afterwards, unto the same end, confirms with many instances:2. Unto nothing but what was needful unto all who were to inherit the promises; for if these things were required of their progenitors, persons so high in the love and favor of God, unto that end, how could they imagine that they might be dispensed withal as to their observance?3. Unto nothing but what was practicable, which others had done, and was therefore possible, yea easy for them, through the grace of Christ, to comply withal.Thirdly, The apostle, for their encouragement unto the duties mentioned, expresseth the end which those others attained in the practice of them. Κληρονομούντωντὰςἐπαγγελίας — “Who inherit the promises.” He speaks in the present tense, but principally intends those who lived before, as we have declared. And the apostle here expresseth the way whereby, in the use of the means, we come to the enjoyment of the promises. And this is by “inheritance.” We neither merit it nor purchase it, but inherit it. And how come we to inherit it? By the same way as any other comes to an inheritance, namely, by being the true heirs unto it. And how do we become heirs of this inheritance? Merely by God’s gratuitous adoption; so our apostle declareth fully this whole matter, Romans 8:15-17,“Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.”God, by free and gratuitous adoption, makes us his children. All God’s children are heirs; he hath an inheritance for them all. This inheritance is promised unto them; and therefore their enjoyment of it is called “inheriting of the promises.” Wherefore the grace of adoption is the foundation, cause, and way of our receiving promised grace and glory. And with respect hereunto it is that God is said not to be unrighteous in our reward, verse 10. For having freely adopted us, and made us heirs, it belongs unto his faithfulness and righteousness to preserve us unto our inheritance. Only we are such heirs as have means assigned unto us for the attaining of our inheritance, which it is our duty to apply ourselves unto. They inherited ἐπαγγελίας, “the promises.” Cameron and Grotius on this text observe, that where the fathers under the old testament are spoken of in this matter, there “the promises” are mentioned; but where believers under the new testament are spoken of, there it is called “the promise,” in the singular number. I shall not give their reasons why it is so, because they are certainly mistaken in their observation: for both is “the promise” on the one hand mentioned with respect unto them, as Hebrews 11:39; and “the promises” frequently with respect unto us, 2 Corinthians 7:1;2 Peter 1:4. Wherefore these expressions are used promiscuously, as is evident by our apostle, Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:39. Because they all sprang from one original promise, and all centred in Him in whom and by whom they were to be accomplished and made effectual, being “all yea and amen in him;” and because that one which concerned his person and mediation did virtually include all the rest, they are all of them frequently intended and included under the name of “the promise,” in the singular number. But. because God was pleased to let out, as it were, sundry rivulets of grace and bounty, originally stored in the first great promise, by several particular grants and instances, partly for the representation of that fullness of grace which he intended to exhibit thereby, partly for the encouragement of our faith, and its direction in the application of the grace promised, on various particular occasions; and because he was pleased frequently to renew the same great original promise, as to Abraham and David; there are many of them, and they are called “the promises:” and, by reason of their union in the same covenant, whoever is really interested in any one of them, is so in all. By “the promises” here, the things promised are intended. To “inherit the promises,” is to be made partaker of the things promised. And the matter of these promises, was all grace and glory. That which is here especially regarded, is their full complement in everlasting glorious rest with God by Christ. This is proposed unto the Hebrews; and they are encouraged to expect it by the examples of those who went before them in faith and patience. Wherefore he requires, — Lastly, That they should be μιμηταί, “imitatores eorum.” “Imitators” is not often used in our language; and when it is, it rather signifies mimics, or contains some reflection of blame or weakness, than what it is here applied unto. Wherefore we render it “followers;” — that is, in doing what they did, treading and “walking in their steps,” as our apostle expresseth it, Romans 4:12; as we are to “follow the steps of Christ,” 1 Peter 2:21. It is to think we hear them saying unto us what Abimelech said to his soldiers, Judges 9:48, ‘What you have seen us do, make haste and do as we have done.’ Obs. 3. All believers, all the children of God, have a right unto an inheritance. — How they came by this right was before declared. It is by that adoption whereby they are made children of God; and all God’s children are heirs, as the apostle affirms. And this inheritance is the best and the greatest, on the account of security and value.1. Let an inheritance be never so excellent and valuable, yet if it be not secure, if a man’s title unto it be not firm and unquestionable, if he may be defeated of it by fraud or force, — which things all earthly rights and titles are obnoxious unto, — it takes off the worth of it. But this inheritance is conveyed, settled, and secured, by the promise, covenant, and oath of God, 2 Samuel 23:5; Romans 4:16. These secure this inheritance from all possibility of our being defeated of it.2. The value of it is inexpressible. It is a “kingdom,” Matthew 25:34; James 2:5; “salvation,” Hebrews 1:14; the “grace of life,” 1 Peter 3:7; “eternal life,” Titus 3:7; God himself, who hath promised to be our reward, Romans 8:17.Obs. 4. The providing of examples for us in the Scripture, which we ought to imitate and follow, is an effectual way of teaching, and a great fruit of the care and kindness of God towards us. The use of examples to be avoided in sin and punishment, the apostle declared and insisted on in the third chapter; which we have also improved as we are able. Here he proposeth those which we are to comply with and conform ourselves unto; which afterwards, Hebrews 11, he further presseth in very many particular instances. And as there is a great efficacy in examples in general, — which hath been spoken unto on Hebrews 3,— so there are many advantages in those which are proposed unto our imitation in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. For, — 1. The things and duties which we are exhorted unto are represented unto us as possible, and that on terms not uneasy or grievous. Considering all the difficulties and oppositions, from within and without, that we have to conflict withal, we may be ready to think it impossible that we should successfully go through with them, and come off safely at the last. To obviate this despondency is the design of the apostle in that long series of examples which he gives us Hebrews 11; for he undeniably demonstrates, by instances of all sorts, that faith will infallibly carry men through the greatest difficulties they can possibly meet with in the profession and obedience of it. There is no more required of us than such and such persons, by the testimony of God himself, have successfully passed through. And if we follow them not, it is nothing but spiritual sloth, or the love of the world and sin, that retards us.2. Great examples do naturally stir up and animate the minds of men, who have any thing of the same spirit with them by whom they were performed, to do like them, yea, to outdo them if it be possible. So Themistocles said that Miltiades’victory against the Persians would not let him sleep. Being a person of the same kind of courage with him, it stirred him up, in a noble emulation, to equal him in a hazardous and successful defense of his country. But then it is required, that there be the same spirit in us as was in them whose examples are proposed unto us. Let the examples of persons valiant and heroical, in their great and noble actions, be set before men of a weak and pusillammous nature or temper, and you will amaze or affright, but not at all encourage them. Now the spirit and principle wherewith the worthies of God whose example is set before us were acted withal, was that of faith. In vain should we encourage any one unto a following of imitation of them, who hath not the same spirit and principle. This the apostle requireth hereunto, 2 Corinthians 4:13 :“We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;”— ‘Had we not the same spirit of faith with them, we could not do as they did.’And we may take a trial hereby whether our faith be genuine or no. For if their examples move us not, excite us not unto the like duties of obedience with them, it is an evidence that we have not the same spirit of faith with them; — as the courage of a valiant man is inflamed by a noble example, when a coward shrinks back and trembles at it. On this supposition there is great force in that direction, James 5:10 :“Take, my brethren, the prophets who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.”Let a minister of the gospel who is made partaker in his measure of the same spirit, consider how Elijah, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul, and the rest of those holy souls who spake in the name of the Lord, carried themselves under their afflictions and trials; and it will inflame his heart to engage cheerfully in the like conflicts. 3. These examples are so represented unto us, as plainly to discover and point out where our dangers lie on the one hand, and where our assistance and relief lie on the other. These two, rightly considered and understood in all our duties, will give us the best directions we can possibly receive. When we know our dangers and our reliefs aright, we are half way through our difficulties. When these are out of mind, when we know them not, on every occasion we fall under surprisals and troubles. Now, in the examples proposed unto us there is withal, through the wisdom and care of the Spirit of God, represented unto us the temptations which befell those who are so our patterns, — the occasions of them, their advantages, power, or prevalency; wherein they missed it, or failed, exposing themselves unto the power of their spiritual enemies: and on the other hand, what course they took for relief, what application they made unto God in their difficulties and distresses, and wherein alone they reposed their confidence of success. These things might be confirmed by manifold instances. 4. There is in them also made known what interveniencies and disturbances in our course of obedience may befall us; which yet ought not to make us utterly despond, and give over our profession as fruitless and hopeless. I confess, great wisdom and caution are to be used in the consideration of the sins and falls of the saints under the old testament, that they be no way abused to give countenance unto sin, either before or after its commission. We know not their circumstances, their light, their grace, their temptations, their repentance, nor what was the indulgence of God towards sinners, before the fullness of the dispensation of grace came by Jesus Christ. But this is certain, in general, that if every great sin or fall, when any is overtaken therein by the overpowering of temptations, were absolutely inconsistent with that course of obedience which leads unto the inheritance of the promises, the Holy Ghost would not, without any particular exception as to their persons, have recorded such things in the lives of them whom he proposeth for our example. 5. The certain end of a course of holy obedience is in them proposed unto us. All those holy souls that are now at rest with God in glory, as having inherited the promises, were some time as we are, conflicting with corruptions and temptations, undergoing reproaches and persecutions, laboring in duties and a constant course of obedience unto God. If, therefore, we follow them in their work, we shall not fail to partake with them in their reward. In the close of the foregoing verse the apostle expresseth the end of all his exhortations, what they tended unto, and what would be the advantage of all that complied with them in faith and obedience; and. this was, the inheriting of the promises, or the enjoyment of the things promised by God unto them that believe and obey. Of all that intercourse that is between God and sinners, the promise on the part of God is the sole foundation. Thereby doth God express his goodness, grace, truth, and sovereign power, unto men. Herein all supernatural religion and all our concernments therein are founded, and not on any thing in us And on our part, the inheritance of the promises, in the effects of these holy properties of God towards us, is the end of what we look for and aim at in all our obedience. Wherefore the apostle having arrived, in the series of his discourse, unto the mention of this great period of his whole design, he stays a while to consider and explain it in these verses. Hebrews 6:13-16.— ΤῷγὰρἈβραὰμἐπαγγειλάμενοςὁΘεὸς, ἐπεὶκατʼ ? οὐδενὸςεἷχεμείζονοςὀμόσαι, ὤμοσεκαθʼ ? ἑαυτοῦ, λέγων· Ἦμὴνεὐλογῶνεὐλογήσωσε, καὶπληθύνωνπληθυνῶσε, καὶοὕτωςμακροθυμήσαςἐπέτυχετῆςἐπαγγλιας. Ἄνθρωποιμὲνγὰρκατὰτοῦμείζονοςὀμνύουσι, καὶπάσηςαὐτοῖςἀντιλογίαςπέραςεἰςβεβαίωσινὁὅρκος. ΤῷγαοἈβραὰμἐπαγγειλάμενος. Syr., λַּ ?γξְ ?μַ ?κְ μֵ ?δּ, “when He promised unto him.” Vulg. Lat., “Abrahae namque promitten,” “for promising to Abraham.” Most, “Deus enim pollicitus Abraham,” “for God promising unto Abraham;” which expresseth the sense intended: and that word, “when,” which we add, is included in ἐπαγγειλάμενος.᾿Επεὶκατ᾿οὐδενὸςει῏χεμείζονοςὀμόσαι, ad verbum; “quoniam per neminem ha-buit majorem jurare;” “seeing by none he had a greater to swear.” Vulg. Lat., “quoniam neminem habuit, per quem juraret majorem.” Rhem., “because he had none greater by whom he might swear.” Erasm., Bez., “cum non possit per quemquam majorem jurare.” Ours, “because he could swear by no greater.” ᾿Επεί is rather “quum” than “quoniam.” To make up the sense, “se” may be added, “none greater than himself.” And so the Syriac reads, μֵ ?δּ γְּ ?ψַ ?αξֶ ?πֵ ?δּ γְּ ?ιִ ?ΰξֵ ?ΰαֵ ?δּ ξֶ ?θεּ ?μγְּ ?μַ ?ιϊηֲ ?εָ ?ΰ“quoniam non erat ipsi qui major prae se ut juraret perilium;” or, in the neuter gender, “majus” and “illud:” “seeing there was nothing to him greater than himself that he might swear by it.” All to the same purpose.῎Ωμοσεκαθ᾿ἑαυτοῦ, “juravit per semet ipsum.” Syr., ιִ ?ξָ ?ΰαְּ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωֵׁ ?δּ, “he sware “by his soul;” which though it may be an Hebraism, yet we shall find that God sometimes in his oath makes mention of his soul.῏Ημὴνεὐλογῶν. The Syriac omits the particles ἧμήν, which yet are the only note of asseveration in the words. The Vulg. Lat. renders it by “nisi,” “unless;” which is retained by Erasmus; the sense whereof we shall afterwards inquire into. “Certe,” “surely,” Arab., — “I have sworn assuredly: benedicens,” or” benedicendo benedieam;” “blessing I will bless.”Μακροθυμήσας. Syr., ΰֲ ?βָ ?ψψεּ ?ηֵ ?δּ, “he restrained his spirit;” preserved himself by faith from being hasty, or making haste.᾿Επέτυχετῆςἐπαγγελίας, “adeptus est,” “nactus est,’ “assequutus est,” “obtinuit,” “consecutus est;” all which words are used by interpreters. Syr., χαֵ ?μ, “he received;” “promissum,” “promissionem,” “repromissionem;” “he obtained the promise.” ῞Ανθρωποι. Syr., αְּ ?πַ ?ιπָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ, ,”the sons of men;” men of all sorts. Κατὰτοῦμείζονος. Vulg. Lat., “per majorem sui.” “Sui” is added if not needlessly, yet barbarously.᾿Αντιλογίας, “contradictionis,” “controversiae,” “litis,” “contentionis;” “strife.” Πέρας, “finis;” rather as Bez., “terminus.” Εἰςβεζαιωσινὁὅρκος, “ad confirmationem;” Eras., “ad confirmandum; “juramentum,” “jusjurandum,” “adhibitum.” Syr., ωεּ ?μָ ?ξָ ?ΰωַׁ ?ψִ ?ιψָ ?ΰαְּ ?ξַ ?ζְ ?ξָ ?ϊָ ?ΰδָ ?εֵ ?ΰμֵ ?δּ, “the true solution of every contention between them is by an oath.” Arab., “a lawful oath is the decision of every controversy between them.” [8] [8] . — Τῷγὰρκ.τ.λ. The question raised by this particle is, How can it be inferred from God’s oath to Abraham that the patriarch obtained the promise “through faith and patience”? Owen holds that the γὰρ has no inferential force. Ebrard seems to have caught the true link of connection, He states two particulars on which the force of the proof rests: First, God promised to Abraham with an oath, unnecessary if the gift were bestowed immediately. Secondly, The subject-matter of the promise, — the multiplication of his seed, — was such as could only be realized after the death of Abraham. — ED. Hebrews 6:13-16. — For when God made promise to Abraham, [God promising unto Abraham,] because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee; and so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Γάρ, “for.” Expositors agree that this causal connection doth not infer a reason or enforcement of the preceding exhortation unto faith, and directly; but it gives an account wherefore he proposed unto them the examples of their forefathers, as those who through faith and patience inherited the promises. For that they did so really and truly, he proves by an instance above all exception, producing the example of one which he knew would be most forcible and prevalent with them: ‘It is evident that they by faith and patience obtained the promise, for so did Abraham;’the grounds whereof he particularly declares. But this, in my judgment, compriseth not the whole scope and design of the apostle in the introduction of this example. He hath yet a farther aim in it, which we must inquire into. Wherefore, 1. Having carried on his parenetical discourse concerning fruitfulness in profession, with constancy in faith and patience, unto a declaration of the end of all graces and duties, which is the enjoyment of the promise, he takes occasion thence to declare unto them the nature of the gospel, and the mediation of Christ therein proposed unto them, unto constancy in the faith and profession whereof he had so exhorted them. To this end he lets them know, that they were nothing but the accomplishment of the great promise made unto Abraham; which as themselves acknowledged to be the foundation of all their hopes and expectations, so also that it had not been before perfectly fulfilled. In that promise both the great blessing of Christ himself and the whole work of his mediation were included. Wherefore on this account doth he insist so largely on this promise, and the confirmation of it, and issueth his discourse in the introduction of Christ according unto it. 2. He further designs to manifest, that the promise, as to the substance of it, belongs no less unto all believers than it did to Abraham, and that all the benefits contained therein are by the oath of God secured unto them all. There is in the words, observing as near as we can their order in the text, in the distribution, 1. The person unto whom the promises were made, and who is proposed for the example of the Hebrews; which is Abraham.2. The promise made unto him; which is that of Christ himself and the benefits of his mediation. 3. The confirmation of that promise by the oath of God; “God sware.”4. The especial nature of that oath; “God sware by himself.”5. The reason hereof; because he had none greater by whom he might swear.6. The end of the whole on the part of Abraham; he obtained the promise by patient waiting, or enduring.7. The assurance of the promise on the part of God as confirmed by his oath, by a general maxim of things among men, grounded on the light of nature and received in their universal practice; “for verily men swear by the greater,” etc.First, The person to whom the promise was made is Abraham.” He was originally called “Abram,” ΰαְ ?ψָ ?ν, — “pater excelsus,” “a high” or “exalted father.”’God changed his name, upon the most signal renovation of the covenant with him, into ΰαְ ?ψָ ?δָ ?ν, “Abraham,” Genesis 17:5. The reason and added signification whereof are given in the next words, “For a father of many nations have I made thee,” — λִּ ?ιΰַ ?αΰּ ?δֲ ?ξεֹ ?οβּ ?εֹ ?ιִ ?νπְ ?ϊַ ?ϊִּ ?ικָ δֲ ?ξεֹ ?οis a “multitude;” and God now declaring that Abraham should not only be the father of all the nations that should proceed naturally from his loins, but of all the nations of the world that should afterwards embrace and imitate his faith, interserts the first letter of δֲ ?ξεֹ ?ο, a “multitude,” into his name; that it might be unto him a perpetual memorial of the grace and favor of God, as also a continual confirmation of his faith in the promises, the truth and power of God being always suggested unto him by the name that he had given him.Now Abraham was the most meet, on many accounts, to be proposed as an example unto this people. For, 1. Naturally he was the head of their families, — their first, peculiar, famous progenitor, in whose person that distinction from the rest of the world began which they continued in throughout all their generations; and all men are wont to pay a great reverence and respect to such persons.2. It was he who as it were got them their inheritance, which was first conveyed unto him, and they came in upon his right. 3. Because the promise, now accomplished, was first signally given unto him, and therein the gospel declared, in the faith whereof they are now exhorted to persevere.4. The promise was not given him merely on his own account, or for his own sake, but he was singled out as a pattern and example for all believers. And hence he became the “father of the faithful,” and “heir of the world.”Secondly, That which is affirmed concerning this person is, that “God made promise unto him,” — . Of the nature of divine promises I have treated, Hebrews 4:1-2. In general, they are express declarations of the grace, goodness, pleasure, and purpose of God towards men, for their good and advantage. That here intended was that, for the substance of it, which God made unto Abraham, Genesis 12:2-3 :“I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”And this same promise was confirmed unto him by the way of a covenant, Genesis 15:3-5; and more solemnly, Genesis 17:1-6. For Genesis 15, it is only promised that he should have a natural seed of his own, and that a stranger should not be his heir; but here [Genesis 17] his name is changed into “Abraham,” he is made “heir of the world,” and “many nations” are given to be his spiritual posterity. But because, together with the promise, our apostle designs to give an account and commendation both of the faith and obedience of Abraham, he calls not out that grant of this promise which was preventing, renewing, and calling, antecedent unto all his faith and obedience, and communicative of all the grace whereby he was enabled thereunto, as expressed Genesis 12; but he takes it from that place where it was renewed and established unto him after he had given the last and greatest evidence of his faith, love, and obedience, Genesis 22:16-18 : αִּ ?ιπִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, — “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not Withheld thy son, thine only son,” λִּ ?ιΰּ ?αָ ?ψֵ ?κְ ΰֲ ?αָ ?ψֶ ?λְ ?κָ εְ ?δַ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?δΰַ ?ψְ ?αֶּ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ζַ ?ψְ ?ςֲ ?κָ, — “that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed.” Thus God gave out unto him the fullness of the promise by degrees. First he mentions only his own person, without any declaration how the promise should be fulfilled in his seed, Genesis 12:2-3; then he expressly adds the mention of his seed, in the way whereby the promise should be accomplished, but no more, Genesis 15:5; and at length he lets him know the extent of his seed, unto believers of all nations, Genesis 17:5. To all which a further confirmation by the oath of God, and the extent of the promise, are added, Genesis 22:15-18. So are we to embrace and improve, as he did, the first dawnings of divine love and grace. It is not full assurance that we are first to look after, but we are to wait for the confirmation of our faith, in compliance with what we have received. If we either value not, or improve not in thankful obedience, the first intimations of grace, we shall make no progress towards greater enjoyments. And in the apostle’s expression of this promise we may consider, —1. The manner of the expression; 2. The nature and concernments of the promise itself.1. In the manner of the expression there are the affirmative particles, ἦμήν, — “certe,” “truly.” They answer only directly unto λִּ ?ι in the Hebrew; but the apostle includes a respect unto what was said before, αִּ ?ιπִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, — “In myself have I sworn.” And λִּ ?ι is sometimes used for ΰָ ?λֵ ?ο, that is, “truly,” in way of an asseveration: Job 34:31, ΰֶ ?ηְ ?αֹּ ?μλִּ ?ιΰֶ ?μΰּ ?ΰֵ ?μδֶ ?ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψπָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰϊִ ?ιμֹ ?ΰ; which we render,’Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have borne, I will not offend;” and that properly. And ἦμήν was of common use in the Greek tongue in assertory oaths. So Demosthenes,ὭμνυεἦμὴνἀπολωλέναιΦίλιππον, — “He sware (ἦμήν) that he would destroy Philip.” The Vulgar Latin renders it by “nisi;” that is, εἰμή, contrary to the sense of the ancients, Chrysostom, OEcumenius, and Theophylact, as some of the expositors of the Roman church do acknowledge. But yet that manner of expression denotes a sense not unusual in the Scripture; for there is an intimation in it of a reserved condition, rendering the saying ensuing a most sacred oath: ‘Unless I bless thee, let me not be trusted in as God,’or the like. But the formality of the oath of God is neither in Genesis nor here expressed; only respect is had unto what he affirms, “By myself have I sworn.” ‘Surely,’‘undoubtedly.’The promise itself is expressed in these words, Εὐλογῶνεὐλογήσω, etc., — “Blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.” Our apostle renders the words of Moses exactly, Genesis 22:17. Only, while it is said there, “I will multiply thy seed,” he expresseth it by “I will multiply thee;” which is all one, or to the same purpose, for he could be no way multiplied but in his seed: and he proceedeth no farther with the words of the promise, as being not concerned in what followeth. For although his seed was actually multiplied, yet it was Abraham himself who was blessed therein. The Vulgar Latin in this place reads, “benedicens benedicam,” “blessing I will bless;” but in Genesis it hath only “benedicam” and “multiplicabo.” Hence divers of the Roman expositors, as Ribera, Tena, and others, give sundry reasons why the apostle changed the expression from what was used in Moses, where it is only said, “I will bless thee,” into “blessing I will bless thee.” And, which I cannot but observe, Schlichtingius, who followeth in this place the exposition of Ribera, complies with him also in that observation: “Aliis quidem verbis,” saith he, “promissionem hanc apud Mosem extulit.” But all this is but the mistake of the Vulgar interpreter on Genesis 22 : for the words in the original have the reduplication rendered by the apostle; which the LXX. also observe. And this reduplication is a pure Hebraism, vehemently affirming the thing promised, and hath in it the nature of an oath. It also intends and extends the matter promised: “Blessing I will bless thee;” — ‘I will do so without fail; I will do so greatly, without measure, and eternally, without end.’And this kind of asseveration is common in the Hebrew: Genesis 2:17, αְּ ?ιεֹ ?νΰֲ ?λָ ?μְ ?κָ ξִ ?ξֶּ ?πּ ?εּ ξεֹ ?ϊϊָּ ?ξεּ ?ϊ; — “In the day thou eatest thereof dying thou shalt die;” ‘thou shalt assuredly die, be certainly obnoxious unto death.’It may be also that the double death, temporal and eternal, is included therein. See Genesis 37:33; 2 Kings 2:23; 1 Samuel 23:22-23; Joshua 24:10; Jeremiah 23:17; Daniel 11:10.Obs. 1. We have need of every thing that any way evidenceth the stability of God’s promises to be represented unto us, for the encouragement and confirmation of our faith.As God redoubled the word at the first giving out of the promise unto Abraham, for the strengthening of his faith, so is the same here expressed by the apostle, that it might have the same effect upon us. And two things especially God seems to impress upon our minds in this vehemency of expression: (1.) The sincerity of his intentions, without reserve.(2.) The stability of his purposes, without alteration and change.It is to signify both these, that such emphatical, vehement expressions are used even among men; and both these unbelief is apt to question in God. “He that believeth not God, maketh him a liar,” 1 John 5:10. He is a liar, who in his promises intendeth not what his words signify, but hath other reserves in his mind; and he who, having promised, changeth without cause. Both these doth unbelief impute to God; which makes it a sin of so heinous a nature. The first time God used this kind of reduplication, it was in his threatening of death unto the transgression of the command, Genesis 2:17, “In the day thou eatest thereof dying thou shalt die.” And that which Satan deluded our first parents by, was in persuading them that there was not sincerity in what God had said, but that he had reserved to himself that it should be otherwise. The serpent said unto the woman, ξεֹ ?ϊϊְּ ?ξֻ ?εϊεּ ?ο, — “Dying ye shall not die,” Genesis 3:4. But this being directly contrary unto what God had expressly affirmed, how could Satan imagine that the woman would immediately consent unto him, against the express words of God? Wherefore he useth this artifice to prevail with her, that although God had spoken those words, yet he had a reserve to himself that it should not be unto them indeed as he had spoken, verse 5. By these means unbelief entered into the world, and hath ever since wrought effectually in the same kind. There is no promise of God so plainly expressed, but unbelief is ready to suggest innumerable exceptions why it should have such reserves accompanying of it as that it doth not belong unto us. Most of these exceptions we gather from ourselves; and were it not for them we suppose we could believe the promise well enough. But the truth is, when we are called to believe, when it is our duty so to do, when we pretend that we are willing and desirous to do so were it not for such and such things in ourselves, it is the sincerity of God in his promises we call in question; and we think that although he proposeth the promise unto us, and commandeth us to believe, yet it is not his intention and purpose that we should do so, or that we should be made partakers of the good things promised. By the purpose of God, I do not here intend the eternal purpose of his will concerning the effects and events of things, about which we are called to exercise neither faith nor unbelief, until they are manifested. But the whole rule of our duty is in God’s command; and the faith required of us consists in this, that if we comply with what God prescribeth, we shall enjoy what he promiseth, — if we believe, we shall be saved. And herein to question the truth or sincerity of God, is a high effect of unbelief. This distrust, therefore, God removes by the reduplication of the word of the promise, that we might know he was in good earnest in what he expressed. The like may be spoken concerning the stability of the promises, with respect unto change; which because it must be particularly afterwards spoken unto, shall be here omitted. And these things we have need of. If we think otherwise, we know little of the nature of faith or unbelief, of our own weakness, the efficacy of the deceits of Satan, or the manifold oppositions which rise up against believing. 2. For the promise itself here intended, or the matter of it, it may be considered two ways:(1.) As it was personal unto Abraham, or as the person of Abraham was peculiarly concerned therein; (2.) As it regards all the elect of God and their interest in it, of whom he was the representative: —(1.) As this promise was made personally unto Abraham, it may be considered,[1. With respect unto what was carnal, temporal, and typical; [2. Unto what was spiritual and eternal, typed out by those other things: — [1. As unto what was carnal and typical, the things in it may be referred unto two heads: 1st. His own temporal prosperity in this world. God’s blessing is always ϊερτϊθεαδ, — an “addition of good” unto him that is blessed. So it is said, Genesis 24:1, “The LORD had blessed Abraham in all things;” which is explained verse 35, in the words of his servant, “The LORD hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold.” God increased him in wealth, riches, and power, until he was esteemed as “a mighty prince” by the people among whom he dwelt, Genesis 23:6. And this in the blessing was a type and pledge of that full administration of grace and spiritual things which was principally intended.2dly. What concerned his posterity, wherein he was blessed. And herein two things were in the promise, both expressed at large:(1st.) The greatness of their number; they were to be “as the stars of heaven,” or as “the sand by the sea-shore,” that is, innumerable.(2dly.) Their success and prosperity; that “they should possess the gates of their enemies,” — which principally respected the mighty successes which they had, and conquests which they made under the conduct of Joshua, and afterwards of David. In both these things were they typical of the more numerous subjects of the kingdom of Christ, and of his spiritual conquest for them and in them of all their spiritual adversaries. See Luke 1:70-75. In these two branches of the promise the faith of Abraham was greatly exercised, as unto the accomplishment of them. For as unto the first, or multiplication of his posterity, though he lived after this about seventy years, yet he never saw any more than two persons, Isaac and Jacob, that were interested in this promise. For although he had other children and posterity by them, yet “in Isaac only was his seed to be called,” as to this promise. He had, therefore, during his own days, no outward, visible pledge or appearance of its accomplishment; and yet, however, he lived and died in the faith thereof. And as unto the latter, of their prosperity and success, he was told before that they should be in affliction and bondage for four hundred years. Yet, looking by faith through all these difficulties, in its proper season he inherited the promise. And he was a great example herein unto all believers under the new testament; for there are many promises remaining as yet unaccomplished, and which at present, as in other ages, seem not only to be remote from, but, as unto all outward means, to be cast under an impossibility of accomplishment. Such are those concerning the calling of the Jews, the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles, with the enlargement and establishment of the kingdom of Christ in this world. Concerning all these things, some are apt to despond, some irregularly to make haste, and some to reject and despise them. But the faith of Abraham would give us present satisfaction in these things, and assured expectation of their accomplishment in their proper season. [2. The peculiar interest of Abraham in this promise as to the spiritual part of it may also be considered; and hereof in like manner there were two parts: — 1st. That the Lord Christ should come of his seed according to the flesh. And he was the first person in the world, after our first parents, to whom in the order of nature it was necessary, to whom the promise of the Messiah to spring from him was confirmed. It was afterwards once more so confirmed unto David; whence, in his genealogy, he is said in a peculiar manner to be “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” For unto these two persons alone was the promise confirmed. And therefore is he said in one place to be “the seed of David according to the flesh,” Romans 1:3; and in another, to have “taken on him the seed of Abraham,” Hebrews 2:16. Herein lay Abraham’s peculiar interest in the spiritual part of this promise, he was the first who had this privilege granted unto him by especial grace, that the promised Seed should spring from his loins. In the faith hereof “he saw the day of Christ, and rejoiced.” This made him famous and honorable throughout all generations. 2dly. As he was thus to be the natural father of Christ according to the flesh, whence all nations were to be blessed in him, or his seed; so, being the first that received or embraced this promise, he became the spiritual father of all that do believe, and in them the “heir of the world” in a spiritual interest, as he was in his carnal seed the heir of Canaan in a political interest. No men come to be accepted with God but upon the account of their faith in that promise which was made unto Abraham; that is, in Him who was promised unto him. And we may observe, that, —Obs. 2. The grant and communication of spiritual privileges is a mere act or effect of sovereign grace. — Even this Abraham, who was so exalted by spiritual privileges, seems originally to have been tainted with the common idolatry which was then in the world. This account we have, Joshua 24:2-3, “Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood.” It is true, the charge is express against Terah only; but it lying against their “fathers” in general “on the other side of the flood,” and it being added that God “took Abraham from the other side of the flood,” he seems to have been involved in the guilt of the same sin whilst he was in his father’s house, and before his call. Nor is there any account given of the least preparation or disposition in him unto the state and duties which he was afterwards brought into. In this condition, God, of his sovereign grace, first calls him to the saving knowledge of himself, and by degrees accumulates him with all the favors and privileges before mentioned. Hence, in the close of his whole course, he had no cause to glory in himself, neither before God nor men, Romans 4:2; for he had nothing but what he gratuitously received. Indeed there were distances of time in the collation of several distinct mercies and blessings on him. And he still, through the supplies of grace which he received under every mercy, so deported himself as that he might not be unmeet to receive the succeeding mercies whereof he was to be made partaker. And this is the method of God’s communicating his grace unto sinners. His first call and conversion of them is absolutely gratuitous. He hath no consideration of any thing in them that should induce him thereunto; neither is there any thing required unto a condecency herein. God takes men as he pleaseth, some in one condition and posture of mind, some in another; some in an open course of sin, and some in the execution of a particular sin, as Paul. And he, indeed, at the instant of his call, was under the active power of two of the greatest hinderances unto conversion that the heart of man is obnoxious unto. For first, he was zealous above measure of the righteousness of the law, seeking earnestly for life and salvation by it; and then he was actually engaged in the persecution of the saints of God. These two qualifications, — constant resting in legal righteousness, with rage and madness in persecution, than which there are not out of hell more adverse principles unto it, — were all the preparations of that apostle unto converting grace. But after that this grace, which is absolutely free and sovereign, is received, there is an order in God’s covenant which for the most part he observeth in the communication of ensuing graces and privileges; namely, that faith and obedience shall precede the increase and enlargement of them. Thus was it with Abraham, who received his last great, signal, promise and privilege, Genesis 22, upon that signal act of his faith and obedience in offering up his son upon God’s command. As it was with Abraham, so is it with all those who in any age are made partakers of grace or spiritual privileges. (2.) The promise here intended, as to the spiritual part of it, may be considered with respect unto all believers, of whom Abraham was the representative. And two things are contained therein: —[1. The giving and sending of the Son of God, to take on him the seed of Abraham. This was the life and soul of the promise, the ancient and first- expressed regard of divine grace unto sinners: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;” that is, “The seed of the woman shall break the serpent’s head.” ‘The incarnation of the Son of God, promised from the foundation of the world, shall be fulfilled in thy seed; he shall take on him the seed of Abraham.’So our apostle argues, Galatians 3:16 : “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” For the promise which is made concerning Christ in one sense, is made unto him in another. As to the benefit and effects of the coming of Christ, it was made concerning him unto Abraham and all his seed; but as unto the first grant, intention, and stability of the promise, it was made unto Christ himself, with respect unto that everlasting covenant which was between the Father and him, in his undertaking the work of mediation. Or, the Lord Christ may be considered either as the undertaker of the covenant with God, and so the promise was made unto him; or as the accomplishment of the terms of it for us, so the promise was concerning him. [2. The nature of the benefit which is to be received by Christ thus promised; and that in general is a blessing, “In thy seed shall they be blessed.” And two things are comprised in this blessing, as the springs of other mercies innumerable; — the promise of Christ himself was the fountain, and all other promises were particular streams from it, especial explications and applications of that promise: 1st. The removal of the curse of the law, which was come on all men by reason of sin. The curse could not be removed but by a blessing; and that which doth it is the greatest of blessings, as that was the greatest of curses and miseries. 2dly. The bringing in of a blessed righteousness, on the account whereof we might be accepted with God. See Galatians 3:13-14. Before we proceed we may observe two things in general concerning this promise: [1. That this was the life of the church of the old testament, the spring of its continuance unto its appointed season, which could never be dried up. How many times were that whole people, the posterity of Abraham, at the very brink of destruction! For sometimes they fell generally into such terrible provoking sins, as that their utter casting off might have been justly expected by angels and men; sometimes they were, in the just judgment of God, given up unto such wasting desolations in their captivities, as that they were wholly like dry bones on the face of the earth, without hope of a resurrection. Yet mercy, patience, and power, wrought through all, and preserved them in a church-state until this promise was accomplished. This it was alone, or the faithfulness of God therein, whence all their healing and recoveries did proceed. And when this promise was once fulfilled, it was beyond the power of all the world to keep them unto their former condition. All depended on the issue of this promise, on whose fulfilling all things were to be cast into a new mould and order. [2. This was that which preserved the spirits of true believers among them from ruining despondencies in the times of the greatest apostasies, calamities, and desolations of the people. They had this promise still to plead, and rested therein, notwithstanding all the interveniencies which ofttimes seemed to render the case of that people very desperate. See their faith expressed, Micah 7:18-20; Isaiah 7:13-15; Isaiah 53; Luke 1:70-75. And I would hope there is mercy lies treasured in the bowels of this promise, not yet brought forth, toward the remainders of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh. Who knows but that, by virtue of the engaged love and faithfulness of God, declared in this promise, these withered branches may revive, and these dead bones rise again? Our apostle placeth the hopes of it on this ground alone, that, “as touching the election they were beloved;” they were “beloved for the fathers’sake,” Romans 11:28. As to profession, they were then visibly falling off; but as to election, as to God’s purpose concerning them, the love which he bare to their fathers, engaged unto Abraham in this promise, will one day find them out, and bring them in unto a plentiful share in this blessing.Wherefore, on all accounts, the instance chosen by the apostle was of singular use unto the Hebrews, and singularly suited unto their present condition. For as they received many advantages from his personal privileges who was their father according to the flesh, so they succeeded unto him in the spiritual part of the promise; and therefore, as the like duties of faith, and obedience, and perseverance, were required of them as of him, so they, in the performance of them, had assurance given them in his success that they also should inherit the promise. So the apostle applies his discourse, Hebrews 6:17-18. Obs. 3. Where the promise of God is absolutely engaged, it will break through all difficulties and oppositions unto a perfect accomplishment.No promise of God shall ever fail, or be of none effect. We may fail, or come short of the promise by our unbelief, but the promises themselves shall never fail. There have been great seasons of trial in many ages, wherein the faith of believers hath been exercised to the utmost about the accomplishment of the promises; but the faithfulness of God in them all hath hitherto been ever victorious, — and it will be so for ever. And this trial hath arisen partly from difficulties and oppositions, with all improbabilities of their accomplishment on rational accounts, or with respect unto visible means; partly from a misunderstanding of the nature of the promises, or of the season of their accomplishment. Thus, in the first great promise given unto our parents after the fall, how soon was their faith exercised about it! When they had but two sons, the one of them slew the other, and the survivor was rejected and cursed of God. From whom should now the promised Seed be expected to proceed and spring? Is it not probable that they were ofttimes ready to say, “Where is the promise of his coming?” And yet indeed this, which seemed to overthrow and disannul the promise, was only a means of its further confirmation; for the death of Abel, upon his offering his acceptable sacrifice, was a type of Christ and his suffering in his mystical body, 1 John 3:12. When the wickedness of the world was come unto that height and fullness that God would not spare, but destroyed all the inhabitants of it excepting eight persons, the very destruction of the whole race of mankind seemed to threaten an annihilation of the promise. But this also proved unto its confirmation; for after the flood, God established it unto Noah, accompanied it with a covenant, and gave a visible pledge of his faithfulness therein, to abide for ever, Genesis 9:11-13. For although that covenant in the first place respected temporal things, yet, as it was annexed unto the first promise, it represented and assured the spiritual things thereof, Isaiah 54:8-10. This great promise was afterwards limited unto the person of Abraham, namely, that from him should spring the blessed Seed. Yet after it was given unto him, many and many a year passed over him before he saw the least hope of its accomplishment. Yea, he lived to see all natural ways and means of fulfilling it utterly to fail; Sarah’s womb being dead, and his body also: so that he was past and beyond all hope of having it fulfilled in the ordinary course of nature. And the faith which he had, or hope, was against hope, Romans 4:18-19. Hence he complained, that after all his long and wearisome pilgrimage he went childless, Genesis 15:2; and fell into no small mistakes in the matter of Hagar and Ishmael. Yet, after all, the promise made its way unto its own accomplishment; and, by the signal victory it had herein against all oppositions, assured itself unto the faith of all succeeding generations, as is here expressed by the apostle. Afterwards, when the promise was confined unto Isaac, by that word, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” and Abraham was now drawing apace towards the grave, he is commanded to slay this Isaac, and offer him in sacrifice unto God. This indeed was the greatest appearance under the old testament of the absolute disannulling and frustration of the promise. And Abraham had no relief for his faith under this trial but only the omnipotency of God, which could produce effects that he could no way apprehend, as raising of him up again from the dead, or the like. But this also proved in the issue so great a confirmation of the promise, as that it never received any thing of the like nature, before nor after, until its actual accomplishment. For hereon was it confirmed by “the oath of God,” whereof we shall treat immediately; the sacrifice of Christ was illustriously represented; and an instance given of the infallible victorious success of faith, whilst against all difficulties it adheres unto the truth of the promise. What was the condition with the faith of the best of men when the Lord Christ was in the grave? At how great a loss they were, and. how their faith was shaken to the utmost, the two disciples expressed unto the Lord Christ himself, as they went to Emmaus: Luke 24:21, “We trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel.” And for what they had heard then reported of his resurrection, they said they were astonished at it, but could not arrive at any positive actings of faith about it. And this befell them when they were speaking to Christ himself, in whom the promise had received its full accomplishment. After this, also, when the gospel began to be preached in the world, it appeared that it was rejected by the generality of the Jews; and that they also thereon were rejected from being the people of God. This made a great hesitation in many about the promise made unto Abraham concerning his seed and posterity, as though it were of none effect. For now, when the full accomplishment was declared, and innumerable persons came in unto a participation of it, those unto whom it was peculiarly made neither would be nor were sharers of it. This great objection against the truth of the promise our apostle lays down, Romans 9:6, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect;” — in answer whereunto he spends the three ensuing chapters. And he doth it by letting us know that the objection was grounded on a mistake as to the persons unto whom the promise did belong; which were not the whole carnal seed of Abraham, but only the elect of them and of all nations whatever. And there are yet promises of God on record in the Scripture not yet fulfilled, that will and do exercise the faith of the strongest and most experienced believers, concerning whose accomplishment our Lord Jesus Christ says, “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The faith, hope, and expectation of most, will be at an end before they are fulfilled; and that because of the insuperable difficulties that seem to lie in the way of their accomplishment. Such are those which concern the destruction of antichrist, the calling of the Jews, the spreading of the gospel unto all nations, and the flourishing of the church in peace and purity. These things, as to all outward appearance, seem as remote from accomplishment as they were the first day the promise was given; and the difficulties against it increase continually. And yet, notwithstanding, the promise shall break through all difficulties: at the end it shall speak, and not lie. “The LORD will hasten it in his time,” Isaiah 60:22. Before its proper time, its appointed season, it will not be; but then the Lord will hasten it, so that no opposition shall be able to stand before it. From this state of the promises three things have fallen out: [1. That in all ages the faith of true believers hath been greatly and peculiarly exercised; which hath been to the singular advantage of the church: for the exercise of faith is that whereon the flourishing of all other graces cloth depend. And from hence hath there been a treasure of fervent prayers laid up from the beginning, which shall in their proper season have a fruitful return. In that faith and patience, in those supplications and expectations, wherein in every age of the church the faithful have abounded, with respect unto the difficulties that have lain in the way of the promise, hath God been exceedingly glorified; as also, they were the means of drawing forth new encouragements and assurances, as the comfort of the church did require. [2. Hence it was that in most ages of the church there have been mockers and scoffers, saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as from the beginning of the creation,” 2 Peter 3:4.The fathers were they who received the promises, especially that of the coming of Christ. These they preached and declared, testifying that they would be accomplished, and that great alterations should be wrought in the world thereby. The sum of what they so declared was, that the elect of God should be delivered, and that judgment should be executed on ungodly men, by the coming of the Lord, Jude 1:14-15. ‘But what now is become of these fathers, with all their great promises, and preachments upon them? Things go on in the same course as they did in the beginning, and are like to do so to the end of the world; what, we pray, is this promise of his coming you have so talked of?’Such scoffers have most ages abounded withal, and I think none more than that wherein our lot is fallen. Observing that all things are in a most unlikely posture, to an eye of carnal reason, for the accomplishment of the great promises of God that are upon record in the word, they scoff at all who dare to own an expectation thereof. [3. Some, through haste and precipitation, have fallen into manifold mistakes of the promise on the same account. Some have feigned to themselves other things than God ever promised; as the generality of the Jews looked for a carnal rule, glory, and dominion, at the coming of the Messiah; which proved their temporal and eternal ruin: and it is to be feared that some are still sick of the same or like imaginations. And some have put themselves on irregular courses for the accomplishment of the promises, walking in the spirit of Jacob, and not of Israel But whatever of this or any other kind may fall out, by the unbelief of men, all the promises of God are “yea and amen,” and will make their way through all difficulties unto an assured accomplishment in their proper season. Thus it is also with respect unto our faith in the promises of God, as unto our own especial and personal interest in them. We find so many difficulties, so many oppositions, that we are continually ready to call in question the accomplishment of them; and indeed few there are that live in a comfortable and confident assurance thereof. In the times of temptation, or when perplexities arise from a deep sense of the guilt and power of sin, and on many other occasions, we are ready to say, with Zion, “The LORD hath forsaken us; our judgment is passed over from him; as for our part, we are cut off.” In all these cases it were easy to demonstrate whence it is that the promise hath its insuperable efficacy, and shall have its infallible accomplishment, but it must be spoken unto under the particular wherein the confirmation of the promise by the oath of God is declared. Again, — Obs. 4. Although there may be privileges attending some promises that may be peculiarly appropriated unto some certain persons, yet the grace of all promises is equal unto all believers.So Abraham had sundry personal privileges and advantages communicated unto him in and by this promise, which we have before recounted; yet there is not the meanest believer in the world but is equally partaker of the spiritual grace and mercy of the promise with Abraham himself. They are all by virtue hereof made “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,” whose is the inheritance. Thirdly, The next thing considerable in the words, is the especial confirmation of the promise made to Abraham, by the oath of God: “For God ...... when he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.” And sundry things we must inquire into in this peculiar dispensation of God unto men, namely, in swearing to them: —1. The person swearing is said to be God, “God sware by himself;” and Hebrews 6:17, in the application of the grace of this promise unto believers, it is said that “God interposed himself by an oath.” But the words here repeated are expressly ascribed unto the angel of the Lord, Genesis 22:15-16 : “And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD.” So it is said before, Genesis 22:11, “The angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham;” and he adds in the close of Gen 22:12, “Thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” He is called an angel that speaks, but he still speaks in the name of God. Three things are insisted on to assoil this difficulty: (1.) Some say that he spake, as a messenger and ambassador of God, in his name, and so assumed his titles, although he was a mere created angel; for so a legate may do, and use the name of him that sends him. But I do not see a sufficient foundation for this supposition. An ambassador, having first declared that he is sent, and from whom, may act in the name and authority of his master; but not speak as if he were the same person. But here is no such declaration made, and so no provision laid in against idolatry. For when one speaks in the name of God, not as from God, but as God, who would judge but divine honor and religious worship were due unto him? which yet are not unto angels, however gloriously sent or employed, Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:9. Wherefore,(2.) It is said that this angel doth only repeat the words of God unto Abraham, as the prophets were wont to do. And those of this mind countenance their opinion with those words used by him, Genesis 22:16, πְ ?ΰֻ ?νΰּ ?ιְ ?δεֹ ?δ, — “saith the LORD;” the words whereby the prophets solemnly ushered in their messages. But yet neither will this solve the difficulty. For these words, “saith the LORD,” are often used in the third person, to express Him unto us whom in all our duties we regard, when God himself is introduced speaking. See Genesis 18:19; Zechariah 2:8-9. And he who called unto Abraham the second time, Genesis 22:15, is the same with him who first called unto him, Genesis 22:11-12; and he speaks expressly in the name of God: “Thou hast not withheld thy son from me.” Besides, in each place this angel is said to “speak from heaven;” which expresseth the glory of the person that spake. Wherever God makes use of created angels in messages unto the children of men, he sends them unto the earth; but this speaking from heaven is a description of God himself, Hebrews 12:25. Therefore,(3.) By this angel no other angel is to be understood but the great Angel of the covenant, the second person of the Trinity, who thus appeared unto the fathers under the old testament. See this proved at large in our tenth Exercitation, in the first volume of our Exposition on this Epistle. He it was that spake, and sware by himself; for when a mere angel sweareth, he swears always by one greater than himself, according to the rule of our apostle in this place, Daniel 12:7; Revelation 10:5-6.2. It may be inquired when God did thus swear: Ἐπαγγειλάμενοςὤμοσε; — “Promising he sware.” He did not first promise, and afterwards confirm it with his oath. He gave his promise and oath together; or gave his promise in the way of an oath. Yet are they distinctly considered, nor is it the mere vehemency of the promise that is intended: for in the next verse the apostle calls the promise and the oath “two things,” — that is, distinct from one another; δύοπράγματα, two acts of God. But although he hath respect principally unto that especial promise which was given with an oath, yet by the same oath were all the promises of this kind given before unto Abraham equally confirmed; whence it may be applied unto all the promises of God, as it is in the following verses. That which is directly intended is that whereof the story is expressed, Genesis 22:15-18, upon his obedience in offering up his son. And this was the last time that God immediately and solemnly made promise unto him, after he had gone through all sorts of trials and temptations (whereof the Jews give ten particular instances), and had acquitted himself by faith and obedience in them all. Thus did God, in his infinite goodness and wisdom, see good to give him the utmost assurance of the accomplishment of the promise whereof in this life he was capable. And although it was an act of sovereign grace, yet had it also the nature of a reward, whence it is so expressed, “Because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son.” Of the same nature are all those assurances of divine love and grace, with the peace and joy that accompany them, which believers do receive in and upon the course of their obedience. 3. The expression of this oath may be also considered. The apostle only mentions the oath itself, with respect unto the ancient record of it, but expresseth not the formal terms of it: “He sware by himself, saying.” The expression of it, Genesis 22:16, is αִּ ?ιπִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ι; — “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD.” And we may consider two things concerning the oath of God:(1.) Why he sware;(2.) How he swears: —(1.) For the first of these, whereas all the oaths of God are in the confirmation of his promises or his threatenings, the reason and nature of those which respect his threatenings have been declared at large on Genesis 3; and that which concerns the promises will return unto us, Genesis 3:17, where it must be spoken unto. (2.) How he swears; wherein also two things are comprised:[1. The manner of his swearing; and [2. The nature of his oath: — [1. The manner of swearing is twofold: 1st. That which positively expresseth and engageth what is sworn by; and, idly. That wherein an imprecation or execration is implied or expressed. The first the Latins express by per, — “per Deum;” the Greeks by μά and νή, to the same purpose; the Hebrews propose the letter α unto the thing sworn by. So here, αִּ ?ι;ִ that is, “by myself.” Sometimes there is no expression to that purpose, only God affirms that he hath sworn; for he is every way his own witness: 1 Samuel 3:14, “I have sworn unto the house of Eli.” So Psalms 132:11; Isaiah 14:24. Sometimes he expresseth some of the properties of his nature; as Psalms 89:36, πִ ?ωְׁ ?αַּ ?ςϊִּ ?ιαְ ?χָ ?γְ ?ωִׁ ?ι. “Juravi per sanctitatem meam; — I have sworn by my holiness.” So Amos 4:2. “By myself,” Isaiah 45:23, Jeremiah 22:5; Jeremiah 49:13; “By his right hand, and the arm of his strength,” Isaiah 62:8; “By his great name, Jeremiah 44:26; “By his soul,” Jeremiah 51:14; and “By the excellency of Jacob,” Amos 8:7; — that is himself only; for all the holy properties of God are the same with his nature and being. For that form of an oath wherein an imprecation is used, the expression of it is always elliptical in the Hebrew tongue, whereas other languages abound with cursed and profane imprecations. And this elliptical form of expression by ΰִ ?ν, “si,” is often used by God himself: 1 Samuel 3:14, “I have sworn unto the house of Eli; ΰִ ?νΰּ ?ιִ ?ϊְ ?λַּ ?τֵּ ?ψςֲ ?εֹ ?οαֵּ ?ιϊΰּ ?ςֵ ?μִ ?ι,” — “if the iniquity of the house of Eli be purged.” Psalms 89:36, “I have sworn unto David by my holiness; ΰִ ?νΰּ ?μְ ?γָ ?εִ ?γαΰֲ ?λַ ?ζֵּ ?α,” — “if I lie unto David.” So also Psalms 95:11; Psalms 132:2-3; Isaiah 14:24. And this kind of expression is retained by our apostle, Hebrews 3:2, “To whom I sware in my wrath, Εἰεισελεύσονταιεἰςτὴνκατάπαυσίνμου, — “If they shall enter into my rest.” As also it is made use of by our Savior, Mark 8:12, ᾿Αμὴνλέγωὑμῖν, Εἰδοθήσεταιτῇγενεᾷταύτησημεῖον, — “Verily I say unto you, If a sign shall be given unto this generation.” There is herein a rhetorical ἀποσιώπησις, where something, for honor or reverence’sake, is restrained, silenced, and not uttered; as, ‘If it be so, then let me not be trusted, believed, or obeyed.’[2. For the nature of this oath of God, it consists in an express engagement of those holy properties whereby he is known to be God unto the accomplishment of what he promiseth or threateneth. By his being, his life, his holiness, his power, is he known to be God; and therefore by them is he said to swear, when they are all engaged unto the fulfilling of his word. Fourthly, There is a reason added why God thus sware by himself. It was “because he had none greater whereby he might swear.” And this reason is built upon this maxim, that the nature of an oath consisteth in the invocation of a superior in whose power we are. For two things we design in that invocation of another:1. A testimony to be given unto the truth we assert; 2. Vengeance or punishment of the contrary upon us. Wherefore we do ascribe two things unto him whom we invocate in an oath:1. An absolute omnisciency, or infallible knowledge of the truth or falsehood of what we assert; 2. A sovereign power over us, whence we expect protection in case of right and truth, or punishment in case we deal falsely and treacherously. And this respect unto punishment is that alone which gives force and efficacy unto oaths among mankind. There is a principle ingrafted in the minds of men by nature, that God is the supreme rector, ruler, and judge of all men and their actions; as also, that the holiness of his nature, with his righteousness as a ruler and judge, doth require that evil and sin be punished in them who are under his government. Of his omnipotent power, also, to punish all sorts of transgressors, the highest,, greatest, and most exempt from human cognizance, there is an alike conception and presumption. According as the minds of men are actually influenced by these principles, so are their oaths valid and useful, and no otherwise. And therefore it hath been provided, that men of profligate lives, who manifest that they have no regard unto God nor his government of the world, should not be admitted to give testimony by oath. And if, instead of driving all sorts of persons, the worst, the vilest of men, on slight, or light, or no occasions, unto swearing, none might be in any case admitted thereunto but such as evidence in their conversations such a regard unto the divine rule and government of the world as is required to give the least credibility unto an oath, it would be much better with human society. And that inroad which atheism hath made on the world in these latter ages, hath weakened and brought in a laxation of all the nerves and bonds of human society. These things belong unto the nature of an oath amongst men, and without them it is nothing. But wherefore, then, is God said to swear, who, as the apostle speaks, can have no greater to swear by, no superior unto whom in swearing he should have respect? It is because, as to infinite omniscience, power, and righteousness, — the things respected in an oath, — God is that essentially in and unto himself which he is in a way of external government unto his creatures. Wherefore, when he will condescend to give us the utmost security and assurance of any thing which our nature is capable of antecedent unto actual enjoyment, in and by the express engagement of his holiness, veracity, and immutability, he is said to swear, or to confirm his word with his oath. The end and use of this oath of God is so fully expressed, Hebrews 6:17, that I must thither refer the consideration of it. Fifthly, The event of this promise-giving and oath of God, on the part of Abraham, is declared, Hebrews 6:15, “And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.” Καὶοὕτω, “and so;” — ‘This was the way and manner of God’s dealing with him; and this was the way, on the other side, how he carried it towards God.’And the manner of his deportment, or the way whereby he attained the end proposed, was μακροθυμήσας, — “he patiently endured;” “after he had patiently endured,” or rather, “patiently enduring.” The word hath been spoken unto before. Μακρόθυμος, ΰַ ?τַּ ?ιִ ?ν“longanimus,” “lentus,” “tardus ad inum;” — one that is not quickly provoked, not easily excited unto anger, hasty resolutions, or any distempered passion of mind. And sundry things are intimated in this word: — 1. That Abraham was exposed to trials and temptations about the truth and accomplishment of this promise. If there be not difficulties, provocations, and delays in a business, it cannot be known whether a man be μακρόθυμος or no, he hath no occasion to exercise this longanimity.2. That he was not discomposed or exasperated by them, so as to wax weary, or to fall off from a dependence on God. The apostle explains fully the meaning of this word, Romans 4:18-21 :“Against hope he believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about aft hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform.”Continuing in a way of believing, as trusting to the veracity and power of God against all difficulties and oppositions, was his μακροθυμία, or “patient endurance.”3. That he abode a long season in this state and condition, waiting on God and trusting unto his power. It is not a thing quickly tried, whether a man be μακρόθυμος, one that will “patiently endure,” or no. It is not from his deportment under one or two trials that a man can be so denominated. The whole space of time from his first call to the day of his death, which was just a hundred years, is here included. Wherefore this word expresseth the life and spirit of that faith of Abraham which is here proposed to the Hebrews as their example. The end of the whole was, that ἐπέτυχετῆςἐπαγγελίας, “compos factus est promissionis,” “obtinuit promissionem;” “he obtained” or “enjoyed the promise.” Sundry expositors refer this obtaining of the promise to the birth of Isaac, a son by Sarah, which he so long waited for, and at length enjoyed; for this was the principal hinge whereon all other privileges of the promise did depend. But Isaac was upwards of twenty years old at that time, when the promise which the apostle had respect unto was confirmed by the oath of God. It cannot therefore be that his birth should be the thing promised. Besides, he twice informs us, Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:39, that the ancient patriarchs, among whom he reckoneth Abraham as one, “received not the promises.” That which he there intends is their full accomplishment, in the actual exhibition of the promised Seed. It is not, therefore, a full, actual enjoyment of the thing promised that is here intended; as it would be, if it respected only the birth of Isaac. Wherefore Abraham’s obtaining the promise, Was no more but his enjoyment of the mercy, benefit, and privilege of it, in every state and condition, whereof in that state and condition he was capable. If, therefore, we take a view of the promise as it was before explained, we shall see evidently how Abraham obtained it; that is, how it was every way made good unto him, according as the nature of the thing itself would bear. For as unto his own personal blessing, whether in things typical or spiritual, he obtained or enjoyed it. As things were disposed in the type, he was blessed and multiplied, in that increase of goods and children which God gave unto him. Spiritually, he was justified in his own person, and therein actually enjoyed all the mercy and grace which by the promised Seed, when actually exhibited, we can be made partakers of. He who is freely justified in Christ, and therewithal made partaker of adoption and sanctification, may well be said to have obtained the promise. And hereon dependeth eternal glory also, which our apostle testifieth that Abraham obtained. For that part of the promise, that he should be the “heir of the world, and the father of all that believe,” it could not be actually accomplished in his own days; wherefore therein he obtained the promise, in the assurance he had of it, with the comfort and honor which depended thereon. As a pledge of all these things, he saw the posterity of Isaac, in whom they were all to be fulfilled. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ In this last part of the chapter two things are further designed by the apostle: 1. An explication of the purpose and end of God in his promise, as it was confirmed by his oath; and therewithal and from thence he makes application of the whole unto all believers, seeing the mind and will of God was the same towards them all as they were towards Abraham, to whom the promise so confirmed was made in particular.2. A confirmation of the whole privilege intended, by the introduction of the interposition of Christ in this matter; and this is expressed in a transition and return unto his former discourse concerning the priesthood of Christ.Hebrews 6:17-20. — ᾿ΕνᾧπερισσότερονβουλόμενοςὁΘεὸςἐπιδεῖξαιτοῖςκληρονόμοιςτῆςἐπαλλελίαςτὸἀμετάθετοντῆςβουλῆςαὐτοῦ, ἐμεσίτευσενὅρκῳ, ἵναδιὰδὺοπραγμάτωνἀμεταθέτων, ἐνοἷςἀδύνατονψεύσασθαιΘεὸν, ἰσχυρὰνπαράκλησινἔχωμενοἱκαταφυγόντεςκρατῆσαιτῆςπροκειμένηςἐλπίδοςἥνὡςἄγκυρανἔχομεντῆςψμχῆςἀσφαλῆτεκαὶΒεβαίαν, καὶεἰσερχομένηςεἰςτὸἐσώτεροντοῦκαταπετάσματος, ὅπουπρόδρομοςὑπὲρἡμῶνεἰσῆλθεν᾿Ιησοῦς, κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδὲκἀρχιερεὺςγενόμενοςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα.Ενᾧ, “in quo,” “qua in re.” Syr., ξֶ ?θεּ ?μηָ ?πָ ?ΰ, “propter hoe,” “qua propter.” Some have respect unto the thing itself spoken of, some unto the reasons of things spoken.Περισσότερονβουλόμενος, “abundantius volens,” “volens ex abundanti.” Syr., ιַ ?ϊִּ ?ιψָ ?ΰִ ?ιϊφְ ?αָ ?ΰ“maxime voluit,” “abunde voluit;” “would abundantly.”᾿᾿Επιδεῖξαι. Manuscript [A] ἐπιδείξασθαι, “ostendere;” “manifestly to set forth.” Τὸἀμετάθετοντῆςβουλῆς. “Immutabilitatem consilii,” Bez. “Immobilitatem,” An., Vulg. Lat., Rhem.; “the stability;” which answers neither of the words used which are more emphatical Syr. γְּ ?ωׁ ?ψּ ?εְ ?γιֵ ?δּ μָ ?ΰξֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?μַ ?σ “that his promise should not be changed.”᾿Αμετάθετον is that which cannot be altered nor transposed into any other state.᾿Εμεσίτευσενὅρκῳ. “Intervenit juramento,” An. “Fidejussit jurejurando,’ Bez. “Interpositionem fecit jurejurando,” “interposuit jusjurandum,” Vulg. Lat. Rhem., “he interposed an oath.” Not properly, for ἐμεσίτευσεν is, “he himself came between, or in the midst; he interposed himself, and gave his oath.” From μέσος is μεσίτης, “interventor,” “fidejussor,” “interpres,” εἰρηνοποίος, “pacificator.” Thence is μεσιτεύω, “mediatorem ago, pacificatoris partes ago;” “to interpose a man’s self by any means to confirm and establish peace;” which was here done ὅρκῳ, with “an oath.” The word is used in this place only in the New Testament, as μεσίτης is nowhere used but by Paul, Galatians 3:19-20; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 12:24.Διὰδύοπραγμάτωνἀμεταθέτων, “ut per duas res immutabiles,” or “immobiles.” Rhem., “that by two things unmovable.” Syr., “which are not changed,” or ought not to be. “By two immutable things.” ᾿Ισχυρὰνπαράκλησινἔχωμεν, “fortem consolationem habeamus,” “fortissimum solarium,” “validam consolationem habeamus,” “haberemus.” αּ ?εּ ?ιָ ?ΰָ ?ΰψַ ?αָּ ?ΰιֶ ?δְ ?εֵ ?ΰμַ ?ο, Syr., “that great consolation should be to us.” ᾿Ισχυράν denotes such a power and strength in that which is denominated by it as is prevalent against oppositions and difficulties; which is most proper in this place.Οἱκαταφυγόντες, “confugientes, “qui confugimus.” “Qui cursum eo corripimus,” Bez.; “who have hastened our course” or “flight.” “Qui hue confugimus.” Ours, “who have fled for refuge.” And indeed καταφεύγω with εἰπί, εἰς, or πρός, is not used but for “to flee to a shelter, refuge, or protection.” Hence καταφυγή is “refugium,” a refuge that any one betakes himself unto in time of danger.Κρατῆσαιτῆςπροκειμένηςἐλπίδος, “ad tenendum propositam spera;” “to hold the proposed hope.” “Obtinere,” to obtain. Syr., εְ ?πֵ ?ΰηεּ ?γ“that we may hold.” “Ut spem propositam retineumus,” Bez. “Ad obtinendam spem propositam.” Ours, most properly, “to lay hold upon;” for κρατῆσαι, is, “injecta manu fortiter tenere” or “retinere.” ῞Ηνὡςἄγκυρανἔχομεντῆςψυχῆςἀσφαλῆτεκαὶβεζαίαν, “safe and firm,” “firm and stable.” Syr., γַּ ?μְ ?αִ ?ικְ αְּ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωָׁ ?ογְּ ?μָ ?ΰϊְּ ?ϊְ ?ζִ ?ιςִ ?ι“which holds our soul, that it be not moved;” expressing the effect, and not the nature or adjuncts of the means spoken of.Εἰσερχομένηνεἰςτὸἐσώτεροντοῦκαταπετάσματος, “et incedentem,” “ingredientem,” “introeuntem usque ad interlora velaminis.” Vulg.,”ad interius velaminis.” “Usque in ea quae sunt intra velum,” Bez. Some respect the place only, some the things within the place. “Which entereth into that within the veil.” Syr., εְ ?ςָ ?ΰֵ ?μμβַ ?εξֵ ?οΰַ ?τַ ?ιϊַּ ?ιְ ?ςָ ?ΰ, “and entereth into the faces of the gate;” so that interpreter always calleth the veil, “the faces of the gate,” port, or entrance of the temple, namely, the most holy place, because it was as a face or frontispiece unto them that were to enter. See Matthew 27:51.῞Οπουπρόδρομοςὑπὲρἡμῶνεἰσῆλθεν. “Ubi praecursor pro nobis introivit.” But “quo” is better; not “where,” but “whither.” Rhem., “the precursor for us.” Syr., λּ ?ψγְּ ?χַ ?γַּ ?νςַ ?μηֲ ?μָ ?τַ ?ιο, “where before Jesus is entered for us;” which determines the ambiguity of ὑπὲρἡμῶν, not “our forerunner is entered,” but “the forerunner is entered for us.” [9] [9] . — Whither Jesus is entered, as a forerunner for us.” — Scholefield. “Whither Jesus, our forerunner, is for us entered.” — Conybeare and Howson. — ED. Hebrews 6:17-20. — Wherein God, willing more abundantly to manifest unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed himself by an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to deceive, we might have strong [prevailing] consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, both safe and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Sundry things are observable in these words. 1. The introduction unto the application of the foregoing discourse to the use of all believers. Wherein [we have],2. The design of God in the confirmation of his promise by his oath; which was to “manifest the immutability of his counsel.” And this is amplified,(1.) By the frame, purpose, or mind of God therein; he was “willing.” (2.) By the manner how he would declare his mind herein; “more abundantly,” — namely, than could be done by a single promise. It gave not a further stability unto his word, but manifested his willingness to have it believed.3. The persons are described unto whom God was thus willing to show the immutability of his counsel; who are “the heirs of promise,” — that is, all and only those who are so.4. The way is expressed whereby God would thus manifest the immutability of his counsel; namely, “by two immutable things,” — that is, his promise and his oath: which,5. Are proved to be sufficient evidences thereof, from the nature of him by whom they are made and given; it was “impossible that God should lie.”6. The especial end of this whole design of God, with respect unto all the heirs of promise, is said to be that “they might have strong consolation.”7. And thereon they are further described by the way and means they use to obtain the promise and the consolation designed unto them therein; they “flee for refuge to the hope set before them.” 8. The efficacy whereof is declared from the nature of it, in comparison unto an anchor; “which we have as an anchor:” further amplified,(1.) From its properties, — it is “sure,” or “safe and steadfast;” and also,(2.) From its use, — “it enters into that within the veil.”9. And this use is so expressed that occasion may be thence taken to return unto that from which he had digressed Hebrews 5:11, namely, the priesthood of Christ. And,10. The mention thereof he so introduceth, according to his usual manner, as also to manifest the great benefit and advantage of our entering by hope into that within the veil; namely,(1.) Because Christ is there;(2.) Because he is entered thither as “our forerunner;”(3.) From the office wherewith he is there vested, “made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec,” as he had declared, Hebrews 5:10, all which must be opened as they occur in the text.1. ᾿Ενᾧ, — that is, say many, ἐφ᾿ᾧ, “for which cause.” Respect may be had unto the words immediately foregoing, “An oath” among men “is to them an end of all strife:” so a reason is thence inferred why God should interpose himself by an oath in this matter. And the words are rendered by some, as we have seen, “propter quod,” or “propterea;” “in” for “propter” is not unusual. And this then is the coherence, ‘Whereas mankind doth consent herein, that an oath, in things capable of no other proof or demonstration, shall end controversies, satisfy doubts, and put an issue to contradictions, differences, and strife; God took the same way, in an infinite gracious condescension, to give full satisfaction in this matter unto the “heirs of promise.” For what could they require further? Will they not rest in the oath of God, who in doubtful cases do and will acquiesce in the oaths of men? What way could be more suited unto their peace and consolation? And such is God’s love and grace, that he would omit nothing that might tend thereunto, though in such a way of condescension as no creature would, or could, or ought to have expected, before infinite wisdom and mercy had declared themselves therein.’Or, this expression may respect the whole subject-matter treated of; and so the words are rendered “in quo,” or “in qua re;” “in which case or matter.” And this our translation seems to respect, rendering it “wherein.” Then the words direct unto the introduction of the end of God’s oath, expressed in the words following, ‘In this matter God sware by himself, that thereby the “heirs of promise,” might not only be settled in faith, but moreover receive therewithal strong consolation.’And this import of the words we shall adhere unto. Θεὸςβουλόμενος, “God willing.” Hereinto all that follows is resolved; it is all founded in the will of God. And two things may be denoted hereby:(1.) The inclination and disposition of the mind of God; he was free, he was not averse from it. This is that which is generally intended, when we say we are willing unto any thing that is proposed unto us; that is, we are free, and not averse unto it. So may God be said to be willing, to have an inclination and an affection unto the work, or to be ready for it, as he speaks in another place, “with his whole heart, and with his whole soul,”Jeremiah 32:41. But although there be a truth herein, as to the mind andwill of God towards believers and their consolation, yet it is not what is here peculiarly intended. Wherefore, (2.) A determinate act and purpose of the will of God is designed herein, Θεὸςβουλόμενος is “God purposing” or “determining.” So is the same act of God expressed by ΘέλωνὁΘεός, Romans 9:22, — “What if God, willing to shew his wrath;” that is, purposing or determining so to do, And this Θεὸςβουλόμενος, as it respects τὸἀμετάθετοντῆςβουλῆς, is the same with κατὰτὴνβουλὴντοῦθελήματος, Ephesians 1:11. Wherefore “God willing,” is God in sovereign grace, and from especial love, freely “purposing” and “determining” in himself to do the thing expressed, unto the relief and comfort of believers. The sovereign will of God is the sole spring and cause of all the grace, mercy, and consolation, that believers are made partakers of in this world. So is it here proposed; thereinto alone is all grace and consolation resolved. God wills it should be so. Man being fallen off from the grace and love of God, and being every way come short of his glory, had no way left, in nor by himself, to obtain any grace, any relief, any mercy, any consolation. Neither was there any the least obligation on God, in point of justice, promise, or covenant, to give any grace unto, to bestow any mercy or favor upon, apostatized sinners; wherefore these things could have no rise, spring, or cause, but in a free, gracious act of the sovereign will and pleasure of God. And thereunto in the Scripture are they constantly assigned. Whether absolutely, that grace is bestowed on any, or comparatively, on one and not another, it is all from the will of God. “For herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” 1 John 4:10. Christ himself, with all the grace and mercy we have by him, is from the free love and will of God. So is our election, Ephesians 1:4-5; our vocation, 1 Corinthians 1:26-27; our regeneration, John 1:13, James 1:18; our recovery from sin, Hosea 14:4; so is our peace and all our consolation; whence he is called “the God of all grace,” 1 Peter 5:10; and “the God of patience and consolation,” Romans 15:5; — the author and sovereign disposer of them all.So is it also with respect unto grace and mercy considered comparatively, as collated on one and not on another, Romans 9:15-16; 1 Corinthians 4:7. There is no other spring or fountain of any grace or mercy. It may be some may hope to educe grace out of their own wills and endeavors, and to obtain mercy by their own duties and obedience; hut the Scripture knows no such thing, nor do believers find it in their experience. Let them who have received the least of grace and mercy know from whence they have received it, and whereunto they are beholding for it. A due consideration of this sovereign spring of all grace and consolation will greatly influence our minds in and unto all the principal duties of obedience: such as thankfulness to God, Ephesians 1:3-5; humility in ourselves, 1 Corinthians 4:7; compassion towards others, 2 Timothy 2:25-26. Let those who stand in need of grace and mercy (as who doth not?) expect them wholly from the sovereign will and pleasure of God, James 1:5; who is “gracious unto whom he will be gracious.” Our own endeavors are means in this kind for obtaining grace in the measures and degrees of it; but it is the will of God alone that is the cause of it all, 2 Timothy 1:9.2. What God was thus willing unto is expressed; and that was “more abundantly to declare the immutability of his counsel.” And we may inquire concerning it,(1.) What is meant by the “counsel” of God;(2.) How that counsel of God was and is “immutable;”(3.) How it was “declared” so to be;(4.) How it was “abundantly” so declared: —(1.) The “counsel” of God is the eternal purpose of his will, called his counsel because of the infinite wisdom wherewith it is always accompanied. So that which is called the “good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself,” Ephesians 1:9, is termed “the counsel of his own will,” verse 11. Counsel among men, is a rational deliberation about causes, means, effects, and ends, according to the nature of things advised about, and the proper interests of them who do deliberate. In this sense counsel is not to be attributed unto God. For as the infinite, sovereign wisdom of his being admits not of his taking counsel with any other; so the infinite simplicity of his nature and understanding, comprehending all things in one single act of his mind, allows not of formal counsel or deliberation. The first, therefore, of these the Scripture explodes, Isaiah 40:13, Romans 11:34; and although in the latter way God be frequently introduced as one deliberating, or taking counsel with himself, it is not the manner of doing, but the effect, or the thing done, which is intended. So it is in like manner where God is said to hearken, to hear, to see; whereby his infinite knowledge and understanding of all things are intended, these being the mediums whereby we who are to be instructed do come to know and understand what so we do. Whereas, therefore, the end of counsel, or all rational deliberation, is to find out the true and stable directions of wisdom, the acts of the will of God being accompanied with infinite wisdom are called his counsel. For we are not to look upon the purposes and decrees of God as mere acts of will and pleasure, but as those which are effects of infinite wisdom, and therefore most reasonable, although the reasons of them be sometimes unknown unto us. Hence the apostle issueth his discourse of God’s eternal decrees of election and reprobation in an admiration of the infinite wisdom of God whence they proceeded, and wherewith they were accompanied, Romans 11:33-36.In particular, the counsel of God in this place, is the holy, wise purpose of his will, to give his Son Jesus Christ to be of the seed of Abraham, for the salvation of all the elect, or heirs of promise; and that in such a way, and accompanied with all such good things, as might secure their faith and consolation. This is the counsel of God, which contained all the grace and mercy of the promise, with the securing them unto believers. (2.) Of this counsel it is affirmed that it was “immutable,” not subject unto change. Τὸἀμετάθετον, is “quod μετατίΘεσθαι nequit,” “that cannot be altered.” But the design of God here was, not to make his counsel unchangeable, but to declare it so to be; for all the purposes of God, all the eternal acts of his will, considered in themselves, are immutable. See Isaiah 46:10; Psalms 33:11; Proverbs 19:21; Proverbs 21:30. And their immutability is a necessary consequent of the immutability of the nature of God, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,” James 1:17. “The Strength of Israel is not a man, that he should repent,” 1 Samuel 15:29. And in opposition unto all change or mutability, it is said of God, δεּ ?ΰεְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ Psalms 102:27; which the apostle renders by Σὺὁαὐτὸςει῏, “Thou art He,” — always in all respects one and the same.Hence among the Jews δεּ ?ΰ, “He,” is a name of God, expressing his immutable self-subsistence. But it will be said, that there are in the Scriptures many declarations of God’s altering his purposes and counsels, and repenting him of what he had before determined, being grieved at what he had done, Genesis 6:6; 1 Samuel 2:30. It is agreed by all that those expressions of” repenting, “grieving,” and the like, are figurative, wherein no such affections are intended as these words signify in created natures, but only an event of things like that which proceedeth from such affections. And as to the changes themselves expressed, the schoolmen say not amiss, “Vult Deus mutationem, non mutat voluntatem;” — “He willeth a change, he changeth not his will.” But fully to remove these difficulties, the purposes of God and the counsels of his will may be considered either in themselves, or in the declaration that is made concerning their execution. In themselves they are absolutely immutable, no more subject unto change than is the divine nature itself. The declarations which God makes concerning their execution or accomplishment are of two sorts: — [1. There are some of them wherein there is necessarily included a respect unto some antecedent moral rule, which puts an express condition into the declarations, although it be not expressed, and is always in like cases to be understood. Thus God commands the prophet to declare, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” Jonah 3:4. Here seems to be an absolute declaration of the purpose of God, without any condition annexed, a positive prediction of what he would do, and should come to pass. Either God must change his purpose, or Nineveh must be overthrown. But whereas this destruction was foretold for sin, and impenitency therein, there was an antecedent moral rule in the case, which gives it as complete a condition as if it had been expressed in words; and that is, that repentance from sin will free from the punishment of sin. So that the prediction had this limitation, by an antecedent rule, “Unless they repent.” And God declares that this rule puts a condition into all his threatenings, Jeremiah 18:7-8. And this was the course of God’s dealing with the house of Eli, 1 Samuel 2:30. God doth neither suspend his purpose on what men will do, nor take up conditional resolutions with respect thereunto. He doth not purpose one thing, and then change his resolution upon contingent emergencies; for “he is of one mind, and who can turn him?” Job 23:13. Nor doth he determine that if men do so on the one hand, that he will do so; and if otherwise, that he will do otherwise. For instance, there was no such decree or purpose of God, as that if Nineveh did repent it should not be destroyed, and if it did not repent it should perish. For he could not so purpose unless he did not foresee what Nineveh would do; which to affirm is to deny his very being and Godhead. But in order to accomplish his purpose that Nineveh should not perish at that time, he threatens it with destruction in a way of prediction; which turned the minds of the inhabitants to attend unto that antecedent moral rule which put a condition into the prediction, whereby they were saved. [2. In the declaration of some of God’s counsels and purposes, as to the execution and accomplishment, there is no respect unto any such antecedent moral rule as should give them either limitation or condition. God takes the whole in such cases absolutely on himself, both as to the ordering and disposing of all things and means unto the end intended. Such was the counsel of God concerning the sending of his Son to be of the seed of Abraham, and the blessing that should ensue thereon. No alteration could possibly, on any account, be made herein, neither by the sin nor unbelief of them concerned, nor by any thing that might befall them in this world. Such was the counsel of God, and such the immutability of it, here intended: as it was absolutely unchangeable in itself, so, as to man’s concern and interest in it, it was attended with no condition or reserve. (3.) This immutability God was willing ἐπιδεῖξαι, to “show,” “manifest,” “declare,” “make known.” It is not his counsel absolutely, but the immutability of his counsel, that God designed to evidence. His counsel he made known in his promise. All the gracious actings of God towards us are the executing of his holy, immutable purposes, Ephesians 1:11. And all the promises of God are the declarations of those purposes. And they also in themselves are immutable; for they depend on the essential truth of God:Titus 1:2, “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.” God’s essential veracity is engaged in his promises. And they are so expressly the declaration of his purposes, that when God had only purposed to give us eternal life in Christ, he is said to have promised it; namely, before the world began. And this declareth the nature of unbelief: “He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar,” 1 John 5:10; because his essential truth is engaged in his promise. And to make God a liar, is to deny his being; which every unbeliever doth as he is able. But whereas God intended not only the confirmation of the faith of the heirs of promise, but also their consolation under all their difficulties and temptations, he would give a peculiar evidence of the immutability of that counsel which they embraced by faith as tendered in the promise. For what was done did not satisfy the fullness of grace and love which he would declare in this matter, no, though it were done so “abundantly;” but, — (4.) He would do it περισσότερον, “more abundantly;” that is, beyond what was absolutely necessary in this case. The promise of God, who is the “God of truth,” is sufficient to give us security; nor could it be by us discovered how the goodness of God itself should require a further procedure. Yet because something further might be useful, for the reasons and ends before declared, he would add a further confirmation unto his word. And herein as the divine goodness and condescension are evidently manifested, so it likewise appears what weight God lays upon the assuring of our faith and confidence. For in this case he swears by himself, who hath taught us not so to use his name but in things of great consequence and moment. This is the sense of the word if it respect the assurance given, which is “more abundant” than it could be in or by a single promise. But περισσότερον may refer unto God himself, who gives this assurance; and then it is as muck as “ex abundanti:” — when God, who is truth itself, might justly have required faith of us on his single promise, yet, “ex abundanti,” from a superabounding love and care, he would confirm it by his oath. Either sense suits the apostle’s design.3. It is declared who they were to whom God intended to give this evidence of the immutability of his counsel; and that is, τοῖςκληρονόμοιςτῆςἐπαγγελίας, — to “the heirs of promise;” that is, believers, all believers both under the old and new testament. It may be, indeed, that those of the Hebrews were in the first place intended; for unto them did the promise belong in the first place, as they were the natural seed of Abraham, and unto them was it first to be declared and proposed upon its accomplishment, Acts 2:39; Acts 3:25-26; Acts 13:46. But it is not they alone who are intended. All the children of the faith of Abraham are heirs also, Galatians 4:28-29. It is therefore with respect unto all believers absolutely that God confirmed his promise with his oath, though the natural seed of Abraham were respected in the first place, until they cut off themselves by their unbelief. See Luke 1:72-73; Micah 7:20.Believers are called “heirs of the promise” on a double account: (1.) With respect unto the promise itself;(2.) With respect unto the matter of the promise, or the thing promised. This distinction is evidently founded on Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:17; Hebrews 11:39, compared. For look in what sense they are said to be “heirs of the promise,” therein they are not actually possessed of it; for an heir is only in expectancy of that whereof he is an heir. Wherefore take the promise in the first sense formally, and it is the elect of God as such who are the heirs of it. God hath designed them unto an interest therein and a participation thereof; and he confirmed it with his oath, that they might be induced and encouraged to believe it, to mix it with faith, and so come to inherit it, or to be made actual partakers of it. To this purpose our apostle disputeth at large, Romans 9:6-12. In the latter sense, taking the promise materially for the thing promised, they are heirs of it who have an actual interest in it by faith; and partaking of the present grace and mercy wherewith it is accompanied, as pledges of future glory, have a right unto the whole inheritance. Thus all believers, and they only, are “heirs of the promise,” Romans 8:17; “heirs of God,” — that is, of the whole inheritance that he hath provided for his children. And I take the words in this latter sense: for it is not the first believing of these heirs of the promise, that they might be justified, which is intended; but their establishment in faith, whereby they may be comforted, or have “strong consolation.” But whereas this declaration of the immutability of God’s counsel is made in the promise of the gospel, which is universal, or at least indefinitely proposed unto all, how it comes here to be cast under this limitation, that it is made to elect believers, or the heirs of promise only, shall be immediately declared.4. What God did in this matter, for the ends mentioned, is summarily expressed; ἐμεσίτευσενὅρκῳ, — “he interposed himself by an oath,” “fidejussit jurejurando.” He that confirmeth any thing by an oath is “fidejussor,” — “one that gives security to faith.” And “fidejussor” in the law is interventor,” — “one who interposeth or cometh between and engageth himself to give security.” This state of things is therefore here supposed: — God had given out that promise whose nature we have before declared. Hereon he required the faith of them unto whom it was given, and that justly; for what could any reasonably require further, to give them sufficient ground of assurance? But although all things were clear and satisfactory on the part of God, yet many fears, doubts, and objections, would be ready to arise on the part of believers themselves; as there did in Abraham, unto whom the promise was first made, with respect unto that signal pledge of its accomplishment in the birth of Isaac. In this case, though God was no way obliged to give them further caution or security, yet, out of his infinite love and condescension, he will give them a higher pledge and evidence of his faithfulness, and interposeth himself by an oath. He mediated by an oath, — he interposed himself between the promise and the faith of believers, to undertake under that solemnity for the accomplishment of it; and swearing by himself, he takes it on his life, his holiness, his being, his truth, to make it good. The truths which from these words thus opened we are instructed in, are these that follow: — Obs. 1. The purpose of God for the saving of the elect by Jesus Christ is an act of infinite wisdom as well as of sovereign grace. Hence it is called “the counsel of his will,” or an act of his will accompanied with infinite wisdom, which is the counsel of God. And among all the holy properties of his nature, the manifestation of whose glory he designed therein, there is none more expressly and frequently mentioned than his wisdom. And it is declared, — 1. As that which no created understanding, of men or angels, is able perfectly to comprehend, neither in the counsel nor in the effects of it. Hence our apostle shutteth up his contemplation of the ways, paths, and effects of this wisdom, with that rapture of admiration, Romans 11:33-36, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”The whole issue of our contemplation of the wisdom of God, in the eternal projection of our salvation by Jesus Christ, is only an admiration of that abyss which we cannot dive into, with a humble ascription of glory to God thereon. And as to the especial effects of this wisdom, the angels themselves desire to bow down, with a humble diligence in their inquiry into them, 1 Peter 1:12. And on these considerations our apostle concludes, that “without controversy” the work hereof is a “great mystery,” 1 Timothy 3:16; which we may adore, but cannot comprehend. See the name of Christ, Isaiah 9:6.2. As that wherein God hath expressly designed to glorify himself unto eternity. This is the end of all the free acts and purposes of the will of God; neither can they have any other, though all other things may be subordinate thereunto. Now no property of the divine nature is so conspicuous, in the disposal of things unto their proper end, as that of wisdom, whose peculiar work and effect it is. Wherefore the great end which God will ultimately effect being his own glory in Christ, and the salvation of the elect by him, the wisdom whereby it was contrived must needs be eminent and glorious. So the apostle tells us, “Then is the end, when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom unto God, even the Father,” and he also in his human nature subjects himself unto him, “that God may be all in all,” 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:28 : — that is, when the Lord Christ hath finished the whole work of his mediation, and brought all his elect unto the enjoyment of God, then shall “God be all in all;” or, therein, or thereby, he will be for ever exalted and glorified, when it shall be manifest how all this great work came forth from him, and is issued in him, Jude 1:25, 1 Timothy 1:17. 3. The whole work is therefore expressly called “the wisdom of God,” because of those characters and impressions thereof that are upon it, and because it is a peculiar effect thereof. So our apostle tells us that Christ crucified “is the power of God, and the wisdom of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:24; and that the gospel whereby it is declared “is “the wisdom of God in a mystery,” 1 Corinthians 2:7 : and the whole intended is both expressly and fully laid down, Ephesians 3:8-11,“Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”The “purpose” mentioned in the close of these words, is the same with the “counsel” of God’s will in this place. And this purpose was the fountain, spring, and cause, of all those glorious and admirable things whose declaration was committed unto the apostle, as the great publisher of the gospel unto the Gentiles; by the effects whereof such mysteries were unfolded as the angels themselves in heaven did not before understand. ‘And what was it,’saith the apostle, ‘that was declared, manifested, and known thereby? It was πολυποίκιλοςσοφίατοῦΘεοῦ, “the manifold wisdom of God,” or the infinite wisdom of God, exerting itself in such wonderful variety of holy, wise operations, as no mind of men nor angels can comprehend.’And, —4. On this account are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge said to be hid in Jesus Christ, Colossians 2:3. There is not only in him, and the work of his mediation, “the wisdom of God,” — that is, both exerted and manifested, — but “all the treasures of it;” that is, God will not produce any effect out of the stores of his infinite wisdom, but what is suitable and subservient unto what he hath designed in and by Jesus Christ. And may we not, —(1.) Hence see the horrible depravation of nature which by sin is befallen the minds, reasons, and understandings of men? For from hence alone it is that this purpose of God, which was an act of infinite wisdom; that the work which he hath wrought pursuant thereof, whereon are impressed the characters of his manifold wisdom; are esteemed folly, or foolish things unto them. So far are men by nature from seeing an excellency of divine wisdom in them, that they cannot suffer them to pass as things tolerably rational, but brand them as foolish, or folly itself. This our apostle declares and at large insisteth on, 1 Corinthians 1. Had the mind of man fixed on any other reason for the rejection of this counsel of God, some excuse might be pretended for it; but to reject that as folly which God sets forth and declares as the principal instance of his infinite wisdom, this discovereth the horror of its depravation. And those in whom this blindness is prevalent may be referred unto three sorts: — [1. Such as by whom the gospel is absolutely rejected as a foolish thing, unbecoming the wisdom of God to propose, and their own wisdom to receive. As this was the state of the Jews, and Pagan world of old, and as it is the condition of the Mohammedans and relics of the Heathens at this day, so I wish that the poison and contagion of this wickedness were not farther diffused. But, alas! we see many every day who, on the account of their outward circumstances, live in some kind of compliance with the name and profession of the gospel, who yet discover themselves sufficiently to hate, despise, and contemn the mystery of it, and the wisdom of God therein. [2. Such as own the gospel in the letter of it, but look on the mystery of it, or the counsel of God therein, as foolishness. Hence all the principal parts of it, as the incarnation of Christ, the hypostatical union of his person, his sacrifice and oblation, the atonement and satisfaction made by his death, the imputation of his righteousness, the election of grace, with the power and efficacy of it in our conversion, are all of them either directly exploded as foolish, or wrested unto senses suited unto their own low and carnal apprehensions. And this sort of men do swarm amongst us at this day like to locusts when a north-east wind hath filled every place with them. [3. There are multitudes, whose choice of their outward conditions being prevented by the providence of God, so that they are brought forth and fixed where the gospel passeth current in the world without any open control, who do see no reason why, with the first sort, they should openly reject it, nor will be at the pains, with the second sort, to corrupt it, but yet practically esteem it a foolish thing to give place unto its power on their hearts, and do really esteem them foolish who labor so to do. And this is openly the condition of the generality of those who live under the dispensation of the gospel in the world. I have named these things only to reflect thereby on that horrible depravation which, by corruption of nature, is come upon the mind and reason of mankind. And it is in none more evident than in those who most boast of the contrary. And, — (2.) We may learn from hence, that there is no greater evidence of thriving in spiritual light and understanding, than when we find our souls affected with, and raised unto a holy admiration of the wisdom and counsel of God, which are declared in the gospel.Obs. 2. The life and assurance of our present comfort and future glory depend on the immutability of God’s counsel. — To secure these things unto us, God shows us that immutability. Our own endeavors are to be used to the same end; for we are to “give all diligence to make our calling and election sure.” But all depends on the unchangeable purpose of the will of God, which alone is able to bear the charge of so great a work. But this must be further spoken unto on the next verse.Obs. 3. The purpose of God concerning the salvation of the elect by Jesus Christ became immutable from hence, that the determination of his will was accompanied with infinite wisdom. It was his “counsel.” All the certainty that is amongst men, as to the accomplishment of any end designed by them, depends on the exercise of wisdom in finding out and applying suitable means thereunto. And because their wisdom is weak in all things, and in most no better than folly, — whence generally they fix first on ends unprofitable, and then make use of means weak and unsuited unto their purpose, — it is that all their affairs are wrapped up in uncertainties, and most of them end in disappointment and confusion. But as God fixeth on those ends which perfectly comply with his own infinite holiness and sovereignty, whence they are necessarily good and holy; so he doth not first do so, and then make choice of various means that proffer themselves unto those ends. But, in his infinite wisdom, ends and means lie before him in one vein, and fall together under his unalterable determination. Two things, therefore, may be considered in the wisdom of God giving immutability to his counsel concerning the salvation of the elect by Jesus Christ: — 1. Thereby he saw at once not only whatever was needful for the accomplishing of it, but that which would infallibly effect it. He chose not probable and likely means for it, and such as might do it, unless some great obstruction did arise, — such as whose efficacy might be suspended on any conditions and emergencies; but such as should infallibly and inevitably reach the end intended. In the first covenant, wherein God had not immutably decreed to preserve mankind absolutely in their primitive estate, he made use of such means for their preservation as might effect it in case they were not wanting unto themselves, or that obedience which they were enabled to perform. This man neglecting, the means appointed of God as to their success depending thereon by God’s own appointment, that end which in their own nature they tended unto was not attained; and that because God had not immutably determined it. But now, whereas God engaged himself in an unchangeable purpose, in his infinite wisdom he fixeth on such means for its accomplishment as shall not depend on any thing whereby their efficacy might be frustrated. Such were his sending of his Son to be incarnate, and the dispensation of grace of the new covenant, which is in its nature infallibly effectual unto the end whereunto it is designed. 2. God, in his infinite wisdom, foresaw all the interveniencies on our part that might obstruct the certain accomplishment of the promise. The promise was first given indefinitely unto all mankind, in our first parents; but soon after, the wickedness of the whole world, with their absolute contempt of the grace of the promise, was such as that any creature would conceive that it would be of none effect, being so visibly, so universally rejected and despised. But a perfect view hereof lying under the wisdom of God, he provided against it, for the immutability of his purpose and infallibility of his promise, by singling out first one, then another, and at last the whole posterity of Abraham, towards whom the promise should be accomplished. But yet, after a long season, there came the last and uttermost trial of the whole matter: for the generality of the seed of Abraham rejected the promise also; whereby it appeared really to have been frustrated, and to be of none effect, as our apostle declares in his answer to that objection, Romans 9:6. But instead of changing his purpose, God then more fully discovered wherein the immutability of his counsel did consist, and whereon it did depend; as Galatians 3:8. And this was, that all along, and under all those apostasies, he ever had, and ever will have in the world, an elect people, chosen by him before the foundation of the world, in and towards whom his purpose is immutable and his promise infallible. No interveniency can possibly shake or alter what hath been settled by infinite wisdom. There is not a particular believer but is made so sensible of his own unworthiness, that, at one time or another, he cannot but be almost brought to a loss how it should be that such a one as he should ever inherit the promise; but God foresaw all that hath befallen us, or will do so, and hath, in his infinite wisdom, provided against all interveniencies, that his purpose might not be changed, nor his promise frustrated. Obs. 4. Infinite goodness, as acting itself in Christ, was not satisfied in providing and preparing good things for believers, but it would also show and declare it unto them, for their present consolation. God was “willing to show to the heirs of promise;” and the end was, that they might have “strong consolation.” As it is with a good, wise father and an obedient son: The father is possessed of a large and profitable estate, and as the son hath a present allowance suitable to his condition, so, being obedient, he hath a just expectation that in due time he shall enjoy the whole inheritance: this being usual amongst men, and that which the law of nature directs unto; for parents are to lay up for their children, and not children for their parents. But the whole being yet absolutely in the father’s power, it is possible he may otherwise dispose of it, and it may not come to the right heir. But now, if the father seeth his son on some occasion to want encouragement, or he be to put him on any difficult service, where he may meet with storms and dangers, he will show unto him his deed of settlement, wherein he hath irrevocably confirmed unto him the whole inheritance. So God deals with believers, with his children, in this case. He is rich in grace, mercy, and glory; and all his children are heirs of it, “heirs of God, and co-heirs with Christ,” Romans 8:17; — that is of the whole inheritance that God hath provided for his children. This they have an expectation of by the promise, according to the law of the new covenant. But although their state be thus secured by their being heirs of the promise, yet God, knowing that they have a difficult work and warfare to go through withal, and what it is to serve him in temptations, for their encouragement and consolation he produceth and showeth them his irrevocable deed of settlement; namely, his promise confirmed by his oath, whereby the whole inheritance is infallibly secured unto them. He was free and willing to “show it unto the heirs of promise.” At first God gave out a mere precept as the declaration of his will, and a promise couched in a threatening. This was that which divine goodness, acting in a way of nature, did require, and whereof man had no cause to complain; for as the mind of God was sufficiently declared therein, so man in himself had no grounds of discouragement from a compliance therewith. And God might so deal with us all, giving out the whole revelation of his will in a system of precepts, as some seem to suppose that he hath done. But things are now changed on two accounts. For, — 1. It was herein the peculiar design of God to glorify his goodness, love, grace, and mercy, by Jesus Christ; and he will do it in an abundant manner. He had before glorified his eternal power and infinite wisdom, in the creation of the world and all things therein contained, Psalms 19:1-3; Romans 1:20. And he had glorified his holiness and righteousness, in giving of the law accompanied with eternal rewards and punishments. But “grace and truth” (in the provision of it, and the accomplishment of the promise) “came by Jesus Christ,” John 1:17. And therefore, that the Lord Christ in all this may have the pre-eminence, he will do it in an abundant and unconceivable manner, above the former declarations of his glory in any other of his attributes. Hence in the Scripture the communication of grace is expressed in words that may intimate its exceeding, and passing all understanding: Romans 5:20, ᾿Υπερεπερίσσευσενἡχάρις, — “Grace” did by Christ “more than abound.” To abound, expresseth the largest comprehensible measures and degrees; but that which doth “more than abound,” who can conceive? 1 Timothy 1:14, ῾ψπερεπλεόνασεδὲἡχάριςτοῦΚυρίου, — “The grace of our Lord did more than abound;’it exceeded all comprehension. So that glory which is the effect of this grace is said to be given καθ᾿ὑπερβολὴνεἰςὑπερβολήν, 2 Corinthians 4:17; that is, in an excellency and exceeding greatness no way to be conceived. So, plainly the apostle calls the grace of God in Christ ὑπερβάλλονταπλοῦτον , Ephesians 2:7, — “excelling riches.” That we may know his meaning, he calls it again, Ephesians 3:8, τὸνἀνεξιχςίαστοναλοῦτον, — “riches whereof there is no investigation.” In the pursuit of this design to exercise and manifest the infinite fullness of his love and goodness, he will not satisfy himself with a mere declaration of his will, but he will have those concerned in it to know it, to understand it, to have the present comfort of it; and because they could not do that without satisfaction in the immutability of his counsel, he evidenceth that unto them by all means possible. And thereby he sufficiently manifests how willing he is, how well- pleasing it is unto him, that our faith in him should be firm and steadfast. 2. Man is now fallen into a condition of sin and misery. And herein is he filled with so many fears, discouragements, and despondencies, that it is the difficultest thing in the world to raise him unto any hopes of mercy or favor from God. In this lost, forlorn estate, divine goodness, by an infinite condescension, accommodates itself unto our weakness and our distress. He doth not, therefore, only propose his mind and will unto us as unto grace and glory, but useth all ways possible to ingenerate in us a confidence of his willingness to bring us unto a participation of them. He doth every thing that may direct and encourage us to take a steadfast view of the excellency and immutability of his counsel in this matter. Hence a great part of the Scripture, the revelation of God’s will, is taken up in promises, exhortations, invitations, discourses and expressions of love, kindness, and compassion. And in particular, although the promise itself was an abundant security for faith to rest upon, as to the immutability of God’s counsel, yet, to obviate all pretences and cast out all excuses, he confirms it with his oath. And although he did this in particular and expressly unto Abraham, yet he takes all believers, who are his seed, into a participation of the same privilege with him, and manifests how that in swearing unto him he sware also unto them all. And two things do hence naturally ensue: — (1.) The unspeakable encouragement unto believing, which is given unto all unto whom this counsel of God and its immutability are proposed. The essential truth of God and his oath are openly and manifestly engaged unto these two things.[1. That nothing but unbelief shall keep off any from the enjoyment of the promise; [2. That all believers, whatever difficulties they may meet withal in themselves, or objections against themselves, shall certainly and infallibly enjoy the promise and be saved. And the immutability of God’s counsel herein he hath made so evident, that there is no room for any objection against it. This is tendered unto you unto whom the gospel is proposed. Greater encouragement unto believing, and more certainty of the event, you shall never have in this world, you cannot have, — God will not, God cannot give. All persons not yet come up unto believing, unto whom this peace with God is preached, are distinguished into two sorts, — “them that are nigh,” and “them that are afar off,” Ephesians 2:17. This, in the first place, expresseth the Jews and Gentiles; but, in a parity of reason, it must be extended unto others. Some are comparatively “nigh,” such as have been affected with the word, and brought unto inquiries whether they should believe or no; and there are some “afar off,” who as yet have taken little notice of these things. Herein is both a call and encouragement unto both. To the first, to determine their wills in the choice of Christ in the promise; unto the other, to look up unto him, though from the ends of the earth. But I must not enlarge. (2.) It discovers the heinous nature of unbelief. The gospel, which is a message of love, peace, mercy, and grace, yet never makes mention of unbelief but it annexeth damnation unto it: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” And although they shall also perish unto whom the gospel is not preached, Romans 2:12, yet the gospel, though it speaks not exclusively unto others, yet principally it declares the inevitable destruction, the everlasting damnation, of them who believe not when the promise is declared to them, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10; however, it declares that they shall fall under a sorer death and destruction than any others, 2 Corinthians 2:16. And the reason of this severity is taken partly from the nature of unbelief, and partly from the aggravation of it. The nature of unbelief consists in a refusal of the testimony of God, so making him a liar, 1 John 5:10; and in esteeming that which he proposeth as his power and wisdom, to be weakness and folly. Hence there is no way of sin or rebellion against God whatever that casts such scorn and indignity upon him. So that it is in itself the greatest of sins, as well as the root and cause of them. Yet such is the blindness of corrupted nature, that many who will boggle at other sins, especially such as look with a severe threatening aspect on a natural conscience, as adultery, theft, and murder, yet concern themselves not at all in this unbelief, but rather approve themselves in their infidelity. Yet is there not one unto whom the gospel is preached, but if he do not really receive the Lord Christ as tendered in the promise, he doth what lies in him to declare God to be a liar, foolish in his counsels and weak in his operations. And what account this will come unto is not hard to discern. Moreover, it is also from the aggravation that it is accompanied withal, from the nature of the thing itself and the way whereby it is proposed unto us: “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?” Hebrews 2:3. We may look only on that which lies before us; namely, the infinite condescension of divine goodness, in showing, manifesting, and declaring, the immutability of his counsel by oath. Whereas, therefore, he hath done all to this end that was possible to be done, and more than ever would have entered into the heart of any creature to desire or expect, the woful condition of unbelievers, both as to this sin and the misery which will follow thereon, is inexpressible. For those that will despise all that God will do, yea all that he can do, to give them assurance of the truth and stability of his promises, given in a way of grace, have no reason to expect, nor shall receive any thing, but what he will do and can do in a way of justice and vengeance. Obs. 5. It is not all mankind universally, but a certain number of persons, under certain qualifications, to whom God designs to manifest the immutability of his counsel, and to communicate the effects thereof.It is only the “heirs of promise” whom God intendeth. But herein two things are to be considered 1. The outward revelation or administration of these things; and,2. God’s purpose therein. The former is made promiscuously and indefinitely unto all to whom the gospel is preached; for therein is contained a declaration of the immutability of God’s counsel and his willingness to have it known. But if God did design the communication of the effect of it in the same latitude with the outward administration of it, then must he be thought to fail in his purpose towards the greatest part of them, who receive it not. This is that which the apostle disputes upon, Romans 9. Having supposed that the generality of the Jews, of the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, were cut off from the promise by unbelief, and declared his sense thereon, verses 1-3, he raiseth an objection against that supposition, verse 6, ‘That if it were so, “the promise of God was of none effect,” for unto them all it was given and declared.’ Hereunto the apostle answers and replies in that and the following verses, 7-21. And the substance of his answer is, that although the promise was promiscuously proposed unto all, yet the grace of it was intended only unto the elect; as he also further declares, Hebrews 11:7. But why then doth God thus cause the declaration to be made promiscuously and indefinitely unto all, if it be some only whom he designs unto a participation of the effects of his counsel and good things promised? I answer, —Let us always remember that in these things we have to do with Him who is greater than we, and who giveth no account of his matters. What if God will take this way of procedure, and give no reason of its. who are we, that we should dispute against God? Wherefore our apostle having at large discoursed this whole matter, and pleaded the absolute freedom of God to do whatever he pleaseth, winds up the whole in a resignation of all unto his sovereignty, with a deep admiration of his unsearchable wisdom; wherein it is our duty to acquiesce, Romans 11:33-36. But yet I may add, —That the nature of the thing itself doth require this dispensation of the promise indefinitely to all, though the benefit of it be designed to some only; for the way whereby God will give a participation of the promise unto the heirs of it being by the administration of his word, and such means as are meet to work on the minds of men to persuade and prevail with them unto faith and obedience, he would not do it by immediate revelation or respiration, and the like extra-ordinary operations of his Spirit alone, but by such ways as are suited to glorify himself and his grace in the rational minds of his creatures capable thereof. Now this could no way be done, nor can unto this day, but by the declaration and preaching of the promise, with commands, motives, and encouragements unto believing. In this work all those whom he employs are utterly ignorant who they are who are heirs of the promise, until they are discovered by their actual believing: wherefore they have no other way, but in the first place to propose the promise promiscuously unto all that will attend unto it, leaving the singling out of its proper heirs unto the sovereign grace of God. So the word is preached unto all indefinitely, and “the election obtaineth,” whilst “the rest are hardened.” Obs. 6. God alone knows the due measure of divine condescension, or what becomes the divine nature therein. — Who could have once apprehended, who durst have done so, that the holy God should swear by himself, to confirm his word and truth unto such worthless creatures as we are? Indeed there is yet a more transcendent act of divine condescension, namely, the incarnation of the Son of God, the glory whereof will be the object of the admiration of men and angels unto eternity; for, alas! what created understanding could ever have raised itself unto a thought that the eternal Word should be made flesh? God alone, who is infinitely wise, only wise, knew what became the holiness of his being and his goodness therein. And so is it, in its measure, in this of his oath. And as we are with holy confidence to make use of what he hath done in this kind, seeing not to do so is to despise the highest expression of his goodness; so we are not in any thing to draw divine condescension beyond divine expressions. Obs. 7. So unspeakable is the weakness of our faith, that we stand in need of unconceivable divine condescension for its confirmation. — The immutability of God’s counsel is the foundation of our faith; until this be manifest, it is impossible that ever faith should be sure and steadfast. But who would not think that God’s declaration thereof by the way of promise were every way sufficient thereunto? But God knew that we yet stood in need of more; not that there was want of sufficient evidence in his promise, but such a want of stability in us as stood in need of a superabundant confirmation, as we shall see in the next verse: — Hebrews 6:18. — “That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.”Two things in general the apostle further designs in this verse: 1. That the declaration which God had made of the immutability of his counsel in this matter was every way sufficient and satisfactory. 2. What was the especial end and design which he had therein towards the heirs of promise.For the FIRST, he doth it by declaring the evidence given and the nature of it; which consisted in “two immutable things,” — διὰδύοπραγμάτωνἀμεταθέτων. Πρᾶγμα is an “act” or deed, such as we make and deliver when we convey any thing from one to another, — an instrument of an assurance. This is the promise and the oath of God. Security is given by them, both from their own nature, and also because they are two, — two witnesses whereby the thing intended is established. But what need was there of two such things? Is it because one of these was weak, infirm, alterable, such as may be justly challenged or excepted against, that the other is added to strengthen and confirm it? ‘No,’saith the apostle, ‘both of them are equally “immutable.”’Wherefore we must still carry along with us the infinite and unconceivable condescension of God in this matter, who, to obviate our temptations, and relieve us under our weaknesses, is pleased to give this variety unto his divine testimony, which he did “ex abundanti;” not only beyond what he was any way obliged unto, but whatever we could desire or expect. For, secondly, this makes the evidence absolute and uncontrollable, that as they are two things which are produced to make it good, so they are both of them equally immutable, — such as neither in their own nature nor in their execution were any way exposed or liable unto alteration. For the promise itself was absolute, and the thing promised depended on no condition in us, — on nothing without God himself. For there was in the promise itself all the springs of all that is good, and of deliverance from all that is evil; so that on every side it brings along with it the condition of its own accomplishment. But whereas God in the covenant of works did give no promise unto mankind but what was conditional, and suspended on such things on our part as might or might not be, — whence it came to pass that we sinned and came short of it, — God in the giving out of this promise, which is the foundation of the covenant of grace, to assure us that it is utterly of another nature, and such as on no occurrence is liable unto change, confirms it with his oath. Moreover, the apostle confirmeth this testimony yet further from the nature of Him by whom it was given: ἘνοἶςἀδύνατονψεύσασθαιΘεόν, — “In” (or “by”) “which it was impossible that God should lie” or “deceive.” is not absolutely “to lie,” but by any means “to deceive” him who hath cause to trust what we say or do. The highest security among men consists in a promise confirmed with an oath; and this is, and must be, unto them “an end of all strife,” for higher they cannot go. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ THERE are almost as many different analyses given of this chapter as there are commentators upon it; and sometimes the same person proposeth sundry of them, without a determination of what he principally adheres unto. All of them endeavor to reduce the whole discourse of the apostle unto such a method as they judge most artificial and argumentative. But, as I have elsewhere observed, the force of the apostle’s reasonings doth not absolutely depend on any such method of arguing as we have framed unto ourselves. There is something in it more heavenly and sublime, suited to convey the efficacy of spiritual truth, as to the understanding, so to the will and affections also. For this reason I shall not insist on the reducing of this discourse unto any precise logical analysis, which none of the ancients do attempt. But whereas those methods which are proposed by learned men, whereunto, in their judgment, the apostle’s arguing is reducible, are only diverse, and not contradictory unto one another, the consideration of all, or any of them, may be of good use to give light unto sundry passages in the context. Those who have labored herein with most appearance of accuracy, are Piscator and Gomarua My design being to examine and consider all the apostle’s arguings, and their connections particularly, I shall content myself with a plain and obvious account of the whole in general. The design of the apostle in this chapter is not to declare the nature or the exercise of the priesthood of Christ, though the mention of them be occasionally inserted in some passages of it; for the nature of it he had spoken unto, Hebrews 5, and treats of its use at large, Hebrews 9. But it, is of its excellency and dignity that he discourseth in this place; and that not absolutely neither, but in comparison with the Levitical priesthood of the church under the old testament. As this was directly conducing unto his end, so it was incumbent on him in the first place to confirm; for if it were not so excellent, it was to no purpose to persuade them to embrace it who were actually in the enjoyment of another. This, therefore, he designeth to prove, and that upon principles avowed by themselves, with light and evidence taken from what was received and acknowledged in the church of the Hebrews from the first foundation of it. After this, he manifests abundantly the excellency of this priesthood from its nature and use also. But he was, in the first place, to evince it from the faith and principles of the ancient church of Israel; which he doth in this chapter: for he declares how God had many ways instructed them to expect an alteration of the Levitical priesthood, by the introduction of another, more useful, efficacious, and glorious; the continuance of them both in the church at the same time being inconsistent. Herein were the authority and infinite wisdom of God made manifest in his dealing with the church of old. By his authority he obliged them unto a religious observance of all those institutions which he had then appointed; this he did unto the last day of the continuance of that state of the church, Malachi 4:4-6. But in his infinite wisdom, he had before them, in them, and with them, inlaid instructions for the church, whereby they might see, know, and believe, that they were all to cease and issue in something better, afterwards to be introduced. So Moses himself, in all that he did in the house of God, gave testimony unto what was to be spoken and declared afterwards, Hebrews 3:5.And with respect unto both of these did that church greatly miscarry. For first, in many ages it could not be brought with any constancy to submit unto the authority of God, in obedience unto his ordinances and institutions, as the whole story of the Old Testament doth declare: and now, when the time was come wherein they were all to cease, under a pretense of adhering to the authority of God, they rebelled against his wisdom, and refused to consider the instructions which he had inlaid from first to last concerning their ceasing and alteration; whereon the generality of the church fell and utterly perished. This, therefore, the apostle designs here to enlighten them in. And this should teach us with what diligence, with what reverence, with what subjection of soul and resignation of our understandings unto the will and wisdom of God, all divine revelations are to be inquired into. So dealt in this matter the holy men and prophets of old, 1 Peter 1:10-11. And as for want hereof the whole church of the Jews perished at this season, so in all ages sundry particular persons did wofully miscarry. See Leviticus 10:1-3; 2 Samuel 6:6-7. And the want hereof is the bane of most churches in the world at this day.In order unto the end mentioned, the apostle in the first place declares, that antecedently unto the giving of the law, and the institution of the Levitical priesthood thereby, God had, without any respect thereunto, given a typical prefiguration of this priesthood of Christ, in one who was on all accounts superior unto the Levitical priests, when they were afterwards introduced. This sacred truth, which had been hid for so many ages in the church, and which undeniably manifests the certain future introduction of another and a better priesthood, is here brought to light, and improved by the apostle. As “life and immortality,” so all spiritual truth was “brought to light by the gospel,” 2 Timothy 1:10. Truth was stored up in the prophecies, promises, and institutions of the Old Testament; but so stored up as that it was in a great measure hidden also; but was brought forth to light, and made manifest in the Gospel. For whereas it is said, that the great mystery of the manifold wisdom of God was hidden in him from the beginning of the world, Ephesians 3:9-10, the meaning is not, that it was so hid in the will and purpose of God as that he had made no intimation of it; for he had done so variously from the foundation of the world, or the giving of the first promise: but he had so laid it up and stored it in his sacred revelation, as that it was much hid from the understanding of the best of men in all ages, until it was displayed and brought forth to light by the Gospel, Psalms 49:4; Psalms 78:2. And all that glorious evidence of the grace of God which now appears unto us in the writings of the Old Testament, is from a reflection of light upon them from the New Testament, or the revelation of God by Jesus Christ. And therefore the whole church of the Jews, although they were in the entire possession of those writings of the Old Testament for so many ages, never understood so much of the mystery of the will and grace of God declared in them as every ordinary believer under the Gospel is enabled to do. And if we have the privilege and advantage of those oracles of God which were committed to them, incomparably above what they attained unto, certainly greater measures of holiness, and greater fruitfulness in obedience, are expected from us than from them. These things, the instance here insisted on by our apostle will manifest. He in whom this prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ was made, is Melchisedec; concerning whom and his priesthood an account is given in the first part of the chapter, unto verse 10. And the description given of him consisteth of two parts: 1. The proposition of his story, or what is recorded concerning him, verses 1-3; 2. The application of it unto the present purpose and design of the apostle, verses 4-10. And this closeth the first general part of the chapter. The second part of it, from verse 11 unto verse 24, consisted in a double inference, with their improvements taken from that discourse, as respecting Christ in his office. 1. Unto the removal, abolition, or taking away out of the church, the whole Aaronical priesthood, with all the worship of the tabernacle and temple, which depended thereon. This he evidently proves to ensue from the respect that was had unto the Lord Christ in the priesthood of Melchisedec, whereof he had given an account. Hereunto do all arguings belong, verses 11-17.2. Unto the excellency of the priesthood of Christ in itself above that of the tabernacle, even during its continuance; which follows no less evidently from what he had proved before, verses 18-24.3. Having laid this foundation in his demonstration o£ the necessary removal of the Aaronical priesthood, and the pre-eminence of that of Christ above it, even whilst it did continue, he further declares the nature of it from the dignity and qualifications of his person, with the manner of the discharge of his office on this account, verses 24-28. For the design of the apostle in this epistle, especially in this chapter and the three that ensue, is to open unto us or turn aside a double veil; the one here below, the other above. That below is the veil that was on all the ordinances, institutions, ceremonies, and types of the law. This is the veil that is unto this day upon the Jews, that they “cannot see unto the end of the things that were to be done away.” This he removes by giving a clear and full account of the mind of God in them, of their use and signification. The other above is the veil of the heavenly sanctuary. This he opens unto us in a declaration of the ministry of Christ our high priest therein, as we shall see. And under these heads, as the apostle plainly convinceth the Hebrews of the ceasing of their priesthood and worship, and that unto the unspeakable advantage of the church; so to us he doth unfold the principal design and end of all the Mosaical types of the Old Testament, with the institution of God in them. This may suffice as a plain view and prospect of the general scope of the apostle in these discourses. The especial coherence of one thing with another, the nature of his instances, the accuracy and force of his arguings, the perspicuity of his deductions, with the like concernments of the argument in hand, shall be observed and spoken unto as they particularly occur in our progress, ΟὗτοςγὰρὁΜελχισεδὲκ, βασιλεὺςΣαλὴμ, ἱερεὺςτοῦΘεοῦτοῦὑψίστου, ὁσυναντήσας᾿Αβραὰμὑποστρέφοντιἀπότῆςκοπῆςτῶνβασιλέων, καὶεὐλογήσαςαυτόνᾧκαὶδεκάτηνἀπόπάντωνἐμέρισεν᾿Αβραὰμ, πρῶτονμὲνἑρμηςευόμενοςβασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης, ἔπειταδὲ, καὶβασιλεὺςΣαλὴμ, ὅἐστιβασιλεὺςεἰρήνης·ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ, ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτεἀρχὴνἡμερῶν, μήτεζωῆςτέλοςἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένοςδὲτῷψἱῷτοῦΘεοῦ, μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές.There is little variety in the translation of these verses. Θεοῦτοῦὑψίστου. Vulg. Lat., “Dei summi,” for “altissimi;” “the most high God.” ᾿Απὸπάντων. Syr., ξֵ ?ολֻּ ?μ, “of all:” but adds, in a new way of exposition, ξֶ ?γֵ ?νγִּ ?ΰιϊδֲ ?εָ ?ΰςַ ?ξֵ ?δּ, “every thing that was with him;” that is, “of the spoils,” as it is afterwards expounded. ᾿Εμέρισε. Vulg. Lat., “divisit;” properly Syr., τְ ?ψַ ?ωׁ, “separated,” laid aside. Bez., “impartitus est;” “imparted,” “gave.” ᾿Αγενεαλόγητος. Vulg. Lat., “sine genealogia.” Bez., “sine genere,” “without stock;” “sine serie generis,” “without pedigree.” The Syriac gives us an exposition of this passage: “Whose father and mother are not written in the generations” (or “genealogies,”) “neither the beginning of his days nor the end of his life;” which manifests how ancient this exposition of these words was in the church. Μένειἱερεύς. Syr., ξְ ?χַ ?εְ ?ιָ ?ΰλּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψεּ ?ϊֵ ?δ“his priesthood remaineth.” [1][1] . — — ᾿Αφωμ. Ebrard thus explains the substance of the paragraph: “Calvin has already observed with reason that the author does not say ὁμοῖος. Melchisedec was not like to Christ, but was represented in a manner like to Christ ..... The Levitical priest became a priest by his birth, and left the priesthood at his death to his son; his office was, from the nature of him who held it, not a continuing one, but one that moved onwards from member to member, and the succession was expressly prescribed and regulated in the law … Melchisedec, (a), was a priest not by formal, legal investment, but because his internal character, his qualities of righteousness and peace, impelled him to bring sacrifices to God, and to consecrate the power of the king by the internal qualities of the priest; (b), was a priest not by descent, but in himself; and therefore, ( c), was not a link in a chain of predecessors and successors, but is represented as alone in his order, and thus far as one who continues a priest, — yields up his priesthood to no one.” — ED. Hebrews 7:1-3. — For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham divided out a tenth part of all; first, being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace; without father, without mother, without pedigree, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God; — abideth a priest continually. The words are an entire proposition, consisting of a subject and a predicate, or what is affirmed of it. Unto the subject spoken of, which is “Melchisedec,” there is adjoined a large description, by its properties and adjuncts in sundry particulars. That which is affirmed of him as so described, which is the predicate of the proposition, is contained in the last words, or the close of the third verse, “But being made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest for ever.” The introduction of the whole discourse, and therein its connection unto what went before, is contained in the causal particle γάρ, “for.” And this may respect the reason why the apostle affirmed, and insisted so much on it, that the Lord Christ was “a priest after the order of Melchisedec:” ‘For both the truth,’saith he, ‘of my assertion and the necessity of insisting thereon will be sufficiently manifest, if you will but consider who this Melchisedec was, how he is represented in the Scripture, and what is affirmed of him.’Or respect may be had in this word unto the whole preceding discourse, from Hebrews 5:11. There he lays the foundation of it, affirming that he had many things to say of this Melchisedec, and those such as they could not easily understand, unless they diligently applied their minds unto the knowledge of divine mysteries; hereof he now designs to give them an account: “For this Melchisedec,” etc. But the connection is most natural unto the words immediately preceding; and a reason is given of what was affirmed in them, namely, that “Jesus was made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec,” Hebrews 6:20 : ‘For it was thus with this Melchisedec.’ Obs. 1. When truths in themselves mysterious, and of great importance unto the church, are asserted or declared, it is very necessary that clear evidence and demonstration be given unto them; that the minds of men be left neither in the dark about their meaning, nor in suspense about their truth. — So dealeth our apostle in the large ensuing confirmation which he establisheth his foregoing assertion withal.The mention of Melchisedec is introduced with the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος, “thin” It always hath an emphasis, and denotes somewhat eminent in the subject spoken of, mostly in a way of commendation: so Hebrews 7:4, Θεωρεῖτεπηλίκοςοὗτος, — “Consider how great a man this was;” ‘this man of whom is our discourse.’The person spoken of is variously described: — 1. By his name; “Melchisedec.”2. By his original office; he was “a king.”3. The place of his rule or dominion, which was Salem; “king of Salem.” 4. By another office added to the former, which principally belongs unto the design of the apostle: which is described,(1.) By the nature of it, the priesthood; a “priest :”(2.) By its object and author; “of the most high God.”5. By his actings as a priest; “he blessed Abraham:” illustrated,(1.) By the manner of it; “he met him:”(2.) By the time of it, and its circumstances; when “he returned from the slaughter of the kings.”6. By the acknowledgment of his office made by Abraham; “he divided unto him the tenth part of all.”7. By the interpretation of his name; the “king of righteousness:”8. Of the place of his reign; “king of peace.”9. By sundry properties of his person, gathered out of the relation of his history in the Scripture; “without father, without mother, without pedigree, without beginning of days or end of life.” These descriptions in all these particulars being given of him, there are two things affirmed concerning him:1. That “he was made like unto the Son of God;”2. That “he abideth a priest continually:” all which things must be spoken unto.First, For the person spoken of, and described by his name, Melchisedec, I shall in this place say no more of him but what is necessary for the understanding of the text; for I shall not here examine those opinions and disputes concerning him which for the most part have been raised by needless curiosity. The fond and impious imagination of them who would have him, some of them, to be the Holy Ghost, and some of them God, even the Father himself, have been long since exploded. That he was an angel in human appearance, is so contrary to the design of the apostle, that not many have given countenance to that opinion. But that he was the Son of God himself, in a prelibation of his incarnation, taking upon him the form of a man, as he did afterwards the internal form and being in the personal union, some learned men have conjectured and contended. Howbeit, this also is directly contrary to the text, wherein he is said to be “made like unto the Son of God.” And indeed all such opinions as make him more than man are wholly inconsistent with the design of the apostle; which is to prove, that even among men there was a priest and priesthood, representative of Christ and his priesthood, superior to that of the law; which hath nothing of argument in it if he were more than a man. Besides, he lays it down for a certain principle, that “every high priest is taken from among men,” Hebrews 5:1; and therefore, if Melchisedec were a high priest, he was so also.Among those who grant him a mere man, very many, following the opinion of the Jews, contend he was Shem, the son of Noah; who was certainly then alive, and of great authority in the world by virtue of his primogeniture. But this also riseth up in contradiction unto our apostle, beyond all possibility of reconciliation. The Jews, who are no further concerned in him but as to what is declared by Moses, may safely, as to their own principles, though not truly, conjecture him to be Shem; but whereas our apostle affirms that he was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” we are not allowed to interpret these things of him concerning whom most of them are expressly recorded. Nor will it suffice to say that these things indeed are written of him under the name of Shem, but not under the name of Melchisedec; for this were to make the apostle to lay the weight of so important an argument as that in hand, and from whence he infers the removal of all the ancient legal institutions out of the church, upon a nicety, and to catch as it were at an advantage for it. Besides, let him be called as he will, it is his person in the discharge of his office which the apostle speaks of; and the things affirmed of him are not true concerning, or not truly applicable unto Shem. And we may observe by the way, what a blessed effect it is of the care and wisdom of God towards the church, that there are so few things in the Scripture that seem to administer occasion unto the curiosities and conjectures of men; and of those not any of them needful unto our faith and obedience, so as that they should receive the least prejudice by our ignorance of the precise sense of those places. The whole is filled with such depths of wisdom and truth, as require our humble, diligent, reverent, careful search into them, all the days of our lives. But particular passages, historical or mystical, such as seem to leave room for variety of conjectures, are very few. Had they been multiplied, especially in matters of any importance, it could not have been avoided but that religion would have been filled with fruitless notions and speculations. And thus it hath fallen out in this matter of Melchisedec; which being veiled or hidden in the Old Testament, and that on purpose that we should know no more of him nor any of his concerns but what is expressly written, all ages have been fruitlessly exercised, yea pestered, with such curious inquiries about him as rise up in direct opposition unto the scope of the Holy Ghost in the account given concerning him. These things, therefore, are certain, and belong unto faith in this matter: First, That he was a mere man, and no more but so; for, 1. “Every high priest” was to be “taken from among men,” Hebrews 5:1; — so that the Son of God himself could not have been a priest had he not assumed our nature: 2. That if he were more than a man, there were no mystery in it that he is introduced in the Scripture “without father, without mother, without pedigree,” for none but men have so:3. Without this conception of him there is no force in the apostle’s argument against the Jews.Secondly, That he came not to his office by the right of primogeniture (which includes a genealogy) or any other successive way, but was raised up and immediately called of God thereunto; for in that respect Christ is said to be a priest after his order. Thirdly, That he had no successor on the earth, nor could have; for there was no law to constitute an order of succession, and he was a priest only after an extraordinary call These things belong unto faith in this matter, and no more. Two things every way consistent with the scope and purpose of the apostle, yea, eminently subservient thereunto, I shall take leave to add; the one as my judgment, the other as a probable conjecture only. And the first is, that although he lived and dwelt in Canaan, then and afterwards principally possessed by the posterity of the son of Ham, so called, yet he was none of the seven nations or peoples therein that were in the curse of Noah devoted unto bondage and destruction. For whereas they were therein, by a spirit of prophecy, anathematized and cast out of the church, as also devoted unto destruction, God would not raise up among them, that is, of their accursed seed, the most glorious ministry that ever was in the world, with respect unto typical signification; which was all that could be in the world until the Son of God came in his own person. This I take to be true, and do somewhat wonder that no expositors did ever take any notice of it, seeing it is necessary to be granted from the analogy of sacred truth. My conjecture is, that he was a person of the posterity of Japheth, who was principally to be regarded as the father of the Gentiles that were to be called. Noah had prophesied that God should “enlarge the heart of Japheth,” or “persuade him,” so as that he should return to “dwell in the tents of Shem,” Genesis 9:27. Unto Shem he had before granted the present blessing of the covenant, in these words, “Blessed be the LORD God of Shem,” Genesis 9:26; and thereby the bringing forth of the promised Seed was confined unto his posterity. Hereon among them was the church of God to be continued, and upon the matter confined, until the Shiloh came, unto whom the gathering of the Gentiles was to be, in the enlargement of Japheth, and his return to dwell in the tents of Shem. And whereas the land of Canaan was designed of God for the seat of the church in his posterity, he suffered it to be possessed first by the seed of cursed Canaan, that in their dispossessing and destruction he might give a representation and security of the victory and final success of the Lord Christ and his church over all their adversaries. Before this came to pass, God, as I suppose, brought this Melchisedec and some others of the posterity of Japheth into the land of Canaan, in pursuit of the promise made unto Shem, even before Abraham himself had possession of it, and placed him there in a condition of office superior unto Abraham himself. And this might be done for two ends: 1. That a claim might be put in on the behalf of Japheth unto an interest in the tents of Shem in the type of the privilege, for a while confined unto his family. This right and rule of Melchisedec in those places, which were to be the seat of the church enjoying the promise made to Shem, took, as it were, livery and seisin for the Gentile posterity of Japheth, which was in due time to be brought into the full possession of all the rights and privileges of it. 2. That he might manifest that the state of Gentile converts, in the promise and spiritual privileges of the church, should be far more excellent and better than were the state and privileges of the posterity of Shem whilst in their separate condition; “God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” But these things are submitted to the judgment of every candid reader. I shall only add what is certain and indubitable, namely, that we have herein a signal instance of the sovereignty and wisdom of God. All the world was at that time generally fallen into idolatry and false worship. The progenitors of Abraham, though a principal branch of the posterity of Shem (as it is like, in the line of primogeniture), “dwelt on the other side of the flood, and served other gods,” Joshua 24:2. Probably Abraham himself was not free from the guilt of that apostasy before his call. Canaan was inhabited by the Amorites with the rest of the devoted nations on the one hand, and the Sodomites on the other. In the midst of these sinners above others was this man raised up, the great type of Christ, with all the illustrious qualifications to be afterwards declared. And we may learn, —Obs. 2. That God can raise the greatest light in the midst of the greatest darkness, as Matthew 4:16.Obs. 3. He can raise up instruments for his service and unto his glory, when, where, and how he pleaseth.Obs. 4. This signal prefiguration of Christ to the nations of the world, at the same time when Abraham received the promise for himself and his posterity, gave a pledge and assurance of the certain future call of the Gentiles unto an interest in him and participation of him. Secondly, This is the person spoken of; and the first thing in the description of him is his office, that he was “a king.” So he is reported in the first mention of him, Genesis 14:18, “Melchizedek king of Salem.” Now, whereas this doth not belong unto that wherein he was principally to be a type of Christ, nor is the Lord Christ anywhere said to be a king after the order of Melchisedec, nor doth the apostle make any use of the consideration of this office in him, we may inquire wherefore God placed him in that state and condition. And there seem to have been two ends thereof: —1. To make his typical ministry the more eminent and conspicuous. For, placing him in the condition of regal power and authority, what he was and did would necessarily be more conspicuous and more regarded than if he had been only a private man. And moreover, by those possessions and wealth which he had as a king, he was enabled unto the solemn and costly discharge of his office of priesthood in sacrifices and other solemnities. God therefore made him a king, that he might be known and observed as he was a priest, and be able to bear the burden of that office. And these things were then not only consistent, but some preparation seems to be made for the conjunction of these offices by the privilege and rights of primogeniture; whereof I have discoursed elsewhere. Now although nothing can be concluded from hence concerning the preeminence of the priestly office among men above the regal, — which the Romanists plead for, from mere vain and empty pretences, — yet it doth follow, that the greatest temporal dignities and enjoyments ought to be subservient unto spiritual things, and the concerns of Christ. 2. Although he was not in his kingly office directly typical of Christ, yet by being a king he was the more meet to represent him as a priest, seeing he was to be the only king and priest of the church also. And it may be observed, that although Moses in Genesis makes mention of the acts of both his offices, yet our apostle takes notice of those of one sort only. For Moses informs us in the first place, that, when he went to meet Abraham, “he brought forth bread and wine;” that is, for the refreshment of him and his army. Now this was an act of regal power and munificence. This the apostle takes no notice of, but only of his receiving tithes, and blessing Abraham; which were both of them acts of sacerdotal power. Wherefore, although it was convenient he should be a king, yet a king, and in what he did as a king, he was no type of Christ, though there might be a moral resemblance between them. For as Melchisedec refreshed Abraham, the father of the faithful, and his army, when they were weary after their conflict with their enemies, and in the discharge of their duty; so doth the Lord Christ, as king of his church, take care to support, relieve, and refresh all the children of Abraham, all believers, in all their duties, and in the whole course of obedience. So hath the wisdom of God disposed of things in the Scripture unto a fitness to give instruction, even beyond what they are firstly and principally designed unto. And although this and the like considerations should give no countenance unto men’s curiosity in the exposition and application of any passages in the Scripture beyond the severest rules of interpretation, yet may it encourage us unto a diligent search into them, whilst we are duly steered by the analogy of faith. And I see no reason why we may not hence collect these two things: — Obs. 5. The Lord Christ, as king of the church, is plentifully stored with all spiritual provisions for the relief, supportment, and refreshment, of all believers, in and under their duties; and will give it out unto them as their occasions do require. — For as Melchisedec represented the Lord Christ in what he did, so Abraham, in his battle and victory, was a type of all believers in their warfare and conflict with all their spiritual adversaries. Wherefore, as he and all his were refreshed by the kingly bounty of Melchisedec, so shall they be from the munificence and unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ.Obs. 6. Those who go to Christ merely on the account of his priestly office and the benefits thereof, shall also receive the blessings of his kingly power, in abundant supplies of mercy and grace. — Abraham designed nothing with Melchisedec but the owning of his sacerdotal office, in giving him the tithes of all, and receiving his blessing; but when he met him he was refreshed also with his kingly bounty. Many poor sinners go unto Christ principally, if not only, at the first, upon the account of his sacerdotal office, to have an interest in his sacrifice and oblation, to be made partakers of the mercy and pardon procured thereby; but when they come to him in a way of believing, they find that he is a king also, ready, able, powerful to relieve them, and unto whom they owe all holy obedience. And this answers the experience of many, it may be the most of them that do believe.Thirdly, This kingly office of Melchisedec is further asserted by the specification of the place where he was king and reigned; he was “king of Salem.” There hath been great inquiry about, and much uncertainty there is concerning, this place or city. Two opinions, all sorts of those who have inquired into these things with any sobriety, do incline unto; — for as for one who hath not long since affirmed, that this Salem is “Jerusalem that is above, the mother of us all,” he hath thought meet to give other instances also how little he understands the things he undertakes to treat about. But some think it was that city, and no other, which was afterwards called Jerusalem, and became in David’s time, and so for a long continuance, the principal seat of the church and solemn worship of God. This place, they say, was first called Salem, and afterwards, — it may be presently after the reign of this Melchisedec, and on the occasion thereof, — by the addition of ιִ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δor ιִ ?ψְ ?ΰεּ, “a vision,” or, “they shall see peace,” called Jerusalem. Others think that Salem was a city or town not far from Sychem, which was afterwards destroyed; and there are reasons for both opinions. Of this latter opinion Jerome is the principal author and maintainer, in his epistle to Evagrius. And there are three reasons for it, whereon he much insists: 1. That there was a city near Sychem that was called Salem, and no otherwise. And this is plainly affirmed in the Scripture, Genesis 33:18, “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan.” For those who render the words, ιָ ?αΰֹ ιַ ?ςֲ ?χֹ ?αωָׁ ?μֵ ?νςִ ?ιψωְׁ ?λֶ ?ν, “Et venit Jacob pacificus,” (or,” incolumis,”) “ad urbem Shechem,” so making the word appellative, and not the name of a place, are undoubtedly mistaken; for the same place is mentioned again in the New Testament by the same name, John 3:23, “John was baptizing in AEnon, near to Salim.” For that Salim and Salem are the same Jerome well shows, with the reason of the variation. 2. He affirms, that at that time were seen at Sychem the ruins of the palace of Melchisedec, which manifested it to have been a magnificent structure.3. It is pleaded that the circumstances of the story make it necessary to judge that it was this Salem. For Abraham was passing by the place where Melchisedec reigned, who thereon went out to meet him. Now, whereas he was returning from Hobah, which was on the left hand, or north side of Damascus, Genesis 14:15, Jerusalem was not in the way of his return, but Salem was.On the other side, it is pleaded with more probability that Jerusalem was the seat of his kingdom. For, 1. It was anciently called Salem; which name is afterwards occasionally applied unto it, as that whereby it was known: Psalms 76:2, “In Salem is God’s tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion,” where Jerusalem only can be intended. Some think that afterwards, when it was possessed by the Jebusites, it began at first to be called Jebussalem, — that is, Salem of the Jebusites; which by custom was transformed into Jerusalem. But the approved etymology, from ιִ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ and ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν, so that the name should signify a “sight,” or “vision of peace,” is certainly true, and probably given by God himself. 2. In the days of Joshua, the king of Jerusalem was called Adonizedec; a name of the same signification with Melchisedec, which possibly from him was the name of the kings who afterwards reigned in that city. And that man, as it should seem, was in some reputation for righteousness among the Canaanites, whence he managed their common cause in their danger, Joshua 10:1-4.3. Abraham dwelt at this time at Hebron, in the plain of Mamre; and, on his return from Hobah, or Damascus, the way lay near unto Jerusalem, as all charts yet declare; and Sychem was more to the north than that he should conveniently pass that way.4. Jerusalem being designed to be the place where the Lord Christ was to begin and exercise his priestly office, it may well be supposed that there this his illustrious type was to appear and be manifested; especially considering that it was to be the place where the seat of the church was to be fixed until the signification of the type was to be effected.And these reasons do prevail with me to judge that Jerusalem was the place of the habitation and reign of Melchisedec. As for what is affirmed by Jerome concerning the ruins of his palace at Sychem, it is notoriously known how little credit such traditions do deserve. Besides, Josephus, who lived four hundred years before him, makes no mention of any such thing. And it is probable that the ruins which Jerome saw were those of the palace of Jeroboam, who there fixed the seat of the kingdom of Israel, 1 Kings 12:25, as king of the place where he obtained the crown, 1 Kings 12:1. But credulous and superstitious posterity chose to ascribe it unto the memorial of Melchisedec, rather than of him who being the bane and ruin of the nation, his memory was accursed. And to inquire how this city came afterwards into the hands of the Jebusites, is directly contrary to the design of the Holy Ghost, which was to hide from us the end of his life and offices, as our apostle declares. And herein also possession was taken of the seat of the church in the tents of Shem, on the behalf and in the name of the Japhethian Gentiles. And may we not observe, that, — Obs. 7. God, in his sovereign pleasure, gives various intervals unto places, as to the enjoyment of his worship and ordinances. — This Jerusalem, which was at first ennobled by the priesthood of Melchisedec, was afterwards left for a long season unto the idolatrous Jebusites. In process of time it was visited again, and made the fixed station of all solemn divine worship, as it is now left unto salt and barrenness. So hath he dealt with many other places, and in particular, notwithstanding their boasting, with the city of Rome, some time a seat of the gospel, now the throne of antichrist. “Go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh,” Jeremiah 7:12; Jeremiah 7:14; Jeremiah 26:6. By the way, we must here give an account of somewhat that the apostle doth not say, as well as what he doth. After the mention of Melchisedec, and his being king of Salem, in the story, Genesis 14., it is added, that he met Abraham, “and brought forth bread and wine,” Genesis 14:17-18. Of his meeting Abraham the apostle takes notice; but of his bringing forth bread and wine, not at all. Hereof undoubtedly no reason can be given, but only that that particular action or passage belonged not at all unto his purpose. For he who takes notice of all other circumstances, arguing as well from what was not said of him as from what was, would not have omitted any thing which is so expressly affirmed as this is, had it any way belonged unto his purpose. But the importunity of the Papists, who, with a strange kind of confidence, do hence seek countenance unto their missatical sacrifice, makes it necessary that we should inquire a little further into it. Melchisedec, they tell us, as a priest and type of Christ, did offer this bread and wine in sacrifice to God. Herein, they add, alone was he typical of Christ, who offered himself unto God under the appearance of bread and wine. And he also instituted the sacrifice of the mass, wherein he should be so offered continually unto the end of the world. And on that account alone, they say, he continueth a priest for ever. For if he had not appointed priests here in his room, to offer him unto God, that office of his would have ceased, as Bellarmine disputes at large. It were easy to make naked the fondness of these imaginations, would our present design permit. Some few things may be remarked on their assertions; as, 1. The apostle, in this whole discourse wherein Melchisedec is introduced and concerned, treateth not at all of the sacrifice of Christ, nor intimates any resemblance between the offering of Melchisedec and that of Christ; but it is the office alone and its dignity which he insists upon, designing to treat afterwards at large about his sacrifice, — and when he doth so, he doth not in the least compare it with the sacrifice of Melchisedec, but with those of Aaron according to the law, — so that there was no occasion for him to mention any sacrifice of Melchisedec’s, should any such thing be supposed in the text of Moses. 2. A supposition of such a sacrifice of bread and wine as that pleaded for is contrary to the apostle’s design, and destructive of it; for whereas he endeavoreth to prove that the priesthood of Melchisedec was far more excellent than that of Levi, he could not do it by this, that he offered bread and wine in sacrifice, for so also did the Levitical priests, Leviticus 7:13; Leviticus 23:13; Leviticus 23:18. But all the excellencies which the apostle insisteth on consist in the dignity of his office and the qualifications of his person, not in the matter of his sacrifice. 3. Let all be granted they can desire, yet are they not advantaged as unto their especial end thereby; for what is the offering of real bread and wine, and no more, unto the offering of the body and soul of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of them?4. As unto what they contend, that the Lord Jesus Christ would not be a priest for ever unless he had those priests on earth who continue to offer him in the sacrifice of the mass, it is so far from truth, as that the contrary is irrefragably true and certain; for if he indeed hath need of other priests to carry on his office, he doth not continue the administration of it himself, or all the apostle’s arguings against the perpetuity of the Aaronical priesthood are invalid. But because I am not willing to engage in any thing controversial beyond what is absolutely necessary, I shall only tender some considerations evidencing that no such thing as a sacrifice can be included in that expression, “He brought forth bread and wine;” and so proceed: — 1. The process of the story directs unto another sense of the words. Abraham was now returned with his forces unto “the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale,” Genesis 14:17; a place not far from Jerusalem, called, as it is likely, the king’s dale from Melchisedec, unto whom it belonged; where afterwards Absalom built a a pillar, for the memorial of his name, 2 Samuel 18:18. Here, probably, he continued for a while, as to refresh his own people, so to stay for the coming of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah. For, upon their defeat in the battle, they had left the plain and fled unto the mountains, Genesis 14:10, giving up the cities with all their spoil unto the conquerors; but now, hearing of the success of Abraham, and his recovery of the captives with their goods, they resort unto him for relief. He who intended to restore all unto them, stayed for them, as it is probable, some days in the king’s dale. Now, it was the manner in those countries, when any forces were on an expedition, that those in their way who were at peace with them did bring forth supplies of bread and wine, or water, for their refreshment. For the neglect of this duty, wherein they brake the laws of friendship and hospitality, did Gideon so severely punish the inhabitants of Succoth and Penuel, Judges 8:5-9; Judges 8:13-17. And the observance of this duty is recorded unto the commendation of Barzillai the Gileadite, who sent refreshment unto David and his army; for he said, “The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness,” 2 Samuel 17:27-29. In this state of things, Melchisedec, being the neighbor, friend, and confederate of Abraham, when he came with his army and abode so near unto him, brought forth bread and wine for their refreshment; which being a mere civil action, our apostle takes no notice of it. And they who can discover a sacrifice in this expression, have either more skill in the opening of mysteries than he had, or a better invention in coining groundless fables and imaginations of their own. 2. This act of Melchisedec is immediately subjoined unto the mention of him as king, being an instance of kingly power and munificence: “Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine.” After this it is added, “And he was the priest of the most high God;” which is a plain introduction of and preparation for the expression of his exercise of that office in his blessing of Abraham, which ensues in the next words. The Romanists contend that vau in εְ ?δεּ ?ΰλֹ ?δֵ ?ο, is redditive, giving a reason of what was before affirmed:’ “He brought forth bread and wine,” because he was “the priest of the most high God.”’But as this offers force to the universal usage of that particle, which is connexive only, so it will not serve their occasion. For they would have it that Melchisedec only offered this sacrifice of bread and wine; whereas if the reason why he did so was because he was the priest of the most high God, then every one who was so was in like manner to offer the same sacrifice. And whereas they place the whole especial nature of the Melchisedecian priesthood in this his sacrifice, if this were common to him with all others, then was he not a priest of a particular order; and so the whole discourse of the apostle is vain and impertinent. But it is plain, that he having nothing to do with nor inference to make from his royal office or acts, doth therefore omit this, which evidently was an act of kingly bounty. 3. The word here used, δεֹ ?φִ ?ιΰ, he “brought forth,” or caused to be brought forth, “bread and wine,” is no sacred word, nor is ever used in the Scripture to express the sacred action of oblation or offering in sacrifice; it is always a common action that is denoted thereby.4. The apostle’s silence in this matter casteth this pretense out of all consideration. His design was to evince the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of Levi, from this particular consideration, that he was “a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” To prove that he was so indeed, and withal to show how great and excellent a person this Melchisedec was, who bare that office as a type of Christ in his, and also in how many things the resemblance between the Lord Christ and him did consist, wherein he was “made like unto the Son of God,” he proposeth unto consideration every minute circumstance of all that was spoken of him, and what also in common use ought to be spoken of him, but being not so, was certainly omitted for some special reason and signification; insisting on some things which no man could have conjectured to have been designedly significant, if the Holy Ghost himself had not made the discovery thereof; omitting nothing that might confirm the truth or illustrate the evidence of his argument; yet he wholly passeth by this passage, without the least notice of it. Herein, if the Romanists may be believed, in this accurate collection of all things he omits nothing but only that wherein the essence and substance of his cause and plea did wholly consist. For this his offering of bread and wine in sacrifice, they say, was that thing alone wherein he was peculiarly the type of Christ; and they dispute with great vehemency that the resemblance between them consisted herein alone, although the apostle doth instance expressly in sundry other things, as we shall see more afterwards, and makes no mention of this at all. It is therefore clear as the day-light, that he and they are diversely minded in this matter. But if they are in the right, certainly never any man managed an argument unto less advantage than the apostle doth that in this place, wherein yet there is an appearance of so great accuracy and care. For they do suppose that he scrupulously collects all the circumstances belonging unto the matter he treats of, and some of them of a difficult application unto his purpose, and at the same time omits that wherein the whole force of his argument did consist; which is a failure not modestly to be ascribed unto any person of sobriety or judgment. Wherefore we need not further trouble ourselves with those forced and futilous pretences. The reason why the apostle mentions Melchisedec as king of Salem, is to intimate his first prerogative above the Aaronical priests, in that he was a king. And we may observe that, — Obs. 8. Acts of munificence and bounty are memorable and praiseworthy, though they no way belong unto things sacred by virtue of divine institution. — So was this bringing forth of bread and wine by Melchisedec, to refresh Abraham and his people, though there was nothing of sacrifice threin. In former ages, either men were more inclined to such acts than now they are, or there were more efficacious means of engaging them thereunto than are judged meet now to be made use of, because perhaps discovered to have something of deceit in them. But this went along with all their bounty, that if they would make the acts of it sacred and religious, all should be peculiarly devoted and dedicated unto God; wherein, although their pious intentions are to be commended, yet it may justly be feared that they missed of their aim, in making things and services sacred which God had not made so. But such acts as those we speak of, towards men, need no more of religion in them, but that they be done in obedience to the will of God, who requires of us to do good to all, and to exercise loving-kindness in the earth. They are so good and praiseworthy, provided,1. They are of real use, and not in things that serve only for ostentation and show;2. That they interfere with no other especial duty, nor cause an omission of what is necessary, etc. Again, —Obs. 9. It is acceptable with God, that those who have labored in any work or service of his should receive refreshments and encouragements from men. — For as such an acceptable service is the relief given to Abraham and his people by Melchisedec celebrated. God is himself a sufficient reward unto his people in and for all their services; he needs not call in the help of men to give them a recompence: however, it is well-pleasing unto him, that he, or his work which they do, in any thing, be owned by men.Fourthly, The apostle proceeds with his description of the subject of his proposition, with respect unto that office which he principally regards: ῾῾ΙερεὺςτοῦΘεοῦτοῦὑψίστου, — “priest of the most high God.” Two things are here asserted: 1. That in general he was a “priest.”2. The limitation of that office with respect unto the author and object of it is expressed; he was a “priest of the most high God.”1. He was a priest, and he was the first that was so by especial institution. How the rite of sacrificing was common to all worshippers of old, and what was the peculiar interest of the first-born therein, I have at large before declared. I have also proved that Melchisedec was the first who was authoritatively separated unto this office by God’s approbation. And as it was a new, so it was a great and remarkable thing in the world. For although we know not how far it was received or understood by the men of that age, who I believe were not stupidly ignorant and carnal, as some would have them to be; yet certain it is, that the institution of this office, and the representation of it in the person of Melchisedec, gave great light and instruction into the nature of the first promise, and the work of the blessing Seed which was to be exhibited. For the faith of the church in all ages was so directed, as to believe that God had respect unto Christ and his work in all his institutions of worship. Wherefore the erection of the office of a priesthood to offer sacrifice, and that in the person of so great a man as Melchisedec, must needs lead them into an acquaintance with the nature of his work in some measure, both he and it being so conspicuously represented unto them. In this general assertion, that he was a priest, two things are included: (1.) That he was truly and really a man, and not an angel, or an appearance of the Son of God, prelusory unto his incarnation. For “every priest is taken from among men,” Hebrews 5:1, — of the same common nature with other men, and in the same state, until he be separated unto his office. And so was Melchisedec, a man called out from amongst men, or he was not a priest. (2.) That he had an extraordinary call unto his office; for he falleth likewise under that other rule of our apostle, “No man taketh this honor unto himself, unless he be called of God,” Hebrews 5:4. But of what nature this call was, and how he received it, cannot positively be determined in particular. Two things are certain concerning him negatively: [1. That he came not to this office in the church by succession unto any that went before him, as did all the Levitical priests after Aaron. There was none went before him in this office, as none succeeded unto him, as we shall see immediately. And when the Lord Christ is said to be “a priest after the order of Melchisedec,” it doth not suppose that he was of any certain order, wherein were a series of priests succeeding one another, but only that it was with Christ as it was with him, in point of call and office. Wherefore his call was personal, in some act of God towards him, wherein himself and no other was concerned. [2. He was not called or set apart unto his office by any outward unction, solemn consecration, or ceremonial investiture: for the Lord Jesus Christ had none of these, who was made a priest after the manner that he was; only there was an outward sign of his call unto all his offices, in the descending of the Holy Ghost on him in the form of a dove, Matthew 2, John 1. These things belonged purely unto the law and Aaronical priesthood, wherein spiritual things were to have a carnal representation. And those by whom they are received, in the separation of any unto an evangelical office, do prefer the ministration of the law before that of the gospel, as more glorious, because they discern not the glory of spiritual things. Besides, there was none in the world greater than he, nor nearer unto God, to confer this office upon him, as Aaron was consecrated by Moses. For in the authoritative collation of an office there is a blessing; and, “without controversy, he who blesseth is greater than he who is blessed by him,” as we shall see immediately. And therefore would not God make use of any outward means in the call or the separation of the Lord Christ unto his offices, or any of them; because there was none in heaven or earth greater than he, or nearer unto God, to be employed therein. Angels and men might bear witness, as they did, unto what was done by the Lord God and his Spirit, Isaiah 61:1; but they could confer nothing upon him. And therefore, in the collation of the ministerial office under the gospel, the authority of it resides only in Jesus Christ. Men can do no more but design the person according to his rules and laws; which may be done among equals. Wherefore the call of Melchisedec unto his office was extraordinary, and consisted in an extraordinary unction of the Spirit. And this had two things attending of it: [1. That it gave unto himself sufficient security and warranty to undertake and execute the office whereunto he was called. So did every extraordinary call, accompanied with a divine afflatus and inspiration, Amos 7:14-15.[2. That it evidenced itself unto all that feared God; who thereon willingly submitted unto his administrations in the discharge of his office. And this is all that we can know, as to the way and manner of his becoming a priest. That he was not so by succession unto any other, by the right of primogeniture, nor made so by men, are certain from the apostle’s discourse. The time, place, season, and occasion of his call, are all hidden from us; but he was made a priest by God himself. For, — Obs. 10. Every one is that in the church, and nothing else, which God is pleased to make him to be. — Wherefore, for us to rest in God’s vocation is our honor and our safety, as well as our duty. For, —Obs. 11. Where God calleth any one unto a singular honor and office in his church, it is in him a mere act of his sovereign grace. — So he took this Melchisedec, who had nothing of stock, race, descent, or succession, to recommend him, but as one as it were newly sprung out of the earth, and raised him to the highest dignity that any man in those days was capable of. Let us not, therefore, repine or murmur at any of God’s dealings with others, nor envy because of his gifts bestowed on them. May he not do what he will with his own, seeing he is greater than men, and giveth no account of his matters? Obs. 12. A divine call is a sufficient warranty for the acting of them according unto it who are so called, and for the obedience of others unto them in their work or office. — By virtue hereof this Melchisedec arose in the midst of the nations of the world, took on him a new office and power, being owned and submitted unto therein by Abraham, and all that believed.Obs. 13. The first personal instituted type of Christ was a priest; this was Melchisedec. — There were before real instituted types of his work, as sacrifices; and there were moral types of his person, as Adam, Abel, and Noah, which represented him in sundry things; but the first person who was solemnly designed to teach and represent him, by what he was and did, was a priest. And that which God taught herein was, that the foundation of all that the Lord Christ had to do in and for the church was laid in his priestly office, whereby he made atonement and reconciliation for sin. Every thing else that he doth is built on the supposition hereof.. And we must begin in the application where God begins in the exhibition. An interest in the effects of the priestly office of Christ is that which in the first place we ought to look after. This being attained, we shall be willing to be taught and ruled by him, and not else. 2. The apostle adds the limitation of this his office of priesthood, as to its author and especial object; and that is “the most high God.” For so by ὁΘεὸςὁὑψίστος, doth he render ΰֵ ?μςְ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο in Moses.(1.) He was λֹ ?δֵ ?ομְ ?ΰֵ ?μ a “priest to God.” This determines the sense of the word “cohen” to the office of the priesthood; contrary to the pretensions of some modern Jews, and the Targum on Psalms 110. For whereas they cannot understand how the Messiah should be a priest, and perceive well enough the inconsistency of the legal priesthood with such a supposition, they would have the word “cohen” in the psalm to signify a” prince” or a “ruler.” But although the word used absolutely may be applied sometimes to such a purpose, yet where God is proposed as its object, a “priest of God,” or “unto God,” none can be signified but one in the priestly office. (2.) He was a priest “unto the most high God.” This is the first time that this title is ascribed unto God in the Scripture, which afterwards is frequently repeated; and so also are others of the same importance, as “God above,” “God over all,” “The God of heaven,” and absolutely, “The Most High.” And it is either descriptive or distinctive, as all such attributes and epithets are: —[1. As it is descriptive, the majesty, power, and authority of God over all, are intended therein. “The most high God,” is the glorious God, with whom is terrible majesty. To represent them, it is said that “his throne is high and lifted up,” Isaiah 6:1; and he is called “The high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,” Isaiah 57:15. Thus is he styled, to fill our hearts with a reverence of him, as one infinitely above us, and whose glorious majesty is absolutely inconceivable. So, when the Holy Ghost would express the glory of Christ as exalted, he says he is made “higher than the heavens,” and he “is set down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” “The most high God,” therefore, is first, God as inconceivably exalted in glory and majesty. Again, his power and authority are also intended herein. “The Most High ruleth over all,” Daniel 4:17. God over all in power and authority, disposing of all things, is “the most high God.” So Abraham explains this name, Genesis 14:22.[2. As it is distinctive it respects other gods, not in truth and reality, but in reputation. For so there were then “lords many, and gods many,” in the world. So they were esteemed by them that made them, and worshipped them: λεγόμενοιθεοί, as our apostle speaks, — such as were “called gods,” 1 Corinthians 8:5, but “by nature were not gods,” Galatians 4:8. They were all earthly; and though some of them had their being above, as the sun, moon, and host of heaven, yet they had all their deity from beneath; nor ever had it any existence but in the deluded imaginations of the sons of men. In opposition unto them, with distinction from them, God is called “the most high God.” The world was at that time fallen into all manner of idolatry. Every country, every city, every family almost, had made new gods unto themselves. The most general veneration, as I have elsewhere showed, was then given unto the sun, and that because he appeared to them on high, or the highest being they could apprehend. Hence had he the name of ἥλιος among the Greeks, from ςֶ ?μְ ?ιεֹ ?ο, “the high one.” In opposition unto all these gods, and in renunciation of them, Melchisedec professed himself “the priest of the most high God;” as Paul preached at Athens “the unknown God,” in opposition unto all their known σεβάσματα, or “idols,” which they supposed themselves acquainted withal. And whereas God had not yet revealed himself by any especial name, as he did afterwards on sundry occasions (the first he made of that kind being El Shaddai, or “God Almighty,” Genesis 17:1, as himself declares, Exodus 6:3), those that feared him made use of this title, as most comprehensive, as most suited unto their present faith and profession. So Abraham expounds this title, Genesis 14:22, “The most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth;” which he gives as a reason why he would not take aught of the king of Sodom, — seeing he was the servant of that God who disposed of all things in heaven and earth, and so had no need of supplies from him. His God could make him rich without the help of the king of Sodom. Wherefore God under this consideration, of “the most high God,” was the principal object of the faith of believers in those days. For whereas they were few in number, and all the inhabitants of the earth were greedily set upon getting possessions and inheritances for themselves, they believed in God as him who was able to protect them and provide for them, according unto the tenor of the name whereby he afterwards revealed himself unto Abraham, namely, of El Shaddai, or “God Almighty.” And this also was the principal part of their profession, that they served the most high God alone, in opposition unto all the false and dunghill deities of the earth. The Socinians, in all their disputes against the deity of Christ, do always make use of this name, and continually repeat it. “Christ,” they say, “is not the most high God.” A god they will allow him to be, but not the most high God. But whereas this name is used in distinction only from all false gods, if their Christ be a god, but not on any account the most high God, he is a false god, and as such to be rejected. See Jeremiah 10:11. And from this name or title of God, as it is descriptive of his majesty and authority, we may observe, —Obs. 14. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The proceed of these verses is unto the application of what was before discoursed. For having proved that Christ, the promised Messiah, was to be a “priest after the order of Melchisedec,” from Psalms 110, and given a description both of the person and office of this Melchisedec, from the historical narration of them as laid down by Moses; he makes application of the whole unto his present purpose: and from the consideration of sundry particulars in his description, he confirms in general the argument which he had in hand. For that which principally he designeth to prove is, that a more excellent priesthood than that of Aaron being introduced, according to the purpose and promise of God, it followed necessarily that that priesthood, with all the worship, rites, and ceremonies which belonged unto it, was to cease and be taken out of the way; for as this new, promised priesthood was inconsistent with it, and could not be established without the abolition of it, so it brought a far greater benefit and spiritual advantage unto the church than it before enjoyed. And we are not to wonder that the apostle insists so much hereon, and that with all sorts of arguments, especially such as the Old Testament furnished him withal; for this was the hinge on which the eternal salvation or destruction of that whole church and people at that time did turn. For if they would not forego their old priesthood and worship, their ruin was unavoidable; — Christ would either be rejected by them, or be of no profit unto them. Accordingly things fell out thus with the most of them; — they clave absolutely unto their old institutions, and, rejecting the Lord Christ, perished in their unbelief. Others contended for the continuance of their priesthood and worship, for which they supposed they had invincible reasons, although they admitted the profession of Christ and the gospel therewithal. But our apostle, knowing how inconsistent these things were, and how the retaining of that persuasion would keep them off at present from believing the necessity, usefulness, glory, and advantages, of the priesthood of Christ, and the spiritual worship of the gospel, as also dispose them unto apostasy for the future, laboureth by all means to eradicate this pernicious, fundamental error out of their minds. Unto this end doth he so diligently insist on all the instances, and particulars of them, whereby God of old did intimate unto their forefathers the introduction of this alteration, with the advantage of the church thereby. And I mention these things, that we may see the reason the apostle did so scrupulously, as it were, insist on all the ensuing particulars, which otherwise we may not so easily discern the necessity of; and withal to show, 1. How hard it is to dispossess the minds of men of inveterate persuasions in religion; 2. The great care and diligence they ought to use and exercise who have the care of the souls of men committed unto them, when they discern them in apparent danger of ruin.That the old priesthood was to be removed, and the new one mentioned to be introduced, he proves in the first place by the greatness of the person who was first chosen of God to prefigure and represent the Lord Christ in his office of priesthood. For if he were so excellent in his person and office, as deservedly to be preferred above Aaron and all his successors, then he who was prefigured and represented by him must be so also; yea, be so much more, as that which is typed out and signified is, and always must be, more excellent than the type and sign, which are of no use but with respect thereunto. In these verses he chooseth out his first instance, in what he had observed before out of the narrative of Moses concerning the greatness and excellency of Melchisedec, in that he received tithes of Abraham. His design is to prove him more excellent and greater than all the Levitical priests. But herein he takes a step backward, and begins with Abraham himself, from whom both people and priests confessedly derived all their privileges. And he produceth his instance in the case of tithes, whereon, as it is known, the whole Levitical priesthood did depend. And this the apostle knew full well, that if once he proved him greater than Abraham, he should not need, with that people, to prove him above any of his posterity, but they would immediately give over the contest. So in their exceptions unto our Savior’s testimony concerning himself, they acknowledge they could proceed no higher. “Art thou,” say they, “greater than our father Abraham? whom makest thou thyself to be ?” John 8:53. But yet our apostle, nor content herewith, to obviate all pretences, proves distinctly afterwards that the whole order of the Levitical priests were inferior unto him. Hebrews 7:4-5. — Θεωρεῖτεδὲ, πληίκοςοὗτος, ᾧκαὶδεκάτην᾿Αβραὰμἔδωκενἐκτῶνἀκροθινίωνὁπατριάρχης. ΚαὶοἰἐκτῶνυἱῶνΔευϊv τὴνἱερατείανλαμβάνοντεςἐντολὴνἔχουσινἀποδεκατοῦντὸνλαὸνκατὰτοῦνόμον, τοῦτ᾿ἔστι, τοὺςἀδελφοὺςαὑτοῶν, καίπερἐξεληλυθόταςἐκὀσφύος᾿Αβραάμ·Θεωρεῖτεδέ, “considerate,” “spectate.” Syr., ηֲ ?ζַ ?ε, “videte.” Vulg. Lat., “intuemini.” “Consider,” “behold,” “contemplate.” Serious consideration with diligent intuition is intended. Πηλίκοςοὗτος. “Quantus hic;” “sit,” Vulg. Lat. “Fuerit” is supplied by others; as by us, “how great this man was.” Syr., λְּ ?ξָ ?ΰψַ ?αδָ ?πָ ?ΰ“quam magnus hie.” Δεκάτηνἐκτῶνἀκροθινίων. Beza, “decimas spoliorum;” “decimas de spoliis hostium;” “de spoliis;” Vulg. Lat., “decimas de praecipuis,” of “the chiefest things.” The Syriac makes a distinction: ξςֲ ?ρָ ?ψֵ ?ΰεְ ?ψִ ?ιωִׁ ?ιηָ ?ΰ, fruits.”[2],”tithes and first- [2] . — To meet the objection, that no stress can be laid on the circumstance that Melchisedec received tithes, inasmuch as the Levitical priests also received them, the apostle, according to Ebrard, argues, 1. From the fact that they received the priesthood in virtue of descent, — τὴνἱερατείανλαμβάνοντες: 2. From their right to tithes by statute, whereas Abraham gave tithes to Melchisedec voluntarily: 3. From the limitation of the Levitical right to the λαός, the chosen people, while that of Melchisedec stretched beyond his tribe, and was recognised by Abraham: and, 4. Descent from Abraham, while it secured tithes for the Levites, involved those who were not Levites in the burden of paying, “though they came out of the loins of Abraham.” Ebrard sums the whole up in a mathematical formula: Melchisedec >>[Abraham >(Levites >not Levites)]. — Ed. Hebrews 7:4. — Consider then how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.The duty of the Hebrews, upon the proposition of the state of Melchisedec, before insisted on, is here pressed on them. And the words contain both a respect unto the preceding discourse, a duty prescribed, the object of that duty, and the reason of a qualification therein expressed, amplified by the title, state, and condition of one person concerned. 1. The note of respect unto the preceding discourse is in the particle δὲ; which we render “now,” “consider now, then, or therefore.” ‘But do you consider. The things before laid down are, as of importance in themselves; so of your especial concernment.’2. The especial duty which he prescribes unto them, with respect unto the things proposed by him concerning the excellency of Melchisedec and his office, is, that they would “consider” it.He doth four times in this epistle call the Hebrews unto this especial duty of an intense consideration of the things proposed unto them, as we have translated his words, and that not unduly, Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 10:24; Hebrews 12:3, and in this place. Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 10:24, we have the same word in the original, κατανοήσατε; whose importance hath been declared on Hebrews 3:1. Hebrews 12:3, the word is ἀναλογίΣασθε, which signifies “to call things unto a due reckoning and account,” so as to conform our minds unto them; which is our great duty with respect unto the patient sufferings of Christ, there intended. The word here used signifies “diligently to behold,” “contemplate on,” or “to look into” the things proposed unto us. He had before warned them that what he had to discourse on this subject was difficult and hard to be understood; but withal, such was its use and excellency, that neither would he refrain from declaring of them, nor ought they to spare any pains in a diligent inquiry into them. Having therefore laid down the matter of fact, and stated the whole subject which he designed to treat upon, he adds their duty with respect thereunto. And this, in the first place, is, that they would “heedfully and diligently look into them.” Obs. 1. It will be fruitless, and to no advantage, to propose or declare the most important truths of the gospel, if those unto whom they are proposed do not diligently inquire into them. — And here those unto whom the dispensation of the gospel is committed are pressed with no small difficulty, as our apostle professeth that he was in this very case. For whereas it is incumbent on them, in that declaration of the whole counsel of God which is enjoined them, to insist upon sundry things that are deep, mysterious, and hard to be understood; when their hearers, for want of a good foundation of knowledge in the principles of religion, or through carelessness in attending unto what is delivered, do not come unto a due perception and understanding of them, it is very grievous to see their own labors and others’profit disappointed. Wherefore, if men think they have nothing to do but as it were to give the hearing unto such as endeavor to carry them on to perfection, they will lose all the advantage of their ministry. This duty, therefore, is here prescribed by the apostle with respect unto this truth, to obviate this slothful frame. And we may on this occasion briefly name the things that are required thereunto; as, 1. Sense of a concernment in them. Unless this be well fixed on the mind, men will never diligently attend unto them, nor duly consider them. If, upon the proposal of sacred truths that appear hard to be understood, they begin to think that this belongs not unto them, it is for others who are more exercised than they, it is not likely they would ever endeavor to apprehend them aright. And this very frame keeps many on a low form of knowledge all their days. Possibly, also, this neglect is increased in many by the spreading of a late foolish apprehension, that we are upon the matter to look after nothing but the doctrines and precepts of morality that are in the Scripture; but as for the more spiritual mysteries of grace, we are not concerned in them. Where this principle is once imbibed, men will rest and satisfy themselves in the most profound ignorance; and not only so, but despise all such as endeavor to be wiser than themselves. But, 2. Unto a due apprehension of these things, there is not only required a sense of our concernment, but also a delight in them. If the light be not pleasant unto us, as well as useful, we shall not value it nor seek after it. When such mysterious truths as that here insisted on by our apostle are proposed unto men, if they have no delight in such things, they will never be at the cost and pains of inquiring into them with necessary diligence. Curiosity, indeed, or a humor to pry into things we have not seen, and which we cannot see in a due manner, because not revealed, is everywhere condemned by our apostle, who warns us all to be “wise unto sobriety,” and not above what is written. But there is a secret delight and complacency of mind in every beam of spiritual light shining in its proper divine revelation, when the soul is disposed aright unto the reception of it. Without this in some measure, we shall not “follow on to know,” nor thrive in knowledge. 3. Study, meditation, and prayer, with the diligent use of all other means appointed for the search and investigation of the truth, do close this duty. Without these things in hearers, ministers lose all their labor in the declaration of the most important mysteries of the gospel. This the apostle, as to the present case, designs to obviate in the frequent prescription of this duty.That which the apostle proposeth in the first place, and in general, as the object of this inquiry and consideration, is Πηλίκοςοὗτος, “Quantus iste erat.” The word respects greatness and excellency in any kind: “Nunc quantus Achilles,” “Quantus erat Julius Caesar,” and the like. And this greatness of Melchisedec respected neither the endowments of his person, nor the largeness of his dominion, nor his riches or wealth; in which sense some are said to be great in the Scripture, as Job, Barzillai, and others: but it regards alone his dignity with respect unto his office, and his nearness unto God on that account. That which these Hebrews insisted on, as their chief and fundamental privilege in Judaism, and which they were most unwilling to forego, was the greatness of their predecessors, with their nearness unto God in favor and office. In the first way, as to divine love and favor, they gloried in Abraham, and opposed the privilege of being his children on all occasions unto the person and doctrine of Christ, John 8:33; John 8:53. And in the latter, they thought Aaron and his successors to be preferred above all the world. And whilst they were under the power and influence of these apprehensions the gospel could not but be ungrateful unto them, as depriving them of their privileges, and rendering their condition worse than it was before. To undeceive them in this matter, and to demonstrate how unspeakably all those in whom they trusted came short of the true high priest of the church, he calls them to consider the greatness of him whose only eminence consisted in being a type or representative of him. Wherefore the greatness of Melchisedec, here proposed unto earnest consideration, is that which he had in representing Jesus Christ, and his nearness unto God on that account. And it were well that we were all really convinced that all true greatness consists in the favor of God, and our nearness unto him, on the account of our relation unto Jesus Christ. We neither deny nor undervalue any man’s wealth or power hereby. Let those who are rich and wealthy in the world be accounted and called great, as the Scripture sometimes calls them so; and let those who are high in power and authority be so esteemed, — we would derogate nothing from them which is their due: but yet the greatness of them all is but particular, with respect unto some certain things, and therefore fading and perishing; but this greatness and honor, of the favor of God and nearness unto him, on the account of relation unto Jesus Christ, is general, abiding, yea, eternal. The proof of the apostle’s assertion, included in that interrogation, “How great this man was,” follows in an instance of what he had before observed and proposed unto them, “Unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils,” — ᾧκαὶδεκάτηνἔδωκε: δεκάτην, that is μερίδα, “the tenth part.” The conjunction καὶ is emphatical; and although in the original it is joined with δεκάτην, yet in construction it is to be understood with “Abraham;” — not, “unto whom Abraham gave even the tenth;” but, “unto whom even Abraham gave the tenth,” as it is in our translation.The proof of the greatness of Melchisedec from hence consists in three things: 1. In the nomination of the person that was subject unto him, or “Abraham.” 2. In the qualification of his person; he was “the patriarch.”3. In what he did; “he gave him the tenth part of the spoils.”1. As to the person himself, he was the stock and root of the whole people, their common father, in whom they were first separated from the other nations to be a people of themselves. And herein they had a singular reverence for him, as generally all nations have for the first founders of their political state; who among the idolatrous heathens were commonly deified, and made the objects of their religious adoration. But moreover, it was he who first received the promise and the covenant, with the token of it, and by whom alone they put in their claim unto all the privileges and advantages which they gloried in above all nations in the world. This Abraham, therefore, they esteemed next unto God himself. And their posterity do now place him in heaven above the angels, hardly allowing that the Messiah himself should be exalted above him, and tell a foolish story how he took it ill that the Messiah should be on the right hand, and he on the left hand of God. But it is sufficiently evident from the Gospel, how much in those days they boasted of him, and trusted in him. Hence it is that our apostle expresseth it so emphatically, “even Abraham.” 2. The qualification of his person, and his title thereon, are added in like manner: he was ὁπατριάρχης. A “patriarch” is a father; that is, a prince or ruler of a family, — a ruling father. And these patriarchs were of three sorts among the Jews. Of the first sort was he alone who was the first separated progenitor of the whole nation. He was their ΰָ ?αψִ ?ΰωׁ ?εֹ ?ο, — the first father of all that great family. Secondly, There were such as succeeded him, from whom the whole nation in like manner descended, as Isaac and Jacob; who were “heirs with him of the same promise,”Hebrews 11:9. Thirdly, Such as were the first heads of their twelve tribes, into which the nation was divided; that is, the twelve sons of Jacob, who are called patriarchs, Acts 7:8-9. Others that followed them, as David (who is also called a patriarch, Acts 2:29), were termed so in allusion unto them, and being signally the progenitors of a most eminent family among them. Now it is evident that the first of these on all accounts is the principal, and hath the pre-eminence over all the rest. And this was Abraham alone. Wherefore if any one were greater than Abraham, and that in his own time, it must be acknowledged it was upon the account of some privilege that was above all that ever that whole nation as descendants from Abraham were made partakers of. But that this was so, the apostle proves by the instance ensuing, namely, that he gave to Melchisedec, etc. 3. ῎Εδωκε, “he gave” them; yet not arbitrarily, but in the way of a necessary duty; not as an honorary respect, but as a religious office. And he gave thus δεκατην, — that is, μερίδα, or ξςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?ψ, the “tithe portion;” delivering it up unto his use and disposal, as the priest of the most high God. And this tenth was τῶνἀκροθινίων, as the apostle interprets the passage in Moses, — of the “spoils of war.” Θίν is “acervus,” “a heap of corn,” or any useful things; ἀκροθίνιον is the “top of the heap,” the best of it, from whence the first-fruits were taken for sacred services. And because it was the custom of all nations afterwards to dedicate or devote some portion of what they got in war unto religious services, the word itself came to signify “the spoils of war.” At first it was the portion that was taken out of the whole; and afterwards the whole itself was signified by it. Now, although Abraham had reserved nothing unto himself of what belonged unto the king of Sodom and his companions, yet the army and kings which he had newly slain and destroyed having smitten sundry other nations, Genesis 14:5-7, and dealt with them as they did with Sodom and the other towns, — took all their goods and provision, verse 11, — and being now on their return home, and laden with prey, it fell all into the hand of the conqueror. “The tenth part of the spoils,” in every kind, might probably be a very great offering, both for sacrifice and sacred dedication in the place where Melchisedec ministered in his office. What further concerns the greatness of this man, the apostle further declares in the ensuing verses, where it will fall under consideration. From this one instance, of Abraham’s paying tithes unto him, it is in a great measure already evinced. But how came Melchisedec to be thus great? Is it because he was originally in himself more wise and honorable than any of the sons of men? We read no such thing concerning him; which the apostle declares to be the rule and measure of all our conceptions in this matter. Is it that he attained this dignity and greatness by his own industry and endeavors? as the prophet says of some, that “their judgment and their dignity proceed from themselves,” Habakkuk 1:7. Neither do we find any thing of that nature ascribed unto him. The sole reason and cause hereof is, that God raised him up and disposed of him into that condition of his own good pleasure. And we may see in him, that, — Obs. 2. The sovereign will, pleasure, and grace of God, is that alone which puts a difference among men, especially in the church. — He makes men great or small, high or low, eminent or obscure, as it seemeth good unto him. “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and he hath set the world upon them,” 1 Samuel 2:8;which is plentifully elsewhere testified unto. Whence was it that the twelve poor fishermen were made apostles, to “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” and becoming princes in all nations? Who made the most glorious apostle of the first and fiercest persecutor? Was it not He who “hath mercy on whom he will have mercy,” and is “gracious unto whom he will be gracious?” And it is laid down as a universal rule, that no man hath any thing in this kind but what he hath freely received; nor doth any man make himself to differ from others, 1 Corinthians 4:7. For,1. God lays the foundation of all spiritual differences among men in his sovereign decree of eternal election, Romans 9:11-16; Ephesians 1:4. And among them that are chosen, he calleth them when and how he pleaseth, both unto grace and employment or work. And,2. As to grace, gifts, and spiritual endowments, the Holy Spirit “divideth unto every man as he will,” 1 Corinthians 12:11. Let every one, then, be contented with his lot and condition; let every one endeavor to fill up the place and state wherein he is fixed, and as he is called to abide with God. Let God be owned in all his gifts and graces; and our souls be humbled in what we come short of others; and the sovereignty of grace admired, in all the different effects of it which we behold.Obs. 3. Whereas even Abraham himself gave the tenth of all to Melchisedec, we may observe, that the highest privilege exempts not any from the obligation unto and performance of the meanest duty. — Notwithstanding all those advantages and privileges which Abraham was possessed of, on the account whereof he was mighty in his own days, and almost adored by his posterity, yet when the meanest duty was presented unto him, he readily complied with it. Nor ought it to be otherwise with any. For, 1. Privilege is less than duty. A man may have the greatest privileges and yet be rejected; but the least sincere duty shall not be unrewarded: for duty indeed is our chiefest honor and advantage. And for men to pretend to such advancements in the church of God, as that they should be exempted thereby from the ordinary labor of the ministry, is horrid pride and ingratitude. But when spiritual or ecclesiastical privileges are pretended to countenance men in a life or course of idleness, sloth, pleasure, sensuality, or worldliness in any kind, it is a crime that, it may be, we as yet want a name to express. Wherefore, 2. Whatever is pretended, that is no privilege which either exempts a man from or hinders him in and unto the performance of any duty whatever. It is such a privilege as, being well improved, will send men to hell. It will prove no otherwise, let the pretense be what it will. For,3. There are indeed but two ends of any privileges whereof in this world we may be made partakers; whereof the first is to enable us unto duty, and the other is to encourage us there- unto. Hereunto we may add, that when any are highly exalted in privileges, so that they have an advantage thereby to give an eminent example unto others is the performance of their duties, when these ends are not pursued, all privileges, promotions, dignities, exaltations, are snares, and tend unto the ruin of men’s souls. There are things still of this nature, both as unto whole churches and as unto particular persona Some churches are like Capernaum as to the outward means of grace, — as it were lifted up to heaven. Let them take heed of Capernaum’s judgment, in being brought down as low as hell for their abuse of them, or negligence in their improvement. Some persons have eminent endowments; and if they are not eminent in service, they will prove to their disadvantage: yea, the highest privileges should make-men ready to condescend unto the meanest duties. This is that which our Lord Jesus Christ so signally instructed his disciples in, when he himself washed their feet, and taught them the same duty towards the meanest of his disciples, John 13:11-17.Obs. 4. Opportunities for duty, which render it beautiful, ought diligently to be embraced. — So did Abraham as unto this duty, upon his meeting of Melchisedec. Hence the performance of this duty became so renowned, and was of the use whereunto it is here applied by our apostle. It is season that gives every thing its beauty. And omission of seasons, or tergiversations under them, are evidences of a heart much under the power of corrupt lusts or unbelief. Obs. 5. When the instituted use of consecrated things ceaseth, the things themselves cease to be sacred or of esteem. — For what became of all these dedicated things after the death of Melchisedec? They were no more sacred, the actual administration of his typical priesthood ceasing. Of what use was the brazen serpent, after it was taken from the pole whereon it was lifted up by God’s appointment or of what use would the lifting of it up be, when it was not under an express command? We know it proved a snare, a means of idolatry, and that was all. God’s institution is the foundation and warranty of all consecration. All the men in the world cannot really consecrate or dedicate any thing, but by virtue of divine appointment. And this appointment of God respected always a limited use, beyond which nothing was sacred. And every thing kept beyond its appointment is like manna so kept; “it breeds worms and stinketh.” These things are manifest, from the consideration of all things that God ever accepted or dedicated in the church. But ignorance of them is that which hath filled the world with horrid superstition. How many things have we had made sacred which never had warranty from any institution of God! — monasteries, abbeys, persons, and lands, altars, bells, utensils, with other things of the like nature very many; which, whatever use they are of, yet all the men in the world cannot make them sacred. And the extending of the sacredness of dedicated things beyond their use hath had a no less pernicious event. Hence was the useless reservation of the consecrated bread after the sacrament, and afterwards the idolatrous worship of it. But these things are here occasionally only mentioned. The apostle adds, in the confirmation of his argument, — Hebrews 7:5. — And verily they that are the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham. There is in these words an illustration and confirmation of the present argument, proving the preference of Melchisedec above Abraham, from his giving the tithe or tenth of all unto him, and consequently receiving the blessing from him. And this is taken from what was determined in the law and acknowledged among the Hebrews; with which kind of arguments the apostle doth principally press them in the whole epistle, as we have showed on many occasions. Now this is, that the priests, who received tithes by the law, were superior in dignity and honor unto the people from whom they did receive them. And this was only declared in the law, for the foundation of it was in the light of nature, as the apostle expressly intimates in the instance of benediction afterwards. There are considerable in the words, 1. The introduction of this new confirmation of his foregoing argument. 2. A description of the persons in whom he instanceth. 3. The action ascribed unto them, with its limitation. And, 4. The qualification of the persons on whom their power was exercised: —First, The introduction of his reasoning herein is in these words, Καὶοἱμέν. The connection in the conjunction is plain; yet not a reason is given of what was spoken before, but a continuation of the same argument with further proof is intended. And he adds the note of observation, μέν, “verily;” as if he had said, ‘As to this matter of tithing, and what may thence justly be inferred as to dignity and pre-eminence, you may consider how it was under the law; and what I propose unto you, you will there find directly confirmed.’It is a great advantage, to press them with whom we have to do from their own principles. Secondly, The description of the persons in whom he instanceth is in these words, “The sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood.” It was the priests directly whom he intended, or the sons of Aaron; and he might have so expressed it, ‘the priests according to the law.’But he varieth his expression for sundry reasons that appear in the context: —1. Because all the Levites did receive tithes by the law, yea, tithes in the first place were paid unto them in common. But because their dignity among the people was less conspicuous than that of the priests, and the design of the apostle is not merely to argue from the giving of tithes unto any, but the giving of them unto them as priests, as Abraham gave tithes of all unto Melchisedec as priest of the most high God, he thus expresseth it, “The sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood.” For though all the sons of Levi received tithes, yet all of them did not receive the priesthood; with which sort of persons alone he was concerned. 2. He doth thus express it to introduce the mention of Levi, whom he was afterwards to mention on the same occasion, and to lay the weight of him and the whole tribe under the same argument.3. He minds them, by the way, of another dignity of the priest-hood, in that not all the posterity of Abraham, rio, nor yet of Levi, were partakers thereof, but it was a privilege granted only to one part of them, even the family of Aaron. And these are the persons in whom he makes his instance. Thus God distributes dignity and pre-eminence in the church as he pleaseth. Not all the posterity of Abraham, but only those of Levi, were set apart to receive tithes; and not all the posterity of Levi, but only the family of Aaron, did receive the priesthood. And this order of his sovereign pleasure God required of them all to submit unto and acquiesce in, Numbers 16:9-10. And it is a dangerous thing, out of envy, pride, or emulation, to transgress the bounds of dignity and office that God hath prescribed; as we may see in the instance of Korah. For every man to be contented with the station which God hath fixed him unto by rule and providence, is his safety and honor. What God calleth and disposeth men unto, therein are they to abide, and to that are they to attend. It was new to the people, to set the whole tribe of Levi, taken into a particular sacred condition, to attend for ever on the worship of God; yet therein they acquiesced. But when the priests were taken out of the Levites, and exalted above them, some of them murmured at it, and stirred up the congregation against Aaron, as though he took too much upon him, and deprived the congregation of their liberty, which yet was all holy. The end of this sedition was known, notwithstanding the specious pretense of it. Thirdly, What is ascribed unto these persons ensues in the words, “Have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law.” They had “a command to take tithes;” and they were to do it “according to the law:” the one was their warranty, and the other their rule; for so are the “commandment” and the “law” here to be distinguished.1. They had a “commandment to take tithes;” — that is, there was a command or institution enabling them so to do; for the command in the first place respected the people, making it their duty to pay all their tithes unto the Levites. God did first take the tithe to be his peculiar portion; and thereby alienated it from the people, that they had no propriety in it. “And all the tithe of the land,” saith he, “is the LORD’S,” Leviticus 27:30. Hence those that withheld their tithes are said to “rob God,” Malachi 3:8. And wherever it can be manifested that God hath, by an institution of his own, taken the whole tithes of any place into his own possession, there for any to detain them for their own use, it is sacrilege, and not else. But God having thus in the land of Canaan taken them into his own propriety, he commanded the people to pay them to the priests. This command given unto the people to pay them, was a command to the priests to receive them; for what men have a right to do in the church, by God’s institution, that they have a command to do. The right of the priests unto tithing was such, as that it was not at all their liberty to forego it at their pleasure; yea, it was their sin so to have done. The command which obliged others to pay them, obliged them to receive them. And they who on slight pretences do forego what is due to them with respect unto their office, will on as slight, when occasion serves, neglect what is due from them on the same account. And this fell out frequently with the priests of old; they neglected their wages, that they might have countenance in the neglect of their work. And we may hence observe, that, — Obs. 6. Rule, institution, and command, without regard unto unrequired humility, or pleas of greater zeal and self-denial, unless in evident and cogent circumstances, are the best preservatives of order and duty in the church. — They are so in every kind, especially in the disposal of earthly things, such as the maintenance of the officers of the church doth consist in. Neither the people’s pretense of poverty, nor the ministers’pretense of humility, will regulate this matter as it ought to be. But as it is the people’s duty to provide for them, wherein they exercise grace and obedience towards Jesus Christ; so it is the ministers’duty cheerfully to receive what is their due by the appointment of Christ, for they have a command so to do. But whereas they are not many who are apt to transgress on this hand, we shall not need further to press this consideration. But we may add, —Obs. 7. As it is the duty of those who are employed in sacred ministrations to receive what the Lord Christ hath appointed for their supportment, and in the way of his appointment, so it is likewise, without trouble, solicitousness, or complaint, to acquiesce therein. — So was it with the priests of old, they were to receive their portion, and to acquiesce in their portion; the neglect of which duty was the sin of the sons of Eli. We take it for granted that the way of maintenance is changed as to the ministers of holy things under the new testament. That the law of maintenance is taken away is the highest folly to imagine, it being so expressly asserted by our Savior himself and his apostle, Luke 10:7; 1 Corinthians 9. But here it is thought lies the disadvantage, that whereas the priests under the old testament had a certain portion which was legally due unto them, and they might demand it as their own, it is now referred unto the voluntary contribution of them that have the benefit and advantage of their labor. Now whereas they oftentimes, yea, for the most part, are negligent in their duty, and, through love of the present world, very scanty and backward in their contributions, ministers cannot be supported in their work in any measure proportionable unto what the priests were of old. Besides, it should seem unworthy a minister of the gospel, who ought to be had in esteem, and is declared by the apostle to be “worthy of double honor,” to depend on the will, and as it were charity of the people, many of them, it may be, poor and low themselves. And these things have taken such impression on the minds of the most of them that are called ministers, as that, with the help of the secular power, they have wisely provided a new way and law of legal tithing for their subsistence, with a notable overplus of other good ecclesiastical lands and revenues: which practice I shall neither justify nor condemn, let the effects of it and the day declare it. Only I say, that the institution of Christ before mentioned stands in no need of this invention or supply to safeguard it from these objections. For, — (1.) The change made in the way of maintenance, pretended so disadvantageous unto ministers of the gospel, is no other but a part of that universal alteration, wherein carnal things are turned into those that are more spiritual, which was made by the bringing in of the kingdom of Christ, And if ministers may complain that they have by the gospel lost the former allotment of sacred officers in tithes, the people may as well complain that they have no inheritances in the land of Canaan. But he is unworthy the name of a minister of the gospel, who is not satisfied with what our Lord hath ordained in every kind. And as for those who indeed think better of what was of use in Judaism or heathenism than what is warranted by the gospel, I shall not debate the matter with them. Wherefore as yet I judge, that the taking of the maintenance of sacred ministers from the law of a carnal commandment enforcing of it, and charging it on the grace and duty of the church, is a perfective alteration, becoming the spirituality and glory of the kingdom of Christ. For, — (2.) This way is the most honorable way, and that which casts the greatest respect upon them. Even the princes and rulers of the world have their revenue and supportment from the substance of the people. Now I would only ask, whether it would not be more honorable that the people should willingly and of their own accord bring in their contribution, than merely pay it under the compulsion of a law? For in this latter way, no man knoweth whether they have the least true honor for their ruler or regard unto his office; but if it might be done in the former, all the world must take notice what reverence, regard, and honor they have for the person and dignity of their prince. It is true, generally the men of the world are such lovers of themselves, and so little concerned in public good, that if they were left absolutely at liberty in this matter, their governors might be defrauded of their right, and the ends of government be disappointed; wherefore, in all countries provision is made by law for the payment of that tribute which yet without law is due. But whether it be meet to bring this order into the church or no, I much question. If it be so, possibly it may secure the revenue of ministers, but it will not increase their honor. For however men may please themselves with outward appearances of things, true honor consists in that respect and reverence which others pay them in their minds and hearts. Now when this is such, and that on the account of duty, that men will freely contribute unto our supportment, I know no more honorable subsistence in the world. ‘What!’will some say, ‘to depend on the will and love of the people? — there is nothing more base and unworthy!’Yea, but what if all the honor that Jesus Christ himself hath, or accepts from his people, proceeds from their wills and affections? Mohammed, indeed, who knew well enough that neither honor, respect, nor obedience was due unto him, and that he could no way recompense what should be done towards him in that kind, provided that men should be brought in subjection unto his name by fire and sword. But our Lord Jesus Christ despiseth all honor, all obedience and respect, that are not voluntary and free, and which do not proceed from the wills of men. And shall his servants in the work of the gospel suppose themselves debased, to receive respect and honor from the same principle? Well, therefore, because our apostle tells us that “our Lord hath ordained that those who preach the gospel shall live on the gospel,” and all obedience unto his ordinances and institutions must be voluntary, if ministers are ashamed, and esteem it unworthy of them, to receive what is so contributed in a way of voluntary obedience, let them try if they can prevail with themselves to receive it so for Him, and in his name, who is not ashamed to receive it, no, if it be only a cup of cold water, so it come from a free and willing mind, when he despiseth the revenue of the whole world upon compulsion. If they will not do so, their best way is to leave his service, and take up with that which is more honorable. For my part, I do judge that the way of maintenance of ministers by voluntary benevolence, in a way of duty and obedience unto Christ, though it be not likely the most plentiful, is yet the most honorable of all others. And of this judgment I shall be, until I am convinced of two things: [1. That true honor doth not consist in the respect and regard of the minds of men unto the real worth and usefulness of those who are honored, but in outward ceremonies and forced works of regard. [2. That it is not the duty which every church owes to Jesus Christ, to maintain those who labor in the word and doctrine, according to their ability; or that it is any gospel-duty which is influenced by force or compulsion. (3.) It must be acknowledged, that this way of voluntary contribution is not like to afford matter for that grandeur and secular greatness, those ample revenues, those provisions for ease, wealth, and worldly honor, which some think necessary in this case. But yet, however, it must be granted, that all those large possessions and dominions which some now enjoy under the name of church-revenues, were originally voluntary grants and contributions. For it will not be said that the clergy got them by force of arms, or by fraud, nor were they their patrimonial inheritance. But yet I fear there were some undue artifices used to induce men unto such donations and ecclesiastical endowments, and somewhat more of merit fixed thereon than truth will allow, besides a compensation therein for what might be undergone in purgatory, when men were gone out of the world. However, the thing itself in its whole kind, that men out of their substance and revenue should design a portion unto the service of the church, is not to be condemned. But it proved mischievous and fatal, when those who received what was so given, being unmeasurably covetous and worldly, fixed no bounds unto the charity or superstition of men in this kind, until they had overrun the world with their gains. And not only so, but whereas there was no pretense of use of such great revenues, in any way pretended to be of divine appointment, they were forced to invent and find out ways innumerable, in abbeys, monasteries, cloisters, to be repositories of their overflowing treasure and revenues. But when God had appointed to build his tabernacle of the free-will offerings of the people (a type of the gospel- church), when there was provision enough of materials brought in, the liberality of the people was restrained by proclamation, and some perhaps grieved that their offerings were not received, Exodus 36:5-6. Through want of this care to put a stop unto the devotions of men in these donations, according unto a just measure of the church’s necessary use, the bounds whereof were broken up and left invisible, by the pride, ambition, covetousness, and craft of the clergy, the whole world ran into superstition and confusion. At present, I grant that the way which the gospel appoints is not likely to make provision for pomp, grandeur, wealth, revenues, and inheritances, unto them that rely upon it. Nor do I think that if the present establishment of a superfluous revenue unto the clergy were removed, the world itself would in haste run into the same state again. Wherefore, those who judge these things necessary and desirable, must be permitted, as far as I know, to betake themselves unto the advantage the world will afford; it is acknowledged that the gospel hath made no provision of them. (4.) It is indeed supposed, unto the disadvantage of this way, that by means thereof ministers do become obnoxious unto the people, do depend upon them, and so cannot deal so uprightly and sincerely with their consciences as they ought to do, lest they incur their displeasure, wherein they are too much concerned. It were easy to manifest with how many more and greater inconveniencies the other way is attended, were we now comparing of them. And in truth it is a vain thing to look for or expect any such order and disposal of these things, as should administer no occasion for the wisdom and graces of those concerned; nor would such a way be at all useful. I say, therefore, that God hath established mutual duty to be the rule and measure of all things between ministers and people. Hereunto it is their wisdom and grace to attend, leaving the success unto God. And a minister may easily conclude, that seeing his whole supportment in earthly things, with respect unto his ministry, depends on the command of God on the account of the discharge of his duty, if he have respect thereunto in his work, or so far as it is lawful for him to have, that the more sincere and upright he is therein, the more assured will his supportment be. And he who is enabled to give up himself unto the work of the ministry in a due manner, considering the nature of that work, and what he shall assuredly meet withal in its discharge, is not in much danger of being greatly moved with this pitiful consideration of displeasing this or that man in the discharge of his duty. (5.) It is further pleaded, that these things were tolerable at the first entrance and beginning of Christianity, when the zeal, love, and liberality of its professors, did sufficiently stir them up unto an abundant discharge of their duty; but now the whole body of them is degenerate from their pristine faith and love: coldness and indifferency in the things of their eternal concernment, with love of self and this present evil world, do so prevail in them all, as that, if things were left unto their wills and sense of duty, there would quickly be an end of all ministry, for want of maintenance. This is of all others the most cogent argument in this case, and that which prevails with many good and sober men utterly to decry the way of ministers’maintenance by a voluntary contribution. I shall briefly give my thoughts concerning it, and so return from this digression. And I say, — [1. I do not condemn any provision that is made by good, wholesome, and righteous laws among men, for this end and purpose, provided it be such as is accommodated unto the furtherance of the work itself. Such provision as in its own nature is a snare and temptation, inclining men unto pride, ambition, luxury, distance from, and elation above the meanest of the sheep or lambs of Christ, or as it were requiring a worldly grandeur and secular pomp in their course of life, must plead for itself as it is able. But such as may comfortably support, encourage, and help men in this work and discharge of their duty, being made without the wrong of others, is doubtless to be approved. Yea, if, in this degeneracy of Christianity under which we suffer, any shall, out of love and obedience unto the gospel, set apart any portion of their estates, and settle it unto the service of the church in the maintenance of the ministry, it is a good work, which, if done in faith, will be accepted. [2. Let those who are true disciples indeed know, that it is greatly incumbent on them to roll away that reproach which is cast upon the institutions of Christ by the miscarriages of the generality of Christians. He hath “ordained that those who preach the gospel shall live on the gospel.” And the way whereby he hath prescribed this to be effected is, that those who are his disciples should, in obedience unto his command, supply them with temporals by whom spirituals are dispensed unto them. If this be not done, a reproach is cast upon his institutions, as insufficient unto the end for which they were designed. It is therefore incumbent on all who have any true zeal for the glory and honor of Christ, to manifest their exemplary obedience and fruitfulness in this matter; whereby it may appear that it is not any defect in the appointment of Christ, but the stubborn disobedience and unbelief of men, that is the cause of any disorder. [3. Seeing there is such a degeneracy among Christians, as that they will not be wrought upon unto a voluntary discharge of their duty in this matter, it may be inquired what hath been the cause, or at least the principal occasion thereof. Now if this should be found and appear to be, the coldness, remissness, neglect, ignorance, sloth, ambition, and worldliness, of those who have been their guides and leaders, their officers and ministers, in most ages, it will evince how little reason some have to complain that the people are backward and negligent in the discharge of their duty. And if it be true, as indeed it is, that the care of religion, that it be preserved, thrive, and flourish, not only in themselves but in the whole church, has been committed unto those persons, there can be no such apostasy as is complained of among the people, but that the guilt of it will lie at their doors. And if it be so, it is to be inquired whether it be the duty of ministers absolutely to comply with them in their degeneration, and suffer them to live in the neglect of their duty in this matter, only providing for themselves some other way; or whether they ought not rather by all ways and means to endeavor their recovery into their pristine condition. If it be said, that whatever men pretend, yet it is a thing impossible, to work the people into a due discharge of their duty in this matter, — I grant it is, whilst that is only or principally intended. But if men would not consider themselves or their interest in the first place, but really endeavor their recovery unto faith, love, obedience, and holiness, and that by their own example as well as teaching, it may well be hoped that this duty would revive again in the company of others; for it is certain it will never stand alone by itself. But we must proceed with our apostle. 2. Those sons of Levi who obtained the priesthood “received tithes- according to the law;” that is, as the matter or manner of tithing was determined by the law. For by “tithes” I understand that whole portion which, by God’s order and command, belonged unto the priests; and this in all the concerns of it was determined by the law. What, when, how, of whom, all was expressly established by law. So they received tithes according to the law, — in the order, way and manner therein determined; for it is God’s law and appointment that gives boundaries and measures unto all duties. What is done according unto them is straight, right, and acceptable; whatever is otherwise, however it may please our own wisdom or reason, is crooked, froward, perverse, and rejected of God. But there is an objection that this assertion of the apostle seems liable unto, which we must take notice of in our passage. For whereas he affirms that “the Levites who received the office of the priesthood took tithes of. their brethren,” it is evident, from the first grant and institution of tithing, that the Levites who were not priests were the first who immediately received them of the people. See Numbers 18:21-24.Ans. (1.) By “tithes” the whole consecrated portion according unto the law is intended, as we said before. Hereof the portion allotted unto the priests out of various offerings or sacrifices was no small part, wherein the Levites had no interest, but they belonged and were delivered immediately unto the priests.(2.) The Levites themselves were given unto the priests, for their service in and about holy things, Numbers 3:9. Whatever afterwards was given unto the Levites, it was so with reference unto the supportment of the priesthood in due order. The tithes, therefore, that were paid to the Levites were in the original grant of all to the priests.(3.) The priests tithed the whole people in that tenth of all which they received of the Levites; and that being given unto them, what remained in the possession of the Levites themselves came, as all other clean things, to be used promiscuously, Numbers 18:26-32.Fourthly, The privilege of the priests in taking the tenth of all is amplified by the consideration of the persons from whom they took them. Now these were not strangers or foreigners, but their own brethren. And these also were so their brethren as that they had a right unto, and were partakers of the same original privileges with themselves; which did not exempt them from the duty of paying tithes of all unto them: “Took tithes of their brethren, though they came out of the loins of Abraham.” Abraham first received the promises, and was an equal common spring of privileges to his whole posterity. The priests were not more children of Abraham than the people were. The whole people, therefore, being so, and thereby equally interested in all the privileges of Abraham, or the church of believers it is manifest how great the honor and pre-eminence of the priests were, in that they took tithes of them all. And this the apostle declares, to strengthen his argument for the greatness and excellency of Melchisedec, in that he received tithes of Abraham himself. And we may learn, — Obs. 8. That it is God’s prerogative to give dignity and preeminence in the church among them which are otherwise equal; which is to be acquiesced in. — Our common vocation by the word states us all equally in the same privilege, as all the children of Abraham were in that respect in the same condition; but in this common state God makes, by his prerogative, a threefold difference among believers; as to grace, as to gifts, as to office. For, —1. Although all true believers have the same grace in the kind thereof, yet some much excel others in the degrees and exercise of it. As one star differeth from another, that is, excelleth another, in glory, so here one saint excelleth another in grace. This, both the examples of the Scripture and the experience of all ages of the church do testify. And this dependeth on the sovereign pleasure of God. As he is “gracious unto whom he will be gracious,” so when, and how, and in what measure he pleaseth. Some shall have grace sooner than others, and some that which is more eminent than others have: only, he that hath least shall have no lack, as to making of him meet for the inheritance of the saints in light; and he that hath most hath no more than he shall find need of and exercise for. But so it is, some God will have as pillars in his house, and some are but as bruised reeds. And every one’s duty it is for himself, in his place and condition, to comply with the will of God herein.(1.) Let not the weak, the feeble of the flock, those who either really are so or in their own apprehensions, complain or faint. For,[1. There is no man in the world that hath so little grace, who hath any, but he hath ‘more than he ever deserved; as none hath so much, as that any dram of it is of his own earning. And as he who hath nothing but what he hath freely received, hath nothing to boast of; so he who hath that which he never deserved, hath no reason to complain. [2. It is the pleasure of God it should be so. If it be his will to keep us spiritually poor, so we are thereby kept humble, we shall be no losers. I say not this, as though any one who hath but a little grace, or apprehends himself to have so, should, on the pretense that such is the will of God concerning him and his condition, neglect the most earnest endeavor after more, — which would be a shrewd evidence that he hath none at all; but that those who, in a diligent use of means for growth and improvement, cannot yet arrive unto such an increase, such an addition of one grace unto another, as that their profiting may be manifest (which fails out on several occasions), may find relief in the sovereign pleasure of God to keep them in their low condition. [3. They may do well to consider, that indeed there is a great deal of glory in the least of true grace. Though there be not so much as in more grace, yet there is more than in all things under the sun besides. No man hath so little grace, who hath any, as that he is ever able to set a sufficient price upon it, or to be thankful enough for it. [4. There is, indeed, so much spoken in the Scripture concerning the love, care, compassion, and tenderness of our Lord Jesus Christ, towards the weak, the sick, the diseased of his flock, that on some accounts the state of those humble souls who have yet received but little grace seems to be most safe and desirable, Isaiah 40:11. Let not such, therefore, complain; it is God alone who is the author of this difference between them and others. And on the same grounds,(2.) Those who are strong, who have much grace, ought not,[1. To boast or be lifted up; for, as we observed before, they have nothing but what they have freely received. Yea, it is very suspicious that what any one boasteth of is not grace; for it is the nature of all true grace to exclude all boasting. He that, by comparing himself with others, finds any other issue in his thoughts, but either to admire sovereign grace or to judge himself beneath them, is in an ill condition, or at least in an ill frame. [2. Nor to trust unto what they have received. There is none hath so much grace as not every moment to need supplies of more. And he who, like Peter, trusteth unto that wherein he is above others, will one way or other be brought down beneath them all. [3. Let such be greatly fruitful, or this appearance of much grace will issue in much darkness. 2. God dealeth thus with men as to spiritual gifts. Among those who are called, the Spirit divideth unto every one even as he will. Unto one he giveth five talents, unto another two, and to a third but one. And this diversity, depending merely on God’s sovereignty, is visible in all churches. And as this tends in itself unto their beauty and edification, so there may be an abuse of it unto their disadvantage; for besides those disorders which the apostle declares to have ensued, particularly in the church of Corinth, upon the undue use and exercise of spiritual gifts, there are sundry evils which may befall particular persons by reason of them, if their original and end be not duly attended unto. For, (1.) Those who have received these spiritual gifts in any eminent manner may be apt to be lifted up with good conceits of themselves, and even to despise their brethren who come behind them therein. This evil was openly prevalent in the church of Corinth.(2.) Among those who have received them in some equality, or would be thought so to have done, emulations, and perhaps strifes thereon, are apt to ensue. One cannot well bear that the gift of another should find more acceptance, or be better esteemed than his own; and another may be apt to extend himself beyond his due line and measure, because of them. And,(3.) Those who have received them in the lowest degree may be apt to despond, and refuse to trade with what they have, because their stock is inferior unto their neighbors.’But what is all this to us? May not God do what he will with his own? If God will have some of the sons of Abraham to pay tithes, and some to receive them, is there any ground of complaint? Unto him that hath the most eminent gifts, God hath given of his own, and not of ours; he hath taken nothing from us to endue him withal, but supplied him out of his own stores. Whoever, therefore, is unduly exalted with them, or envies because of them, he despiseth the prerogative of God, and contends with him that is mighty.3. God distinguisheth persons with respect unto office. He makes, and so accounts, whom he will faithful, and puts them into the ministry. This of old Korah repined against. And there are not a few who free themselves from envy at the ministry, by endeavoring to bring it down into contempt. But the office is honorable; and so are they by whom it is discharged in a due manner. And it is the prerogative of God to call whom he pleaseth thereunto. And there is no greater usurpation therein than the constitution of ministers by the laws, rules, and authority of men. For any to set up such in office as he hath not gifted for it, nor called unto it, is to sit in the temple of God, and to show themselves to be God. We may also hence observe, that, — Obs. 9. No privilege can exempt persons from subjection unto any of God’s institutions, though they were of the loins of Abraham. Yet, — ῾Οδὲμὴγενεαλογούμενοςἐξαὐτῶνδεδεκάτωκετὸν᾿Αβραὰμ, καὶτὸνἔχοντατὰςἐπαγγελίαςεὐλόγνκε.The Ethiopic translation omits these words, ῾Οδὲμὴγενεαλογοὐμενοςἐξαὐτῶνδεδεκάτωκετὸν᾿Αβραάμ. He takes up the name “Abraham” in the foregoing verse, “who came forth out of the loins of Abraham;” and adds unto them what follows in this, “who received the promises;” possibly deceived by a maimed transcript of the original.Μὴγενεαλογούμενος. Syr. δָ ?πָ ?ΰγֵּ ?ιογְ ?μָ ?ΰλְּ ?ϊִ ?ιπαְּ ?ωַׁ ?ψְ αָּ ?ϊְ ?δεּ ?ο “he who is not written in the genealogies:” properly enough; for the apostle speaks of the genealogies that were written and on record in the book of Genesis, wherein there is none of Melchisedec; and it is the writing by divine inspiration that his argument is founded on. Answ. “Genealogisatus,” “genealogized.” “Is cujus genus non recensetur ex illis,”” whose stock is not reckoned from them;” or as Beza, “ad illos non refertur.” Vulg. Lat., “cujus generatio non annumeratur in eis;” that is, as the Rhemists, “he whose generation is not numbered among them.” Ours, “whose descent is not counted from them;” putting “pedigree” in the margin. Γενεαλογούμενος is, “is cujus ortus,” “generatio,” “nativitas recensetur;” whose “original,” “nativity,” “stock, “race, is reckoned up,” or “recorded.”᾿᾿Εξαὐτῶν, “from them,” “from among them.” Vulg. Lat., “in eis,” for “inter cos,” “among them;” “whose generation is not numbered among them.” The meaning is, he was not of their stock or race; he sprang not of them, nor arose from among them.Δεδεκάτωκε, “decimas tulit,” “sumpsit,” “exegit” “accepit,” “decimavit.” Δεκατεύω is “decimo,” or “decimam partem excerpo;” “to take out the tenth part:” Τὰτῶνπολεμίωνδεκατεύσεινεὐξάμενοςτότε, Plut. in Camillo; “ex spoliis hostium decimas excerpere.” Δεκατόω, with an accusative case, as here, is “to receive tithes of any;” and ἀποδεκατόω, in the same construction, is of the same signification: verse 5, ᾿Αποδεκατοῦν. But absolutely it signifies “to pay tithes,” or, “to give tithes,” not to receive them: Luke 18:12, ᾿Αποδεκατῶπάνταὅσακτῶμαι — “ I tithe all that I possess;” that is, give tithe out of it. Hebrews 7:6. — But he whose descent is not reckoned from them, received tithes from Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.A description there is in these words of Melchisedec, by a negation of a certain respect, useful to be observed unto the design of the apostle; and then an assertion upon a supposition thereof. 1. He was a person whose descent, pedigree, nativity, traduction of stock and lineage, was not reckoned from among them. He had before observed absolutely, that he was not at all genealogized: verse 3, ἀγενεαλόγητος,— “without descent.” And how this was necessary, to shadow out the eternity of the priesthood of Christ, we have declared. For if he had had any genealogy, or had stood in need thereof, it had been to show from whom he derived his priesthood, and unto whom it was transmitted; whereas he had no such circumstances, nor was to have, as to the end of his call and office. Hence it follows, in particular, that he could not derive his descent from Levi. Morally he could not, because so he had none at all; and naturally he could not, for in his days Levi was only yet in the loins of Abraham: so that in no respect he could descend from him. But the apostle hath a peculiar intention in this verse; for whereas he designed to prove the greatness of Melchisedec from his receiving tithes, he intends here to declare on what right and title he did so. For there were but two ways whereby any one did or might take tithes of any: (1.) By virtue of the law, or institution of God in the law. This way none could do so but he who legally derived his descent from Levi.(2.) By virtue of some especial grant or personal privilege, either before or above the law. Whereas, therefore, Melchisedec, as is here declared, had no interest in the former, it must be with respect unto the latter that he had this right; which argues his dignity. So God may, and doth sometimes, communicate of his favor and privileges thereby, by especial exemption, and not by an ordinary rule or constitution. I do not at all know, nor can it be proved, that God is now, by his word, or law, or constitution, obliged to give no ministry unto the church but by virtue of an orderly outward call according to the rule. It is true, we are obliged to keep ourselves unto the rule and law in the call of ministers, so far as we are able; but whether God hath bound himself unto that order, I very much question. Yea, when there is any great and signal work to be done in the church, — it may be, such as the church cannot or will not call any unto, even such a reformation of persons as may prove a dissolution of its constitution, — if God raise, gift, and providentially call, any unto that work, assisting them in it, I should not doubt of the lawfulness of their ministry, as granted unto them by especial privilege, though not communicated by external rule and order. It is good, ordinarily, to be genealogized into the ministry by established rule; but God can, by virtue of his own sovereignty, grant this privilege unto whom he pleaseth. And let not any imagine that such a supposition must needs immediately open a door unto confusion; for there are invariable rules to try men and their ministry by at all times, whether they are sent of God or no. The doctrine which they teach, the ends which they promote, the lives which they lead, the circumstances of the seasons wherein they appear, will sufficiently manifest whence such teachers are. 2. Having thus described Melchisedec, and manifested on what account the things mentioned were ascribed or did belong unto him, he mentions the things themselves, which were two:(1.) That he “received tithes of Abraham.”(2.) That “he blessed him.”In both which he demonstrates his greatness and dignity: (1.) By the consideration of the person of whom he received tithes; it was Abraham himself. (2.) By an especial circumstance of Abraham; it was “he who had received- the promises,” from whence the whole church of Israel claimed their privileges: —(1.) He “received tithes of Abraham.” The Levitical priests received tithes of those who came out of the loins of Abraham; which was an evidence of their dignity by God’s appointment: but he received them of Abraham himself; which evidently declares his superiority above them, as also herein above Abraham himself. And the apostle, by insisting on these things so particularly, shows,[1. How difficult a matter it is to dispossess the minds of men of those things which they have long trusted unto, and boasted of. It is plain, from the Gospel throughout, that all the Jews looked on this as their great privilege and advantage, that they were the posterity of Abraham: whom they conceived on all accounts the greatest and most honorable person that ever was in the world. Now, although there was much herein, yet when they began to abuse it, and trust unto it, it was necessary that their confidence should be abated and taken down. But so difficult a matter was this to effect, as that the apostle applies every argument unto it that hath a real force and evidence in it, especially such things as they had not before considered; as it is plain they were utterly ignorant in the instructive part of this story of Melchisedec. And we see, in like manner, when men are possessed with an inveterate conceit of their being “the church,” and having all the privileges of it enclosed unto them, although they have long since forfeited openly all right thereunto, how difficult a thing it is to dispossess their minds of that pleasing presumption. [2. That every particle of divine truth is instructive and argumentative, when it is rightly used and improved. Hence the apostle presseth all the circumstances of this story, from every one of them giving light and evidence unto the great truth which he sought to confirm. (2.) That it might yet further appear how great Melchisedec was, who received tithes of Abraham, he declares who Abraham was, in an instance of his great and especial privilege. It was he who “had the promises.” This he singles out as the greatest privilege and honor of Abraham, as it was indeed the foundation of all the other mercies which he enjoyed, or advantages that he was intrusted withal. The nature of this promise, with the solemn manner of its giving unto Abraham, and the benefits included in it, he had at large declared, Hebrews 6:13-16. Hereby Abraham became “the father of the faithful,” “the heir of the world,” and “the friend of God;” so that it exceedingly illustrates the greatness of Melchisedec, in that this Abraham paid tithes unto him.The medium of the argument in this instance is liable only unto one exception, namely, ‘That Abraham was not the first that received the promises; so that although he was not, yet there might be others greater than Melchisedec, who never made any acknowledgment of his pre- eminence. For the promise was given unto Adam himself, immediately after the fall; as also unto Noah, in the covenant made with him; and to others also, who, before Abraham, died in the faith.’ Ans. It is true, they had the promise and the benefit of it; but yet so as in sundry things Abraham was preferred above them all. For, [1. He had the promise more plainly and clearly given unto him, than any of his predecessors in the faith. Hence he was the first of whom it is said, that “he saw the day of Christ, and rejoiced;” as having a clearer view of his coming, and of salvation by him, than any that went before him. [2. The promise was confirmed unto him by an oath, which it had not been unto any before. [3. The promised Seed was in it peculiarly confined unto his family or posterity. See Hebrews 2:16.[4. His receiving of the promise was that which was the foundation of the church in his posterity, which he had peculiarly to deal withal. He had, therefore, the pre-eminence above all others in this matter of receiving the promises. But it may yet be said, ‘That Abraham had not received the promises then, when he was blessed of Melchisedec, so that it was no argument of his pre- eminence at that time.’But, [1. He had before received the same promise, for the substance of it, which was afterwards more solemnly confirmed unto him, on the trial of his faith in offering his only son, Genesis 12:2-3; Genesis 13:15-16.[2. He was then actually instated in a right unto all that further confirmation of the promises which he received on various occasions; and what followed added not unto the dignity of his person, but served only unto the confirmation of his faith. So “Melchisedec blessed him who had the promises.” And we may observe, — Obs. 1. We can be made partakers of no such grace, mercy, or privilege in this world, but that God can, when he pleaseth, make an addition thereunto. “He who had received the promises” was afterwards “blessed.” — We depend upon an infinite Fountain of grace and mercy, from whence it is made out unto us by various degrees, according to the good pleasure of God. Neither will he give unto us, nor are we capable to receive, in this world, the whole of what he hath provided for us, in the enjoyment whereof our final blessedness doth consist. Wherefore, as it is required of us to be thankful for what we have, or to walk worthy of the grace we have received, yet we may live in constant expectation of more from him; and it is the great comfort and relief of our souls that we may so do. Obs. 2. It is the blessing of Christ, typed in and by Melchisedec, that makes promises and mercies effectual unto us, — He is himself the great subject of the promises, and the whole blessing of them cometh forth from him alone. All besides him, all without him, is of or under the curse. In him, from him, and by him only, are all blessings to be obtained. Obs. 3. Free and sovereign grace is the only foundation of all privileges. — All that is spoken of the dignity of Abraham is resolved into this, that “he received the promises.” But what if Abraham was thus blessed by Melchisedec, doth this prove that he was less than he by whom he was blessed? It doth so, saith the apostle, and that by virtue of an unquestionable general rule: — Hebrews 7:7. — Χωρὶςδὲπάσηςἀντιλογίας, τὸἔλαττονὐπὸτοῦκρείττονοςεὐλογεῖται.Χωρὶςδὲπάσηςἀντιλογίας. Erasm., “porro nemo negat;” “absque ulla, omni contradictione;” “and without all contradiction.”The words ἔλαττον and κρείττον, “less” and “greater,” are in the neuter gender, and so rendered in most translations, “illud quod minus est, a majore;” only the Syriac reduceth them to the masculine, δָ ?εγַּ ?ξְּ ?ιַ ?ϊַּ ?ψξֶ ?πֵ ?δּ δָ ?εγַּ ?αְ ?φִ ?ιψξֶ ?ϊְ ?αַּ ?ψַ ?κְ ξֵ ?ο, “he who is the less is blessed of him who is greater,” or “more excellent than he;” which is the sense of the words. Hebrews 7:7. — And, without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the greater.The words prevent an objection, which is supposed, not expressed; and therefore are they continued with those foregoing by the conjunction δέ, as carrying on what was before asserted by a further illustration and confirmation of it. And there is in them,1. The manner of the assertion; and, 2. The proposition itself: —1. The manner of it is in these words, Χωρὶςπάσηςἀντιλογίας — “Without,” beyond, above, “all reasonable contradiction.” A truth this is that cannot, that will not be gainsaid, which none will deny or oppose; as that which is evident in the light of nature, and which the order of the things spoken of doth require. All truths, especially divine truths, are such as ought not to be contradicted; and which no contradiction can evert, or change their natures, that they should not so be. But against some of them, — not for want of truth, but either from want of evidence in themselves or from want of light in them unto whom they are proposed, — contradictions may arise, and they may be called into dispute or question. Thus it hath fallen out with all truths which we receive by mere supernatural revelation. The darkness of the minds of men, unable clearly to discern them and perfectly to comprehend them, will raise disputes about them, and objections against them. But some truths there are which have such an evidence in themselves, and such a suitableness unto the principles of reason and natural light, that no color of opposition can be made unto them. And if any, out of brutish affections or prejudices, do force an opposition unto them, they are to be neglected and not contended withal. Wherefore that which is here intimated is, that there are some principles of truth that are so secured in their own evidence and light, as that, being unquestionable in themselves, they may be used and improved as concessions, whereon other less evident truths may be confirmed and established. The due consideration hereof is of great use in the method of teaching, or in the vindication of any questioned truths from opposition. In all teaching, especially in matters that are controverted, it is of great advantage to fix some unquestionable principles, whence those which are less evident or more opposed may be deduced, or be otherwise influenced and confirmed. Neglect hereof makes popular discourses weak in their application; and those wherein men contend for the truth, infirm in their conclusions. This course, therefore, the apostle here useth, and resolveth his present argument into such an unquestionable principle as reason and common sense must admit of. 2. The proposition thus modified, is, That “the less is blessed of the greater;” that is, wherein one is orderly blessed by another, he that is blessed is therein less than, or beneath in dignity unto, him by whom he is blessed, as it is expressed in the Syriac translation. Expositors generally on this place distinguish the several sorts of benedictions that are in use and warrantable among men, that so they may fix on that concerning which the rule here mentioned by the apostle will hold unquestionably. But as unto the especial design of the apostle, this labor may be spared: for he treats only of sacerdotal benedictions; and with respect to them, the rule is not only certainly true, but openly evident. But to illustrate the whole, and to show how far the rule mentioned may be extended, we may reduce all sorts of blessings unto four heads: — (1.) There is benedictio potestativa; that is, such a blessing as consists in an actual efficacious collation on, or communication of the matter of the blessing unto, the person blessed. Thus God alone can bless absolutely. He is the only fountain of all goodness, spiritual, temporal, eternal, and so of the whole entire matter of blessing, containing it all eminently and virtually in himself. And he alone can efficiently communicate it unto, or collate it on any others; which he doth as seemeth good unto him, “according to the counsel of his own will.” All will grant, that with respect hereunto the apostle’s maxim is unquestionable; — God is greater than man. Yea, this kind of blessing ariseth from, or dependeth solely on, that infinite distance that is between the being or nature of God and the being of all creatures. This is God’s blessing, θεαδϊερτϊ, — an “addition of good,” as the Jews call it; a real communication of grace, mercy, privileges, or whatever the matter of the blessing be. (2.) There is benedictio authoritativa. This is when men, in the name, that is, by the appointment and warranty, of God, do declare any to be blessed, pronouncing the blessings unto them whereof they shall be made partakers. And this kind of blessing was of old of two sorts:[1. Extraordinary, by virtue of especial immediate inspiration, or a spirit of prophecy. [2. Ordinary, by virtue of office and institution. In the first way Jacob blessed his sons; which he calls a declaration of “what should befall them in the last days,” Genesis 49:1. And such were all the solemn patriarchal benedictions; as that of Isaac, when he had infallible direction as to the blessing, but not in his own mind as to the person to be blessed, Genesis 27:27-29. So Moses blessed the children of Israel in their respective tribes, Deuteronomy 33:1. In the latter, the priests, by virtue of God’s ordinance, were to bless the people with this authoritative blessing:“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The LORD bless thee, and keep thee; the LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them,” Numbers 6:22-27.The whole nature of this kind of blessing is here exemplified. It is founded in God’s express institution and command. And the nature of it consists in “putting the name of God upon the people;” that is, declaring blessings unto them in the name of God, praying blessings for them on his command. Wherefore the word “bless” is used in a twofold sense in this institution: Verse 23, “Ye shall bless the children of Israel,” is spoken of the priests; verse 27, “I will bless them,” is spoken of God. The blessing is the same, — declared by the priests, and effected by God. They blessed declaratively, he efficiently. And the blessing of Melchisedec in this place seems to have a mixture in it of both these. For as it is plain that he blessed Abraham by virtue of his sacerdotal office, — which our apostle principally considereth, — so I make no question but he was peculiarly acted by immediate inspiration from God in what he did. And in this sort of blessing the apostolical maxim maintains its evidence in the light of nature. (3.) There is benedictio charitativa. This is, when one is said to bless another by praying for a blessing on him, or using the means whereby he may obtain a blessing. This may be done by superiors, equals, inferiors, any or all persons mutually towards one another. See 1 Kings 8:14; 1 Kings 8:55-56; 2 Chronicles 6:3; Proverbs 30:11. This kind of blessing, it being only improperly so, wherein the act or duty is demonstrated by its object, doth not belong unto this rule of the apostle.(4.) There is benedictio reverentialis. Hereof God is the object. So men are said often to “bless God,” and to “bless his holy name:” which is mentioned in the Scripture as a signal duty of all that fear and love the Lord. Now this blessing of God is a declaration of his praises, with a holy, reverential, thankful admiration of his excellencies. But this belongs not at all unto the design of the apostle, nor is regulated by this general maxim, but is a particular instance of the direct contrary, wherein, without controversy, the greater is blessed of the less. It is the second sort of blessings that is alone here intended; and that is mentioned as an evident demonstration of the dignity of Melchisedec, and his pre-eminence above Abraham.Obs. 4. It is a great mercy and privilege, when God will make use of any in the blessing of others with spiritual mercies. — It is God alone who originally and efficiently can do so, who can actually and infallibly collate a blessing on any one. Therefore is he said to “bless us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things,” Ephesians 1:3. There is no one blessing but he is the sole author and worker of it. But yet, also, he maketh use of others, severally, in various degrees of usefulness, for their communication. And this he doth, both to fill up that order of all things in dependence on himself, wherein he will be glorified; and also to make some partakers in his especial grace and favor, by using them in the collation of good things, yea, the best things, on others. For what greater privilege can any one be made partaker of, than to be an instrument in the hand of God in the communication of his grace and goodness? And a privilege it is whose exercise and improvement must be accounted for. I speak not, therefore, of them whose benedictions are euctical and charitative only, in their mutual prayers; but of such as are in some sense authoritative. Now, a man blesseth by the way of authority, when he doth it as an especial ordinance, as he is called and appointed of God thereunto. Peculiar institution gives peculiar authority. So parents bless their children and households, and ministers the church: — 1. Parents bless their children in the name of the Lord several ways:(1.) By instruction; the discharge whereof was the glory and honor of Abraham in the sight of God himself, Genesis 18:17-19. For whereas the knowledge and fear of God are the greatest blessing that any one in this world can be made partaker of, he hath ordained that parents shall be instrumental in the communication of them unto their children; suitably unto that general law of nature whereby they are obliged in all things to seek their good. This being the end of the instruction which God hath appointed them to attend unto, they do therein bless them in the name of the Lord. And if parents did truly consider how they stand in the stead of God in this matter, how what they do is peculiarly in his name and by his authority, they would, it may be, be more diligent and conscientious in the discharge of their duty than they are. And if children could but understand that parental instruction is an instituted means of God’s blessing them with the principal blessing, and that whereon all others, as unto them, do much depend, — whereunto the fifth commandment is express, — they would with more diligence and reverence apply themselves unto the reception of it than is usual among them. (2.) They do it by their example. The conversation and holy walking of parents is God’s ordinance whereby he blesseth their children. This is the second way of instruction, without which the former will be insufficient, yea, insignificant. Let parents take what pains they please in the teaching and instructing of their families, unless their personal walk be holy, and their lives fruitful, they will do more for their destruction than their edification. The least disorder of life persisted in, is of more prevalency to turn aside children from the ways of God, from the liking and practice of them, than a multitude of instructions are to persuade to their embracement. For, besides that we are all naturally more prone to evil than good, and a far less occasion or means will hasten us down a precipice than raise us and bear us up in the difficult course of holy obedience, instances of a life inconsistent with instructions, or not answering them, beget secret thoughts in the minds of them who are instructed that all the pains taken therein are hypocritical; than which apprehension nothing is more effectual to alienate the minds of any from the ways of God. But when men’s teachings of their families are exemplified by the holiness and fruitfulness of their own lives, then are they an ordinance of God for the blessing of them. To pray, to read, to catechise, to instruct, and then to lead a life of frowardness, passion, worldly-mindedness, vain communication, and the like, is to pull down with one hand what we set up with the other; or rather, with both our hands to pull down our own houses. (3.) By prayer for them. So David blessed his household, 2 Samuel 6:20. For besides the duty of prayer absolutely considered, there is in those prayers, by the appointment of God, an especial plea for and application of the promises of the covenant unto them which we ourselves have received. So it is expressed in the prayer of David, 2 Samuel 7:29. “Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for ever before thee: for thou, O Lord GOD, hast spoken it: and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever.” And I do not understand how those who do not believe in the especial interest of their children in the covenant of grace, can bless them in the name of the Lord in a due manner. These are some few heads of parental benediction; which whether the duty thereof be answered in that common custom which some even confine all parental blessings unto, in an open neglect of all the duties mentioned, and others of an alike nature, is not hard to determine.2. Ministers bless the church. It is part of their ministerial duty, and it belongs unto their office so to do:(1.) They do it by putting the name of God upon the church. This was the way whereby the priests blessed the people of old, Numbers 6:27. And this putting the name of God upon the church, is by the right and orderly celebration of all the holy ordinances of worship of his appointment. For the name of God and of Christ is upon them all; wherefore, in the orderly celebration of them the name of God is put upon the church, and it is brought under the promise of the meeting and blessing of God; as he hath spoken concerning every thing whereon he hath placed his name. This is an especial way of authoritative blessing, which can no way be discharged but by virtue of ministerial office. Only, let ministers take heed that they put not the name of a false god upon the church, by the introduction of any thing in religious worship which is not of God’s appointment. (2.) They bless the church, in the dispensation and preaching of the word unto the conversion and edification of the souls of men. So speak the apostles concerning their preaching of the word, Acts 3:26,“Unto you first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”This sending of Christ after his resurrection, was the sending of him in the ministry of the apostles and others, by the preaching of the gospel. And the end hereof is, to bless them unto whom it is preached. And it is known that all the principal spiritual blessings of God in this world are communicated unto the souls of men by the ministry of the word, and ministerial administration of the sacraments, as the only outward causes and means thereof. Herein do ministers bless the people in the name and authority of God. (3.) They do it by the particular ministerial applications of the word unto the souls and consciences of men. This authority hath Christ given unto them. Saith he,“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained,” John 20:23.I know what use hath been made of these words; that is, how they have been abused to give countenance unto the necessity of private confession of all sins unto the priests, and of their power of absolution or remission thereon. But yet the real intention of the words, and the truth that is in them, must not be waived or overlooked. It is not, therefore, the mere preaching of the word, and therein a doctrinal declaration of whose sins are remitted and whose sins are retained, according to the gospel, which men are respectively interested in by their faith or unbelief, that is here intended (the commission giving power whereunto is of a more general nature): but an especial application of the word unto the consciences of men with respect unto their sins is included therein. And this is done two ways: [1. With respect unto the judgment of the church;[2. With respect unto the judgment of God.The first is that binding or loosing which the Lord Christ hath given power for unto the ministers and guides of the church, as to the communion thereof, Matthew 18:18. For by the ministerial application of the word unto the souls and consciences of men, are they to be continued in or excluded from the communion of the church; which is called the binding or loosing of them. The other respects God himself, and the sense which the conscience of a sinner hath of the guilt of sin before him. In this case the ministers of the gospel are authorized, in the name of Christ, to remit their sins; that is, so to apply the promises of mercy and grace unto their souls and consciences, as that, being received by faith, they may have peace with God. So are they authorized to remit or retain sins, according to the tenor and terms of the gospel. Not that the remission of sins absolutely doth depend on an act of office, but the release of the conscience of a sinner from the sense of guilt doth sometimes much depend upon it, rightly performed; that is, by due application of the promises of the gospel unto such as believe and repent.(4.) How they bless the church by prayer and example, may be understood from what hath been spoken concerning those things with respect unto parents. The authority that is in them depends on God’s especial institution, which exempts them from and exalts them above the common order of mutual charitative benedictions. (5.) They bless the people declaratively; as a pledge whereof it hath been always of use in the church, at the close of the solemn duties of its assemblies, wherein the name of God is put upon it, to bless the people by express mention of the blessing of God, which they pray for upon them. But yet, because the same thing is done in the administration of all other ordinances, and this benediction is only euctical, or by the way of prayer, I shall not plead for the necessity of it. And we may yet infer two things from hence: —Obs. 5. That those who are thus appointed to bless others in the name of God, and thereby exalted unto a pre-eminence above those that are blessed by his appointment, ought to be accordingly regarded by all that are so blessed by them. — It is well if Christians do rightly consider what their duty is unto them who are appointed as a means to communicate all spiritual blessings unto them. And, — Obs. 6. Let those who are so appointed take heed lest, by their miscarriage, they prove a curse unto them whom they ought to bless. — For if they are negligent in the performance of their duties in the things mentioned, much more if therewithal they put the name of any false god upon them, they are no otherwise. The eighth verse carrieth on the same argument, by a particular application unto the matter in hand of the things which he had in general observed before in Melchisedec; for whereas the apostle had before declared, that he was “without father, without mother, without beginning of days or end of life,” he now shows how all this conduced unto his purpose. Hebrews 7:8. — Καὶὧδεμὲνδεκάταςἀποθνήσκοντεςανθρωποιλαμβάνουσιν, ἐκεῖδὲ, μαρτυρούμενοςὅτιζῇ.῎Ανθρωποι. Syr., by a usual idiotism of that language, “the sons of man.” ᾿Αποθνήσκοντες, “qui moriuntur,” “who die.” Vulg. Lat., “homines morientes,” “dying men;” of which difference we must speak afterwards. Μαρτυρούμενοςὅτιζῇ, generally, “de quo testatum est, quod vivat.” Vulg. Lat., “ibi autem contestatur quia vivit;” which the Rhemists render, “but there he hath witness that he liveth:” both obscurely. Arias, “testatione dictus quia vivit;” to no advantage. Μαρτυρούμενος is properly, “is de quo testatur;” as Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Schmidt, render it. The Arabic concurs with the Vulgar. The Syriac, by way of paraphrase, “he of whom the Scripture witnesseth that he liveth.”[3] [3] . — Μαρτ. ὅτιζῇ, can be nothing else than a concise representation of the idea, Μήτεἀρχὴνἡμερῶν, μήτεζωῆςτέλοςἔχων: and is therefore to be explained thus: — “Of whom only his life is recorded, not his death” (Bleek); or, in other words, it is not the individual Melchisedec who has the testimony that he liveth, but it is again the typical figure of him, as it appeared to the eye of the psalmist [Psalms 110. ] in the framework of Genesis 14 :— Ebrard. — ED. Hebrews 7:8. — And here men verily that die receive tithes; but there he of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.There is in the words a comparison and opposition between the Levitical priests and Melchisedec, in this matter of receiving tithes, which in general was common to them both. And we may consider in them, 1. The circumstances of the comparison. 2. The general agreement of both sorts, which is the ground of the comparison. 3. The parts of the antithesis, or opposition, or dissimilitude between them: —1. The circumstances of the comparison are two:(1.) The manner of its introduction, or the earnestness of the assertion, in the particle μὲν. It is as much as “quidem” or “equidem,” “truly,” “verily;” which is omitted in our translation, though elsewhere the same particle is so rendered. ‘This, moreover, is the state of the case in this matter.’And the insertion of it is proper unto an affirmation upon a concession, as this here is. (2.) The determination of the time, or place, or manner of the opposition, in these adverbs ὧδε and ἐκεῖ “here” and there.” ῟Ωδε usually refers unto place; and some think that the apostle hath respect unto Jerusalem, the seat of the Levitical priesthood, and the land of Canaan, which alone was tithable according to the law; for the Jews do judge, and that rightly, that the law of legal tithing extended not itself beyond the bounds of the land of Canaan, — a sufficient evidence that it was positive and ceremonial. In opposition hereunto, ἐκεῖ, “there,” must signify some other place, or any place where the priesthood of Melchisedec hath its signification; that is, in Christian religion. But the truth is, if ὧδε, “here,” signifies a certain and determinate place, that opposed in ἐκεῖ, “there,” must be Salem, where Melchisedec dwelt; which was not only afterwards tithable, as within the bounds of Canaan, but most probably was Jerusalem itself, as we have declared. This conjecture, therefore, is too curious; nor do we need to tie up ourselves unto the precise signification of the word ὧδε, although that also be sometimes used with respect unto time as well as place. Wherefore these words, “here” and “there,” do express the several different states under consideration. “here,” is in the case of the Levitical priesthood; and “there” respects the case of Melchisedec, as stated, Genesis 14.2. The foundation of the comparison, that wherein both agreed, is in this, that they received tithes. It is expressed of the one sort only, namely, the Levitical priests, — they received tithes; but it is understood of the other also, whereon the word is repeated and inserted in our translation, “But there he receiveth them.” Δεκάταςλαμβάνουσι, “They do receive tithes,” in the present tense. But it may be said, there was none that then did so, or at least “de jure” could do so, seeing the law of tithing was abolished. Wherefore an enallage may be allowed here of the present time for that which was past; “they do,” that is, “they did so” whilst the law was in force. But neither is this necessary; for, as I have before observed, the apostle admits, or takes it for granted, that the Mosaical system of worship was yet continued, and argueth on that concession unto the necessity of its approaching abolition. And yet we need not here the use of this supposition; for the words determine neither time nor place, but the state of religion under the law. According unto the law are tithes to be paid unto, and received by such persona This, therefore, is agreed, that both the Levitical priests and Melchisedec received tithes. 3. The opposition and difference lies in the qualification and properties of them by whom they are received. For,(1.) Those on the one side, that is, of the Levitical priesthood, were ἀποθνήσκοντεςἄνθρωποι, “homines qui moriuntur,” or “homines morientes,” — “men that die,” “dying men;” that is, men subject unto death, mortal men, who ‘lived and died in the discharge of their office, according unto the common laws of mortality. And the observation of Schlichtingius on these words is, as far as I can understand, useless unto his own design, much more to the apostle’s:“Notandum vero quod non mortalibus hominibus, sed morientibus tantum Melchisedecum auctor opponat, nec immortalem eum esse, sed vivere dicit; vita autem non mortalitati sed morti proprie opponitur.” Something is aimed at in way of security unto another opinion, namely, that all men were created in a state of mortality, without respect unto sin. But nothing is gotten by this subtilty. For by dying men the apostle intends not men that were actually dying, as it were at the point of death; for in that condition the priests could neither execute their office nor receive tithes of the people. Only he describes such persons as in the whole course of their ministry were liable unto death from the common condition of mortality, and in their several seasons died accordingly. Wherefore “dying men,” or men subject to death, and “mortal men,” are in this case the same. And although life as to the principle of it be opposed unto death, yet as unto a continual duration, the thing here intended by the apostle, it is opposed unto mortality, or an obnoxiousness unto death. For a representation is designed of him who was made a priest, “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” Wherefore, saith the apostle,’those who received tithes after the law were all of them mortal men, that had both beginning of days and end of life.’So the death of Aaron, the first of them, and in him of all his successors, is recorded in the Scripture. (2.) In opposition unto this state of the Levitical priests, it is affirmed that ἐκεῖ, in the case of Melchisedec, μαρτυρούμενοςὅτιζῇ, — “it is witnessed that he liveth.” How “he liveth, and how it is “witnessed unto that he liveth,” we must inquire. For it is apparently Melchisedec of whom in the first place, as the type, these things are spoken; and yet we know that really and in his own person he was dead long before. But there are several things on the account whereof it is said that “it is witnessed that he liveth.” For, [1. Whatever the Scripture is silent in as to Melchisedec, which it usually relates of others in the like state, our apostle takes for a contrary testimony unto him. For he lays down this general principle, that what the Scripture conceals of Melchisedec, it doth it to instruct us in the mystery of his person and ministry, as types of Christ and his. Hence the silence of the Scripture, in what it useth to express, must in this case be interpreted as a testimony unto the contrary. So it witnesseth of him that “he was without father, without mother, without descent,” in that it mentioneth none of them. And whereas he hath “neither beginning of days nor end of life” recorded in the Scripture, it is thereby “witnessed that,” not absolutely, but as to his typical consideration, “he liveth.” For there are no bounds nor periods fixed unto his priesthood, nor did it expire by the bringing in that of Levi, as that did by the introduction of Christ’s. [2. He did actually continue his office unto the end of that dispensation of God and his worship wherein he was employed: and this witnesseth the perpetuity of his life, in opposition unto the Levitical priests; for these two states are compared by the apostle, that of Melchisedecand that of Levi. There was a time limited unto this priesthood in the house of Aaron; and during that time one priest died and another succeeded in several generations, until they were greatly multiplied, as the apostle observeth, verse 23. But during the whole dispensation of things with respect unto Melchisedec, he continued in his own person to execute his office, from first to last, without being subject unto death; wherein “it is witnessed that he liveth.” [3. He is said to “live,” that is, always to do so, because his office continueth for ever, and yet no mere mortal man succeeded him therein. [4. In this whole matter he is considered not absolutely and personally, but typically, and as a representation of somewhat else; and what is represented in the type, but is really, subjectively, and properly found only in the antitype, may be affirmed of the type as such. So it is in all sacramental institutions; as the paschal lamb was called expressly “the LORD’S passover,” Exodus 12:11, when it was only a pledge and token thereof; as, under the new testament, the bread and wine in the sacred supper are called “the body and blood of Christ,” which they do represent. Thus it is true really and absolutely of the Lord Jesus Christ, that he liveth for ever, that he is a priest for ever; which the apostle much insisteth on and urgeth unto his purpose afterwards. This eternity, or ever-living of Jesus Christ, was represented in Melchisedec, in that it is not said anywhere in the Scripture that he died: “it is witnessed,” therefore, “that he liveth,” because he whom he represents doth really do so, and his own death is not mentioned, on purpose that he might so represent him. And the apostle’s argument unto the dignity and pre-eminence of Melchisedec above the Levitical priests in this instance is of an unquestionable evidence: for consider Melchisedec, not in his natural being and existence, which belongs not unto this mystery, but in his Scripture being and existence, and he is immortal, always living; wherein he is more excellent than those who were always obnoxious unto death in the exercise of their office. And from the branches of this comparison we may take two observations: — Obs. 1. In the outward administration of his worship, God is pleased to make use of poor, frail, mortal, dying men. — So he did of old, and so he continues still to do. “Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever?” Zechariah 1:5. The prophets of old, the most eminent administrators under the old testament, they were all mortal, dying men; and whilst they lived in this world they were subject unto like passions with other men, James 5:17. And the same account the apostle giveth us of the principal administrators of the new testament, 2 Corinthians 4:8-12; 2 Corinthians 6:8-10. And we know it is so with all those into whose hands the same work is transmitted. Yea, ofttimes, as to the infirmities of body and outward condition, their weakness and frailty are signalized above others. Nor doth any advantage accrue to the gospel by the secular exaltation of such as pretend unto the same employment; wherein, without other qualifications, they do little resemble the ministry of Christ himself. Such, I say, doth God please to make use of; persons obnoxious unto all infirmities and temptations with all other believers, and equally with them falling under the stroke of mortality. He could have accomplished his whole design immediately by his grace and Spirit, without the institution of any administrators; he could have employed his holy angels in the declaration and dispensation of the gospel; or he could have raised up men so signalized with wisdom, and all endowments of mind and body, as should have eminently distinguished them from the whole race of mankind besides: but waiving these, and all other ways possible and easy unto his infinite wisdom and power, he hath chosen to make use, in this great occasion, of poor, infirm, frail, tempted, sinning, dying men. And sundry reasons of this his holy counsel are expressed in the Scripture: — 1. He doth it to make it evident that it is his own power, and nothing else, which gives efficacy and success unto all gospel administrations: 2 Corinthians 4:7, “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”There is an “excellency of power” accompanying the dispensation of the word. Mighty spiritual effects are produced by it, such as wherein the glory of God doth consist, and whereon the eternal welfare of the souls of men doth depend. This glory, in subduing the adverse power of sin, Satan, and the world; in the quickening, sanctifying, saving the souls of the elect; God will be seen and owned in, — he will not give it unto another. Whereas, therefore, those by whom these treasures are communicated unto others, are frail, perishing, “earthen vessels,” — or those by whom the gospel is dispensed are poor, frail, weak men, seen and known so to be, — there is no veil by their ministry cast over the glory of God. There is not a soul convinced, converted, or comforted by their word, but they may truly say of it as the apostles did of the miracle which they wrought, Acts 3:12,“Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power and holiness we had made this man to walk,”this blind man to see, this dead man to live? By the consideration of our meanness all may discern that the excellency of this power is of God, and not of us. Yea, for this very end our apostle refused to make use of such a persuasiveness of words and exercise of wisdom as might give any appearance or countenance unto such an apprehension as though by them this effect were produced: 1 Corinthians 2:4-5,“My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.”And herein ought he to be an example unto us all. But it is come to that with many, that being destitute utterly of what he had, — namely, an ability to dispense the word in the “demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” — they do wholly betake themselves unto what he refused, or the “enticing words of man’s wisdom,” according to their ability. But what the Jews spoke blasphemously of Christ, upon his opening the eyes of him who was born blind, may in a sense be truly spoken of any of us upon the opening of the eyes of them that were spiritually blind, “Give God the praise; we know that this man is a sinner,” John 9:24.2. God hath so ordered things, in wisdom and grace, that the administrators of holy things unto others might have experience in themselves of their state and condition, so as to be moved with compassion towards them, care about them, and zeal for them. Without these graces, and their constant exercise, men will be but very useless instruments in this work. And they will not grow anywhere but in men’s own experience. For how shall he be tender, compassionate, careful towards the souls of others, who knows no reason why he should be so towards his own? The high priest of old was such an one a“could have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that were out of the way; for that he himself also was compassed with infirmity,” Hebrews 5:2.And therein was he a type of Christ, who “was in all points tempted like as we are,” that he might be ready “to succor them that are tempted.” This gave him the experience of compassion in the exercise of it. Wherefore, when a minister of the gospel knows his own weakness, infirmities, and temptations, his need of mercy and grace, the way of his obtaining supplies of them, the danger of the snares which he is exposed unto, the value of his own soul, the preciousness of the blood of Christ, and excellency of the eternal reward, he cannot, considering the charge committed unto him, and the duty required of him, but be moved with pity, compassion, tenderness, love, and zeal, towards those unto whom he doth administer; especially considering how greatly their eternal welfare depends on his ability, diligence, and faithfulness in the discharge of his duty. And this proves, on sundry accounts, greatly to the advantage of the poor tempted disciples of Christ; for it makes a representation unto them of his own compassion and love, as the great shepherd of the sheep, Isaiah 40:11; and causeth a needful supply of spiritual provision to be always in readiness for them, and that to be administered unto them with experience of its efficacy and success.3. That the power of gospel grace and truth may be exemplified unto the eyes of them unto whom they are dispensed, in the persons of them by whom they are administered, according unto God’s appointment. It is known unto all who know aught in this matter, what temptations and objections will arise in the minds of poor sinners against their obtaining any interest in the grace and mercy that is dispensed in the gospel. Some, they judge, may be made partakers of them; but for them, and such as they are, there seems to be no relief provided. But is it no encouragement unto them, to see that, by God’s appointment, the tenders of his grace and mercy are made unto their souls by men subject unto like passions with themselves; and who, if they had not freely obtained grace, would have been as vile and unworthy as themselves? For as the Lord called the apostle Paul to the ministry, who had been “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious,” that he might “in him show forth all long- suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting,” — that is, for the encouragement even of such high criminal offenders to believe, 1 Timothy 1:13; 1 Timothy 1:16; so in more ordinary cases, the mercy and grace which the ministers of the gospel did equally stand in need of with those unto whom they dispense it, and who have received it, is for a pattern, example, and encouragement of them to believe after their example. 4. In particular, God maketh use of persons that die in this matter, that their testimony unto the truth of gospel grace and mercy may be complete and unquestionable. Death is the great touchstone and trial of all things of this nature, as to their efficacy and sincerity. Many things will yield relief in life, and various refreshments, which upon the approach of death vanish into nothing. So it is with all the comforts of this world, and with all things that have not an eternal truth and substance in them. Had not those, therefore, who dispense sacred things, been designed themselves to come unto this touchstone of their own faith, profession, and preaching, those who must die, and know always that they must do so, would have been unsatisfied what might have been the condition with them, had they been brought unto it; and so have ground to fear in themselves what will become of that faith wherein they have been instructed, in the warfare of death, when it shall approach. To obviate this fear and objection, God hath ordained that all those who administer the gospel shall all of them bring their own faith unto that last trial; that so, giving a testimony unto the sincerity and efficacy of the things which they have preached, in that they commit the eternal salvation of their souls unto them (and higher testimony none can give), they may be encouragements unto others to follow their example, to imitate their faith, and pursue their course unto the end. And for this cause also doth God ofttimes call them forth unto peculiar trials, exercises, afflictions, and death itself in martyrdom, that they may be an example and encouragement unto the whole church. I cannot but observe, for a close of this discourse, that as the unavoidable infirmities of the ministers of the gospel, managed and passed through in a course of faith, holiness, and sincere obedience, are on many accounts of singular use and advantage unto the edification and consolation of the church; so the evil examples of any of them, in life and death, with the want of those graces which should be excited unto exercise by their infirmities, are pernicious thereunto. Obs. 2. The life of the church depends on the everlasting life of Jesus Christ. — It is said of Melchisedec, as he was a type of him, “It is witnessed that he liveth.” Christ doth so, and that for ever; and hereon, under the failings, infirmities, and death of all other administrators, depend the preservation, life, continuance, and salvation of the church. But this must be spoken to peculiarly on verse 25, whither it is remitted. It may be objected unto the whole precedent argument of the apostle, ‘That although Abraham himself paid tithes unto Melchisedec, yet it followeth not that Melchisedec was superior unto the Levitical priests, concerning whom alone the question was between him and the Jews. For although Abraham might be a priest in some sense also, by virtue of common right, as were all the patriarchs, yet was he not so by virtue of any especial office, instituted of God to abide in the church. But when God afterwards, by peculiar law and ordinance, erected an order and office of priesthood in the family of Levi, it might be superior unto, or exalted above that of Melchisedec, although Abraham paid tithes unto him.’This objection, therefore, the apostle obviates in these verses; and therewithal, giving his former argument a further improvement, he makes a transition, according unto his usual custom (as it hath been often observed that it is his method to do), unto his especial design, in proving the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, which is the main scope of this whole discourse. Hebrews 7:9-10. — Καὶ, ὠςἔποςεἰπεῖν, διὰ᾿ΑβραὰμκαὶΔευϊV ὁδεκάταςλαμβάνωνδεδεκάτωται·ἔτιγὰρἐντῇὀσφύϊτοῦπατρὸςη῏ν, ὅτεσυνήντησεναὐτῷὁΜελχισεδέκ.῾Ωςἔποςεἰπεῖν, “ut verbum dicere,”” as to speak a word.” Vulg. Lat., “ut ita dictum sit,” “be it so said.” Syr., “as any one may say.” Arab., “and it is said that this discourse” (or “reason”)” may be some way ended.” “Ut ita loquar,” “as I may so speak.” In the rest of the words there is neither difficulty nor difference among translators.Hebrews 7:9-10. — And, as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.There are three things observable in these words: 1. The manner of the introduction of the apostle’s new assertion. 2. The assertion itself, which hath the force of a new argument unto his purpose, Hebrews 7:9. And, 3. The proof of his assertion, in Hebrews 7:10. 1. The manner of the introduction of his assertion is in these words, “As I may so say.” This qualification of the assertion makes an abatement of it, one way or other. Now this is not as to the truth of the proposition, but as to the propriety of the expression. The words are as if that which is expressed were actually so, namely, that Levi himself paid tithes, whereas it was so only virtually. The thing itself intended was, with respect unto the apostle’s purpose, as if it had been so indeed; though, Levi not being then actually existent, he could not be tithed in his own person. Nor is the apostle dubious of the truth of the consequent which he urgeth from this observation, as if he had said “prope dixerim;” which is supposed as one signification of this phrase. Only, the instance being new, and he arguing from what was virtual only as if it had been actual, he gave his assertion this qualification. This is spoken upon an allowance of the common acceptation of the sense of these words among interpreters. For my part, I rather incline to judge that he useth this phrase for as much as “ut verbo cicam,” — ‘To sum up the whole in a word, to put an issue unto this dispute between the Levitical priesthood and that of Melchisedec, I say, that not only Abraham, but even Levi himself was tithed by him.’ 2. His assertion is, that “Levi, who received tithes, was tithed in Abraham,” namely, when Abraham gave the tithes of all to Melchisedec. By “Levi” he intendeth not the person of Levi absolutely, the third son of Jacob, but his posterity, or the whole tribe proceeding from him, so far as they were interested in the priesthood; for Levi himself never received tithes of any, the priesthood being erected in his family long after his death, in the person of his great-grandchild, Aaron. So, then, Levi who received tithes is the same with the sons of Levi who received the priesthood, Hebrews 7:5, namely, in their several generations unto that day. Of this Levi it is affirmed that δεδεκάτωταιδιὰ᾿Αβραάμ, “he was tithed” or “paid tithes in Abraham,” or through him and by him, as the word is. When Abraham himself gave tithes to Melchisedec, he did it not in his own name only, but in the name of himself and his whole posterity. And this, upon the principles before laid down and vindicated, proves the preeminence of the priesthood of Melchisedec above that of the house and family of Levi. All the difficulty of the argument lies in the proof of the assertion, namely, that Levi did indeed so pay tithes in Abraham. This the apostle therefore proves by the observation which he lays down, verse 10, “For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec met him.” 3. The force of this proof seems to depend on a double principle:(1.) That children, the whole posterity of any one, are in his loins before they are born. And this principle is sure in the light of nature and common reason; they are in them as the effect in its cause, nor have they any future existence but with relation unto their progenitors, even the remotest of them.(2.) That what any one doth, that all his posterity are esteemed to do in and by him. But it is certain that this rule will not generally hold, nor indeed will it ever do so absolutely, without some other cogent circumstances. By human laws, the crimes of men reflect dishonor in some cases on their families; and on the other side, they entail the honor which by their worth they have acquired on their posterities. What a man also gives away of his estate unto public uses, as in the foundation of schools or hospitals, his children may be said to do it in him, because so much is decreased from their inheritance; — as here, what Abraham gave to, Melchisedec, it was alienated from his posterity, Levi among the rest. But none of these things reach the case in hand, or are sufficient to give force or evidence unto the reasoning of the apostle. Wherefore, to find them out, sundry things must be observed which are manifest truths in themselves, and on the supposition whereof the apostle’s argument stands firm: — (1.) That Abraham was now called of God, and separated unto his service, so as to be the foundation of a new church in the world. And there is a relation unto such an original stock in all the branches, beyond what they have unto any other intermediate progenitors. Hence all the idolatrous nations in the world constantly made the first persons from whom they derived their original, or whose offspring they would be accounted, their gods whom they worshipped. These were their “Joves indigites,” their home-born deities, whom they honored, and whose honors they thought descended unto them by inheritance.(2.) He had now received the promise that God would be a God unto him and his seed after him, — whereby all his posterity were taken into covenant with him; and hereon Abraham covenanted with God in the name of, and as the great representative of all his seed. And such covenants are the foundation of all order and rule in this world. For after persons, or a people, have covenanted into such agreements in government, and as to the administration of common right among themselves, — provided the terms whereon they have agreed be good and suitable unto the light of nature,- their posterity are not at liberty to alter and change them at their pleasure; for whereas they derive all their rights and inheritances from their progenitors, they are supposed in them to have consented unto all that was done by them. (3.) Hereon what God said and did unto Abraham, he said it and did it unto all his seed in him. The promises were theirs, and the inheritance was theirs; yea, what God is said to give unto Abraham so often, namely, the whole land of Canaan, was never actually made good unto him in his own person, no, not a font’s breadth: but he received the grant of it as the representative of his posterity, who, four hundred years after, had the actual possession of it. (4.) What Abraham did solemnly in obedience unto God, by virtue of the covenant, as a public condition thereof, he did undertake in it for his posterity, and performed it in their name, and therefore God enjoined him to bring all his posterity under the token of that engagement, in circumcision, so soon as they were capable thereof. And on the other hand, God continually affirms that he would do them good, because of his oath and engagement unto Abraham, seeing they were intended therein. Wherefore, — (5.) Abraham, in this solemn address unto God by Melchisedec, the type of Christ, wherein he expressed his constant-obedience unto him, was the representative of all his poster and in particular of Levi and all the priests that descended from him. And having now received the whole land, by virtue of a covenant, in the behalf of his posterity, that it should be theirs, though he himself had never possession of it, nor in it, he doth in the name of his posterity, and as their representative, give the tenths unto God by Melchisedec, as that chief rent which God for ever reserved unto himself, upon his grant. When the people came actually to possess the land, they held it always on this condition, that the tenths of all should be given unto God. And this Abraham, in his taking seisin of it for them, paid in their name. So truly and virtually was Levi himself tithed in the loins of Abraham, when Melchisedec met him. Wherefore it was not merely Levi being in the loins of Abraham with respect unto natural generation, whence he is said to be tithed in him, but his being in him with respect unto the covenant which Abraham entered into with God in the name of his whole posterity. This reasoning of the apostle’s, I confess, at first view seemeth intricate, and more remote from cogency than any elsewhere used by him. And therefore by some profane persons hath it been cavilled at. But all things of that nature arise merely from want of a due reverence unto the word of God. When we come unto it with those satisfactions in our minds, that there is truth and divine wisdom in every expression of it, that all its reasonings are cogent and effectual, though we understand them not, we shall not fail, upon a humble inquiry, to attain what we may safely embrace, or see what we ought to admire. And so this place, which at first sight seems to present us with a reasoning on a very uncertain foundation, being duly inquired into, we find it resolved into the firm principles of reason and religion. And the foregoing observation will expedite two difficult questions which expositors raise unto themselves on this verse. The first whereof is, Whether Christ himself may not, as well as Levi, be said to pay tithes in Abraham, as being in his loins? which would utterly frustrate the design of the apostle. The second is, How or in what sense one may be said to do any thing in another, which may be reckoned or imputed unto him? For the first of these, Austin and others have well labored in the solution of it. The sum of what they say is, that the Lord Christ was not in Abraham as Levi was, not in his nature as it was corrupted; nor did he educe or derive his nature from him by carnal generation or the common way of the propagation of mankind. And these things do constitute a sufficient difference and distance between them in this matter. But yet with these considerations, and on the supposition of them, there is another which contains the true and proper reason of this difference. And that is, that the Lord Christ was never in Abraham as a federate, as one taken into covenant with him, and so represented by him, as Levi was. Abraham was taken into covenant with Christ, as the head, sponsor, surety, and mediator of the new covenant; with respect whereunto he says of himself and the elect, “Behold I and the children which the LORD hath given me.” Hereon he was the representative of Abraham and all that believe, and what he did is imputed unto them. But he was never taken into covenant with Abraham, nor was capable of so being, seeing unto him it was a covenant of pardon and justification by faith, which He was no way concerned in but as the procurer of them for others. Wherefore what Abraham did cannot be imputed unto him, so as he should be esteemed to have done them in him. And this makes way for the solution of the general question, How one may be said to do any thing in another which shall be reckoned unto him as his own act? And this may be by virtue of a covenant, and no otherwise. Hence divines do usually illustrate the imputation of the sin of Adam unto his posterity by this example of Levi; though I have not met with any who truly understand the ground of the comparison, which is Abraham acting as a covenanter in the name of his posterity. But whereas this is opposed with some vehemency by Schlichtingius in his comment on this place, I shall transcribe his words, and consider his discourse: “Haec sententia non ad omnes actiones transferenda est; sed ad eas tantum, quae proprie versantur vel in auctione vel in diminutione rerum quae a parentibus in liberos devolvi et haereditario jure trans- ferri solent, qualis actio est decimarum solutio. Persolvuntur enim de bonis et facultatibus, quae hactenus cum sunt liberorum, quatenus jus haereditatis ad eos spectat, praesertim si certum sit, fore liberos, qui in bona succedant, quemadmodum Abrahamo contigit, cui certa fuit a Deo promissa posteritas. Quemadmodum enim haeredes per-sonam patris post mortem ratione possessionis bonorum veluti re-praesentant, ita antequam haeredes a patre separentur et de bonis paternis statuendi arbitrium habeant, pater omnium liberorum suorum personam quadam ratione refert, et quicquid de illis statu-erit aut fecerit id haeredes quodammodo fecisse censentur. Dico, quodammodo, quia proprie id dici non potest; nec auctor hic D. id proprie factum esse asserit, sed improprietatem verbis suis subesse ipsemet profitetur, ut antea vidimua Ex dictis autem facile intelligitur, id quod nos una cum auctore D. statuimus, ad eos tantum successores seu posteros esse extendendum ad quos vel certo, ut Abrahami posteris contigit, vel saltem verisimiliter perventura sit haereditas parentis, et notabilis aliqua bonorum ab eo profectorum portio. Alioquin vis illa haereditatis de qua diximus, expirabit, nec posteris tribui poterit id quod majorum aliquis circa bona sua fecerit, Quibus ira explicatis, facile jam apparet falli eos qui ex hoc loco colligunt omnem Adami posteritatem in ipso Adamo parente suo peccasse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse commeritum. Nam vel de eo nunc quidquam dicam ipsum auctorem improprietatem in hac loquendi forma agnoscere, nequaquam id extendendum est ad parentum majorumve peccata ac merita. Etenim peccata ac merita qua talia mere sunt personalia, seu personam ejus qui peccat non egrediuntur, nec eatenus parentes posteritatem suam re-praesentant; licet fieri queat ut ex eorum delicto damnum aliquod nec exiguum ad liberos redundet, quemadmodum quidem in Adami delicto contigit; ipsum tamen peccatum ac meritum Adami revera non communicatur cure ejus posteritate, ac proinde posteri Adami ob parentis sui noxam revera non puniuntur, nisi et ipsi parentem fuerint imitati.” I have transcribed these words at large, because their design is to defeat that article of our faith concerning the imputation of the sin of Adam unto all his posterity; which there is no doubt but they will make use of who are gone over among ourselves unto the negative of it: and that it might appear whose heifer they plough withal who deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ unto justification, because “those things that are personal and inherent in one cannot be communicated unto another.” I say, therefore, — 1. That this assertion, “One being accounted unto another in what he doth, holds only in those things which belong unto the increase or diminution of an inheritance which descends from parents unto children, and not otherwise,” is “gratis dictum,” without pretense or confirmation. Even in things moral, God threatens to “visit the iniquities of the fathers on the children.” So the Israelites wandered penally in the wilderness forty years, and bare the iniquity of their parents. The infants that perished in the flood, and at the conflagration of Sodom, died penally under the judgment that came for the sin of their parents. Wherefore the general foundation of his whole discourse is unproved and false, and the application of it unto the present case, as we shall see, weak and impertinent. For, —2. This renders the argument of the apostle as weak and impertinent as any thing can be imagined. For it allows Levi to be no otherwise tithed in Abraham, but as part of the goods which Abraham gave in tithe to Melchisedec would have descended unto him; for he was but one of the twelve sons of Jacob, the grandchild of Abraham, whose share in those tithes cannot be computed to be worth mentioning, much less to bear the weight of an argument in so great a cause. Besides, it is not the person of Levi, but his posterity in the family of Aaron, that is intended; and such movables as were tithed by Abraham do seldom descend through so many generations. It is therefore ridiculous to impose such a kind of argumentation on the holy apostle. 3. Yea, this interpretation is directly contrary unto what the apostle designed to confirm by the instance he gives. For that which he aimed at, was to prove Levi inferior to Melchisedec, by his paying of tithes in the loins of Abraham: but if he did this no otherwise but that some goods that should have descended unto him were given unto Melchisedec, it argues him rather superior unto him; for absolutely he that gives is superior to him that receives, as it is in general a more blessed thing to give than to receive.4. That which he proceeds upon is a general rule of his own framing, which is no way applicable unto this particular case, as it is a particular case. It is this, “That, as children succeed into the room of their parents as to their goods, and after a sort represent them; so parents, before their children come to inherit, do represent their children, so as that they may be said in some sense to do what is done by their parents.” But this is a rule made without any color of reason. For,(1.) I would know when this representation and concernment should expire, or whether it holds unto all generations. If it hold for ever, then may we all be said in some sort to do what Adam did with his goods and lands before he died, and so of all our intervenient progenitors. If it do expire, and this relation abideth only for a season, I desire to know the bounds of that season. Aaron was the first of the house of Levi who is intended in these words, and he was the seventh generation from Abraham; in which time it is probable, if ever, this right of inheritance would expire. (2.) It is not true in any sense, in the very next parents in most cases. For suppose a parent be wicked and flagitious, and shall waste his substance and goods in riotous living, in what sense shall his son, suppose him a person fearing God, be said so to have disposed of his goods in him?(3.) The truth is, unless it be by a subsequent approbation of what our progenitors have done, or by virtue of a covenant whereby they and their posterity were obliged (which is the case in hand), children can in no sense be said to do what their progenitors have done in the disposal of their goods and inheritances. Neither, indeed, will a subsequent approbation give any tolerable sense unto this assertion, unless there be a power of an effectual dissent in the children also. If a man give a part of his estate to found an hospital, and leave the care of it unto his posterity, with this proviso, that if any of them saw just cause for it, they should resume the estate into their own possession; in case they do not so, they may in some sense be said to do what indeed their father did. But if this be not in their power, though they approve of what he did, they cannot be said to have done it. But in covenants the case is plain. Men may enter into a mutual covenant for the erection of a government among them, which proving a foundation of all their civil rights for the future, their posterity may be said to have made that covenant, and to be obliged thereby, as it was in this case. 5. Neither will it advantage his pretense, with a seeming acknowledgment of some impropriety in the assertion, in these words, ὡςἔποςειπεῖν, “as I may so say.” For although it should be granted that he intends some impropriety in the expression, yet there must be truth in his assertion, which this interpretation will not allow; for if it be true only in the sense he contends for, it is true in none at all, for that is not any. But the meaning of these words is, “ut verbo dicam,” — ‘That I may give you a summary of the whole, that which my argument riseth up unto.’ 6. Having given us this crooked rule, he adds a limitation unto it, whereby he hopes to reduce the whole to his purpose. For saith he, “This rule is not to be extended unto the merits or sins of parents and ancestors, though some loss may accrue unto the children thereby;” — for thence he infers, that though we may suffer some loss by the sin of Adam, yet his sin is not imputed unto us. But,(1.) How far the children of flagitious parents may not only suffer loss, but undergo temporal punishment also, for the sins of their parents, was showed before in the instances of those who perished in their infancy, both by the flood and in the conflagration of Sodom.(2.) The case between any other parent and his posterity is not the same as it was between Adam and us all; so that these things are sophistically jumbled together. There is, indeed, an analogy between Adam and his posterity on the one hand, and Christ with believers on the other; and never was there, nor shall there ever be, the like relation between any else: for these two individual persons were appointed of God to be the heads of the two covenants, and representatives of the federates, as unto the ends of the covenants. Hence the whole evil of the one and the good of the other, as they were, and as far as they were, heads of the covenants, are imputed unto them who derive from them in their respective covenants. But after the first sin Adam ceased to be a head unto his posterity, as to the good or evil of that covenant, which was now broken and disannulled. Neither was he nor any of his posterity ever after restored or assumed into the same state and condition. It is therefore highly vain to confound the consideration of our concernment in what Adam did as he was the head of the covenant, with what he afterwards did, and other intervenient progenitors might do. All this our apostle confirms at large, Romans 5. 7. Abraham was taken into a new administration of the covenant, with new promises and seals; but he neither was nor could be made the head and representative of that covenant whereinto he was taken, otherwise than typically. Hence his moral good or evil could not be reckoned unto his posterity in covenant. But yet he was made the head and spring of the administration of its outward privileges; and this, so far as his trust extended, was imputed unto his posterity, as in the case of circumcision. Wherefore, seeing what he did unto Melchisedec belonged unto the administration of the covenant committed unto him, Levi is rightly said to have done it in him also. And so these things do mutually illustrate one another. But to deny that we were all in Adam, as the head of the first covenant, that we sinned in him, that the sin which we in any sense have sinned in him is imputed unto us, is not to dispute with us, but expressly to contradict the Holy Ghost.But we may take some observations from these words; as, — Obs. 1. They who receive tithes of others, for their work in holy administrations, are thereby proved to be superior unto them of whom they do receive them. — They are given unto them, among other ends, as an acknowledgment of their dignity. So it was when they were paid of old by God’s institution; and so it would be still, if they might be paid or received in a due manner, with respect unto the labor of any in gospel administrations. But whereas not one among thousands doth give or pay them on any other ground but because they must do so whether they will or no; nor would do so any more, were it not for the coercive, enforcing power of human laws; if they on the other side that do receive them, do look on them, not as a free pledge of the people’s respect and the honor that they bear unto them, but as their own right and due by law, they are a testimony neither of the people’s obedience nor of the ministers’dignity, but only of the extreme disorder of all things in religion Obs. 2. It is of great concernment unto us what covenant we do belong unto, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representative in our name. — There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned. The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam, and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed unto us, as if we had done it, Romans 5:12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lie the life and hope of our souls, — that what Christ did as the head of that covenant, as our representative, is all imputed unto us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance unto us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong unto. We are also some way concerned in them by whom the one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed unto us; for before we make our own personal, voluntary choice, we are by the law of our nature, and of the covenant itself, enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And thence it is, that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved; being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings, on the other hand, are they partakers of who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace; for such parents succeed in the room of Abraham, every one of them. And what Abraham did, as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place; and therefore they had the seal of the covenant given unto them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be. In this verse, after so long a preparation and introduction, whereby he cleared his way from objections and secured his future building, the apostle enters on his principal argument concerning the priesthood of Christ, and all the consequences of it, with respect unto righteousness, salvation, and the worship of God, which depend thereon. This being his main design, he would not engage into it before he had in every respect declared and vindicated the dignity and glory of the person of Christ as vested with his blessed offices. And from hence unto the didactical part of the epistle, he proceeds in a retrograde order unto what he had before insisted on. For whereas he had first declared the glory of the person of Christ in his kingly office, Hebrews 1; then in his prophetical, Hebrews 2, 3; having now entered on his sacerdotal, he goes on to enlarge upon this last function, then he returns unto his prophetical, and shuts up the whole with a renewed mention of his kingly power, as we shall see in their order and proper places. Hebrews 7:11. — Εἰμὲνου῏ντελείωσιςδιὰτῆςΛευϊτικῆςἱερωσύνηςη῏ν (ὁλαὸςγὰρἐπ᾿αὐτῇνενομοθέτητο) τίςἔτιχρεία, κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδὲκἕτερονἀνίστασθαιἱερέα, καὶοὐκατὰτὴντάξιν᾿Ααρὼνλέγεσθαι;Τελείωσις. Syr., βְּ ?ξִ ?ιψεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “consummatio,” “perfectio;” a sacred “perfection,” or completeness of state and condition. ΔιὰτῆςΛευϊτικῆςἱερωσύνης. Syr., αְּ ?ιַ ?γλּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰγַּ ?μְ ?εָ ?ιֵ ?ΰ, “by the hand of the priesthood of Levi himself;” because Levi himself received not the priesthood in his own person, but his posterity. Tremellius renders it “Levitarum,” the “priesthood of Levites.” The original leaves no scruple, “by the Levitical priesthood,” — the priesthood that was confined to the house, family, tribe, and posterity of Levi.῾Ολαὸςγὰρἐπ᾿αὐτῇνενομοθέτητο (Ms.,; ἐνενομοθέτητο, corruptly). “Nam sub hoc populo sancita est lex,” Beza; “for under it the law was established to the people.” “Sub ipso populus legem accepit,” “aceeperat” Syr., μְ ?ςַ ?ξָּ ?ΰγְּ ?αָ ?δּ ρִ ?ινπָ ?ξεּ ?ρָ ?ΰ“by whom” (or “whereby”) “the law was imposed upon the people.” If γְּ ?αָ ?δּ, “by whom,” relate unto Levi, the sense is mistaken;’and much more by the Arabic, which takes “the law” only for the law of the sacerdotal office, from which it is plainly distinguished. The Ethiopic reads the whole verse to this purpose, “And the people did according to the law of the priesthood which was appointed; what need was there, therefore, that he should give another priest, whose appointment one should say was according to Melchisedec?” which argues the great unskilfulness of that interpreter. Τίςἔτιχρεία, “quid adhuc,” “quid amplius opus erat,” “esset;” “necessarium fuit;” “what need was there yet,” or “moreover.” Syr., μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?ΰ“wherefore;” “ad quid,” “to what purpose.”᾿Ανίστασθαι “oriri;” Beza, “exoriri;” Vulg. Lat., “surgere.” Syr., γּ ?ιְ ?χεּ ?ν, “should arise.” “Oriri,” properly. Κατὰτὴντάξιν. Syr., αּ ?γְ ?ξεּ ?ϊֵ ?δּ, “after the likeness of Melchisedec;” “secundum ordmem.’ “ “in” or Καὶοὐκατὰτὴντάξιν᾿Ααρὼνλέγεσθαι, “et non secundum ordinem Aaron dick” Syr., ΰֲ ?ξַ ?ιγֵּ ?ιο; which is rendered in the translation in the Polyglot, “sed dixit,” “but he said, it shall be” (or “he shall be”) “in the likeness of Aaron:” “Dixisset autem,” which, regulated by the precedent interrogation, gives us the true sense of the place: “Suppose there must another priest arise, yet if perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood, he would have said that he should be of the order of Aaron.” [4] [4] VARIOUS . — Lachmann and Tisehendorf adopt as the text, αὐτῆςνενομοθέτηται, on the authority of such manuscripts as A B C D. . ᾿Επ᾿αὐτ. “Under it;” the rendering of our version would convey the impression that the law was prescribed during the time of the priesthood, whereas part of the law was in existence antecedently to the institution of the priesthood; and if αὐτῆς be the preferable reading, such a translation would be untenable for grammatical reasons. It is accordingly differently rendered by various critics; — by Craik,” In dependence upon it;” by Ebrard, “Upon the basis of it;” and by Turner, “In connection with it.” The last remarks, “Inasmuch as the author proceeds to show that the predicted abrogation of the priesthood, in the announcement of another like Melchisedec’s, implied also an intended abrogation of the law, it was directly to the purpose to intimate the close connection of the two.” Stuart gives the same view: “The meaning is, that the priesthood and the law are inseparably linked together, so that if the one be changed, the other must of necessity be,” — ED. Hebrews 7:11. — If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron ?The first thing in the words is the introduction of the ensuing discourse and argument in these particles of inference, εἰμὲνοὗν, “if therefore;” ‘if things be as we have declared.’he had a peculiar scope and design in all those things. These he is now introducing. The improvement of his whole preceding discourse, and the whole mystery of the priesthood of Melchisedec, he will now make an application of unto the great cause he has in hand. He hath proved, by all sorts of arguments, that the priesthood of Melchisedec was superior unto that of Aaron. Before, he had evinced that there was to be another priest after his order; and this priest must of necessity be greater than all those who went before him of the tribe of Levi, inasmuch as he was so by whom he was represented before the institution of that priesthood. Now he will let the Hebrews know whither all these things do tend in particular, and what doth necessarily follow from and depend upon them. This he lays the foundation of in this verse, and declares in those following. And that they might consider how what he had to say was educed from what he had before proved, he introduceth it with these notes of inference, εἰμὲνου῏ν, “if therefore.” And to comprehend the meaning of these words in genera], with the design of the apostle in them, we may observe, — 1. That his reasoning in this case is built upon a supposition which the Hebrews could not deny. And this is, that τελείωσις, “perfection,” or “consummation,” is the end aimed at in the priesthood of the church. That priesthood which perfects or consummates the people, in order unto their acceptance with God and future enjoyment of him, their present righteousness and future blessedness, is that which the church stands in need of, and cannot rest till it comes unto. That priesthood which doth not do so, but leaves men in an imperfect, unconsummate estate, whatever use it may be of for a season, yet it cannot be perpetual unto the exclusion of another. For if so, either God has not designed to consummate his people, or he must do it some other way, and not by a priesthood. The first is contrary to the truth and faithfulness of God in all his promises, yea, would make all religion vain and ludicrous; for if it will never make men perfect, to what end doth it serve, or what must do so in the room thereof? That this should be done any other way than by a priesthood, the Hebrews did neither expect nor believe; for they knew. full well that all the ways appointed by the law, to make atonement for sin, to attain righteousness and acceptance with God, depended on the priesthood, and the services of it, in sacrifices and other parts of divine worship. If, therefore, the apostle proves that perfection could not be attained by nor under the Levitical priesthood, it necessarily follows that there must be some more excellent priesthood remaining as yet to be introduced. This, therefore, he undeniably evinceth by this consideration. For, — 2. Look unto the Levitical priesthood in the days of David and Solomon. Then was that order in its height and at its best; then was the tabernacle first, and afterwards the temple, in their greatest glory, and the worship of God performed with the greatest solemnity. The Hebrews would grant that the priesthood of Levi could never rise to a higher pitch of glory, nor be more useful, than it was in those days. Yet, saith he, it did not then consummate the church; perfection was not then attainable by it. This the Jews might deny, and plead that they desired no more perfection than what was in those days attained unto. Wherefore our apostle proves the contrary; namely, that God designed a perfection or consummation for his church, by a priesthood, that was not then attained. This he doth by the testimony of David himself, who prophesied and foretold that there was to be “another priest, after the order of Melchisedec.” For if the perfection of the church was all that God ever aimed at by a priesthood, and if that were attained or attainable by the priesthood in David’s time, to what end should another be promised to be raised up, of another order? To have done so, would not have been consistent with the wisdom of God, nor the immutability of his counsel; for unto what purpose should a new priest of another order be raised up to do that which was done before? Wherefore, — 3. The apostle obviates an objection that might be raised against the sense of the testimony produced by him, and his application of it. For it might be said, that though after the institution of the Levitical priesthood there was yet mention of another priest to arise, it might be some eminent person of the same order; such a one as Joshua the son of Josedech, after the captivity, who was eminently serviceable in the house of God, and had eminent dignity thereon, Zechariah 3:4-7 : so that the defect supposed might be in the persons of the priests, and not in the order of the priesthood. This the apostle obviates, by declaring that if it had been so, he would have been called or spoken of as one of the order of Aaron; but whereas there were two orders of the priesthood, the Melchisedecian and Aaronical, it is expressly said that this other priest should be of the former, and not of the latter.4. He hath yet a further design, which is, not only to prove the necessity of another priest and priesthood, but thereon also a change and an abrogation of the whole law of worship under the old testament. Hence he here introduceth the mention of the law, as that which was given at the same time with the priesthood, and had such a relation thereunto, as that of necessity it must stand or fall with it. And this may suffice for a view of the scope of this verse, and the force of the argument contained in it. We shall now consider the particulars of it: — 1. A supposition is included, that τελείωσις, which we render “perfection,” is the adequate and complete end of the office of the priesthood in the church. This, at one time or another, in one order or another, it must attain, or the whole office is useless. And the apostle denies that this could be obtained by the Levitical priesthood. And he calls the priesthood of the law “Levitical,” not only because Levi was their progenitor, the patriarch of their tribe, from whom they were genealogized; but also because he would comprise in his assertion not only the house of Aaron, unto whom the right and exercise of the priesthood was limited and confined, but he would also take into consideration the whole Levitical service, which was subservient unto the office of the priesthood, and without which it could not be discharged. Wherefore the “Levitical priesthood” is that priesthood in the family of Aaron which was assisted in all sacerdotal actings and duties by the Levites, who were consecrated of God unto that end. That τελείωσις, or “perfection,” was of this priesthood, is denied in a restrictive interrogation. ‘If it had been so, it would have been otherwise with respect unto another priest than as it is declared by the Holy Ghost.’ 2. Our principal inquiry on this verse will be, what this τελείωσις is, and wherein it doth consist. The word is rendered “perfectio,” “consummatio,” “consecratio,” “sanctificatio,” “dedicatio.” The original signification and use of the word hath been spoken unto on Hebrews 2:10, where it is rendered “sanctification.” Real and internal sanctification is not intended, but that which is the same with sacred dedication or consecration; for it is plainly distinguished from real inherent sanctification by our apostle, Hebrews 10:14, Μιᾷγὰρπροσφορᾷτετελείωκενεἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςτοὺςἁγιαζομένους, — “By one offering he hath perfected them that are sanctified”. This τελείωσις, the effect and product of τετελείωκεν, is wrought towards them who are “sanctified,” and so doth not consist in their sanctification. Much less, therefore, doth it signify an absolute perfection of inherent holiness. Some men no sooner hear the name of “perfection,” in the Scripture, but they presently dream of an absolute, sinless, inherent perfection of holiness; which, if they are not utterly blinded and hardened, they cannot but know themselves far enough distant from. But this word hath no such signification. For if it denotes not internal holiness at all, it doth not do so the perfection of it; nor is any such perfection attainable in this life, as the Scripture everywhere testifies. Wherefore the apostle had no need to prove that it was not attainable by the Levitical priesthood, nor to reflect upon it for that reason, seeing it is not attainable by any other way or means whatever. We must therefore diligently inquire into the true notion of this τελείωσις, or “perfection,” which will guide the remaining interpretation of the words. And concerning it we may observe in general,— First, That it is the effect, or end, or necessary consequent of a priesthood. This supposition is the foundation of the whole argument of the apostle. Now the office and work may be considered two ways: 1. With respect unto God, who is the first immediate object of all the proper acts of that office. 2. With respect unto the church, which is the subject of all the fruits and benefits of its administration.If we take it in the first way, then the expiation of sin is intended in this word; for this was the great act and duty of the priesthood towards God, namely, to make expiation of sin, or atonement for it by sacrifice. And if we take the word in this sense, the apostle’s assertion is most true; for this perfection was never attainable by the Levitical priesthood. It could expiate sin and make atonement only typically, and by way of representation; really and effectually, as to all the ends of spiritual reconciliation unto God and the pardon of sin, they could not do it. For “it was not possible,” as our apostle observes, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” Hebrews 10:4; which he also proves in his ensuing discourse at large. But I do not know that this word is anywhere used in this sense, nor doth it include any such signification. And whereas God is the immediate object of that sacerdotal energy whereby sin is expiated, it is the church that is here said to be perfected; so that expiation of sin cannot be intended thereby, though it be supposed therein. Besides, the apostle doth not here understand sacrifices only, by which alone atonement was made, but all other administrations of the Levitical priesthood whatever.The Socinians would have expiation of sin here intended; and I shall therefore examine briefly what they speak to this purpose in their comment on this place: “‘Perfectionis,’τελειώσεως, nomine hoc loco nihil aliud intelligit auctor, quam veram et perfectam expiationem peccatorum, qua non tantum quorundam sed omnium etiam gravissimorum criminum reatus, isque non tantum poenae alicujus temporariae et ad hanc vitam spectantis, sed ipsius aeternae mortis, aufertur, jusque homini vitae sempiternae conceditur; qua denique non tantum reatus omnis omnium peccatorum, sed et ipsa peccata in hominibus tolluntur. Namque his in rebus vera hominum perfectio coram Deo consistit. Si, ergo, haec perfectio hominibus contingere potuisset per sacerdotium Leviticum, certe nullus fuisset usus novi sacerdotis Melchisedeciani. Sacerdotium enim propter peccatorum expiationem constituitur. At si perfecta peccatorum expiatio con- tingebat per Aaronicum sacerdotium, quid opus erat novum istum superinducere sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedeci, ut scilicet perageret id, quod peragere potuerat Aaronicus? Quocirca cum Deus illum constituere voluerit, atque adeo jam constituerit; hinc pater nemini, per Leviticum sacerdotium, perfectionem seu perfectam expiationem contigisse, ut certe non contigit. Quorundum enim peccatorum expiatio per illud fiebat, nempe ignorantiarum et infirmitatum; gravium autem peccatorum et scelerum poena morris luenda erat. Nec ista expiatio ad tollendam aeternam mortem quid-quam virium habuit, sed tantum ad tollendas quasdam poenas temporarias, et huic vitae proprias. Nec denique illis sacrificiis ulla vis inerat homines ab ipsis peccatis retrahendi.” First, what in general is suited unto the apostle’s argument, whatever be the sense of the τελείωσις, here mentioned, is approved. The question is, whether the expiation of sin be here intended, what is the nature of that expiation, and what was the use of the sacrifices under the law? All which on this occasion are spoken unto, and the mind of the Holy Ghost in them all perverted. For,1. That expiation of sin properly so called, by an act of the priestly office towards God, is not here intended, hath been before declared, both from the signification of the word and the design of the apostle. What these men intend by “the expiation of sin,” and how remote it is from that which the Scripture teacheth, and the nature of the thing itself requireth in the reason and common understanding of all mankind, I have fully evinced in the exercitations about the priesthood of Christ. And take “expiation” in the sense of the Scripture, with the common sense and usage of mankind, and in their judgment it was by the Levitical priesthood, and was not by the priesthood of Christ. For it cannot be denied but that the Levitical priests acted towards God, in their offering of sacrifices to make atonement of sin: but that the Lord Christ did so is by these men denied; for that which under this name they ascribe unto him is only the taking away of punishment due unto sin by his power, which power was given him of God upon his ascension or entrance into heaven, as the holy place. 2. They deny that expiation was by the Levitical priesthood, on two grounds:(1.) “Because they did expiate only some lesser sins, as of ignorance and infirmity;” and so it cannot be said to be by them, because they were only some few sins that they could expiate.(2.) “Because their expiation concerned only deliverance from temporal punishment.” That expiation in the Scripture sense could not be really effected by the Levitical priesthood is granted, and shall afterwards be proved. But both these pretended reasons of it are false. For,1. There was an atonement made in general “for all the sins of the people.” For when Aaron made an atonement by the scape-goat, Leviticus 16:10, he “confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins,” verse 21. And herein the greatest as well as the least of their sins were comprised. For although there were some sins which were capital, according unto the constitutions of their commonwealth, — in which respect there was no sacrifice appointed in particular whereby they who were guilty of them might be freed from punishment, that the ordinances of God might not seem to interfere; yet had they, by their interest in the more general sacrifices, a right unto expiation of sin as to its guilt, for otherwise every one who died penally must of necessity die eternally. 2. It is also false, that their sacrifices had no other use but to free men from temporal punishments. Indeed it is a wild apprehension, that the use of sacrifices in the church of old, to be observed by the people with so great solemnities, and under so great penalties, — wherein the principal actings of faith did consist, as also the great exercise of the spiritual obedience of the whole church, — should serve only to free men from legal, outward, civil, temporal punishments, for lesser sins of ignorance and infirmity; which were none at all, for the most part. Absolutely, indeed, and of themselves, by virtue of their own worth, or by their own innate efficacy, they neither did nor could expiate sin as to its guilt and eternal punishment, which attended all sin by the curse of the law; nor did God ever appoint them for that end: yet they did it relatively and typically; that is, they represented and exhibited unto the faith of the sacrificers that true, effectual Sacrifice to come, whereby all their sins were pardoned and done away. Wherefore, 3. The difference between the expiation of sin by the Levitical priesthood and by Christ did not consist in this, that the one expiated sin only with respect unto temporal punishments, the other with respect unto them that are eternal; but in the manner of their expiation, and the efficacy of each to that end. They expiated sins only typically, doctrinally, and by way of representation; the benefit received from their sacrifices being not contained in them, nor wrought by their causalty, nor procured by their worth or value, but were exhibited unto the faith of the sacrificers, by virtue of their relation unto the sacrifice of Christ. Hence were they of many sorts, and often repeated; which sufficiently argues that they did not effect what they did represent. But the Lord Christ, by the “one offering of himself,” wrought this effect really, perfectly, and absolutely, by its own value and efficacy, according unto the constitution of God. But this is not the perfection here intended by the apostle. Secondly, This τελείωσις respects the church, which is the subject of all the benefits of the priesthood, and it is that perfect state of the church in this world which God from the beginning designed unto it. He entered upon its erection in the first promise, with respect unto his worship, and the blessed condition of the church itself. Hereon, and with respect hereunto, is the church-state of the old testament said to be weak and imperfect, like that of a child under governors and tutors. Hence also it had a yoke imposed on it, causing fear and bondage; “God having ordained better things for us,” or the church under the new testament, ἵναμὴχωρὶςἡμῶντελειωθῶσι, Hebrews 11:40, — “that they without us should not be consummated,” or made “perfect” in their church-state. And this state of the church is expressed by this word in other places, as we shall see. The foundation of it was laid in that word of our Savior wherewith he gave up the ghost, Τετέλεσται, John 19:30, — “ It is finished,” or “completed;” that is, all things belonging unto that great sacrifice whereby the church was to be perfected were accomplished. For he had respect unto all that the prophets had foretold, all that he was to do in this world; and the consummation of the church was to ensue thereon, when “by one offering he for ever perfected them that are sanctified.” And those who were thoroughly instructed in the privileges of this church-state, and had a sense of the benefits thereof, are called τέλειοι, “perfect,” 1 Corinthians 2:6 : “We speak wisdom ἐντοῖςτελείοις,” — the mysteries of the gospel, wherein such persons discerned the wisdom of God. And so are they called, Hebrews 5:14. This our Savior prayed for in the behalf of his church immediately before he procured it by his sacrifice, John 17:23, ῝Ιναω῏σιτετελειωμένοι — “That they may be perfected.” And the end of the institution of the ministry of the gospel, to make his mediation effectual unto the souls of men by the application of it in the word unto them, was to bring the church εἰςἄνδρατέλειον, Ephesians 4:13, — to “a perfect man,” or that perfection of state which it is capable of in this life. So the apostle informs us, that what he aimed at in his ministry, by “warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom,” was that “he might present πάνταἄνθρωποντέλειονἐνΧριστῷ,” Colossians 1:28, — “every man,” that is, all believers, “perfect in Christ Jesus.” For “in him we are complete,” Colossians 2:10; — where, though another word be used (πεπληρωμένοι), yet the same thing is intended; namely, that perfect, complete state of the church, which God designed to bring it unto in Christ. And that our apostle useth the same word in the same sense in sundry places in this epistle we shall see in our progress.Thirdly, This τελείωσις, or “perfection,” may be considered two ways: — 1. As to its absolute completeness in its final issue. This the apostle denies that he himself had as yet attained, Philippians 3:12, ‘“Not as though Ihad already ἔλαβον, “attained,” or “received;” namely, the whole of what is purchased for me by Christ; ἤἤδητετελείωμαι, — “ or were already made perfect :”’which could not be without “attaining the resurrection of the dead,” verse 11; though the substance be so already in the saints departed; whence he calls them “the spirits of just men τετελειωμένων,” Hebrews 12:23, — “made perfect.,’And this he calls absolutely τὸτέλειον, 1 Corinthians 13:10, — “that which is perfect;” or that state of absolute perfection which we shall enjoy in heaven.2. It may be considered as to its initial state in this world, expressed in the testimonies before cited; and this is that which we inquire after. And the Lord Christ, as the sole procurer of this state, is said to be τελειωτής, the “consummator,” the “perfecter,” the “finisher of our faith,” or religious worship, Hebrews 12:2, as having brought us into a state τελειώσεως, “of perfection.”This is that, whatever it be (which we shall immediately inquire into), that is denied unto the Levitical priesthood, and afterwards unto the law, as that which they could not effect. They could not, by their utmost efficacy, nor by the strictest attendance unto them, bring the church into that state of perfection which God had designed for it in this world, and without which the glory of his grace had not been demonstrated. Fourthly, The chief thing before us, therefore, is to inquire what this state of perfection is, wherein it doth consist, and what is required unto the constitution of it; and in the whole to show that it could not be by the Levitical priesthood or law. Now the things that belong unto it are of two sorts: first, Such as belong unto the souls and consciences of believers, — that is, of the church; and secondly, Such as belong to the worship of God itself. For with respect unto these two doth the apostle discourse, and assert a state of perfection in opposition unto the imperfect state of the church under the law, with respect unto them both. And as unto the first, there are seven things concurring unto the constitution of this state:1. Righteousness; 2. Peace; 3. Light, or knowledge; 4. Liberty with boldness; 5. A clear prospect into a future state of blessedness; 6. Joy; 7. Confidence and glorying in the Lord.And the latter, or the worship of the gospel, becomes a part of this state of perfection, 1. By its being spiritual; 2. Easy, as absolutely suited unto the principles of the new creature; 3. In that it is instructive; 4. From its relation unto Christ, as the high priest; 5. From the entrance we have therein into the holy place.In these things consists that state of perfection which the church is called unto under the new testament, which it could never attain by the Levitical priesthood. This is that “kingdom of God” which “is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” Romans 14:17. But because these things are of great importance, although the particulars are many, I shall briefly consider them all apart. First, The first thing constituting this gospel-state of perfection, is righteousness. The introduction of all imperfection and weakness in the church was by sin. This made the “law weak,” Romans 8:3, and sinners to be “without strength,” Romans 5:6. Wherefore the reduction of perfection must in the first place be by righteousness. This was the great, fundamental promise of the times of the new testament, Isaiah 60:21; Psalms 72:7; Psalms 135:10-11. And this was to be brought in by Christ alone.Wherefore one name whereby he was promised unto the church was, “The LORD our Righteousness,” Jeremiah 23:6. Righteousness of our own we had none, nor could any thing in the whole creation supply us with the least of its concerns, with any thing that belongs thereunto; yet without it must we perish for ever. Wherefore Jehovah himself becomes our righteousness, that we might say, “In Jehovah have we righteousness and strength;” and that “in him all the seed of Israel might be justified and glory,” Isaiah 45:24-25. For “by him are all that believe justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses,” Acts 13:39. To this end he brought in “everlasting righteousness,” Daniel 9:24, — φֶ ?γֶ ?χςֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν, not a temporary righteousness, suited unto the ςֹ ?μָ ?ν, the “age” of the church under the old covenant, which is often said to be everlasting, in a limited sense; but that which was for all ages, — to make the church blessed unto eternity. So is he “of God made unto us righteousness,” 1 Corinthians 1:30.This is the foundation of the gospel τελείωσις, or “perfection;” and it was procured for us by the Lord Christ offering up himself in sacrifice, as our great high priest. For “we have redemption through his blood,” even “the forgiveness of sins,” Ephesians 1:7; God having“set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins,” Romans 3:25.And this he is in opposition unto whatever the law could effect, taking away that condemnation which issued from a conjunction of sin and the law: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8:3-4. The end of the law in the first place, was to be a means and instrument of righteousness unto those to whom it was given. But after the entrance of sin it became weak, and utterly insufficient unto any such purpose; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” Wherefore Christ is become “the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth,” Romans 10:4.And by whomsoever this is denied, namely, that Christ is our righteousness, — which he cannot be but by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, — they do virtually overthrow the very foundation of that state of perfection which God designed to bring his church unto. This the Levitical priesthood could not effect, for the reason given in the words following, “For under it the people received the law.” It could do no more but what the law could do; but that could not make us righteous, because it was “weak through the flesh;” and by the deeds of the law no man can be justified. It may be said, that believers had this righteousness under the Levitical priesthood, or they could not have had a “good report through faith,” namely, this testimony, “That they pleased God.” Ans. (1.) Our apostle doth not deny it, yea, he proves at large, by manifold instances, Hebrews 11, that they had it; only he denies that they had it by virtue of the Levitical priesthood, or any duties of the law He speaks not of the thing itself, with respect unto the persons of believers under the old testament, but of the cause and means of it. What they had of this kind was by virtue of another priesthood, which therefore was to be introduced; and the other, which could not effect it, was therefore to be removed. He denies not perfection unto persons under the Levitical priesthood, but denies that they were made partakers of it thereby. (2.) They had this righteousness really, and as to the benefits of it; but had it not in such clearness and evidence of its nature, cause, and effects, as it is now revealed in the gospel. Hence, although their interest in it was sufficient to secure their eternal concernments, yet they had it not in such a way as is required unto this τελείωσις in this life. For we know how great a portion of the perfect state of the gospel consists in a clear apprehension that Christ is, and how he is, our righteousness; whereon the main of our present comforts do depend. The great inquiry of the souls of men is, how they may have a righteousness before God. And the clear discovery of the cause of it, of the way and manner how we are made partakers of it, is a great part of the perfection of the gospel-state. (3.) It was so obscurely represented unto them, as that the law rose up in a competition with it, or rather, against it, in the minds of the generality of the people. They looked for righteousness “as it were by the works of the law,” Romans 9:32; and on this rock of offense, this stumbling- stone,they shipwrecked their eternal condition, Romans 9:32-33. For whilst“they went about to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not unto the righteousness of God,” Romans 10:3.And we may easily apprehend how great a snare this proved unto them. For there is in corrupted nature such an opposition and enmity unto this righteousness of God in Christ, and the dictates of the law are so rivetted in the minds of men by nature, that now, after the full and clear declaration of it in the gospel, men are shifting a thousand ways to set up a righteousness of their own in the room of it. How strong, then, must the same inclination be in them who had nothing but the law to guide them, wherein this righteousness was wrapped up under many veils and coverings! Here, therefore, at the last, the body of the people lost themselves, and continue unto this day under the curse of that law which they hoped would justify and save them. 2. Peace is the next thing that belongs unto this gospel-state of perfection. “The kingdom of God is ...... peace,” Romans 14:17. To lay the foundation of this kingdom, the Lord Christ both made peace and preached peace, or declared the nature of the peace he had made, tendering and communicating of it unto us, Ephesians 2:14; Ephesians 2:17. And this peace of evangelical consummation is threefold:(1.) With God;(2.) Between Jews and Gentiles;(3.) In and among ourselves: —(1.) It is peace with God. This is the first effect and fruit of the righteousness before mentioned, Isaiah 32:17. For “being justified by faith, we have peace with God,” Romans 5:1. And hereon depends our peace in the whole creation, above and below. And if we look into the promises of the Old Testament concerning the kingdom of Christ, the greatest part, and the most eminent of them, respect peace with God and the whole creation. All things in the creation were at odds, jarring and interfering continually, upon the entrance of sin. For an enmity thereby being introduced between God and man, it extended itself unto all other creatures that had either dependence on man, or were subservient naturally unto his use, or were put in subjection to him by God, the Lord of all. Hereby were they all cast into a state of vanity and bondage; which they groan under, and as it were look out for a deliverance from, Romans 8:20-23. But in this gospel-state God designs a reconciliation of all things, or a reduction of them into their proper order. For “he purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he would gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him,” Ephesians 1:9-10.The ἀνακεφαλαίωσις here mentioned is the same on the matter with the τελείωσις in this place. God had, in his counsel and purpose, distributed the times or ages of the world into several parts or seasons, with respect unto his own works, and the revelation of his mind and will unto men. See our exposition on Hebrews 1:1. Every one of these parts or seasons, had its particular οἰκονομία, or “dispensation.” But there was a πλήρωματῶνκαιρῶν, “a certain time” or “season,” wherein all the rest that were past before should have their complement and perfection. And this season had its especial οἰκονομία, or “dispensation” also. And this was the ἀνακεφαλαίωσις mentioned; the peace-making and reconciliation of all things, by gathering up the scattered, divided, jarring parts of the creation into one head, even Christ Jesus. And as this enmity and disorder entered into the whole by the sin of man, so the foundation of this catholic peace and order, from which nothing is excluded but the serpent and his seed, must be laid in peace between God and man. This, therefore, God designed in Christ alone, 2 Corinthians 5:20-21. The first and fundamental work of Christ, as the high priest of the new covenant, was to make peace between God and sinners. And this he did by bringing in of “everlasting righteousness.” So was he typed by Melchisedec, “first king of righteousness, then king of peace.” For “when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son,” Romans 5:10. Hence his name was ωׂ ?ψΰּ ?ωָׁ ?μεֹ ?ν, “the Prince of Peace,” Isaiah 9:5. Wherefore this reconciliation and peace with God is a great part of this gospel-perfection. So our Savior testified, John 14:27. “Peace,” saith he, “I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” Assured peace with God, delivering the souls of his disciples from all trouble and fear, is that which he peculiarly bequeathed unto them. And so great a share in this τελείωσις doth this peace with God, and the consequence of it in peace with the residue of the creation, bear, that the kingdom of Christ is most frequently spoken of under this notion, Isaiah 11:4-9, etc. But these things are liable under a double objection. For, —[1. Some may complain hereon, ‘“Behold, our bones are dried, our hope is lost, we are cut off for our parts;” for we cannot attain unto this peace with God, being exercised with fears and disconsolations all our days, so as that we seem to have no interest in this gospel-state.’ Ans. 1st. Peace is made for all that believe. 2dly. The way of attaining it is laid open unto them, Isaiah 27:5. 3dly. Patient abiding in faith will in due time bring them into this peace. 4thly. It is one thing to have peace with God, which all believers have; another to have the constant sense and comfort of it in their own souls, which they may want for a season.[2. Some say, they are so far from finding peace with the whole creation, that on all accounts they meet with great enmities in the world. Ans. 1st. It is not said that peace is made for us with Satan and the world, the serpent and his seed. This belongs not unto this perfection. 2dly. Whatever troubles we may have with other things, yet in the issue they shall all work together for our good; which is sufficient to constitute a state of peace.This part of the perfection of the church could not be attained by the Levitical priesthood. For two things belong thereunto: [1. That peace be actually made.[2. That it be fully declared. o the apostle expresseth it as it was effected by Christ, Ephesians 2:14,“He is our peace:” and that, 1st. By making peace, “he made peace,” Ephesians 2:15-16. 2dly. By declaring it, Ephesians 2:17, “He came and preached peace.”Neither of these could be done by the Levitical priesthood. Not the first, it could not make peace; because it could not bring in righteousness, which is the cause and foundation of it, Isaiah 32:17; Romans 5:1. Not the second, it could not declare or preach this peace; for the giving of the law, with all tokens of dread and severity, with the curse annexed unto it, was directly contrary hereunto. This, therefore, was brought in by this better priesthood alone.(2.) Peace between Jews and Gentiles belongs unto this state; for God designed not the erecting of his kingdom amongst one party or sort of mankind. That it should be otherwise, that the Gentiles should become the children of Abraham, and be made heirs of the promise, was a great mystery under the old testament, Ephesians 3:4-6. And we know how slow the disciples of Christ themselves were in the receiving and understanding hereof. But evident it is that this was God’s design from the giving of the first promise: and we see now, in the light of the gospel, that he gave many intimations of it unto the church of old; with respect whereunto the veil abideth on the minds of the Jews unto this day. Wherefore without this peace also, the perfect state of the church aimed at could not be attained. But this could never have been brought about by the Levitical priesthood and the law; for they were indeed the principal occasion of the distance between them, and the means of the continuance of their disagreement. And that which the Jews thought to have been the principal advantage and privilege of Abraham in his posterity, was that which, whilst it continued, kept him from the actual possession of his greatest glory, in being “the heir of the world,” and a “father of a multitude of nations.” Nor, whilst that priesthood was standing, could Japheth be persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem. Hence this peace was so far from being the effect of the Levitical priesthood and the law, as that it could not be introduced and established until they were both taken out of the way, as our apostle expressly declares, Ephesians 2:14-16. The last issue of this contest came unto these two heads:[1. Whether the Gentiles should at all be called unto the faith of the gospel. [2. Whether, being called, they should be obliged unto the observation of the law of Moses. The first fell out among the apostles themselves, but was quickly determined by our Lord Jesus Christ, unto their joy and satisfaction. And this he did two ways: 1st. By sending Peter to preach the gospel unto Cornelius, and thereon bestowing the Holy Ghost on them that did believe, Acts 10:14; Acts 10:17; Acts 10:45-472dly. By giving Paul an open, full commission to go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel unto them, Acts 22:21; Acts 26:15-18. Here the body of the people of the Jews fell off with rage and madness. But the other part of the controversy was of longer continuance. The Jews, finding that the Gentiles were by the gospel brought so near unto them as to turn from dumb idols unto God, and to receive the promise no less than themselves, would by all means have brought them over unto the obedience of the law of Moses also. This yoke the Gentiles being greatly afraid of, were in no small perplexity of mind what to do. The gospel they were resolved to embrace, but were very unwilling to take on them the yoke of the law. Wherefore the Holy Ghost in the apostles at length puts an issue unto this difference also, and lets the church know, that indeed the “wall of partition was broken down,” the “law of commandments contained in ordinances was taken away,” and that the Gentiles were not to be obliged unto the observation of it; which they greatly rejoiced in, Acts 15:31. Other way there was none for the reconciliation of those parties, who had been at so long and so great a variance.It will be said, that we yet see a variance between Jews and Gentiles continued all the world over; and that they are in all places mutually an abomination unto each other. And it is true it is so, and is likely so to continue; for there is no remedy that can be so effectual to heal a distemper, or make up a fracture, as that it will work its cure without use or application. The gospel is not at all concerned in what state and condition men are who reject it, and refuse to believe it. They may still live in enmity and malice, hateful, and hating one another. But where it is believed, embraced, and submitted unto, there an absolute end is put unto all difference or enmity between Jews and Gentiles, as such, seeing all are made one in Christ. And this τελείωσις belongs only unto them who do obey the gospel.(3.) Peace among ourselves, that is, among believers, doth also belong hereunto. There was peace and brotherly love required under the law. But no duty receiveth a greater improvement under the gospel. The purchase of it by the blood of Christ, his prayer for it, the new motive added unto it, the communication of it as the legacy of Christ unto his disciples, with the especial ends and duties of it, do constitute it a part of the perfect state of the church under the gospel. 3. The third thing wherein this τελείωσις, or “perfection,” doth consist, is spiritual light and knowledge with respect unto the mysteries of the wisdom and grace of God. God had designed for the church a measure of spiritual light and knowledge which was not attainable under the law; which is the subject of that great promise, Jeremiah 31:35, whose accomplishment is declared, 1 John 2:27. And there are three things which concur unto the constitution of this privilege: —(1.) The principal revealer of the mind and will of God. Under the law God made use of the ministry of men unto this purpose, as of Moses and the prophets. And he employed also, both in the erection of the church-state and in sundry particulars afterwards, the ministry of angels, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 2:2. And in some sense that state was thereby “put in subjection unto angels,” verse 5. But this ministry, and the dispensation of light and knowledge thereby, could not render it complete; yea, it was an argument of the darkness and bondage under which it was. For there was yet one greater than they all, and above them all, one more intimately acquainted with God and all the counsels of his will, by whom he would speak forth his mind, Deuteronomy 18:18-19. This was the Son of God himself, without whose immediate ministry the consummation of the church-state could not be attained. This consideration our apostle insists upon at large in the first chapter, and the beginning of the second, concluding from thence the pre-eminence of the evangelical state above the legal. The especial nature whereof we have declared in the exposition of those places. A most eminent privilege this was, yea, the highest outward privilege that the church is capable of, and it eminently concurs unto its perfection. For whether we consider the dignity of his person, or the perfect knowledge and comprehension that he had of the whole counsel of God and the mysteries of his grace, it incomparably exalts the present church-state above that of old; whence our apostle draws many arguments unto the necessity of our obedience above what they were urged withal. See Hebrews 2:2-3; Hebrews 12:25. And this full revelation of his counsels by the ministry of his Son, God did reserve, partly that he might have a pre- eminence in all things, and partly because none other either did or could comprehend the mysteries of it as it was now to be revealed. See John 1:18. (2.) The matter or things themselves revealed. There was under the Levitical priesthood “a shadow of good things to come,” but no perfect image or complete delineation of them, Hebrews 10:1. They had the first promise, and the enlargements of it unto Abraham and David. Sundry expositions were also added unto them, relating unto the manner of their accomplishment; and many intimations were given of the grace of God thereby. But all this was done so darkly, so obscurely, so wrapped up in types, shadows, figures, and allegories, as that no perfection of light or knowledge was to be obtained. The mystery of them continued still “hid in God,” Ephesians 3:9. Hence the doctrines concerning them are called “parables and dark sayings,” Psalms 128:2. Neither did the prophets themselves see into the depth of their own predictions, 1 Peter 1:11-12. Hence the believing church waited with earnest expectation, “until the day should break, and the shadows should flee away,” Son 2:17; Son 4:6. They longed for the breaking forth of that glorious light which the Son of God was to bring, attending in the meantime unto the word of prophecy, which was as the light of a candle unto them shining in a dark place. They lived on that great promise, Malachi 4:2. They expected righteousness, light, and grace, but knew not the way of them. Hence their prophets, righteous men, and kings, desired to see the things of the gospel, and saw them not, Matthew 13:17; Luke 10:24. And therefore John the Baptist, though he was greater than any of the prophets, because he saw and owned the Son of God as come in the flesh, which they desired to see, and saw not; yet, living and dying under the Levitical priesthood, not seeing “life and immortality brought to light by the gospel,” the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he in spiritual knowledge. Wherefore it belonged unto the τελείσωις, or perfect state of the church, that there should be a full and plain revelation and declaration made of the whole counsel of God, of the mystery of his will and grace, as the end of those things which were to be done away. And this is done in the gospel, under that new priesthood which was to be introduced. Nor without this priesthood could it be so made; for the principal part of the mystery of God depends on, consists in the discharge of the office of that priesthood. It does so on its oblation and intercession, the atonement made for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness thereby. The plain revelation of these things, which could not be made before their actual accomplishment, is a great part of this gospel perfection. This the apostle disputes at large, 2 Corinthians 3. from verse 7 to the end of the chapter. (3.) The inward spiritual light of the minds of believers, enabling them to discern the mind of God, and the mysteries of his will as revealed, doth also belong unto this part of the perfection of the gospel church-state. This was promised under the old testament, Isaiah 11:9; Isaiah 54:13; Jeremiah 31:34. And although it was enjoyed by the saints of old, yet was it so in a very small measure and low degree, in comparison with what it is now, after the plentiful effusion of the Spirit. See 1 Corinthians 2:11-12. This is that which is prayed for, Ephesians 1:17-19; Ephesians 3:18-19.Wherefore this head of the τελείωσις, or “perfection” intended, consists in three things:(1.) The personal ministry of Christ in the preaching of the gospel, or declaration of the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in himself.(2.) The dispensation or mission of the Holy Ghost, to reveal and fully make known the same mystery by the apostles and prophets of the new testament, Ephesians 3:5.(3.) The effectual illumination of the minds of them that do believe, enabling them spiritually to discern the mysteries so revealed, every one according to the measure of his gift and grace. See concerning it, 1 Peter 2:9; Ephesians 3:16-19; Ephesians 5:8.4. There belongs unto this perfection that παῤῥησία, that “liberty and boldness,” which believers have in their approaches unto God. This is frequently mentioned as an especial privilege and advantage of the gospel- state, Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 4:16; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 10:35; 1 John 3:21; 1 John 5:14. And, on the contrary, the state under the Levitical priesthood is described as a state of fear and bondage; that is, comparatively, Romans 8:15; 2 Timothy 1:7; Hebrews 2:15. And this bondage or fear arose from sundry causes inseparable from that priesthood and the administration of it; as, —(1.) From the dreadful manner of giving the law. This filled the whole people with terror and amazement. Upon the administration of the Spirit by the gospel, believers do immediately cry, “Abba, Father,” Romans 8:16; Galatians 4:6. They have the liberty and boldness to draw nigh unto God, and to call him Father. But there was such an administration of a spirit of dread and terror in the giving of the law, as that the people were not able to bear the approaches of God unto them, nor the thought of an access unto him. And therefore they desired that all things for the future might be transacted by an internuncius, — one that might go between God and them, whilst they kept at their distance, Deuteronomy 5:23-27. When any first hear the law, they are afraid of God, and desire nothing more than not to come near him. They would be saved by a distance from him. When any first hear the gospel, — that is, so as to believe it, — their hearts are opened with love to God, and all their desire is, to be near unto him, to draw nigh unto his throne. Hence it is called “the joyful sound.”Nothing can be more opposite than these two frames. And this spirit of fear and dread, thus first given out in the giving of the law, was communicated unto them in all their generations, whilst the Levitical priesthood continued. For as there was nothing to remove it, so itself was one of the ordinances provided for its continuance. This are we now wholly delivered from. See Hebrews 12:18-21.(2.) It arose from the revelation of the sanction of the law in the curse. Hereby principally “the law gendered unto bondage,” Galatians 4:24;f or all the people were in some sense put under the curse, namely, so far as they would seek for righteousness by the works of the law. So saith our apostle, “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” Galatians 3:10. This curse was plainly and openly denounced as due to the breach of the law, as our apostle adds, “It is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” And all their capital punishments were representations thereof. This could not but take a deep impression on their minds, and render them obnoxious unto bondage. Hence, although on the account of the promise they were heirs, yet by the law they were made as servants, and kept in fear, Galatians 4:1. Neither had they such a prospect into the nature and signification of their types as to set them at perfect liberty from this cause of dread. For as there was a veil on the face of Moses, — that is, all the revelations of the mind and will of God by him were veiled with types and shadows, — so there was a veil on their hearts also, in the weakness of their spiritual light, that “they could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished,” 2 Corinthians 3:13; that is, unto Him who is “the end of the law for righteousness unto every one that believeth,” Romans 10:4. It was therefore impossible but that their minds must ordinarily be filled with anxiety and fear. But there is now no more curse, in the gospel-state, Revelation 22:3. The curse abideth only on the serpent and his seed, Isaiah 65:25. The blessing of the promise doth wholly possess the place of it, Galatians 3:13-14. Only they who will choose still to be under the law, by living in the sins that it condemneth, or seeking for righteousness by the works which it commands, are under the curse. (3.) Under the Levitical priesthood, even their holy worship was so appointed and ordered as to keep them partly in fear, and partly at a distance from the presence of God. The continual multiplication of their sacrifices, one day after another, one week after another, one month after another, one year after another, taught them that by them all there was not an end made of sin, nor everlasting righteousness brought in by any of them. This argument our apostle makes use of to this purpose, Hebrews 10:1 : “The law,” saith he, “could never by those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, τοὺςπροσερχομένουςτελειῶσαι,” — bring the worshippers unto this perfection. And he gives this reason for it, namely, because they had still a “conscience of sins;” that is, a conscience condemning them for sin: and therefore there was a “remembrance made of sins again every year,” Hebrews 10:2-3. Hereby they were kept in dread and fear. And in their worship they were minded of nothing so much as their distance from God, and that they had not as yet a right to an immediate access unto him. For they were not so much as once to come into the holiest, where were the pledges and tokens of God’s presence. And the prohibitions of their approaches unto God were attended with such severe penalties, that the people cried out they were not able to bear them, Numbers 17:12-13; which Peter reflects upon, Acts 15:10. “The Holy Ghost thereby signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing,” Hebrews 9:8.No man had yet right to enter into it with boldness; which believers now have, Hebrews 10:19-20.(4.) God had designed the whole dispensation of the law under that priesthood unto this very end, that it should give the people neither rest nor liberty, but press and urge them to be looking after their full relief in the promised Seed, Galatians 4:1-2; Galatians 3:24. It pressed them with a sense of sin, and with a yoke of ceremonial observances, presenting them with the “hand-writing of ordinances which was against them,” Colossians 2:14. It urged their consciences not to seek after rest in or by that state. Here could be no perfection, because there could be no liberty. The παῤῥησία, or “boldness” we speak of, is opposed unto all these causes of bondage and fear. It was not the design of God always to keep the church in a state of non-age, and under schoolmasters; he had appointed to set it at liberty in the fullness of time, to take his children nearer unto him, to give them greater evidences of his love, greater assurances of the eternal inheritance, and the use of more liberty and boldness in his presence. But what this παῤῥησία of the gospel is, wherein it doth consist, what is included in it, what freedom of spirit, what liberty of speech, what right of access and boldness of approach unto God, built upon the removal of the law, the communication of the Spirit, the way made into the holiest by the blood of Christ, with other concernments of it, constitutive of gospel perfection, I have already in part declared, in our exposition on Hebrews 3:6, and must, if God please, yet more largely insist upon it, on Hebrews 10; so that I shall not here further speak unto it.5. A clear foresight into a blessed estate of immortality and glory, with unquestionable evidences and pledges giving assurance of it, belongs also to this consummation. Death was originally threatened as the final end and issue of sin. And the evidence hereof was received under the Levitical priesthood, in the curse of the law. There was, indeed, a remedy provided against its eternal prevalency, in the first promise. For whereas death comprised all the evil that was come, or was to come on man for sin, — “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” — the promise contained the means of deliverance from it, or it was no promise, tendered no relief unto man in the state whereinto he was fallen. But the people under the law could see but little into the manner and way of its accomplishment, nor had they received any pledge of it, in any one that was dead, and lived again so as to die no more. Wherefore their apprehensions of this deliverance were dark, and attended with much fear; which rendered them obnoxious unto bondage. See the exposition on Hebrews 2:14-15, where we have declared the dreadful apprehensions of the Jews concerning death, received by tradition from their fathers. They could not look through the dark shades of death, into light, immortality, and glory. See the two-fold spirit of the old and new testaments with respect unto the apprehensions of death expressed; the one, Job 10:21-22; the other, 2 Corinthians 5:1-4. But there is nothing more needful unto the perfect state of the church. Suppose it endowed with all possible privileges in this world, yet if it have not a clear view and prospect with a blessed assurance of immortality and glory after death, its condition will be dark and uncomfortable. And as this could not be done without the bringing in of another priesthood, so by that of Christ it is accomplished. For, — (1.) He himself died as our high priest. He entered into the devouring jaws of death, and that as it was threatened in the curse. And now is the trial to be made. If he who thus ventured on death as threatened in the curse, and that for us, be swallowed up by it, or detained by its power and pains, there is a certain end of all our hopes. Whatever we may arrive unto in this world, death will convey us over into eternal ruin. But if he break through its power, have the pains of it removed from him, do swallow it up in victory, and rise triumphantly into immortality and glory; then is our entrance into them also, even by and after death, secured. And in the resurrection of Christ the church had the first unquestionable evidence that death might be conquered, that it and the curse might be separated, that there might be a free passage through it into life and immortality. These things originally and in the first covenant were inconsistent, nor was the reconciliation of them evident under the Levitical priesthood; but hereby was the veil rent from top to bottom, and the most holy place not made with hands laid open unto believers. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Μετατιθεμένηςγὰρτῆςἱερωσύνης, ἐξἀνάγκηςκαὶνόμουμετάθεσιςγίνεται.“Mutato sacerdotio.” Vulg. Lat., “translato.” Beza, “hoc sacerdotio;” expressing the article. Syr., “Yea, even as a change was made in the priesthood, so a change was made also in the law;” not to the mind of the apostle. Ethiop., “If their law is passed away, their priesthood shall pass away;” more out of the way than the other. Hebrews 7:12. — For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law.In this verse the apostle evidently declares what he intended by “the law” in that foregoing, which “the people received under the Levitical priesthood.” It was the whole “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood. And herein lieth the stress and moment of the controversy which the apostle then had with the Jews, and which we have at this day with their unbelieving posterity. For the question was, whether the law of Moses was to be eternal absolutely, — the rule of the worship of the church whilst it was to continue in this world. And it appears that in the preaching of the gospel, that which most provoked the Jews was, that there was inferred thereby a cessation and taking away of Mosaical institutions. This was that which enraged them, unto the shedding of the blood of the church, which they were guilty of, after the murder of the Head thereof. For they fell on Stephen under pretense that he had said that “Jesus of Nazareth should change the customs which Moses delivered,” Acts 6:14. And this also provoked their rage against our apostle, Acts 21:28. Yea, the most of them who were converted to the faith of the gospel yet continued obstinate in this persuasion, that the law of Moses was yet to continue in force, Acts 21:20. And with this opinion some of them troubled the peace and hindered the edification of the churches called from among the Gentiles, as hath been at large elsewhere declared. This matter, therefore, which the apostle now entereth upon, was to be managed with care and diligence. This he enters upon in this verse, being a transition from one point unto another, having made way for his intentions in the verse foregoing. That which hitherto he hath insisted on in this chapter, is the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, manifested in the representation made of it by Melchisedec. In the pursuit of his argument unto that purpose, he proves that the Aaronical priesthood was to be abolished, because, after its institution, there was a promise of the introduction of another, wherewith it was inconsistent. And herein observing the strict conjunction that was between that priesthood and the law, with their mutual dependence on one another, he proves from thence that the law itself was also to be abolished. Herein, therefore, lay the principal design of the apostle in this whole epistle. For the law may be looked on under a double consideration: 1. As unto what the Jews, in that degenerate state of the chinch, obstinately looked for from it. 2. As unto what it did really require of them, whilst it stood in force and power. And under both these considerations it was utterly inconsistent with the gospel.1. The Jews at that time expected no less from it than expiation of sin by its sacrifices, and justification by the works of it. It is true, they looked for these things by it unjustly, seeing it promised no such thing, nor was ever ordained unto any such purpose; but yet these things they looked for, and were resolved so to do, until the law should be removed out of the way. And it is evident how inconsistent this is with the whole work of the mediation of Christ, which is the sum and substance of the gospel. But suppose they looked not absolutely for atonement and justification by the sacrifices and works of the law, yet the continuance of their observance was repugnant unto the gospel. For the Lord Christ, by the one offering of himself, had made perfect atonement for sin; so that the sacrifices of the law could be of no more use or signification. And the continuance of them, wherein there was renewed mention of the expiation of sin, did declare that there was not a perfect expiation already made: which overthrows the efficacy and virtue of the sacrifice of Christ; even as the daily repetition of a sacrifice in the mass continueth to do. Again; whereas the Lord Christ, by his obedience and righteousness, had fulfilled the law, and was become the end of it for righteousness unto them that do believe, the seeking after justification as it were by the works of the law was wholly repugnant thereunto. 2. And in the next place, the law may be considered as it prescribed a way of worship, in its ordinances and institutions, which God did accept. This the people were indispensably obliged unto whilst the law stood in force. But in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ had now appointed a new, spiritual worship, suited unto the principles and grace thereof. And these were so inconsistent as that no man could at once serve these two masters.Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent. If, then, the law continue in its force, and have power to oblige the consciences of men, and is still so to abide, there is neither room nor place for Christ and his priesthood in the church, nor, indeed, for the discharge of his other offices. And this opposition between the law and the gospel, works and grace, our own righteousness and that of Christ, our apostle doth not only grant, but vehemently urge, in all his epistles, allowing none to suppose that they may have both these strings unto their bow. One of them he is peremptory that all mankind must betake themselves unto. Here the Jews were entangled, and knew not what to do. The greatest part of them adhered unto the law, with an utter rejection of the gospel and the Author of it, perishing in their unbelief. Others of them endeavored to make a composition of these things, and retaining of Moses, they would admit of Christ and the gospel also. And this the Holy Ghost in the apostles did for a while bear withal. But now, whereas the whole service of the tabernacle was of itself fallen down, and become, as useless, so of no force, its obliging power ceasing in its accomplishment by Christ; and whereas the time was drawing near wherein God by his providence would utterly remove it; the inconsistency of it with the gospel-state of the church was now fully to be declared. This, therefore, our apostle grants, that there was such a repugnancy between the law and the gospel, as unto the ends of righteousness and divine worship, as that one of them must of necessity be parted withal. Wherefore the whole controversy turning on this hinge, it was highly incumbent on him to manifest and prove that the law did now cease, according unto the appointment of God; and that God had of old designed, foretold, and promised, that so it should do, and be abolished upon the introduction of that which was the end and substance of it. And this I look upon as the greatest trial the faith of men ever had in the concerns of religion; namely, to believe that God should take away, abolish, and leave as dead and useless, that whole system of solemn worship which he had appointed in so glorious a manner, and accepted for so many generations. But yet, as we are to acquiesce in the sovereign pleasure of God, made known by revelation, against all reasonings of our own whatsoever; so it must be confessed that faith was greatly bespoken and prepared, by the nature, end, and use of all those institutions, which more than intimated that they were appointed only for a time, and served to introduce a more glorious dispensation of divine wisdom and grace. The proof, therefore, of the utter cessation of the law, the apostle enters upon by the invincible argument whose foundation or proposition is laid in this verse, and the especial parts of it are explained, confirmed, and vindicated, in those that follow. And in his ensuing discourse his principal design is to prove, that the church is so far from being a loser or disadvantaged by this change, as that she receiveth thereby the highest privilege and greatest blessing that in this world she is capable of. In the words of this verse there is a supposition of the change of the priesthood, as that which was proved before; and an inference from thence unto a necessity of the change of the law.“The priesthood being changed;” that is, the priesthood of Levi, appointed and exercised under the law. Μετατιθεμένης, “translato,” “mutato;” so some read, “transferred,” “translated;” some, “changed.” The former do not reach the whole sense intended; for the office of the priesthood may be transferred from one person to another, one family unto another, yea, one tribe unto another, and yet the priesthood, as to the kind and nature of it, continue the same. This our apostle afterwards mentions, verses 13, 14, as a part of his argument to prove the priesthood itself to be changed. But this it doth not absolutely, seeing it is possible that the office may be transferred from one tribe unto another and yet not be changed as unto its nature. But the proof lies in this, that Moses, in the institution of the priesthood, made no mention of the tribe of Judah; and therefore if that office be transferred unto that tribe, it must be of another kind than that before instituted. And on this supposition, that which he intends to prove follows evidently upon the translation of the priesthood. For all the sacred services and worship which the law required were so confined, or at least had that respect unto the Levitical priesthood, as that no part of it, no sacred duty, could be performed, on a supposition of taking away the priesthood from that tribe and family. For whereas the whole of their worship consisted in the service and sacrifices of the tabernacle, God had appointed that whosoever did draw nigh unto the performance of any of these services that was not of the seed of Aaron, should be cut off and destroyed. Wherefore, upon a supposition of the ceasing or changing of the priesthood in that family, the whole law of ordinances became impracticable, useless, and lost its power; especially seeing there was no provision made in the law itself for a priesthood in any other tribe. Besides, such was the contexture of the law, and such the sanction of it, (“Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them,”) that if any thing be taken out of it, if its order be disturbed, if any alteration be made, or any transgression be dispensed withal, or exempted from the curse, the whole fabric must of necessity fall unto the ground. But yet it is not a mere transferring of the priesthood from one tribe unto another that is here intended by the apostle; for there is such a change of the priesthood as there is of the law. But the change of the law was an ἀθέτησις, a “disannulling” or abolishing, as it is affirmed, verse 18: such, therefore, must the change of the priesthood be; and so it was. The priesthood was changed, in that one kind of it was utterly abolished, and another introduced. So was the Levitical priesthood changed, as that the other priest, which came with his office in the room thereof, could not be called or said to be after the order of Aaron, but was of another kind, typed out by Melchisedec. It may therefore be inquired on what grounds this priesthood was to be so abolished, or how it appears that so it is, and by what means it was actually taken away. That it was so to be abolished the apostle proves, 1. Because, before the institution of that priesthood, there was another far more excellent, namely, that of Melchisedec.2. That the Holy Ghost had declared that the introduction of that more excellent priesthood for a season was to prefigure and represent another priesthood, that was afterwards to be established. And this could not be that of Levi, seeing God doth not make use of that which is more excellent to prefigure or represent that which is inferior thereunto. Another priesthood, therefore, must arise and be granted unto the church, in answer unto that type. 3. That it was impossible that this new priesthood, after the order of Melchisedec, should be consistent with that of Levi, or that it should be continued after that was brought in. For,(1.) He was to be of another tribe, as he immediately proves.(2.) Because his priesthood and sacrifice were to be of another kind than that of Levi; which he demonstrates at large in the three ensuing chapters.(3.) Because, on the other, hand, the priesthood of Aaron,[1. Could never accomplish and effect the true and proper ends of the priesthood, which the church stood in need of, and without which it could not be consummated: and, [2. Was in its own nature, offices, works, and duties, inconsistent with any priesthood that was not of its own order. It must therefore be abolished. It may therefore be inquired, how the priesthood was changed, or that of the house of Levi taken away. And I say, as the apostle directs, first, It was done by the appointment of God. For his introduction of another priest, when it was actually accomplished, had the force of a repealing law. The institution of the former was abrogated thereby, without any other constitution. For as unto its use, it did hence cease of itself. It had no more to do, its work was at an end, and its services of no advantage to the church. For the sign of what is to come is set aside when the thing signified is brought in, and ceaseth to be a sign; yea, the continuance of it would give a testimony against itself. And as to its right, this new institution of God, by his own authority applied unto it in its proper season, took it away. Secondly, The application of the authority of God in the institution of a new priesthood to take away the old was made by the Holy Ghost, in the revelation of the will of God by the gospel, wherein the ceasing of it was declared. And sundry things may be observed concerning this abolishing of it: — Obs. 1. Notwithstanding the great and many provocations of them by whom it was exercised and discharged, yet God took it not away until it had accomplished the end whereunto it was designed. — Neither the wickedness of the people, nor of the priests themselves, could provoke the Lord to revoke his institution, until, 1. The appointed end of it was come. And it is no small part of the blindness of the present Jews, to think that God would so utterly abolish his own ordinance, as they must acknowledge he hath done, if he would have it to be of any longer use in the church. For sixteen hundred years they have not had any priest among them. Nor is it possible they should, according unto the law, if they were actually restored unto their own pretended right in Canaan: for they have utterly lost the distinction of tribes among them, nor can any of them in the least pretend that they are of the lineage of the priests; and for any one to usurp that office who is not lineally descended from Aaron, they own to be an abomination. As, therefore, they know not how to look for a Messiah from the tribe of Judah, seeing all sacred genealogy is at an end; no more can they look for a priest of the house of Aaron. Now, this end of it was the “bringing in of a better hope,” or the promised Seed; who, according to the promise, was to come to the second temple, and therefore whilst that priesthood continued. 2. God took it not away till he brought in that which was more excellent, glorious, and advantageous unto the church, namely, the priesthood of Christ. And if this be not received, through their unbelief, they alone are the cause of their being losers by this alteration.3. In abundant patience and condescension, with respect unto that interest which it had in the consciences of men from his institution, God did not utterly lay it aside in a day, after which it should be absolutely unlawful to comply with it; but he took it away by degrees, as shall afterwards be declared.Obs. 2. That the efficacy of all ordinances or institutions of worship depends on the will of God alone. — Whilst it was his will that the priesthood should abide in the family of Levi, it was useful and effectual unto all the ends whereunto it was designed; but when he would make an alteration therein, it was in vain for any to look for either benefit or advantage by it. And although we are not now to expect any change in the institutions of divine worship, yet all our expectations from them are to be resolved into the will of God.Obs. 3. Divine institutions cease not without an express divine abrogation. — Where they are once granted and erected by the authority of God, they can never cease without an express act of the same authority taking them away. So was it with the institutions of the Aaronical priesthood, as the apostle declares. And this one consideration is enough to confirm the grant of the initial seal of the covenant unto the seed of present believers, which was once given by God himself in the way of an institution, and never by him revoked. Obs. 4. God will never abrogate or take away any institution or ordinance of worship unto the loss or disadvantage of the church. — He would not remove or abolish the priesthood of Levi until that which was incomparably more excellent was introduced and established. Obs. 5. God in his wisdom so ordered all things, that the taking away of the priesthood of the law gave it its greatest glory. — For it ceased not before it had fully and absolutely accomplished the end whereunto it was designed: which is the glory and perfection of any ordinance; even the mediation of Christ himself shall cease when all the ends of it are fulfilled. And this end of the priesthood was most glorious; namely, the bringing in of that of Christ, and therein of the eternal salvation of the church. And what more honorable issue could it come unto? The Jews, by their pretended adherence unto it, are they which cast the highest dishonor upon it; for they own that it is laid aside, at least that it hath been so for sixteen hundred years, and yet neither the end of it effected nor any thing brought in by it unto the greater advantage of the church. The next thing considerable in these words, is the inference which the apostle makes from his assertion and the proof of it: “There is made of necessity a change also of the law;” ἐξἀνάγκης, “of necessity.” It is not a note of the necessity of the inference from the proposition, in the way of argument, but the necessary dependence of the things mentioned, the one on the other. For whereas the whole administration of the law, so far as it concerned the expiation of sin by sacrifices, and the solemn worship of God in the tabernacle or temple, depended absolutely on, and was confined unto the Aaronical priesthood, so as that without it no one sacrifice could be offered unto God, nor any ordinance of divine worship be observed; that priesthood being abolished and taken out of the way, the law itself of necessity and unavoidably ceaseth and becometh useless. It doth so, I say, as unto all the proper ends of it, as a law obligatory unto the duties required in it. Wherefore there is also νόμουμετάθεσις, “a change of the law; that is, an abolition of it: for it is a change of the same nature with the change of the priesthood; which, as we have showed, was its abolition and taking away. And how this came to pass the word γίνεται declares; there is “made” a change. It did, indeed, necessarily follow on the change of the priesthood; yet not so, but that there was an act of the will and authority of God on the law itself. God made this change, and he alone could do it; that he would do so, and did so, the apostle proves in this and the verses following. So is the “law of commandments contained in ordinances taken out of the way,” being “nailed unto the cross of Christ,” where he left it completely accomplished.But moreover, the law in its institutions was an instructive revelation, and taught many things concerning the nature of sin, its expiation and cleansing; representing, though darkly, good things to come. So it is yet continued as a part of the revealed will of God. And the light of the gospel being brought unto it, we may learn things far more clearly out of it than ever the Jews of old could do. And the force of the argument here insisted on by the apostle against the absolute perpetuity of the law, — which was of old, and yet continueth to be, the head of the controversy between the Jews and the church of Christ, — is so unavoidable, that some of them have been compelled to acknowledge that in the days of the Messiah legal sacrifices and the rest of their ceremonies shall cease; though the most of them understand that their cause is given away thereby. And they have no other way to free themselves from this argument of the apostle, but by denying that Melchisedec was a priest, or that it is the Messiah who is prophesied of, Psalms 110.; which evidences of a desperate cause, and more desperate defenders of it, have been elsewhere convinced of folly. Wherefore this important argument is confirmed by our apostle in the ensuing verses. And we may see, — Obs. 6. How it is a fruit of the manifold wisdom of God, that it was a great mercy to gave the law, and a greater to take it away. And,— Obs. 7. If under the law the whole worship of God did so depend on the priesthood, that that failing, or being taken away, the whole worship of itself was to cease, as being no more acceptable before God; how much more is all worship under the new testament rejected by him, if there be not a due regard therein unto the Lord Christ, as the only high priest of the church, and to the efficacy of his discharge of that office!Obs. 8. It is the highest vanity, to pretend use or continuance in the church, from possession or prescription, or pretended benefit, beauty, order, or advantage, when once the mind of God is declared against it. — The pleas of this kind for the old priesthood and law excelled all that can be insisted on, with respect unto any other things that any pretend a veneration for in divine worship; yet were they of no validity or efficacy. ᾿Εφ᾿ὅνγὰρλέγεταιταῦτα, φυλῆςἐτέραςμετέσχηκεν, ἀφ᾿ἧςοὐδεὶςπροσέσχηκετῷθυσιαστηρίῳ.᾿Εφ᾿ὅν,” in quem.” “In quo,” Vulg. Lat. δָּ ?εθֵּ ?ιψγֵּ ?ΰϊַ ?ΰξְ ?ψִ ςֲ ?μַ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιηָ ?μֵ ?ιο, Syr.; “for he concerning whom these things are spoken.” “For he on whom these things are said,” Rhem., improperly. Φυλῆςἑτέραςμετέσχηκεν. Vulg., “de alia tribu est;” Rhem., “is of another tribe:” omitting the especial force of the word μετέσχηκεν, though the substance of the sense be retained. Syr., ‘ΰֶ ?ϊִ ?ιμֵ ?γ, “was born of another tribe.” “Particeps fuit,” did derive his genealogy from, and so had his especial relation unto, another tribe. Προσέσχηκε, “ministravit,” “attendit.” Vulg., “praesto fuit.” The Ethiopic, “And if any one will say so,” (or “as one may say,”) “he placeth another tribe, because they kept not the altar;” mistaking both the meaning of the design and sense of the apostle’s words.Hebrews 7:13. — For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth unto another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.The causal conjunction, γάρ, doth not only intimate a pursuit of the foregoing argument, and the confirmation of the supposition whereon it was built, but also an entrance upon the express application of the whole precedent discourse unto the person of Jesus Christ, the true and only high priest of the church. In the words there is,1. The subject to be further treated on described, ᾿Εφ᾿ὅνλέγεταιταῦτα: that is, περὶοὗ, “de quo,” — “he concerning whom;” “quem designaverunt haec,” “ad quem haec pertinent,” — “he who is designed in all these things,” “he unto whom they do all belong,” “he with respect unto whom ταῦτα,” — “these things;” that is, all that hath been spoken concerning Melchisedec and his priesthood, all things that do naturally follow and ensue thereon. For although sundry of them were spoken firstly and immediately concerning other persons and things, yet they all belong ultimately and perfectly unto Christ alone, whom they did represent and make way for. And we may observe hence, —Obs. 1. That it is our duty, in studying of the Scripture, to inquire diligently after the things which are spoken concerning Jesus Christ, and what is taught of him in them. — This doth our apostle find out in all that was spoken concerning Melchisedec and the Levitical priesthood. This he himself gives in charge, John 5:39, “Search the Scriptures: they are they which testify of me.” Our principal aim in searching the Scriptures ought to be, that we may find out what they say and what they testify concerning Christ. And this was the practice of the prophets of old, with respect unto all the revelations which they received, 1 Peter 1:10-12. Let the pains, and industry, and skill of men, in the reading and interpreting of the Scriptures, be what they will, without this design they will never rightly be understood, nor duly improved. For as those things which concern his person, office, and grace, with the mysteries of the wisdom of God in them all, are the principal subject of them; so all other things which are taught and revealed in them are never apprehended, unto any good end or purpose, unless their relation unto him and dependence upon him be rightly understood. Some are charged that they esteem no preaching but that which is concerning the person of Christ; which how false an accusation it is, their preaching and writings do discover. But this they say, indeed, (that is, some do so,) that seeing it is the design of God to “gather all things into a head in Christ,” that preaching is to little purpose which doth not more or less expressly evidence the relation of all truths and duties unto him. 2. It is added, φυλῆςμετέσχηκε, — “he pertaineth unto another tribe.” To confirm his argument concerning the changing or abolition of the priesthood, the apostle supposeth the distribution of the people into tribes, according unto the number of the sons of Jacob. And as these tribes had a common interest in the church, so some of them had peculiar privileges granted and confirmed unto them by law. So the priesthood was granted, confined, and confirmed unto the tribe of Levi, and unto the family of Aaron in that tribe. And it was so confined thereunto, as that all the rest of the tribes were for ever excluded from any interest therein, and all that belonged unto them incapacitated therefor. But unto one of the tribes so excluded from an interest in the legal priesthood did He belong of whom these things are spoken. And this I look upon as the principal reason of the distinction of that people into their tribes; namely, that God thereby might provide for their instruction as to the continuance of the legal worship among them; which could be no longer continued than the priesthood was reserved unto that one tribe whereunto it was originally granted, Μετέσχηκε. See the meaning of the word in our exposition on Hebrews 2:14. His share, lot, and interest, lay in another tribe.3. He describes in general this other tribe whereof he was, by its legal exclusion from all the service of the altar: “Of which no man gave attendance at the altar.” What tribe that was in particular he declares in the next verse, showing not only of what tribe he was, but also what it was necessary he should be. “Another tribe, ἀφ᾿ἧς, — whereof; — “from which none that was genealogized attended at the altar;’that is, had right so to do, or was not forbidden by the law so to do. God doth not reckon that to be done in his service which he hath not appointed, much less which he hath forbidden. What other inroads were made on the sacerdotal office we know not; but one of the tribe here intended by the apostle, whereof none was to attend at the altar, did draw nigh to offer incense; for which he was rebuked by the high priest, and punished of God, 2 Chronicles 26:16-21. And God exercised the greater severity herein, that the church might understand, that when he introduced and allowed of a priest of another tribe, that old priesthood must of necessity cease and be abolished. “No man gave attendance;” that is, had right so to do. That expression, προσέσχηκετῷθυσιαστηρίῳ, “attended,” “waited on the altar,” may be a synecdochical description of the whole priestly office from the principal work and duty belonging thereunto. But I suppose the apostle may not only include the priests, unto whom the immediate work of sacrificing at the altar did belong, but all those who attended the services of it, though they could neither burn incense nor offer sacrifice; that is, all the Levites in their courses. For he so excludes the tribe whereof he speaks from the least relation unto the sacerdotal work or office. None of them ever did or might draw near nor minister at the altar, in any sacred services whatsoever. See 1 Corinthians 9:13.This entrance doth the apostle make into the confirmation of his assertion, that the priesthood was changed, and therewithal the law. For it appears that there was to be a priest who had no right by the law so to be, seeing he was of that tribe which the law utterly excluded from any interest in the sacred services of the altar, and much more those which were peculiar unto the Aaronical priests. Thus, — Obs. 2. All men’s rights, duties, and privileges, in sacred things, are fixed and limited by divine institution. And, — Obs. 3. Seeing Christ himself had no right to minister at the material altar, the re-introduction of such altars is inconsistent with the perpetual continuance of his priesthood. The apostle confirms his assertion by a particular application of it unto the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hebrews 7:14.— Πρόδηλονγὰρὅτιἐξ᾿ΙούδαἀνατέταλκενὁΚύριοςἡμῶν, εἰςἥνφυλὴνοὐδὲνπερὶἱερωσύνηςΜωϋσῆςἐλάλησε.Περὶἱερωσύνης. Vulg. Lat., “de sacerdotibus;” without countenance from any copies of the original or ancient translation. [5] [5] VARIOUS . — So far is this statement from being correct, that ἱερέων is adopted as the text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Theile, while Griesbach marks it as a reading of great value, on the authority of Mss. A B C D E., and eight versions. . — “The application of ἱερέων, is not certain. It may be connected with the point already stated, the change, namely, of the priesthood, and then πρόδηλον will mean for, and the idea be this: ‘Such a change was no doubt intended, for it is shown clearly by the fact that “our Lord sprang from Judah. Then the next verse will continue the proof: ‘And that this change was intended is yet more abundantly evident, if (or since, εἰ) another priest like Melchisedec rises up.’But the connection may be with the statement immediately preceding, and then ὅτι must be rendered that, and the meaning will be as in our English translation. This view is most generally followed by interpreters....The use of πρόδηλον immediately followed by περισσότερονἔτικατάδηλον seems to favor the other view.” — Turner. While OEcumenius, Limborch, Tholuck, Bleek, and others, connect κατάδηλον with the change of the priesthood, (“That, with the priesthood, the law also is changed, is so much the more manifest,”) Ebrard, De Wette, and Boothroyd, connect it with the descent of Christ: “That Jesus sprang from Judah is already in itself an acknowledged fact (verse 14); but this is all the more manifest, as (verse 15) it follows from Christ’s priesthood being after the order of Melchisedec that he could not be born κατὰνόμον.” — ED. Hebrews 7:14. — For it is evident [or manifest] that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.The words contain a double assertion: 1. That “our Lord sprang of the tribe of Judah.”2. That “of that tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.” There wants nothing to complete the proof of his argument but that our Lord was a priest; which he therefore proves in the ensuing verses.In the First part of the words there are two things considerable:1. The manner of the proposition, or the modification of the assertion, Πρόδηλόν [ἐστι.] The conjunction γὰρ, “for,” doth only show that a reason or proof of what was before laid down is here introduced. And of this he saith, “palam est,” “manifestum,” — it is “manifest,” “open,” a thing confessed; “evident,” as we say, in itself; a thing easy to be proved, but that it is by no man denied. Only, whereas δῆλον is “manifest” or “evident,” πρόδηλον seems to intimate what was “manifest beforehand;” as προδηλόω is to “evidence a matter beforehand.” And this may not only respect, but be confined unto the preceding promise and declaration that the Messiah should be of the tribe of Judah. But we may consider in general how this is said to be a thing “evident” or “manifest” in its application unto our Lord Jesus Christ. And,— (1.) This was included in the faith of believers, who granted him to be the Messiah; for nothing was more plainly promised under the old testament, nor more firmly believed by the church, than that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah, and of the family of David. And thus it was πρόδηλον, “manifest to them beforehand.” For unto Judah the promise was solemnly confined, Genesis 49:8-10, and frequently reiterated unto David, as I have showed elsewhere. Whoever, therefore, acknowledged our Lord Jesus Christ to be the true Messiah, — as all the Hebrews did unto whom our apostle wrote, though the most of them adhered unto the law and ceremonies of it, — they must and did grant that he sprang of the tribe of Judah. And none of the unbelieving Jews made use of this objection, that he was not of the tribe of Judah; which if they could have managed, had absolutely justified them in their unbelief. This was sufficient unto the purpose of the apostle, seeing he proceeded not only on what was granted among them, but firmly believed by them, and not denied by their adversaries.(2.) It was in those days manifest by his known genealogy; for, by the providence of God, his parents were publicly enrolled of that tribe, and of the family of David, in the tax and recognition of the people appointed by Augustus Caesar, Luke 2:4-5. And this was made yet more famous bythe cruelty of Herod, seeking his destruction among the children of Bethlehem, Matthew 2. And the genealogies of all families, whilst the Jewish commonwealth continued in any condition, were carefully preserved, because many legal rights and constitutions did depend thereon.And this preservation of genealogies was both appointed of God and fenced with legal rights, for this very end, to evidence the accomplishment of his promise in the Messiah. And unto this end was his genealogy written and recorded by two of the evangelists, as that whereon the truth of his being the Messiah did much depend. Sundry of the ancients had an apprehension that the Lord Christ derived his genealogy from both the tribes of Judah and Levi, in the regal and sacerdotal offices, as he who was to be both king and priest. And there is a story inserted in Suidas, how, in the days of Justinian the emperor, one Theodosius, a principal patriarch of the Jews, acquainted his friend, one Philip, a Christian, how he was enrolled by the priests in their order, as of the lineage of the priests, by the name of “Jesus the son of Mary and of God;” and that the records thereof were kept by the Jews at Tiberias to that very time. But the whole story is filled with gross effects of ignorance and incredible fables, being only a dream of some superstitious monastic. But the ancients grounded their imagination on the kindred that was between his mother and Elisabeth, the wife of Zacharias the priest, who was “of the daughters of Aaron,” Luke 1:5. But this whole conceit is not only false, but directly contradictory to the scope and argument of the apostle in this place. For the authors of it would have the Lord Christ so to derive his genealogy from the tribe of Levi, as thence to be entitled unto the priesthood; which yet it could not be, unless he were also proved to be of the family of Aaron: and to assign a priesthood unto him as derived from Aaron, is openly contradictory unto the apostle in this place, and destructive of his whole design, as also of the true, real priesthood of Christ himself; as is evident unto any one who reads this chapter. The alliance and kindred that was between the blessed Virgin and Elisabeth was doubtless by an antecedent intermarriage of those tribes, as Elisabeth’s mother might be sister unto the father or grandfather of the holy Virgin. And this was not only lawful between the tribes of Judah and Levi, or the regal and sacerdotal families, — whence Jehoshabeath the wife of Jehoiada, was the daughter of Jehoram the king, 2 Chronicles 22:11, as some have imagined, — but such marriages were usual unto and lawful among all the other tribes, where women had no inheritances of land; which was expressly provided against by a particular law. And this very law of exception doth sufficiently prove the liberty of all others; for the words of it are, “Every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers,” Numbers 36:8. Both the express limitation of the law unto those who possessed inheritances, and the reason of it, for the preservation of the lots of each tribe entire, as verses 3, 4, manifest that all others were at liberty to marry any Israelite, be he of what tribe soever. And thus both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, one by a legal, the other by a natural line, were both of them from the tribe of Judah, and family of David. So, —Obs. 1. It pleaseth God to give sufficient evidence unto the accomplishment of his promises.2. For the manner of the proceeding of the Lord Christ from that tribe, the apostle expresseth it by ἀνατέταλκε, — “he sprang.” ᾿Ανατέλλω is usually taken in an active sense, “to cause to rise:” Matthew 5:45, Τὸνἥλιοναὐτοῦἀνατέλλει, — “He causeth his sun to rise.” And sometimes it is used neutrally, for “to rise;” and so, as some think, it peculiarly denotes the rising of the sun, in distinction from the other planets. Hence is ἀνατολή, “the east,” from the rising of the sun. So the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is called the “rising of the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings,” Malachi 4:2. ᾿Ανατολὴἐξὕψους, Luke 1:78, — “Theday-spring from on high.” Thus did the Lord Christ arise in the light and glory of the sun, “a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.” But the word is used also to express other springings, as of water from a fountain, or a branch from the stock. And so it is said of our Lord Jesus, that he should “grow up as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground,” Isaiah 53:2; a “rod out of the stem, and a branch out of the roots of Jesse,” Isaiah 11:1. Hence he is frequently called “The Branch,” and “The Branch of the LORD,”Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12. But the first, which is the most proper sense of the word, is to be regarded; he arose eminently and illustriously from the tribe of Judah.Secondly, Having laid down this matter of fact, as that which was evident, and on all hands confessed, he observes upon it, that “of that tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood.”Εἰςἥνφυλήν, “with reference unto which tribe;” περὶἧς, “de qua tribu.” Being to prove that the priesthood did no way belong to the tribe of Judah, so that the introduction of a priest of that tribe must necessarily exclude those of the house of Aaron from that office, he appeals unto the lawgiver, or rather, the law itself. For by “Moses,” not the person of Moses absolutely is intended, as though these things depended on his authority; but it is his ministry in giving of the law, or his person only as ministerially employed in the declaration of it, that our apostle respects. And it is the law of worship that is under consideration. Moses did record the blessing of Judah, as given him by Jacob, wherein the promise was made unto him that the Shiloh should come from him, Genesis 49:10; and this same Shiloh was also to be a priest: but this was a promise before the law, and not to be accomplished until the expiration of the law, and belonged not unto any institution of the law given by Moses. Wherefore Moses, as the lawgiver, when the office of the priesthood was instituted in the church, and confirmed by especial law or ordinance, spake nothing of it with respect unto the tribe of Judah. For as in the law, the first institution of it was directly confined unto the tribe of Levi and house of Aaron, so there is not in all the law of Moses the least intimation that on any occasion, in any future generation, it should be translated unto that tribe. Nor was it possible, without the alteration and abolition of the whole law, that any one of that tribe should once be put into the office of the priesthood: the whole worship of God was to cease, rather than that any one of the tribe of Judah should officiate in the office of the priesthood. And this silence of Moses in this matter the apostle takes to be a sufficient argument to prove that the legal priesthood did not belong, nor could be transferred, unto the tribe of Judah. And the grounds hereof are resolved into this general maxim, that whatever is not revealed and appointed in the worship of God by God himself, is to be considered as nothing, yea, as that which is to be rejected. And such he conceived to be the evidence of this maxim, that he chose rather to argue from the silence of Moses in general than from the particular prohibition, that none who was not of the posterity of Aaron should approach unto the priestly office. So God himself condemneth some instances of false worship on this ground, that “he never appointed them,” that “they never came into his heart,” and hence aggravates the sin of the people, rather than from the particular prohibition of them, Jeremiah 7:31. Wherefore, — Obs. 2. Divine revelation gives bounds, positively and negatively, unto the worship of God. That the Aaronical priesthood was to be changed, and consequently the whole law of ordinances that depended thereon, and that the time wherein this change was to be made was now come, is that which is designed unto confirmation in all this discourse. And it is that truth whereinto our faith of the acceptance of evangelical worship is resolved; for without the removal of the old, there is no place for the new. This, therefore, the apostle now fully confirms by a recapitulation of the force and sum of his preceding arguments. Hebrews 7:15-17. — Καὶπερισσότερονἔτικατάδηλόνἐστιν, εἰκατὰτὴνὁμοιότηατΜελξισεδὲκἀνίσταταιἱερεὺςἕτερος, ὅςοὐκατὰνὁμονἐντολῆςσαρκικῆςγέγονεν, ἀλλὰκατὰδύναμινζωῆςἀκαταλύτου. Μαρτυρεῖγὰρ, ῞ΟτισὺἰερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ. [6][6] VARIOUS . — Σαρκίνης, instead of σαρκικῆς, is the reading preferred by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf; the sense remaining unchanged. Μαρτυρεῖται is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, on the authority of such Mss. as ABDE.. The sense is thus improved, “it is testified.” The other reading would seem to ascribe the psalm to Moses, verse 14, contrary to Matthew 22:43.— ED. Hebrews 7:15-17. — And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.There are four things to be considered in these words: 1. The manner of the introduction of this new argument, declaring its especial force, with the weight that the apostle lays upon it: “And it is yet far more evident.”2. The medium or argument itself which he insists upon; which is, that from what he had already proved, “there was another priest to arise, after the similitude of Melchisedec.”3. The illustration of this argument, in an explication of the ways and means whereby this priest arose, declared both negatively and positively: “Who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.”4. The confirmation of the whole with the testimony of David: “For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.” The manner of the introduction of this argument is emphatical: Καὶπερισσότερονἔτικατάδηλόνἐστι, “And it is yet far more evident.”The conjunctive particle, καί, connects this consideration unto that foregoing, as of the same nature and tendency.The thing spoken of is said to be κατάδηλον. Of what he said before he affirmed that it was πρόδηλον, Hebrews 7:14, namely, that “our Lord sprang of Judah,” — “evident,” “manifest,” “demonstrable;” but this, he adds, is κατάδηλον: which composition of the word intends [strengthens] the signification, arguing yet a more open and convincing evidence.Hence he adds, that it is περισσότερον, “magis patet,” “abundantius manifestum,” comparatively with what was said before; of an abundant efficacy for conviction; that whose light nothing can stand against. But we must observe, that the apostle doth not compare the things themselves absolutely with one another, and so determine that one is of a more evident truth than the other; but he compares them only with respect unto the evidence in arguing unto his end. There is more immediate force in this consideration, to prove the cessation of the Levitical priesthood, that “another priest was to arise after, the similitude of Melchisedec,” than was merely in this, that “our Lord sprang of the tribe of Judah;” — but of this afterwards.And therefore he adds ἔτι, “yet;” that is, ‘Above all that hath been collected from the consideration of Melchisedec, there is yet this uncontrollable evidence unto our purpose remaining.’The apostle, we see, lays great weight on this argument, and withal proceeds gradually and distinctly from one thing to another in the whole discourse. It may be we see not why he should insist so much upon, and so narrowly scan, all particulars in this manner; for being freed by the gospel from the power of temptations about it, and being of the Gentiles, who were never concerned in it, we cannot be sensible of the just importance of what is under confirmation. The truth is, he hath the greatest argument in hand that was ever controverted in the church of God, and upon the determination whereof the salvation or ruin of the church did depend. The worship he treated of was immediately instituted by God himself; and had now continued nearly fifteen hundred years in the church. All this while it had been the certain rule of God’s acceptance of the people, or his anger towards them: for whilst they complied with it, his blessing was continually upon them; and the neglect of it was still punished with severity. And the last caution that God had given them, by the ministry of the last prophet he sent unto them, was, that they should abide in the observance of the law of Moses, “lest he should come and smite the earth with a curse,” Malachi 4:4; Malachi 4:6. Besides these and sundry other things, that were real and pleadable in the behalf of the Mosaical worship, the Hebrews esteemed it always their great and singular privilege above all other nations, which they would rather die than part withal. And the design of the apostle in this place, is to prove that now, utterly unexpectedly unto the church, after so long a season, their whole worship was to be removed, to be used no more, but that another system of ordinances and institutions, absolutely new, and inconsistent with it, was to be introduced. And upon the compliance of the Hebrews with this doctrine, or the rejection of it, depended their eternal salvation or destruction. It was therefore very necessary that the apostle should proceed warily, distinctly, and gradually, omitting no argument that was of force and pleadable in this cause, nor failing to remark on them in an especial manner which contained an especial evidence and demonstrative force in them; as he doth in this instance. For this introduction of it, “And it is yet far more,” or “abundantly more evident,” is as a hand put in the margin of a writing, calling for a peculiar attendance unto and consideration of the matter directed unto. And we may see, — Obs. 1. That present truths are earnestly to be pleaded and contended for. — So the apostle Peter would have believers established ἐντῇπαρούσῃἀληθείᾳ, — “in the present truth.” All truth is eternal, and in itself equally subsistent and present unto all ages; but it is especially so either from the great use of it in some seasons, or the great opposition that is made unto it. So this doctrine about the abolition of the Mosaical ceremonies and institutions, with the introduction of a new priesthood and new ordinances of worship, was then “the present truth,” in the knowledge and confirmation whereof the church was eternally concerned. And so may other truths be at other seasons. And any of them may be so rendered by the opposition that at any time is made unto them. For God is pleased to exercise and try the faith of the church by heresies; which are fierce, pertinacious, and subtile oppositions made to the truth. Now none of them, which aim at any consistency in and with themselves, or are of any real danger unto the church, did ever reject all gospel truths, but some general principles they will allow, or they would leave themselves no foundation to stand upon in their opposition unto others. Those, therefore, singly opposed by them at any time, — as the deity or satisfaction of Christ, justification by faith, and the like, — being so opposed, become “the present truth” of the age; in the instance of adherence whereunto God will try the faith of his people, and requires that they be earnestly pleaded for. And this is that which the apostle Jude intends, verse 3, where he exhorts us ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι, to “contend,” “strive,” “wrestle” with all earnestness and the utmost of our endeavors, “for the faith once delivered unto the saints;” namely, because of the opposition that was then made unto it. And a truth may come under this qualification by persecution as well as by heretical opposition. Satan is always awake and attentive unto his advantages: and therefore though he hates all truth, yet doth he not at all times equally attempt upon every thing that is so; but he waiteth to see an inclination in men, from their lusts, or prejudices, or interests in this world, against any especial truth, or way of divine worship which God hath appointed. When he finds things so ready prepared, he falls to his work, and stirs up persecution against it. This makes that truth to be “the present truth” to be contended for, as that wherein God will try the faith, and obedience, and patience of the church. And the reasons why we ought with all care, diligence, and perseverance, to attend unto the preservation and profession of such troths, are obvious unto all. Obs. 2. Important truths should be strongly confirmed. — Such is that here pleaded by the apostle; and therefore doth he so labor in the confirmation of it. He had undertaken to convince the Hebrews of the cessation of their legal worship, out of their own acknowledged principles. He deals not with them merely by his apostolical authority, and by virtue of the divine revelation of the will of God which himself had received; but he proceeds with them on arguments taken out of the types, institutions, and testimonies of the Old Testament, all which they owned and acknowledged, though without his aid they had not understood the meaning of them. On this supposition it was necessary for him to plead and press all the arguments from the topic mentioned which had any cogency in them; and he doth so accordingly. Obs. 3. Arguments that are equally true may yet, on the account of evidence, not be equally cogent; yet, — Obs. 4. In the confirmation of the truth, we may use every help that is true and seasonable, though some of them may be more effectual unto our end than others.This we are instructed in by the apostle affirming, in this place, that what he now affirms is “yet far more evident.” And this evidence, as we observed before, may respect either the things themselves, or the efficacy in point of argument. For in themselves all things under the old testament were typical, and significant of what was afterwards to be introduced. So our apostle tells us that the ministry of Moses consisted in giving “testimony to those things which were to be spoken” or “declared afterwards,” Hebrews 3:5. But among them some were far more clear and evident, as to their signification than others were. In the latter sense, the things which he had discoursed about Melchisedec and his priesthood were more effectually demonstrative of the change of the Levitical priesthood, than what he had newly observed concerning the rising of our Lord Jesus Christ, not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, although that had life and evidence also in itself, which is principally intended.The argument itself is nextly expressed whereunto this full evidence is ascribed, ΕἰκατὰτὴνὁμοιότηταΜελχισεδὲκἀνίσταταιἱερεὺςἕτερος, — “If another priest do arise, after the similitude of Melchisedec.” And in the words there is,1. The modification of the proposition, in the particle εἰ. 2. The notation of the subject spoken of: “another priest.”3. His introduction into his office: “he did arise.”4. The nature of his office, and the manner of his coming into it: “after the likeness of Melchisedec.”1. Εἰ, “if,” is generally taken here not to be a conditional, but a causal conjunction. And so, as many judge, it is used, Romans 8:31; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Thessalonians 3:8; 1 Peter 1:17. And it is rendered in our translation by “for,” — “For that an other priest;” as Beza rendereth it by “quod,” “because;” others by “ex eo quod,” and “siquidem;” Syr., “And again, this is more known, by that which he said.” All take it to be an intimation of a reason proving what is affirmed. And so it doth if, with the Vulgar, we retain “si,” or “siquidem,” “if so be:” “And it is yet far more evident, if so be that another priest.” As to the argument in general, we must observe, (1.)That the design of the apostle in this place is not to demonstrate the dignity and eminency of the priesthood of Christ from that of Melchisedec, his type, which he had done before sufficiently; he cloth not produce the same words and arguments again unto the same purpose: but that which he aims at is, from that testimony, whereby he had proved the dignity of the priesthood of Christ, now also to prove the necessary abolition of the Levitical priesthood. Wherefore,(2.) He doth not insist on the whole of the testimony before pleaded, but only on that one thing of “another priest,” necessarily included therein. 2. The subject spoken of is, ἱερεὺςἕτερος: that is, not merely ΰηֵ ?ψ; that is, ἄλλος, alius, as the Syriac understood it, who renders it by ΰηֲ ψַ ?ιπָ ?ΰ;” but it is ζָ ?ψ, “alienus’that is intended. Every ζָ ?ψwas by the law absolutely forbidden to approach unto the priest’s office, or altar, or sacred employment. So ἕτερος, “another,” in this case is “a stranger,” one that is not of the house or family of Aaron. And nothing can be more evident, than that the Levitical priesthood, and the whole law of divine worship, must be taken away and abolished then, if it appear that any ζָ ?ψ, ἕτερος, or “stranger,” may be admitted into that office; much more, if it were necessary that it should so be. For the law of the priesthood took care of nothing more than that no stranger, that was not of the house of Aaron, should be called to that office. See Exodus 29:33; Leviticus 22:10; Numbers 1:51; Numbers 3:10 : “Aaron and his sons they shall wait on the priest’s office; εְ ?δַ ?ζָּ ?ψδַ ?χָּ ?ψֵ ?αιεּ ?ξָ ?ϊ, and the stranger that cometh nigh” (that is, to discharge any sacerdotal duty) “shall be put to death.” And God gave an eminent instance of his severity with respect unto this law in the punishment of Korah, though of the tribe of Levi, for the transgression of it. And he caused a perpetual memorial to be kept of that punishment, to the end they might know that “no stranger, who is not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense before the LORD,” Numbers 16:40. And hence our apostle in the next verse observes, that this priest was not to be “made after the law of a carnal commandment,” seeing his making was a dissolution of that law or commandment. If, therefore, there must be ἱερεὺςἕτερος, “another priest,” that was not of the lineage of Aaron, the other is abolished.3. His introduction into his office is expressed by ἀνίσταται, “there ariseth.” “Oritur,” “exoritur.” Syr., χָ ?ΰֵ ?ν, “surgit;” Vulg. Lat., “exsurgat;” — “arose,” in an extraordinary manner: Judges 5:7, “Until I Deborah arose, I arose a mother in Israel;” that is, by an extraordinary call from God to be a prophetess and a deliverer. Deuteronomy 18:18, “I will raise them up a Prophet;” which was Christ himself. So God “raised up an horn of salvation in the house of his servant David,” Luke 1:69; that is, with an extraordinary power and glory. So was this priest to arise; not springing out of, nor succeeding in any order of priesthood before established. But all things in the law lay against his introduction; and the body of the people in the church was come unto the highest defiance of any such priest. But as God had foresignified what he would do, when the time of the reformation of all things should come, so when he performed his word herein, he did it in that manner, with that evidence of his glory and power, as introduced him against all opposition. For when the appointed time is come wherein the decrees of God shall bring forth, and his counsel be accomplished, all difficulties, though appearing insuperable, shall vanish and disappear, Zechariah 4:6-7.4. The nature of his priesthood is declared, in its resemblance unto that of Melchisedec, — κατὰτὴνὁμοιότητα. The apostle intendeth not to express the words of the psalmist, ςμΰּ ?γִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊִ ?ι, which he constantly renders κατὰτάξιν, “according unto the order;’but he respects the whole conformity that was between Melchisedec and our Lord Jesus Christ, in the instances which he had before insisted on. For whereas God had ordered all things in the Scripture concerning Melchisedec, that he might be ἀφωμοιωμένοςτῷΥἱῷτοῦΘεοῦ, verse 3, “made like unto the Son of God,” he is said to arise καθ᾿ὁμοιότητα, “according to the likeness” or “similitude of Melchisedec.” For every similitude is mutual; one thing is as like unto another as that is unto it. This, therefore, is evident, that there was to be another priest, — ἕτερος; not only ἄλλος, merely “another,”but ἀλλογενής, one of “another stock and race:” and a priest he was to be “after the similitude of Melchisedec,” and not so much as after the similitude of Aaron. The arising of Christ in his offices puts an end unto all other things that pretend a usefulness unto the same end with them. When he arose as a king, he did not put an end unto the office and power of kings in the world, — but he did so unto the typical kingdoms over the church, — as he did to the priesthood by arising as a priest. And when he ariseth spiritually in the hearts and consciences of believers, an end is put unto all other things that they might before look for life, or righteousness, or salvation by. Hebrews 7:16. — This verse containeth an illustration and confirmation of the foregoing assertion, by a declaration of the way and manner how this other priest, who was not of the seed of Aaron, should come into that office. And this was necessary also, for the prevention of an objection which the whole discourse was obnoxious unto. For it might be said, that whatever was affirmed concerning another priest, yet there was no way possible whereby any one might come so to be, unless he were of the family of Aaron. All others were expressly excluded by the law. Nor was there any way or means ordained of God, any especial sacrifice instituted, whereby such a priest might be dedicated, and initiated into his office. In prevention of this objection, and in confirmation of what was before declared, the apostle adds, “Who was made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” The words declare, 1. That this priest was made so; and, 2. How he was made so, both negatively and positively.1. He was made so; ὅςγέγονε, — “ which priest was made,” or “who was made a priest.” The force of this expression hath been explained on Hebrews 3:2; Hebrews 5:5. The Lord Christ did not merely on his own authority and power take this office upon himself; he became so, he was made so by the appointment and designation of the Father. Nor did he do any thing, in the whole work of his mediation, but in obedience unto his command, and in compliance with his will. For it is the authority of God alone which is the foundation of all office, duty, and power in the church. Even what Christ himself is and was unto the church, he is and was so by the grace and authority of God, even the Father. By him was he sent, his will did he perform, through his grace did he die, by his power was he exalted, and with him doth he intercede. What acts of God in particular do concur unto the constitution of this office of Christ, and to the making him a priest, have been declared before. 2. The manner of his being made a priest is first expressed negatively: Οὐκατὰνόμουἐντολῆςσαρκικῆς, — “Not after,” (or “not according unto”) “the law of a carnal commandment.” Syr., γְּ ?τεּ ?χְ ?γָ ?πָ ?ΰτַ ?βְ ?ψְ ?πָ ?ιָ ?ΰ, — “the law of bodily commandments.” It is unquestionable, that the apostle by this expression intendeth in the first place the law of the Levitical priesthood, or the way and manner whereby the Aaronical priests were first called and vested with their office; and then any other law, constitution rule, or order of the same kind. He was made a priest neither by that law, nor any other like unto it. And two things we must enquire into: (1.) Why the call of the Aaronical priests is said to be “after the law of commandment.”(2.) Why this commandment is said to be “fleshly:” —(1.) For the first, we may observe, that the whole law of worship among the Jews is called by our apostle, ὁνὸμοςτῶνἐντολῶνἐνδόγμασι, Ephesians 2:15, — “The law of commandments in ordinances.” And it is so called for two reasons: — [1. Because commands were so multiplied therein that the whole law was denominated from them. Hence it became ζύγοςδυσβάστακτος, — a “yoke hardly to be borne,” if not altogether intolerable, Acts 15:10.[2. Because of that severity wherewith obedience was exacted. A command in its formal notion expresseth authority; and the multiplication of them, severity: and both these God designed to make eminent in that law; whence it hath this denomination, “a law of commandments.” Hereof the law of the constitution of the office of the priesthood, and the call of Aaron thereunto, was a part; and he was therefore made a priest by “the law of commandments,” — that is, by a preceptive law, as a part of that system of commands wherein the whole law consisted. See this law and all the commands of it, Exodus 28, throughout. (2.) Why doth the apostle call this commandment “carnal” or “fleshly?”Ans. It may be on either of these three accounts: — [1. With respect unto the sacrifices, which were the principal part of the consecration of Aaron unto his office. And these may be called “fleshly” on two accounts: 1st. Because of their subject-matter; they were flesh, or the bodies of beasts: as the Syriac reads these words, “the commandment of bodies;” that is, of beasts to be sacrificed.2dly. In themselves and their relation unto the Jewish state, they reached no farther than the purifying of the flesh. They “sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh,” as the apostle speaks, Hebrews 9:13. And thus the whole commandment should be denominated from the principal subject-matter, or the offering of fleshly sacrifices, unto the purifying of the flesh. [2. It may be called “carnal,” because a priesthood was instituted thereby which was to be continued by carnal propagation only; the priesthood appointed by that law was confined unto the carnal seed and posterity of Aaron, wherein this other priest had no interest. [3. Respect may be had unto the whole system of those laws and institutions of worship which our apostle, as was also before observed, calls “carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation,” Hebrews 9:10. They were all carnal, in opposition unto the dispensation of the Spirit under the gospel, and the institutions thereof.None of these ways was the Lord Christ made a priest. He was not dedicated unto his office by the sacrifice of beasts, but sanctified himself thereunto when he offered himself through the eternal Spirit unto God, and was consummated in his own blood. He was not of the carnal seed of Aaron, nor did, nor could, claim any succession unto the priesthood by virtue of an extraction from his race. And no constitution of the law in general, no ordinance of it, did convey unto him either right or title unto the priesthood. It is therefore evident that he was in no sense made a priest “according to the law of a carnal commandment;” neither had he either right, power, or authority to exercise the sacerdotal function in the observance of any carnal rites or ordinances whatever. And we may observe, — Obs. 5. That what seemed to be wanting unto Christ in his entrance into any of his offices, or in the discharge of them, was on the outward solemnity. The sacrifices which were offered, and the garments he put on, with his visible separation from the rest of the people, had a great ceremonial glory in them. There was nothing of all this, nor any thing like unto it, in the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his office. But yet, indeed, these things ,had no glory, in comparison of that excelling glory which accompanied those invisible acts of divine authority, wisdom, and grace, which communicated his office unto him. And indeed, in the worship of God, who is a spirit, all outward ceremony is a diminution and debasement of it. Hence were ceremonies “for beauty and for glory” multiplied under the old testament; but yet, as the apostle shows, they were all but “carnal.” But as the sending of Christ himself, and his investiture with all his offices, were by secret and invisible acts of God and his Spirit; so all evangelical worship, as to the glory of it, is spiritual and internal only. And the removal of the old pompous ceremonies from our worship is but the taking away of the veil which hindered from an insight and entrance into the holy place. Secondly. The way and manner whereby the Lord Christ was made a priest is expressed positively: ᾿Αλλὰκατὰδύναμινζωῆςἀκαταλύτου, — “But according unto the power of an indissoluble life.” ᾿Αλλά denotes an opposition between the way rejected and this asserted, as those which were not consistent, He was not made a priest that way, but this. How then is Christ made a priest “according to the power of an endless life?” That is, saith one in his paraphrase, “installed into the priesthood after his resurrection.” What is meant by “installed,” I well know not. It should seem to be the same with τελειωθείς, “consecrated,” “dedicated,” “initiated.” And if so, this exposition diverts wholly from the truth; for Christ was installed into his office of priesthood before his resurrection, or he did not offer himself as a sacrifice unto God in his death and blood- shedding. And to suppose that the Lord Christ discharged and performed the principal act of his sacerdotal office, which was but once to be performed, before he was installed a priest, is contradictory to Scripture and reason itself. “Ideo ad vitam immortalem perductus est, ut in aeternum sacerdos noster esset,” — “ He was therefore brought unto an immortal life, that he might be our priest for ever,” — saith another. But this is not to be “made a priest according to the power of an endless life.” If he office always, unto the consummation of all things, what he says is true, but not the sense of this place: but if he means, that he became immortal after his resurrection, that he might be our priest, and abide so for ever, it excludes his oblation in his death from being a proper sacerdotal act; which that it was, I have sufficiently proved elsewhere, against Crellius and others. Some think that the “endless life” intended is that of believers, which the Lord Christ, by virtue of his priestly office, confers upon them. The priests under the law proceeded no farther but to discharge carnal rites, which could not confer eternal life on them for whom they ministered; but the Lord Christ, in the discharge of his office, procureth “eternal redemption” and “everlasting life” for believers. And these things are true, but they comprise not the meaning of the apostle in this place. For how can Christ be made a priest according to the power of that eternal life which he confers on others? For the comparison and opposition that is made between “the law of a carnal commandment,” whereby Aaron was constituted a priest, and “the power of an endless life,” whereby Christ was made so, do evidence, that the making of Christ a priest, not absolutely, which the apostle treats not of, but such a priest as he is, was the effect of this “endless life.” Wherefore the ζωὴἀκατάλυτος, the “indissoluble life” here intended, is the life of Christ himself. Hereunto belonged, or from hence did proceed, that δύναμις, or “power,” whereby he was made a priest. And both the office itself and the execution or discharge of it are here intended. And as to the office itself, this eternal or endless life of Christ is his life as the Son of God. Hereon depends his own mediatory life for ever, and his conferring of eternal life on us, John 5:26-27. And to be a priest by virtue of, or according unto this “power,” stands in direct opposition unto “the law of a carnal commandment.”It must therefore be inquired, how the Lord Christ was made a priest according unto this “power.” And I say, it was because thereby alone he was rendered meet to discharge that office, wherein God was to “redeem his church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28. By “power,” therefore, here, both meetness and ability are intended. And both these the Lord Christ had, from his divine nature and his endless life therein. Or it may be the life of Christ in his human nature is intended, in opposition unto those priests who, being made so “by the law of a carnal commandment,” did not continue in the discharge of their office, “by reason of death,” as our apostle observes afterwards. But it will be said, that this natural life of Christ, the life of the human nature, was not endless, but had an end put unto it in the dissolution of his soul and body on the cross. I say, therefore, this life of Christ was not absolutely the life of the human nature considered separately from his divine; but it was the life of the person of the Son of God, of Christ as God and man in one person. And so his life was endless. For, (1.) In the death which he underwent in his human nature there was no interruption given unto his discharge of his sacerdotal office, no, not for a moment. For,(2.) His person still lived, and both soul and body were therein inseparably united unto the Son of God. Although he was truly and really dead in his human nature, he was still alive in his indissoluble person. And this the apostle hath a respect unto in the testimony which he cites in the next verse to prove that he is a priest for ever. The “carnal commandment” gave authority and efficacy unto the Levitical priests; but Christ is made a priest “according to the power of an endless life,” — that is, through the power and efficacy of that eternal life which is in his divine person, both his human nature is preserved always in the discharge of his office, and he is enabled thereby to work out eternal life on the behalf of them for whom he is a priest. And so the apostle proves the difference of this other priest from those of the order of Aaron, not only from the tribe whereof he was to be, and from his type, Melchisedec, but also from the way and means whereby the one and the other were enabled to discharge their office. Hebrews 7:17. — The proof of all before asserted is given in the testimony of the psalmist so often before appealed to: “For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”The introduction of this testimony is by μαρτυρεῖγάρ, or “he witnesseth,” or “testifieth;” that is, David doth in the psalm, — or rather, the Holy Ghost, speaking in and by David, doth so testify. He doth not absolutely say that so he speaketh, but testifieth; because he used his words in a way of testimony unto what he had delivered. And although one thing be now principally intended by him, yet there is in these words a testimony given unto all the especial heads of his discourse: as, 1. That there was to be “another priest,” a priest that was not of the stock of Aaron, nor tribe of Levi; for he says unto the Messiah, prophesied of, who was to be of the seed of David, “Thou art a priest,” although a stranger from the Aaronical line.2. That this other priest was to be “after the order of Melchisedec,” and was not to be called after the order of Aaron. For he was ςμΰּ ?γִּ ?αְ ?ψָ ?ϊִ ?ι, κατὰτάξιν, “after the order.” is a redundant, and not a suffix, γִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊis from γָ ?αַ ?ψ; and signifies a state or order of things: ξַ ?ψϊִּ ?ιΰֲ ?πִ ?ιλְּ ?μִ ?αּ ?ιςַ ?μΞγִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊαְּ ?πֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, Ecclesiastes 3:18; — “I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men,” their condition and order of all things; that is, τάξις. The priesthood of Christ, in the mind of God, was the eternal idea or original exemplar of the priesthood of Melchisedec. God brought him forth, and vested him with his office, in such a way and manner as that he might outwardly represent in sundry things the idea of the priesthood of Christ in his own mind. Hence he and his priesthood became an external exemplar of the priesthood of Christ, as unto its actual exhibition: and therefore is he said to be “made a priest after his order;” that is, suitably unto the representation made thereof in him. 3. That he was made a priest, — namely, by him and his authority who said unto him, “Thou art a priest;” as Hebrews 5:5-6; Hebrews 10:4. That he was so “after the power of an endless life;” for he was “a priest for ever.” This word is applied to the law and legal priesthood, and signifies a duration commensurate unto the state and condition of the things whereunto it is applied. There was an ςεֹ ?μַ ?νof the law, an “age,” whereunto its continuance was confined. So long all the promises annexed unto it stood in force. And as ascribed unto the new state of things under the gospel, it doth not signify eternity absolutely, but a certain unchangeable duration unto the end of the time and works of the gospel; for then shall the exercise of the priesthood of Christ cease, with his whole mediatory work and office, 1 Corinthians 15:28. Christ, therefore, is said to be “a priestfor ever:” 1. In respect of his person, endued with an “endless life.”2. Of the execution of his office unto the final end of it; “he liveth for ever to make intercession.”3. Of the effect of his office; which is to “save believers unto the utmost,” or with an “everlasting salvation.”And the apostle had sufficient reason to affirm that what he proposed was eminently “manifest,” namely, from the testimony which he produceth thereof. For what can be more evident than that the Aaronical priesthood was to be abolished, if so be that God had designed and promised to raise up another priest in the church, who was neither of the stock nor order of Aaron, nor called the same way to his office as he was; and who, when he was so raised and called, was to continue “a priest for ever,” leaving no room for the continuance of that priesthood in the church, nor place for its return when it was once laid aside? And we may observe, that, — Obs. 6. The eternal continuance of Christ’s person gives eternal continuance and efficacy unto his office. — Because he lives for ever, he is a priest for ever. His endless life is the foundation of his endless priesthood. Whilst he lives we want not a priest; and therefore he says, that “because he liveth, we shall live also.”Obs. 7. To make new priests in the church, is virtually to renounce the faith of his living for ever as our priest, or to suppose that he is not sufficient to the discharge of his office.Obs. 8. The alteration that God made in the church, by the introduction of the priesthood of Christ, was progressive towards its perfection. — To return, therefore, unto or look after legal ceremonies in the worship of God, is to go back unto poor, “beggarly elements” and “rudiments of the world.” In the twelfth verse of this chapter the apostle affirms, that “the priesthood being changed, there was of necessity a change made of the law also.” Having proved the former, he now proceeds to confirm his inference from it, by declaring that the priest and priesthood that were promised to be introduced were in all things inconsistent with the law. In that place he mentions only a μεταθεσις, or “change” of the law. But he intended not an alteration to be made in it, so as that, being changed and mended, it might be restored unto its former use; but it was such a change of it as was an ἀνθέτησις, an “abrogation” of it, as in these verses he doth declare.Now this was a matter of the highest concernment unto the Hebrews, and of great importance in itself; for it included and carried along with it an alteration of the whole state of the church, and of all the solemn worship of God therein. This, therefore, was not to be done but on cogent reasons and grounds indispensable. And no doubt but the apostle foresaw what a surprisal it would be unto the generality of the Hebrews, to hear that they must quit all their concern and special interest in the law of Moses. For he had three sorts of persons to deal withal in this great cause: — 1. Such as adhered unto and maintained the Mosaical institutions, in opposition unto Christ and the whole way of our coming unto God by him. These esteemed it the greatest blasphemy imaginable, for any to affirm that the law was to be changed or abrogated. And this was the occasion of the death of the first martyr of Jesus Christ, — under the accusation of blasphemy, which by the law was to be punished with death. For this they made their charge against Stephen, that he “spake blasphemous words against Moses,” (whom they put in the first place,) “and against God,” Acts 6:11. And the proof of this blasphemy they lay on these words, “that Jesus should change the customs which Moses had delivered to them.” Accordingly, on this very account, they stirred up persecution with rage and madness against the holy apostles all the world over. The mouths of these cursed unbelievers were to be stopped; and therefore cogent reasons and unanswerable were in this case to be urged by the apostle; and they are so accordingly. And they were now to know, that notwithstanding all their rage and bluster, those that believed were not ashamed of the gospel; and they must be told that the law was to be abrogated, whether they would hear or forbear, however they were provoked or enraged thereby. 2. There were others of them who, although they received the gospel and believed in Christ, yet were persuaded that the law was still in force, and the worship prescribed in it still to be observed. And of these there were very great multitudes, as the apostle declares, Acts 21:20. This error was, in the patience of God, for a while tolerated among them, because the time of their full conviction was not yet come. But those who were possessed with it began, after a while, to be very troublesome unto the church, and would not be content to observe the law themselves, but would impose the observation of it on all the Gentile converts, on the pain of eternal damnation: Acts 15:1, “They said” and contended, “that unless they were circumcised, after the manner of Moses, they could not be saved.” These also were to be restrained and convinced. And those of them who were obstinate in this persuasion, not long after apostatized from the whole of Christianity. And, —3. There were sincere believers, whose faith was to be strengthened and confirmed. With respect unto them all the apostle laboureth with great diligence in this argument, and evidently proves, both that it was the will and purpose of God that the administration of the law should have an end, and also that the time was now come wherein it was to cease and be abrogated. This, therefore, he proceeds withal in these verses.Hebrews 7:18-19. — ᾿Αθέτησιςμὲνγὰργίνεταιπροαγούσηςἐντολῆς, διὰτὸαὐτῆςἀσθενὲςκαὶἀνωφελὲς. Οὐδὲνγὰρἐτελείωσενὁνόμος, ἐπεισαγωγὴδὲκρείττονοςἐλπίδος, δι᾿ἧςἐγγίζομεντῷΘεῷ.᾿Αθέτησις. Vulg. Lat., “reprobatio;” Rhem., “reprobation; — most improperly. Syr., ωׁ ?εּ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?τָ ?ΰ“mutatio,” a “change;” which reacheth not the force of the word. Ar., “abrogatio.” Bez., “fit irritum;” that is, “mandatum.” ᾿Αθετέω is rendered, “loco moveo,” “abrogo,” “abdico,” “irritum facio,” — “to take out of the way,” “to abrogate,” “to disannul,” “to make void;” and for the most part it hath respect unto a rule, law, or command, that was or is in force. Sometimes it is used of a person, who ought in duty to be regarded and honored, but is despised; Luke 10:16, John 12:48, where it is rendered to “despise.” So 1 Thessalonians 4:8, Jude 1:8. Sometimes it represents things, Galatians 2:21, 1 Timothy 5:12. But commonly it respects a law, and is applied unto them who are absolutely under the power of the law, or such in whose power the law is. The first sort are said to “make void the law,” when they transgress it, neglecting the authority whereby it is given, Mark 7:9, Hebrews 10:28. But when this word is applied unto him who hath power over the law, it signifies the abrogation of it, so far as that it shall have no more power to oblige unto its observance. ᾿Αθέτησις is used nowhere in the New Testament but here and Hebrews 9:26. Here it is applied unto the law, being the taking away of its power to oblige unto obedience; there unto sin, denoting the abrogating of its power to condemn. Μὲνγάρ, “quidem,” “equidem,” “enim.” Syr., γֵּ ?ιο, “autem,” “but.” “For verily.”Προαγούσηςἐντολῆς, “praecedentis mandati.” The Syriae thus renders the verse, “The change which was made in the first commandment was made for its weakness, and because there was no profit in it.”Διὰτὸαὐτῆςἀσθενές, “propter ipsius imbecillitatem;” “infirmitatem;” “propter illud quod in eo erat infirmum aut imbecille.” Καὶἀνωφελές, “et inutilitatem.” εַ ?γְּ ?ιεּ ?ϊְ ?ιָ ?ομֵ ?ιϊδֲ ?εָ ?ΰαֵ ?δּ ?Syr., “and because there ‘was no profit in it.”The Arabic changeth the sense of the place, reading to this purpose, “For there is a transgression where the commandment went before, because that was weak and of little advantage.” Οὐδὲνγάρ. Syr., ξֵ ?γֵ ?νβֵּ ?ιψμָ ?ΰ, “non enim aliquid;” that is, “nihil.”᾿Ετελείωσενὁνόμος. Syr., βְּ ?ξַ ?ψ, “perfecit lex;” “finished,” “perfected.” Beza, “consummavit.” Vulg. Let., “ad perfectum adduxit.” Rhem., “brought nothing to perfection.” Others, “sanctificavit.” Syr., “for the law did not perfect any thing.”᾿Επεισαγωγήδὲκρείττονοςἐλπίδος. Vulg., “introductio vero melioris spei.” Beza, “sed superintroducta spes potior.” Others, “sed erat introductio ad spem potiorem.” Syr ηֲ ?μָ ?τַ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιρַ ?αְ ?ψָ ?ΰγַּ ?ξְ ?ιַ ?ϊִ ?ψξֶ ?βֵ ?δּ γְּ ?αֵ ?δּ ςμγֵּ ?ιο; “but there entered in the room thereof a hope more excellent than it.” ᾿Επεισαγωγή is “supraintroductio,” or “postintroductio;” the bringing in of one thing after another. Some supply “erat” here, and read the words,” sed erat introductio ad spem potiorem,” or “spei melioris.” Εγγίζομεν, “appropinquamus,” “accedimus.” Vulg., “proximamus.” Rhem. “we approach.”Our own translation fully expresseth the original in all the parts of it, only it determines the sense of verse 19, by the insertion of that word, “did.” [7] [7] — The word commandment has been explained in reference to the law respecting the priesthood; as, in Romans 7:8, it has been limited to the particular commandment, “Thou shalt not covet.” But here the reason given for the “annulling,” namely, the “weakness and uselessness” of the commandment, applies to the law as a whole; and so in Romans, “the commandment coming,” “the commandment for life,” and other places of the same sort, accord best with the idea of the moral law as a whole, it is elsewhere used in this general sense, 2 Peter 2:21; 2 Peter 3:2. — Turner. — ED. Hebrews 7:18-19. — For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God.1. The subject spoken of is the “command.”2. Described by the time of its giving; it “went before.”3. Hereof it is affirmed, that it is “disannulled.” And,4. The reason thereof is adjoined, from a twofold property or adjunct of it in particular: for,(1.)It was “weak;”(2.) It was “unprofitable.”5. As unto its deficiency from its general end; “it made nothing perfect.”6. Illustrated by that which took its work upon itself, and effected it thoroughly; “the hope brought in, by which we draw nigh unto God.”FIRST, The ἐντολή, or “command,” is of as large a signification, verse 18, as νόμος, “the law,” in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions. For the apostle having already proved that the priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from thence to prove that the whole law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed. And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabric, and the whole must fall unto the ground; for the sanction of it being, that “he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the law to do them,” the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole law. How much more must it do so, if that be changed, removed, or taken away, which was not only a material part of it, but the very hinge whereon the whole observance of it did depend and turn! And the whole of this system of laws is called ἐντολή, a “command,” because it consisted ἐνδόγμασι, in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11-12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered., This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is προάγουσα, it “went before;” that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it. But it rather respects the actual introduction of a new priest, in the accomplishment of this promise; for hereon the whole change and alteration in the law and worship pleaded for by our apostle did ensue. The “commandment going before,” is the law whereby the worship of God and obedience unto him were regulated before the coming of Christ, and the introduction of the gospel. THIRDLY, Of this command, or law, it is affirmed that there is an ἀθέτησις, and that with some earnestness: ᾿Αθέτησιςμὲνγὰργίνεται — “For truly,” “verily,” “certainly.” This, whatever it be, came not to pass of its own accord, but it was made by him who had power and authority so to do; which must be the lawgiver. ᾿Αθέτησις may respect a law, as was before intimated, either on the account of the lawgiver, him that hath power over it, or of those unto whom it is given as a law, and who are under the power of it. In the latter sense, ἀθετέω is to “transgress a law,” to make it void what lies in us, by contemning the authority of him by whom it is given; that use of the word was before observed, in Mark 7:9, Hebrews 10:28. In the first sense it is directly opposed unto νομοθεσία, — that is, the “giving,” “presenting,” and “promulgating of a law,” by a just and due authority, whence it hath a power and force to oblige unto obedience. ᾿Αθέτησις is the dissolution hereof. The word, as was said even now, is once more used in the New Testament, and that by our apostle in this epistle, Hebrews 9:26 : “Christ hath appeared εἰςἀθέτησιςἀμαρτίας” — “to put away sin,” say we, “by the sacrifice of himself;” that is, to the abrogation or abolishing of that power which sin hath by its guilt to bind over sinners unto punishment. So the ἀθέτησις of the law is its “abrogation,” in taking away all its power of obliging unto obedience or punishment. The apostle elsewhere expresseth the same act by καταργέω, Ephesians 2:15; 2 Timothy 1:10. It is therefore plainly declared, that the law is “abrogated,” “abolished,…disannulled.” But we must yet further inquire, 1. How this could be done; 2. By what means it was done; and, 3. (which himself adds expressly) For what reason it was done.The first of these seems not to be without its difficulties. For it was a law originally given unto the church by God himself, and continued therein with his approbation for many generations; and there are multiplied instances in the sacred records of his blessing them who were faithful and obedient in its observation; yea, the whole prosperity of the church did always depend thereon, as its neglect was always accompanied with severe tokens of God’s displeasure. Besides, our Savior affirmeth of himself that he “came not καταλῦσαιτὸννόμον,” Matthew 5:17, — “to dissolve” or “destroy the law:” which upon the matter is the same with ἀθετῆσαι; for if a law be disannulled or abrogated, it is totally dissolved as to its obligatory power. And our apostle removes the suspicion of any such thing from the doctrine of the gospel, Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”Ans. There are two ways whereby any law may be disannulled or abrogated: First, By taking away all authority and use from it as unto its proper end, whilst it is in its pretended force. For suppose it to be made for ever, or for a time only, its abrogation is its deprivation of all authority and use as a law. And this cannot regularly be done but on one of these accounts: 1. That the authority giving the law was not valid from the beginning, but men have been obliged unto it on a false presumption thereof.2. That the matter of it was never good, or useful, or meet to be made the matter of law. On neither of these accounts could this law be abolished, nor ever was so by the Lord Christ or the gospel, nor is so to this day. For God himself was the immediate author of it, whose authority is sovereign and over all: and thence also it follows that the matter of it was good; for “the commandment,” as our apostle speaks, “is holy, and just, and good,”Romans 7:12. And however there be a difference between that which is morally good in itself and its own nature, and that which is so only by divine institution, yet the revealed will of God is the adequate rule of good and evil unto us, as unto our obedience. On these accounts, therefore, it never was, nor ever could be abolished.Secondly, A law may be abrogated, when, on any consideration whatever, its obligation unto practice doth cease or is taken away. Thus was it with this law; for, as every other law, it may be considered two ways: — 1. With respect unto its main end, and directive power to guide men therein. This, in all human laws, is the public good of the community or society unto whom they are given. When this ceaseth, and the law becomes not directive or useful unto the public good any more, all rational obligations unto its observance do cease also. But yet this law differed also from all others. All that any other law aimeth at, is obedience unto itself, and the public good which that obedience will produce. So the moral law in the first covenant had no other end but obedience unto it, and the rewardableness thereon of them that did obey it. So was it an entire instrument of our living to God, and of eternal rewards thereon. But as, in its renovation, it was made a part of the law here intended, it came with it to be of another nature, or to have another use and end. For the whole scope and design of this law was to direct men, not to look after that good which was its end, in obedience unto itself, but to something else that it directed unto by that obedience. The end it directed unto was righteousness before God. But this could never be attained by an obedience unto it; nor was it ever intended that so it should do. This “the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,” Romans 8:3. And therefore those who pursued and followed after it with the most earnestness for this end, never attained thereunto, Romans 9:31-32. This end, therefore, is principally to be considered in this law; which when it is attained, the law is established, although its obligation unto obedience unto itself doth necessarily cease. Now this end of the law was Christ and his righteousness, as the apostle expressly declares: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” Romans 10:4. And therefore this whole law was “our schoolmaster to Christ,” Galatians 3:24; Galatians 2:5. This is called by our Savior, πληρῶσαιτὸννόμον, “to fulfill the law;” and is opposed unto the destroying of it, Matthew 5:17, “I came not ἀπολῦσαι,” “to destroy” or “dissolve the law, but to fulfill it.” That is, not to abrogate it, or take it away, as that which either wanted a just authority or was not good or useful, — the common reasons of the abrogation of any law in force; — but ‘I came to bring in and accomplish the whole end which it aimed at, and directed unto;’whereon it would cease to oblige unto a further practice. And this the apostle calls ἱστάναι, “to establish the law:” “Do we then make void the law through faith? yea, we establish the law,” Romans 3:31. That is, ‘we declare how it hath its end and full accomplishment;’which is the greatest establishment that any law is capable of. And if the fulfilling of the law, both as unto what it requires in a way of obedience, and what also in its curse for sin, be not imputed unto us, we do not by faith establish the law, but make it void. 2. The law may be considered with respect unto the particular duties that it required and prescribed. And because the whole law had its end, these were appointed only until that end might be, or was attained. So saith our apostle, “They were imposed until the time of reformation,” Hebrews 9:10. Wherefore two things did accompany this law in its first institution: (1.) That an obedience unto its commands would not produce the good which it directed unto, as formally respecting the law itself.(2.) That the duties it required had a limited time for their performance and acceptance allotted unto them. Wherefore, without the least disparagement unto it, as unto the authority whereby it was given, or as unto its own holiness and goodness, it might be disannulled as unto its actual obligation unto practice and observance of its commands; for the end of. it being fully accomplished, it is no less established than if the observance of it had been continued unto the end of the world.It was therefore “established” by Christ and the gospel as unto its end, use, and scope; it was “disannulled” as unto its obligatory power unto the observance of its commands. For these two are inconsistent, namely, that a law as unto all its ends should be fulfilled, and yet stand in force in its obligatory power unto obedience. Secondly, We must inquire how this was done, or how this law was abrogated as to its obligatory power and efficacy. And this was done two ways: — First, Really and virtually. This was done by Christ himself in his own person. For the fulfilling and accomplishing of it. was that which really and virtually took away all its obligatory power. For what should it oblige men unto? An answer is ready unto all its demands, namely, that they are fulfilled; and as unto what was significative in its duties, it is all really exhibited: so that on no account can it any more oblige or command the consciences of men. This the apostle sets out in a comparison with the relation that is between a man and his wife, with the obligation unto mutual duties that ensues thereon, Romans 7:1-6 : Whilst the husband is alive, the wife is obliged unto all conjugal duties towards him, and unto him alone; but upon his death that obligation ceaseth of itself, and she is at liberty to marry unto another. So were we obliged unto the law whilst it was alive, whilst it stood in its force and vigor; but when, through the death of Christ, the law was accomplished, it died as to the relation which was between it and us, whereon all its obligation unto observance was disannulled. This was that whereby the law was really and virtually abrogated. Its preceptive part being fulfilled, and its significative being exhibited, it was of no more force or efficacy as a law. The reason why it was thus to have an end put unto it, is declared in the close of the verse. Secondly. It was so abrogated declaratively, or the will of God concerning its abrogation was made known four ways: — 1. In general, by the promulgation and preaching of the gospel, where the accomplishment and cessation of it was declared. For the declaration made that the Messiah was come, that he had finished his work in the world, and thereby “made an end of sin, bringing in everlasting righteousness, whereby the law was fulfilled, did sufficiently manifest its abrogation. The apostles, I confess, in their first preaching to the Jews, spake not of it expressly, but left it to discover itself as an undeniable consequent of what they taught concerning the Lord Christ and the righteousness of God in him. This for some while many of them that believed understood not, and therefore were “zealous of the law;” which God in his patience and forbearance did graciously tolerate, so as not to impute it unto them. It was indeed great darkness and manifold prejudices that hindered the believing Jews from seeing the necessary consequence unto the abolition of the law from the promulgation of the gospel; yet this was God pleased to bear with them in, that we might not be too fierce, nor reflect with too much severity on such as are not able in all things to receive the whole truth as we desire they should. 2. It was so by the institution and introduction of new ordinances of worship. This was wholly inconsistent with the law, wherein it was expressly enacted that nothing should be added unto the worship of God therein prescribed. And if any such addition were made, by the authority of God himself, as was inconsistent with any thing before appointed, it is evident that the whole law was disannulled. But a new order, a new entire system of ordinances of worship, was declared in the gospel; yea, and those, some of them especially, as that of the Lord’s supper, utterly inconsistent with any ordinances of the law, seeing it declares that to be done and past which they direct us unto as future and to come.3. There was a determination made in the case by the Holy Ghost, upon an occasion administered thereunto. Those of the apostles who preached the gospel unto the Gentiles, had made no mention unto them of the law of Moses; as knowing that it was “nailed unto the cross of Christ, and taken out of the way.” So were they brought unto the faith and obedience of the gospel without any respect unto the law, as that wherein they were not concerned, now it had received its accomplishment. But some of the Jews who believed, being yet persuaded that the law was to be continued in force, and its observation imposed on all that were proselyted by the gospel, occasion was given unto that solemn determination which was made by the apostles, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, Acts 15. And the substance of that determination was this: — That the gospel, as preached unto the Gentiles, was not a way or means of proselyting them unto Judaism, but of bringing them into a new church-state, by an Interest in the promise and covenant of Abraham, given and made four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law. Whilst the law stood in its force, whoever was proselyted unto the truth, he was so unto the law; and every Gentile that was converted unto the true God was bound to be circumcised, and became obliged unto the whole law. But that being now disannulled, it is solemnly declared, that the Gentiles converted by the gospel were under no obligation unto the law of Moses, but being received into the covenant of Abraham, were to be gathered into a new church-state erected in and by the Lord Christ in the gospel. 4. As unto those of the Hebrews who yet would not understand these express declarations of the ceasing of the obligatory power of the law, to put an end unto all disputes about his will in this matter, God gave a dreadful ἀθέτησις or “abolition” unto it, in the total, final, irrevocable destruction of the city and temple, with all the instruments and vessels of its worship, especially of the priesthood, and all that belonged thereunto.Thus was the law disannulled, and thus was it declared so to be. Obs. 1. It is a matter of the highest nature and importance, to set up or take away, to remove any thing from or change any thing in, the worship of God. — Unless the authority of God interpose, and be manifested so to do, there is nothing for conscience to rest in, in these things. And, —Obs. 2. The revelation of the will of God, in things relating unto his worship, is very difficultly received, where the minds of men are prepossessed with prejudices and traditions. — Notwithstanding all those ways whereby God had revealed his mind concerning the abolition of the Mosaical institutions, yet those Hebrews could neither understand it nor receive it, until the whole seat of its worship was destroyed and consumed.Obs. 3. The only securing principle, in all things of this nature, is to preserve our souls in an entire subjection unto the authority of Christ, and unto his alone.Thirdly, The close of the verse gives an especial reason of the disannulling or abrogation of the command, taken from its own nature and efficacy: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, διὰτὸτῆςαὐτῆςἀσθενὲςκαὶἀνωφελές:” the adjective in the neuter gender put for a substantive, which is emphatical; as on the contrary it is so, when the substantive is put for the adjective, as 1 John 2:27, ᾿Αληθέςἐστι, καὶοὐκἔστιψεῦδος, — “Is true, and is not a lie;” that is, “mendax, “false” or “lying.” And αὐτῆς, “its own,” is added, to show that the principal cause of disannulling the law was taken from the law itself.I have proved before that “the commandment” in this verse is of equal extent and signification with “the law” in the next. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel. And this whole law is here charged by our apostle with “weakness and unprofitableness;” both which make a law fit to be disannulled. But it must be acknowledged that there is a difficulty of no small importance in the assignation of these imperfections unto the law. For this law was given by God himself; and how can it be supposed that the good and holy God should prescribe such a law unto his people as was always weak and unprofitable. From this and the like considerations the blasphemous Manichees denied that the good God was the author of the Old Testament; and the Jews continue still upon it to reject the Gospel, as not allowing the least imperfection in the law, but equalling it almost with God himself. We must therefore consider in what sense the apostle ascribes these properties unto the law. First, Some seek for a solution of this difficulty from Ezekiel 20:11, compared with Ezekiel 20:25. Ezekiel 20:11, God saith, “I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them.”But Ezekiel 20:25, “I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” The first sort of laws, they say, was the decalogue, with those other judgments that accompanied it; which were given unto the people as God’s covenant, before they broke it by making the golden call These were good in themselves, and good unto the people, so as if they did them they should live therein. But after the people had broken the covenant in making of a golden calf, God gave them that whole system of ordinances, institutions, and laws, which ensued. These, they say, in that place of Ezekiel God calls “statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live,” as being imposed on the people in the way of punishment. And with respect unto these they say it is that the apostle affirms “the commandment was weak and unprofitable.” But as the application of this exposition unto this passage in the apostle’s discourse is not consistent with the design of it, as will afterwards appear, so indeed the exposition itself is not defensible. For it is plain, that by the laws and statutes mentioned Ezekiel 20:11, not any part of them, but the whole system of ordinances and commandments which God gave by Moses, is intended. And the two words in the text, ηֻ ?χִּ ?ιν and ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θִ ?ιν, do express the whole law ceremonial and judicial. And it was not from this or that part, but from the whole law, that the people, as far as they were carnal, looked for righteousness and salvation, Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12. And as those laws and statutes mentioned Ezekiel 20:11 contained the whole law given by Moses, so those intended Ezekiel 20:25, whereof it is said that they were not good, nor could they live in the keeping of them, cannot be the laws and statutes of God considered in themselves. For it is inconsistent with the holiness, goodness, and wisdom of God, to give laws which, in themselves and their own nature, should not be good, but evil Nor, on supposition that he had given them “statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live,” could he plead, as he doth, that “his ways were equal,” and that “their ways were unequal.” For in these laws he evidently promised that “those who did them should live therein.” Where is the equality, equity, and righteousness, if it were otherwise? Wherefore if the statutes of God be intended in the place, it must be with respect unto the people, their unbelief and obstinacy, that it is said of them, that “they were not good;” being made useless unto them by reason of sin. In that sense the apostle says, that “the commandment which was ordained to life, he found to be unto death,” Romans 7:10. But I rather judge, that having charged the people with neglect and contempt of the laws and judgments of God, which were good, God’s giving them up judicially unto ways of idolatry and false worship, which they made as laws and judgments unto themselves, and “willingly walked after the commandment,” as Hosea 5:11, is here so expressed. But there is no ground for such a distinction between the laws and judgments of God in themselves, that some of them should be good, and some of them should be not good; that in some of them men might live, but not in others. Secondly, I answer, that the whole law may be considered two ways: 1. Absolutely in itself. 2. With respect,(1.) Unto the end for which it was given;(2.) Unto the persons unto whom it was given: —In itself, no reflection can be made upon it, because it was an effect of the wisdom, holiness, and truth of God. But in the respects mentioned it manifests its own weakness and unprofitableness; for they were sinners unto whom it was given, and both defiled and guilty antecedently unto the giving of this law, being so by nature, and thereon “children of wrath.” Two things they stood in need of in this condition: — 1. Sanctification by an inherent purity and holiness, with a complete righteousness from thence. This the moral law was at first the rule and measure of, and would have always effected it by its observance. It could never, indeed, take away any defilement of sin from the soul, but it could have prevented any such defilement. But now, with respect unto the persons unto whom it was given, it became “weak and unprofitable” unto any such end. It became so, saith the apostle, by reason of the flesh, Romans 8:3. For although in itself it was a perfect rule of righteousness, Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:12; Galatians 3:21, yet it could not be a cause or means of righteousness unto them who were disenabled, by the entrance of sin, to comply with it and fulfill it. Wherefore the moral law, which was in itself efficacious and useful, was now become unto sinners, as unto the ends of holiness and righteousness, “weak and unprofitable;” for “by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.”2. Sinners do stand in need of the expiation of sin; for being actually guilty already, it is to no purpose to think of a righteousness for the future, unless their present guilt be first expiated. Hereof there is not the least intimation in the moral law. It hath nothing in it, nor accompanying of it, that respects the guilt of sin, but the curse only. This, therefore, was to be expected from the ceremonial law, and the various ways of atonement therein provided, or no way at all But this of themselves they could not effect. They did, indeed, represent and prefigure what would do so, but of themselves they were insufficient unto any such end. For “it is not possible,” as our apostle speaks, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin,” Hebrews 10:4. And this law may be considered three ways:(1.) In opposition unto Christ, without respect unto its typical signification; under which notion it was now adhered unto by the unbelieving Hebrews. This being no state of it by divine appointment, it became thereby not only of no use unto them, but the occasion of their ruin.(2.) In competition and conjunction with Christ; and so it was adhered unto by many of these Hebrews who believed the gospel. And this also was a state not designed for it, seeing it was appointed only “until the time of reformation;” and therefore was not only useless, but noxious and hurtful.(3.) In subordination unto Christ, to typify and represent what was to be obtained in him alone; so during its own season it was of use unto that end, but yet could never effect the thing which it did represent. And in this state doth the apostle pronounce it “weak and unprofitable,” namely, on a supposition that atonement and expiation of sin was actually to be made, which it could not reach unto. But it may be yet further inquired, why God did give this law unto the people, which, although it was good in itself, yet, because of the condition of the people, it could not attain the end which was intended. The apostle gives so full an answer unto this inquiry, as that we need not further to insist upon it. For he giveth two reasons why God gave this law. 1. He saith, “It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made,” Galatians 3:19. It had a manifold necessary respect unto transgression: as,(1.) To discover the nature of sin, that the consciences of men might be made sensible thereof.(2.) To coerce and restrain it, by its prohibition and threatenings, that it might not run out into such an excess as to deluge the whole church.(3.) To represent the way and means, though obscurely, whereby sin might be expiated. And these things were of so great use, that the very being of the church depended on them.2. There was another reason for it, which he declares in the same place, verses 23, 24. It was to shut up men under a sense of the guilt of sin, and so with some severity drive them out of themselves, and from all expectation of a righteousness by their own works, that so they might be brought unto Christ, first in the promise, and then as he was actually exhibited.This brief account of the weakness and unprofitableness of the law, whereon it was disannulled and taken away, may at present suffice. The consideration of some other things in particular will afterwards occur unto us. Only in our passage we may a little examine or reflect on the senses that some others have given unto these words. Schlichtingius, in his comment on the next verse, gives this account of the state of the law: “Lex expiationem concedebat leviorum delictorum, idque ratione poenae alicujus arbitrariae tantum: gravioribus autem peccatis quibus mortis poenam fixerat, nullam reliquerat veniam, maledictionis fulmen vibrans in omnes qui gravius peccassent.” But these things are neither accommodated unto the purpose of the apostle nor true in themselves. For, 1. The law denounced the curse equally unto every transgression, be it small or great: “Cursed is he who continueth not in all things.”2. It expiated absolutely no sin, small or great, by its own power and efficacy; neither did it properly take away any punishment, temporal or eternal. That some sins were punished with death, and some were not, belonged unto the polity or the government erected among that people. But,3. As unto the expiation of sin, the law had an equal respect unto all the sins of believers, great and small; it typically represented the expiation of them all in the sacrifice of Christ, and so confirmed their faith as to the forgiveness of sin; but farther it could not proceed.And Grotius on the place: “Non perduxit homines ad justitiam illam veram et internam, sed intra ritus et facts externa constitit. ...... Promissa terrestria non operantur mortis contemptum, sed eum operatur spes melior vitae aeternae et coelestis.” Which is thus enlarged by another: “The Mosaical law got no man freedom from sin, was able to give no man strength to fulfill the will of God, and could not purchase pardon for any that had broken it. This, therefore, was to be done now afterwards by the gospel; which gives more sublime and plain promises of pardon of sin, which the law could not promise; of an eternal and heavenly life to all true penitent believers: which gracious tenders, now made by Christ, give us a freedom of access unto God, and confidence to come and expect such mercy from him.” Ans. 1. What is here spoken, if it intend the law in itself, and its cardinal ordinances, without any respect unto the Lord Christ and his mediation, may in some sense be true; for in itself it could neither justify nor sanctify the worshippers, nor spiritually or eternally expiate sin. But,2. Under the law, and by it, there was a dispensation of the covenant of grace, which was accompanied with promises of eternal life; for it did not only repeat and re-enforce the promise inseparably annexed unto the law of creation, “Do this, and live,” but it had also other promises of spiritual and eternal things annexed unto it, as it contained a legal dispensation of the first promise or the covenant of grace. But, 3. The opposition here made by the apostle is not between the precepts of the law and the precepts of the gospel, the promises of the law and the promises of the gospel, outward righteousness and inward obedience; but between the efficacy of the law unto righteousness and salvation, by the priesthood and sacrifices ordained therein, on the one hand, and the priesthood of Christ, with his sacrifice, which was promised before and now manifested in the gospel, on the other. And herein he doth not only show the preference and dignity of the latter above the former, but also that the former of itself could do nothing unto these ends; but whereas they had represented the accomplishment of them for a season, and so directed the faith of the church unto what was future, that now being come and exhibited, it was of no more use nor advantage, nor meet to be retained. Thus, then, was the law disannulled; and it was so actually by the means before mentioned. But that the church might not be surprised, there were many warnings given of it before it came to pass: as, 1. A mark was put upon it from the very beginning, that it had not a perpetuity in its nature, nor inseparably annexed unto it: for it had no small presignification in it, that immediately upon the giving of it as a covenant with that people, they brake the covenant, in making the golden calf in Horeb; and thereon Moses brake the tables of stone wherein the law was written. Had God intended that this law should have been perpetual, he would not have suffered its first constitution to have been accompanied with an express emblem of its disannulling.2. Moses expressly .foretells, that after the giving of the law, God would “provoke them to anger by a foolish nation,” Deuteronomy 32:21, Romans 10:19; that is, by the calling of the Gentiles, whereon “the wall of partition” that was between them, even “the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” was of necessity to be taken out of the way.3. The prophets frequently declared that it was of itself utterly insufficient for the expiation of sin, or the sanctification of sinners, and thereon preferred moral obedience above all its institutions; whence it necessarily follows, that seeing God did intend a τελείωσις, or “state of perfection,” for his church, this law was at last to be disannulled.4. All the promises concerning the coming of Christ as the end of the law, did declare its station in the church not to be perpetual; especially that insisted on by our apostle, of his being “a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” 5. The promises and predictions are express, that a new covenant should be established with the church, unto the removal of the old; whereof we must treat in the next chapter. By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church. And we may hence observe, —Obs. 4. The introduction into the church of what is better and more full of grace, in the same kind with what went before, doth disannul what so preceded; but the bringing in of that which is not better, which doth not’communicate more grace, doth not do so. — Thus our apostle expressly disputes that the bringing in of the law four hundred years after the giving of the promise, did not evacuate or any way enervate the promise. And the sole reason hereof was, because the promise had more grace and privilege in it than the law had. But here, the bringing in of another priesthood, because it was filled with more effectual grace and mercy, utterly disannulled that which was instituted before. And as we may hence learn the care and kindness of God unto the church, so also our own duty in adhering with constant obedience unto the institutions of Christ. For this must be so, until something else more full of grace and wisdom than they are be appointed of God in the church. And indeed this is that which is pretended by those by whom they are rejected; for they tell us that the ordinances of the gospel are “weak and unprofitable,” and are disannulled by that dispensation of the Spirit which hath ensued after them. But the truth is, to fancy a dispensation of the Spirit without, against, or above the ordinances of Christ, who alone doth dispense Him, and that in the ways of his own appointment, is to renounce the whole gospel. Obs. 5. If God would disannul every thing that was weak and unprofitable in his service, though originally of his own appointment, because it was not exhibitive of the grace he intended, he will much more condemn any thing of the same kind that is invented by men. — I could never yet understand why God should abolish those ordinances of worship which himself had appointed, because they were weak, and approve of such as men should find out of themselves, which cannot have the least efficacy or signification towards spiritual ends; — such as are multiplied in the Papacy. Obs. 6. It is in vain for any man to look for that from the law, now it is abolished, which it could not effect in its best estate; — and what that is the apostle declares in the next verse. Hebrews 7:19. — “For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, whereby we draw nigh unto God.” [8] [8] . — Different renderings of this passage have been proposed. 1. Scholefield suggests, “But was the bringing in of a better hope;” and Turner, to the same effect, referring in support of this view to Erasmus, Zuingle, Tyndale, and Cranmer, translates thus: “The law perfected nothing, but was (merely) the introduction of a better hope.” So also Ebrard. According to this view, the Mosaic system is the introduction to the Christian. 2. Schlichting, Michaelis, Semler, and Ernesti, supply ἐτελείωσεν to ἐπεισαγωγή; “the bringing in of a better hope made perfect.” To this view Owen accedes, and the rendering of the authorized version agrees with it. According to it, the Christian system, in its efficacy to bring to perfection, is contrasted with the Mosaic, which could not. 3. Conybeare and Howson regard the A. V. as wrong; and ascribe the error to an oversight of the connection of μέν in verse 18 with δέ in verse 19. Their translation is as follows: “On the one hand, an old commandment is annulled, because it was weak and profitless (for the law perfected nothing); and on the other hand, a better hope is brought in, whereby we draw near unto God.” This view in the main has the support of Theodoret, Luther, Gerhard, Bengel, Tholuck, Bleek, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and Craik. It contrasts not the Christian system as a whole with the Mosaic as a whole, but the abolition of the latter with the introduction of the former. — ED. , The disannulling or abolition of the law was laid down in the precedent verse, as a necessary consequent of its being “weak and unprofitable.” For when a law hath been tried, and it is found liable unto this charge, it is equal, and even necessary, that it should be disannulled; if the end aimed at be necessary to be attained, and there be any thing else to be substituted in its room whereby it may so be. This therefore the apostle declares in this verse, giving the reasons in particular of what he had before asserted in general. So the causal connection, γάρ, “for,” doth intimate. And, 1. He gives an especial instance, wherein it was evident that the law was “weak and unprofitable.” 2. He declares what was to be introduced in the room thereof, which would attain and effect the end which the law could not reach unto, by reason of its weakness.3. He expresseth what that end was. The first he doth in these words, Οὐδὲνγὰρὁνόμοςἐτελείωσε, — “For the law made nothing perfect.” The subject spoken of is ὁνόμος, “the law;” that is, the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, as it was the covenant which God made with the people in Horeb. For the apostle takes “the commandment” and “the law” for the same in this chapter; and “the covenant,” in the next, for the same with them both. And he treats of them principally in the instance of the Levitical priesthood; partly because the whole administration of the law depended thereon; and partly because it was the introduction of another priesthood, whereby the whole was disannulled.Of this law, commandment, or covenant, it is said that οὐδὲνἐτελείωσε, “it made nothing perfect.” Οὐδέν, “nothing,” for οὐδένα, “no man,” say expositors generally; “it made no man perfect.” So the neuter is put for the masculine. So it is in those words of our Savior, John 6:37, ΠᾶνὅδίδωσίμοιὁΠατήρπρὸςἐμὲἥξει, — “ All that the Father giveth me cometh unto me;” that is, “every one.” So is οὐδέν, as here, put for οὐδένα, verse 63: ῾Ησὰρξοὐκὠφελεῖοὐδέν, — “ The flesh profiteth nothing;” that is, say some, “no man.” But I am not satisfied with this exposition, but rather judge that the apostle did properly express his intention. It made “nothing,” that is, none of the things which we treat about, “perfect.” It did not make the church-state perfect, it did not make the worship of God perfect, it did not perfect the promises given unto Abraham, in their accomplishment, it did not make a perfect covenant between God and man; it had a shadow, an obscure representation of all these things, but it “made nothing perfect.”What the apostle intends by τελείωσις, and so consequently by ἐτελείωσε in this place, we have discoursed at large before on verse 11; so that we shall not here again insist upon it.But it may be inquired why, if “the law made nothing perfect,” it was instituted or given by God himself. He had designed a state of perfection unto the church, and seeing the law could not effect it, nay, seeing it could not be introduced whilst the law was in force, unto what end served the giving of this law? Ans. This doubt was in part solved before, when we showed the ends for which the law was given, although it was weak and unprofitable as unto some other. But yet there are some other reasons to be pleaded, to represent the beauty and order of this dispensation. For, — 1. In all these things the sovereignty of God is to be submitted unto; and, unto humble souls, there is beauty in divine sovereignty. When the Lord Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and thanked his heavenly Father that he had revealed the mysteries of the gospel unto babes, and hid them from the wise and prudent, he assigns no other reason but his sovereignty and pleasure, wherein he rejoiced: “Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight,” Luke 10:21. And if we cannot see an excellency in the dispensations of God, because they are his, who gives no account of his matters, we shall never delight in his ways. So our apostle gives no other reason of this legal dispensation, but that “God had provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect,” Hebrews 11:40. Therefore did he give them this law for a season, which made nothing perfect; even so it seemed good in his sight. It is the glory of God to be “gracious to whom he will be gracious,” and that at what time he will, and unto what degree and measure he pleaseth. And in this glory of his are we to acquiesce. 2. Mankind having wofully prevaricated and apostatized from God, it was just and equal that they should not be at once re-instated, in their reparation. The suddenness of it might have taken off from its greatness. Wherefore, as God left the generality of the world without the knowledge of what he intended, so he saw good to keep the church in a state of expectancy as to the perfection of liberty and deliverance intended. He could have created the world in an hour, or a moment; but he chose to do it in the space of six days, that the glory of his work might be distinctly represented unto angels and men And he could immediately after the fall have introduced the promised Seed, in whose advent the church must of necessity enjoy all the perfection whereof it is capable in this world; but to teach the church the greatness of their sin and misery, and to work in them an acknowledgment of his unspeakable grace and mercy, he proceeded gradually in the very revelation of him, as we have showed on Hebrews 1:1, and caused them to wait, under earnest desires, longings, and expectations, many ages for his coming. And during this season it was of necessity that they should be kept under a law that made nothing perfect. For, as our apostle speaketh, “if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void,” Romans 4:14; and “if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,” Galatians 2:21; and“if there had been a law given which could have’given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law,” Galatians 3:21.Wherefore, until the actual exhibition of the promised Seed, it was absolutely necessary that the church should be kept under a law that made nothing perfect. 3. That people unto whom the law was peculiarly to be given, and by whom God would accomplish his further design, were a stubborn, earthy, hard hearted people, that stood in need of a yoke to burden and subdue them unto the will of God. So obstinate they were in what they had once received, and so proud of any privilege they enjoyed, that whereas their privileges were very many and very great, they would never have had any thought of looking out after another state, but have foregone the promise, had they not been pinched, and burdened, and disappointed in their expectation of perfection by this law, and the yoke of it. 4. God had designed that the Lord Christ should in all things have the pre- eminence. This was due unto him, on the account of the glory of his person and the greatness of his work. But if the law could have made any thing perfect, it is evident that this could not have been.Secondly, Perfection being thus denied unto the law, it is added, ᾿Επεισαγωγὴδὲκρείττονοςἐλπίδος. The words are elliptical, and without a supplement give no certain sense. And this may be made two ways: First, by the verb substantive ἧν, and so the whole of what is asserted is an effect of the law. “It made nothing perfect,” but “it was the bringing in of a better hope,” or “an introduction unto a better hope,” as some render the words. It served as God’s way and method unto the bringing in of our Lord Jesus Christ; unto this end it was variously serviceable in the church. For as its institutions, promises, instructions, and types, did represent him unto the faith of believers; so it prepared their minds unto an expectation of him, and longing after him. And the conjunction δέ, which is adversative, seems to intimate an opposition in what the law did, unto what it is said before that it did not. It “did not make any thing perfect,” but it “did bring in a better hope;” and we know in how many things it was a preparatory introduction of the gospel. Wherefore this sense is true, though not, as I judge, directly intended in these words. Beza first observed that δέ was put for ἀλλά in this place, as it is unquestionably in sundry others. If so, not an assignation of a contrary effect unto the law unto what was before denied is intended, but the designation and expression of another cause of the effecting of that which the law could not effect. And the defective speech is to be supplied by ἐτελείωσε, “made perfect;” as we do it by “did,” — that is, “did make all things perfect.” To the same purpose the apostle expresseth himself in other words, Romans 8:3. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” For the words are so to be supplied, ‘What the law could not do, that God did;’which what it was, and how God did it, the following words declare. Thus, God had designed to bring the church into a better state, a state of comparative perfection in this world. This the law was not a means or instrument suited unto: wherefore another way is fixed on to that end; which being completely effective of it, the law was laid aside and disannulled, as unprofitable. This the word ἐπεισαγωγή doth lead unto: for it is as much as “postintroductio,” or “superintroductio;” the introduction of one thing after or upon another. This was the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, which were brought in after the law, upon it, in the room of it, to effect that which the law could not do. This our apostle further argues and confirms, Hebrews 10:1-10.This, therefore, is the sense of the words, ‘The introduction of the better hope, after and upon the law, when a sufficient discovery had been made of its weakness and insufficiency as unto this end, did make all things perfect, or bring the church unto that state of consummation which was designed unto it.’ Thirdly, It remaineth only, therefore, that we show what this “better hope” is, whereunto this effect is ascribed. Whatever it be, it is called “better” with respect unto the law, with all things that the law contained or could effect, — somewhat of more power and efficacy to perfect the church-state. This neither was nor could be any thing but Christ himself and his priesthood. For “we are complete in him,” Colossians 2:10; and “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” Hebrews 10:14; the heavenly things themselves being purified thereby.“Hope,” therefore, is used here metonymically, to design the thing hoped for. From the giving of the first promise, and throughout under the dispensation of the law, Christ and his coming into the world were the hope of all believers, the great thing which they desired, longed and hoped for. Hence was he called “the Desire of all nations,” Haggai 2:7; — that which the secret desires of the whole race of mankind worked towards. And in the church, which enjoyed the promises, they rejoiced in the foresight of it, as did Abraham; and desired to see his day, as did the prophets, diligently inquiring into the time and season of the accomplishment of those revelations which they had received concerning him, 1 Peter 1:11-12. It is not, therefore, the doctrine of the gospel, with its precepts and promises, as some suppose, which is here intended, any otherwise but as it is a declaration of the coming of Christ, and the discharge of his office; for without a respect hereunto, without virtue and efficacy thence alone derived, the outward precepts and promises of the gospel would no more perfect the church-state than the law could do. Obs. 7. When God hath designed any gracious end towards the church, it shall not fail, nor his work cease for want of effectual means to accomplish it. — All means, indeed, have their efficacy from his designation of them unto their end. His wisdom makes them meet, and his power makes them effectual. Whatever, therefore, seems to be a means in the hand of God unto any end, and doth not effect it, was never designed thereunto; for he fails in none of his ends, nor do his means come short of what he aims at by them. Wherefore, although God designed a perfect state of the church, and after that gave the law, yet he never designed the law to accomplish that end. It had other ends, as we have already declared. But men were very apt to take up with the law, and to say of it, “Surely the LORD’S anointed is before us.” Wherefore God by many ways and means discovered the weakness of the law, as unto this end. Then were men ready to conclude that the promise itself, concerning this perfect church-state, would be of none effect. The mistake lay only herein, that indeed God had not as yet used that only means for it which his infinite wisdom had suited for, and his infinite power would make effectual unto, its attainment. And this he did in such a way, as that those who would not make use of his means, but would as it were impose that upon him which he never intended to make use of in that kind, perished in their unbelief. Thus was it with the generality of the Jews, who would have perfection by the law, or none at all. Wherefore the promises of God concerning the church, and to it, must be the rule and measure of our faith. Three things do deeply exercise the church, as unto their accomplishment: 1. Difficulties rendering it wholly improbable. 2. Long and unexpected procrastinations. 3. Disappointment of appearing means of it.But in this instance, of the introduction of a perfect church-state in and by the person of Jesus Christ, God hath provided a security for our faith against all objections which these considerations might suggest. For — 1. What greater difficulties can possibly lie in the way of the accomplishment of any of the promises of God which yet are upon the sacred record unaccomplished, — as suppose, the calling of the Jews, the destruction of antichrist, the peace of the church, and prosperity of it in the plentiful effusion of the Spirit, — but that as great, and greater, lay in the way of the fulfilling of this promise? All the national provocations, sins, and idolatries, that fell out in the posterity of Abraham; all the calamities and desolating judgments that overtook them; the cutting down of the house of David, until there was only a root of it left in the earth; the unbelief of the whole body of the people; the enmity of the world, acted by all the craft and power of Satan; were as mountains in the way of the accomplishment of this promise: but yet they all of them became at length a plain before the Spirit of God. And if we should compare the difficulties and oppositions that at this day lie against the fulfilling of some divine promises, with those that rose up against this one of perfecting the church- state in Christ, it would, it may be, abate our forwardness in condemning the Jews for incredulity, unless we found ourselves more established in the faith of what is to come than for the most part we are. 2. Long and unexpected procrastinations are trials of faith also. Now this promise was given at the beginning of the world, nor was there any time allotted for its accomplishment. Hence it is generally supposed, from the words there used in the imposition of the name of Cain on her first-born, that Eve apprehended that the promise was actually fulfilled. The like expectations had the saints of all ages; and they were continually looking out after the rising of this bright morning Star. Many a time did God renew the promise, and sometimes confirmed it with his oath, as unto Abraham and David; and yet still were their expectations frustrated, so far as confined unto their own generations. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ The apostle had warned the Hebrews before, that he had “many things to say,” and those “not easy to be understood,” concerning Melchisedec. And herein he intended not only those things which he expresseth directly concerning that person and his office, but the things themselves signified thereby in the person and office of Christ. And therefore he omits nothing which may from thence be any way represented. So from that one testimony of the psalmist he makes sundry inferences unto his purpose; as, — 1. That the Lord Christ was to be a priest; which included in it the cessation of the Levitical priesthood, seeing he was of the tribe of Judah, and not of the tribe of Levi.2. That he was to be another priest; that is, a priest of another order, namely, that of Melchisedec. And this he variously demonstrates, to prove his pre-eminence above the Aaronical priesthood, as also thereon, that upon his introduction that order was utterly to cease and be disannulled.3. He observes from the same testimony, unto the same purpose, that he was to be a priest for ever, so as that there should never more, upon his death or otherwise, be any need of another priest, nor any possibility of the return of the former priesthood into the church.4. Neither yet doth he rest here, but observes moreover the manner how God, in the testimony insisted on, declared his purpose of making the Lord Christ a priest, which was constitutive of his office; and that was by his oath: and thence he takes occasion to manifest how far his priesthood is exalted above that under the law. This is that which now lies before us in these verses. And we have in these things an instance given of what unsearchable stores of wisdom and truth are laid up in every parcel of the word of God, if we have a spiritual light in their investigation.Hebrews 7:20-22. — Καὶκαθ᾿ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας (οἱμὲνγὰρχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίαςεἰσὶνἱερεῖςγεγονότες, ὁδὲμετὰὁρκωμοσίαςδιὰτοῦλέγοντοςπρὸςαὐτόν·῞ΩμοσεΚύριος, καὶοὐμεταμεληθήσεται·ΣὺἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ), κατὰτοσοῦτονκρείττονοςδιαθήκηςγέγονενἔγγυος᾿Ινσοῦς.The words of the 20th verse being elliptical, the sense of them is variously supplied. Most translators carry on the sense unto that which is the midst of the 21st in our translation, “others were made priests without an oath.” The Syriac refers the words unto them foregoing, εְ ?ωַׁ ?ψְ ?γֵ ?δּ μַ ?οαְּ ?ξַ ?εְ ?ξָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “and confirmed it” (that is, “the better hope”) “with an oath;” and Beza, “etiam quatenus non sine jurejurando superintroducta est, “inasmuch as [that hope] is not brought in without an oath;” and another since, “et eo potior ilia spes, quatenus non absque jurejurando superintroducta est,” Schmid. But this limits the comparison unto this verse, which the apostle really finisheth Hebrews 7:22. Vulg. Lat., “et quantum est non sinejurejurando;” which the Rhemists render, “and inasmuch as it is not without an oath.” Ours supply, “he was made a priest,” — “inasmuch as not without an oath he was made a priest:” no doubt according to the mind of the apostle; for he hath a prospect in these words unto what ensues, where he expressly applies this oath unto the priesthood of Christ, and the consummation thereof. Καὶκαθ᾿ὅσον, “etiam quatenus,” “et quatenus;” “and inasmuch.” Καθ᾿ὅσον is omitted by the Syriac. Vulg., “in quantum est,” “inasmuch.” Hereunto answereth κατὰτοσοῦτον, verse 22, “eatenus.”῾Ορκωμοσία is the same with ὅρκος, “jusjurandum;” an “oath.” But it is here principally applied unto those oaths whereby conventions, compacts, or covenants, were confirmed. Hence ὁρκωμόσια were the “sacrifices” that were offered in the confirmation of sworn covenants. It is three times used here by our apostle on this occasion, verses 20, 21, 28, and nowhere else in the New Testament.Οἱμὲνγάρ. Vulg., “alii quidem;” which the Rhemists mend by rendering it, “and the other.” Beza, “nam illi quidem.” And so the Syriac, δָ ?πεּ ?οβֵּ ?ιψ, “and they.” Ours, “for those priests;” rather, “and truly those priests,” though μὲνγάρ have only the force of a causal conjunction.Εἰσὶγεγονότες. Syr., δֲ ?εεּ, “were.” But the manner of their being made priests is intended, and so the words are to be expressed fully; “facti sunt,” “were made.” Διὰτοῦλέγοντοςπρὸςαὐτόν. The Syriac adds, αְּ ?ιָ ?γγַּ ?εִ ?ιγ, “by the hand of David.” It is not the giving of the oath, but the recording of it in the psalm, that he intendeth.Οὐμεταμεληθήσεται, “non pcenitebit.” Syr., εְ ?μָ ?ΰπְ ?γַ ?βֵּ ?μ“and will not lie;” “will not repent,” or change his mind.Κατὰτοσοῦτον. Vulg., “in tantum;” to answer “in quantum” before. “Tanto,” “eatenus;” “tanto,” “by so much.” Syr., δָ ?πָ ?ΰλֻּ ?μδּ ?“hoc toto,” “by all this;” and so proceeds, “this covenant was more excellent wherein Jesus was made the surety.”Of the signification of the word ἔγγυος I shall speak afterwards. [9] ft9 VARIOUS READING. — The clause, Σὺἱερεὺς usque ad Μελξισεδέκ, is omitted by Tischendorf, on the authority of c, some other manuscripts, and several versions. . — Christ is called a “surety” here, not as the vicarious fulfiller of that which men ought to have performed, but because God on his part gave him to the human race, as a surety for the actual fulfillment of his covenant promise. For this, and this alone, is what is spoken of in the context. — Ebrard. Several writers expound it as a paronomasia with ἐγγίζομεν, verse 19; in which case it must include not his relation, as surety, to God only, but to his redeemed also. . — Owen here translates διαθήκη “covenant,” not “testament,” according to the A.V. He is followed by all modern critics, Scholefield, Craik, Stuart, Ebrard, etc. Bleek, however, adheres to the rendering, “testament.” — ED. Hebrews 7:20-22. — And inasmuch as not without an oath: (for they truly were made without an oath; but this with an oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) by so much was Jesus made surety of a better covenant.The same argument is pursued as in the foregoing verses, only with a new medium, and that such as leads on towards the conclusion of the whole disputation. The introduction of a new priesthood, the cessation or abolition of the old, with the advantage of the church thereby, because of its dignity, pre-eminence, and stability, above that which was to give place unto it, are the things which the apostle is in the proof and confirmation of. There are three things in these three verses: 1. A proposition of a new medium for the confirmation of the principal argument before insisted on, Hebrews 7:20. 2. An illustration and proof of what is asserted in that proposition, Hebrews 7:21. 3. An inference from its being so established and proved, Hebrews 7:22. In the proposition three things may be considered: —1. The connection of it unto the preceding discourse, by the conjunction καί. 2. The modification of the proposition, in the manner of its introduction; καθ᾿ὅσον, “quanto,” “quatenus,” “in quantum;” “inasmuch.” 3. The proposition itself, expressed negatively: Οὐχωρίς, “Not without,” etc.1. The note of connection, καί, may respect Hebrews 7:17, where the same testimony now insisted upon is introduced, and so may intimate a further pursuit of the same argument. If so, the other two verses, 18, 19, are inserted as a parenthesis, comprising an inference of what the apostle had before proved, with the reason of it: for whereas before he had only made use of the words of the Father unto Christ, “Thou art a priest for ever,” and thereon showed what would thence follow; he now proceeds to declare the manner how those words were spoken, namely, “with an oath.” Or it may respect the words immediately foregoing, namely, “the bringing in of a better hope;” for it was brought in “by an oath:” and this sense is followed by most translators, who supply the defect in these words by the repetition of “a better hope.” But although neither of these suppositions concerning the connection of the words doth prejudice the sense or design of them, yet, as we have observed before, καί oftentimes is as much as “moreover,” as it is rendered, “etiam,” by Beza; and then it denotes not an immediate connection with, or dependence on what went before in particular, but only a process in the same general argument. And so it is here a note of introduction of a new, special consideration, for the confirmation of the same design. Hence our translators supply the words, not with any thing that went before, but with what follows after, which the apostle designed now in particular to speak unto, — “he was made a priest.”2. The modification of the proposition is in these words, Καθ᾿ὅσον, “eatenus quantum,” “in quantum;” “inasmuch,” “so much.” Hereunto answers κατὰτοσοῦτον, Hebrews 7:22, “in tantum,” “quanto,” “tanto.” The excellency of the covenant whereof Christ was made mediator above the old covenant, had proportion with the pre-eminence of his priesthood above that of Aaron, in that he was made a priest by an oath, but they were not so. And we may observe in general, that, — Obs. 1. The faith, comfort, honor, and safety of the church, depend much on every particular mark that God hath put upon any of the offices of Christ, or whatever belongs thereunto.We have lived to see men endeavoring their utmost to render Christ himself, and all his offices, of as little use in religion as they can possibly admit, and yet retain the name of Christians. And it is to be feared that he is as little valued by some in their practice as he is by others in their notions. This is not the way of the Scripture. Therein every concernment of him and his offices is particularly insisted on; and the apostle in this chapter makes it manifest what important mysteries depend on such minute considerations as some would think were little to be regarded. But all things concerning him are full of divine mysteries; and every word about them that drops from infinite wisdom ought to be an object of faith and admiration. When, therefore, we cease to inquire with all diligence into all the revelations made concerning Christ or his offices, or any thing which belongs unto them, we do really cease to be Christians. And there can be no greater evidence of our want of faith in him and love unto him, than if we neglect a due consideration of all things that the Scripture reveals and testifies concerning him. 3. The proposition itself is in these words: “Not without an oath.” Two things the apostle supposeth in this negative proposition:(1.) That there were two ways whereby men either were or might be made priests; namely, they might be so either with or without an oath. And he expresseth the latter way, applying it negatively unto Christ, that he might include a negation of the former way with respect unto the priests under the law; both which he afterwards expressly mentioneth.(2.) That the dignity of the priesthood depends on, and is declared by the way whereby God was pleased to initiate men into that office. These two things being in general laid down, as those which could not be denied, the apostle makes application of them in the next verse distinctly, unto the priests of the law on the one hand, and Christ on the other, in a comparison between whom he is engaged. And we may observe, that, —Obs. 2. Nothing was wanting on the part of God that might give eminency, stability, glory, and efficacy, unto the priesthood of Christ: “Not without an oath.” For, —1. This was due unto the glory of his person. The Son of God in infinite grace condescending unto the susception of this office, and the discharge of all the duties of it, it was meet that all things which might contribute any thing unto the glory or efficacy of it should accompany his undertakings. For being in himself “the image of the invisible God, by whom all things were created,” it was meet that in his whole work he should “in all things have the pre-eminence,” as our apostle speaks, Colossians 1:15-16; Colossians 1:18. He was, in every thing that he undertook, to be preferred and exalted above all others, who ever were employed in the church, or ever should be; and therefore was he made a priest “not without an oath.” 2. God saw that this was needful, to encourage and secure the faith of the church. There were many things defective in the priesthood under the law, as we have partly seen already, and shall yet see more fully in our progress. And it suited the design and wisdom of God that it should be so; for he never intended that the faith of the church should rest and be terminated in those priests or their office. What he granted unto them was sufficient unto the end and use whereunto he had designed it; so as that the church might have all that respect for it which was needful or for their good. But so many defects there were in that administration, as might sufficiently evidence that the faith of the church was not to acquiesce therein, but to look for what was yet to come, as our apostle proves by many instances in this chapter. But upon the introduction of the priesthood of Christ, God really and actually proposeth and exhibiteth unto the church all that they were to trust unto, all that he would do, or was any way needful to be done, for their peace and salvation. No other relief was to be expected for the future; therefore did God, in infinite wisdom and grace, for the stability and security of their faith, grant the highest and most peculiar evidences of the everlasting confirmation of his priesthood. And hereby did he manifest that this dispensation of his will and grace was absolutely unchangeable; so that if we comply not therewithal we must perish for ever. Thus all the whole Scripture, and all contained therein, direct us unto our ultimate hope and rest in Christ alone. Hebrews 7:21. — In the application of this assertion, the apostle affirms that “those priests,” the priests under the law, “were made without an oath.” No such thing is mentioned in all that is recorded concerning their call and consecration; for where they are expressly declared in their outward circumstances, Exodus 28; Exodus 29; there is mention made of no such thing. But their dedication consisted in three things: —1. A call from God, expressed Exodus 28:1. We have showed how necessary this was unto the first erection of any priesthood, though it was to be continued by an ordinary succession. See Hebrews 5:4. It is therefore granted, that in this general foundation of the office, Aaron had it, even as Christ had, though not in the same way or manner; for the call of Christ was far more eminent and glorious than that of Aaron, as hath been showed. 2. It consisted in the appointment and preparation of those peculiar garments and mystical ornaments wherein they were to administer their office; and their unction with the holy anointing oil, when clothed with those garments.3. In the sacrifices wherewith they were consecrated and actually set apart unto that office whereunto they were called.And these two were peculiar unto them, there being no use of them in the consecration of Christ: for both of them did declare their whole administration to be external and carnal, and therefore could never make any thing perfect; nor were capable of a confirmation unto perpetuity. But the promise made unto Phinehas seems to be expressed for an eternity in this priesthood. “Behold,” saith God, “I give unto him my covenant of peace: and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood,” Numbers 25:12-13. But this proves not a certain absolute perpetuity of this priesthood of Phinehas. For, —1. The covenant intended was not a complete, solemn covenant, confirmed either by oath or sacrifice, but only a naked promise or declaration of the will of God. And that αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ is frequently used for such a promise as wherein the nature of a covenant is not contained, is acknowledged by the Jews themselves.2. All the special covenants or promises that God made unto or with any under the law, that had respect unto legal administrations, were all of them commensurate unto the duration and continuance of the law itself. Whilst the covenant of the law itself was in force, they also continued; and when that ceased, then also were they to cease; for, the foundation being taken away, the whole building must come to the ground. Now, that this old covenant of the law was to cease, and be taken away by the introduction of another and a better, God did openly and frequently declare under the old testament, as our apostle manifests by one signal instance in the next chapter. And this is the sense of μְ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, “for ever,” in this case constantly. It expresseth a certain continuance of any thing, so as not to be changed, or to have another thing substituted in the room of that whereunto it is applied, whilst that legal dispensation continued. And so it was in this promise made unto Phinehas. For although there was an intercision made afterwards, as to the continuance of the priesthood in the line of his family, by the interposition of Eli and his sons, who were of the posterity of Ithamar, yet he returned again unto the enjoyment of this promise, in the person of Zadok, in the days of Solomon, and so continued until the second temple was forsaken of God also, and made “a den of thieves.” But neither with respect unto him or any other is there any mention of the oath of God; for indeed God did never solemnly interpose himself with an oath, in a way of privilege or mercy, but with direct respect unto Jesus Christ. So he “sware by himself” unto Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; whereby he declared the immutability of his counsel, in sending his Son to take his seed upon him. So he “sware unto David by his holiness,” that his seed, namely Christ, should sit on the throne for ever. Wherefore, although God never changeth any real internal acts of his will, or his purposes, — for “with him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning,” — yet he often works an alteration in some things, which on some conditions, or for some time, he hath proposed and enjoined unto his church, unless they were confirmed by his oath; for this declares them to be absolutely immutable. This is the account the apostle gives of the Aaronical priests, Καὶοἱμέν, “And they truly,” — that is, Aaron, and all his posterity that exercised the priest’s office in a due manner, — “they were all made priests;” that is, by God himself. They did not originally “take this honor unto themselves,” but “were called of God.” For he hath no regard unto them who in those days invaded the priest’s office with violence, deceit, or bribery; and so not only corrupting but evacuating the covenant of Levi. Those that entered into and executed their office according to the law are here intended by him. These were all made priests in the way of God’s appointment; but neither all of them nor any of them were made priests by an oath. God, into whose sovereign will and pleasure all these things are resolved, granted unto them what he saw convenient, and withheld what seemed good unto him. What he did, was sufficient to oblige the people unto obedience during that dispensation of his will; and what he did not add, but reserved for a further dispensation of his grace, intimated that liberty which he reserved unto himself of making an alteration therein, as he saw good. And we may see that, — Obs. 3. Although the decrees and purposes of God were always firm and immutable, yet there was no fixed state of outward dispensations, none confirmed with an oath, until Christ came. — Nor shall we find any rest in any thing, until we come to Christ.The apostle in the next words declares in particular and positively what he had in general and negatively before laid down: “But this with an oath;” ὁδέ, “but he,” “this man,” he who was to be “a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” He was made μεθ᾿ὁρκωμοσίας, — “with an oath.” This is first asserted, and then proved by the testimony of the psalmist. And the assertion may have a double signification:1. That this oath was constituent of his office. Therein his call and consecration did consist.2. That his call, constitution, or consecration, was confirmed and ratified with an oath. And the latter sense is intended; for so doth the antithesis require.‘Those legal priests had a divine constitution and call; but they had no confirmation by the addition of an oath; — God used not an oath in or about any thing that belonged unto them. Wherefore this man was also to have another call unto and constitution of his office; but he was to be confirmed therein by an oath.’Wherein this call of Christ unto his office did consist, what were the acts of the divine will thereabout, and what was the manifestation of them, I have declared at large in the exercitations about the priesthood of Christ. Two things are to be considered in this oath: 1. The form; and, 2. The matter of it.The form of it is in these words, “The Lord sware, and will not repent.” And the matter of it is, that he in his own person should be “a priest for ever.” 1. The person swearing is God the Father, who speaks unto the Son in Psalms 110:1. “The LORD said unto my Lord.” And the oath of God is nothing but the solemn, eternal, and unchangeable decree and purpose of his will, under an especial way of declaration. So the same act and counsel of God’s will is called his “decree,” Psalms 2:7. Wherefore, when God will so far unveil a decree and purpose as to testify it to be absolute and unchangeable, he doth it in the way of an oath; as hath been declared, Hebrews 6:13-14. Or, to the same purpose, God affirms that he hath sworn in the case.If, then, it be demanded, when God thus sware unto Christ, I answer, We must consider the decree itself unto this purpose, and the peculiar revelation or declaration of it; in which two this oath doth consist. And as to the first, it belongs entirely unto those eternal federal transactions between the Father and the Son, which were the original of the priesthood of Christ, which I have at large explained in our exercitations. And as for the latter, it was when he gave out that revelation of his mind in the force and efficacy of an oath, in the psalm by David. It is, therefore, not only a mistake, but an error of danger in some expositors, who suppose that this oath was made unto Christ upon his ascension into heaven. For this apprehension being pursued, will fall in with the πρῶτονψεῦδος of the Socinians in this whole cause, namely, that the kingly and priestly offices of Christ are not really distinct. Moreover, it supposeth the principal discharge of the priesthood of Christ, in his sacrifice, to have been antecedent unto this oath; which utterly enervates the apostle’s argument in these words. For if he were made a priest and discharged his office without an oath, as he must be and do on this supposition, that the oath of God was made unto him after his ascension (or that his death and oblation therein belonged not unto his priestly office), he had no pre-eminence herein unto the Aaronical priests. He might so have a subsequent privilege of the confirmation of his office, but he had none in his call thereunto. Wherefore this oath of God, though not in itself solely the constituent cause of the priesthood of Christ, yet it was, and it was necessarily to be, antecedent unto his actual entrance upon or discharge of any solemn duty of his office. That additional expression, “And he will not repent,” declares the nature of the oath of God and of the purpose con firmed thereby. When God makes an alteration in any law, rule, order, or constitution, he is or may be said, ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, to repent. This God by this word declares shall never be; no alteration or change, no removal or substitution, shall ever be made in this matter. ever.” He was not only made a priest with an oath, which they were not, but a priest for ever. This adds unto the unchangeableness of his office, that he himself in his own person was to bear, exercise, and discharge it, without substitute or successor. And this “for ever” answers unto the “for ever” under the law, each of them being commensurate unto the dispensation of that covenant which they do respect; for absolute eternity belongs not unto these things. The “for ever” of the old testament was the duration of the dispensation of the old covenant. And this “for ever” respects the new covenant, which is to continue unto the consummation of all things, no change therein being any way intimated or promised, or consistent with the wisdom and faithfulness of God; all which were otherwise under the law. But at the end of the world, together with the dispensation of the new covenant, an end will be put unto all the mediatory offices of Christ, and all their exercise. And there are four things which the apostle declareth and evinceth in this observation: — 1. That our high priest was peculiarly designed unto and initiated into his office, by the oath of God, which none other ever was before him.2. That the person of the high priest is hereby so absolutely determined, as that the church may continually draw nigh unto God the fall assurance of faith.3. That this priesthood is liable to no alteration, succession, or substitution.4. That from hence ariseth the principal advantage of the new testament above the old, as is declared in the next verse; and we may observe, —Obs. 4. That although God granted great privileges unto the church under the old testament, yet still in every instance he withheld that which was the principal, and should have given perfection unto what he did grant. He made them priests, but without an oath. — In all things there was a reserve for Christ, that he in all might have the pre-eminence. Obs. 5. God by his oath declares the determination of his sovereign pleasure unto the object of it. — What he proposeth and pre- scribeth unto us, he declares no more of his mind and his will about but that he requireth and approveth of our obedience unto it; but it and about it that seem good unto him. Nothing, therefore, in the whole legal administration being confirmed by the oath of God, it was always ready for removal at the appointed season. Obs. 6. Christ’s being made a priest for ever by the oath of God, is a solid foundation of peace and consolation to the church. For, —Obs. 7. All the transactions between the Father and the Son, concerning his offices, undertakings, and the work of our redemption, have respect unto the faith of the church, and are declared for our consolation. — Such were his solemn call to his sacerdotal office, and the oath of God whereby he was confirmed therein. I will not say that these things were needless on the part of Christ himself, seeing it became the glory of his person to be thus testified unto in his condescension unto office; yet was it in all these things the good and benefit of the church that was-designed. What the Lord Christ said of his prayer unto God the Father, at least so far as it was vocal, — that it was not needful for him, but was only for the confirmation of the faith of others, John 11:41-42, — may be spoken of all other transactions between God and him; the faith of others was principally respected in them, and thereunto they were absolutely needful. For, — 1. The things which God proposeth unto our faith through Christ are exceeding great and glorious, and such as, being most remote from our innate apprehensions, do need the highest confirmation. Things they are which “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man,” 1 Corinthians 2:9. Things unexpected, great and glorious, are apt to surprise, amaze, and overwhelm our spirits, until they are uncontrollably testified unto. So when Jacob’s sons told their father that Joseph was alive, and made governor over all the land of Egypt, Genesis 45:26, the tidings were too great and good for him to receive. But it is added, that when they gave evidence unto their report by the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, “the spirit of Jacob revived,” verses 27, 28. The things of the gospel, pardon of sin, peace with God, participation of the Spirit, grace and glory, are great and marvellous. Men at the hearing of them are like them that dream; the words concerning them seem like the report of the women unto the apostles concerning the resurrection of Christ, — “they seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not,” Luke 24:2. Wherefore God discovers the fountains of these things, that we may apprehend the truth and reality of them. His eternal covenant with his Son about them, his oath that he hath made unto him, whereby he was established in his office, and the like glorious transactions of his wisdom and grace, are revealed unto this very end, that we might not be faithless in these things, but believe. For can any thing that is proposed unto us be supposed to exceed the duty of faith, when we see it, either in itself or in its springs and foundation, solemnly confirmed by the oath of God? They are glorious things which we are to expect from the priesthood of Christ, and the discharge of that office. And is it not an unspeakable encouragement thereunto, that God hath confirmed him in that office by his solemn oath unto him? For two things evidently present themselves unto our minds thereon: (1.) That this is a thing which the infinitely holy, wise God lays great weight and stress upon. And what is he not able to effect when he doth so, and consequently lays out the treasures of his wisdom and en-gageth the greatness of his power in the pursuit of it? And,(2.) His counsel herein is absolutely immutable, and such as on no emergency can admit of alteration. If, therefore, the engagement of infinite wisdom, grace, and power, will not excite and encourage us unto believing, there is no remedy, but we must perish in our sins.2. As the things proposed in the gospel, as effects of the priesthood of Christ, are in themselves great and glorious, requiring an eminent confirmation, so the frame of our hearts with respect unto them is such, from first to last, as stands in need of all the evidence that can be given unto them. For there is in us by nature an aversation unto them, and a dislike of them. In the wisdom of our carnal minds, we look on them as foolish and useless. And when this woful enmity is conquered by the mighty power of God, and the souls of sinners wrought over to approve of these effects of divine wisdom and grace, yet no man can recount how many doubts, fears, jealous suspicions, we are, as to our closing with them by faith, obnoxious unto. Every one’s own heart, if he have any acquaintance with it, if he be diligent in the examination of it, will sufficiently satisfy him what objections faith in this matter hath to conflict withal. And it is to be feared that he who is insensible of the oppositions that arise against sincere believing, never yet knew what it is so to believe. To encourage and strengthen our hearts against them, to give power unto faith against all oppositions, doth God thus reveal the wisdom of his counsel and the glorious springs of this ministration whereinto our whole faith is principally resolved. And indeed we may try the sincerity of our faith by its respect unto these things. It may be some, for aught I know, may be carried on in such an easy course, and be so preserved from perplexing temptations, as not to be driven to seek their relief so deep as these springs of God’s confirmation of the office of Christ by his oath do lie; but yet he that doth not of his own choice refresh his faith with the consideration of them, and strengthen it with pleas in his supplications taken from thence, seems to me to be greatly unacquainted with what it is truly to believe. Hebrews 7:22. — “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”Κατὰτοσοῦτον, “by so much,” answers directly to καθ᾿ὅσον, Hebrews 7:20, “inasmuch.” There is therefore an immediate connection of these words unto that verse. Hence verse 21, wherein a confirmation is interserted of the principal assertion, is justly placed in a parenthesis in our translation. So the sense of the words is to this purpose: ‘And inasmuch as he was not made a priest without an oath, he is by so much made the surety of a better testament.’ And there may be a twofold design in the words: 1. That his being made a priest by an oath made him meet to be the surety of a better testament; or, 2. That the testament whereof he was the surety must needs be better than the other, because he who was the surety of it was made a priest by an oath.In the one way, he proves the dignity of the priesthood of Christ from the new testament; and in the other, the dignity of the new testament from the priesthood of Christ. And we may reconcile both these senses by affirming, that really and efficiently the priesthood gives dignity unto the new testament, and declaratively the new testament sets forth the dignity of the priesthood of Christ. It is owned tacitly, that the priesthood of Levi, and the old testament, were good, or these could not be said to be “better,” in way of comparison. And good they were, because appointed of God, and of singular use unto the church during their continuance. But this priesthood and testament are better, by so much as that which is confirmed with an oath is better than that which is not so; which alone gives the proportion of comparison in this place. Many other advantages there were of the priesthood of Christ and of the new testament, in comparison unto those of the old, all which increase the proportion of difference; but at present the apostle considers only what depends on the oath of God. Wherefore the design of the comparison contained in these words, κατὰτοσοῦτον, is, that whereas this priest after the order of Melchisedec was designed to be the surety of another testament, he was confirmed in his office by the oath of God; which gives a pre-eminence both unto his office and the testament whereof he was to be a surety. In the assertion itself, that “Jesus was made a surety of a better testament,” we may consider, 1. What is included or supposed in it; and, 2. What is literally expressed.First, Three things are included and supposed in this assertion:1. That there was another testament that God had made with his people. 2. That this was a good testament. 3. That this testament had in some sense a surety.Secondly, As unto what is expressed in these words, there are four things in them:1. The name of him who was the subject discoursed of; it is “Jesus.” 2. What is affirmed of him; he was “a surety.”3. How he became so; he was “made” so. 4. Whereof he was a surety; and that is of a “testament” of God: which 5. is described by its respect unto the other before mentioned, and its preference above it; it is a “better testament.” First, It is supposed,1. That there was another testament which God had made with his people. This the apostle supposeth in this whole context, and at length brings his discourse unto its head and issue in the eighth chapter, where he expressly compareth the two testaments the one with the other. Now this was the covenant or testament that God made with the Hebrews on Mount Sinai, when he brought them out of Egypt, as is expressly declared in the ensuing chapter, whereof we must treat in its proper place. 2. It is supposed that this was a good testament. It was so in itself, as an effect of the wisdom and righteousness of God; for all that he doth is good in itself, both naturally and morally, nor can it otherwise be. And it was of good use unto the church; namely, unto them who looked unto the end of it, and used it in its proper design. Unto the body of the people, indeed, as far as they were carnal, and looked only on the one hand for temporal benefits by it, or on the other for life and salvation, it was a heavy yoke, yea, the “ministration of death.” With respect unto such persons and ends, it contained “statutes that were not good,” “commandments that could not give life;” and it was every way unprofitable. But yet in itself it was on many accounts “holy, just, and good:”(1.) As it had an impression upon it of the wisdom and goodness of God.(2.) As it was instructive in the nature and demerit of sin.(3.) As it directed unto and represented the only means of deliverance, by righteousness and salvation in Christ.(4.) As it established a worship which was very glorious and acceptable unto God during its season. But, as we shall show afterwards, it came short in all its excellencies and worth of this whereof Christ is the surety.3. It is supposed that this testament had a surety; for this new testament having a surety, the other must have so also. But who this was must be inquired into.(1.) Some would have our Lord Jesus Christ to be the surety of that testament also; for so our apostle affirms in general, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” 1 Timothy 2:5-6.Be the covenant or testament what or which it will, there is but “one mediator between God and men.” Hence our apostle says of him, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,” Hebrews 13:8. If, therefore, he be the only mediator to-day under the new testament, he was so also yesterday under the old. Ans. [1. There is some difference between a mediator at large, and such a mediator as is withal a surety. And however, on any account, Christ may be said to be the mediator of that covenant, he cannot be said to be the surety of it. [2. The place in Timothy cannot intend the old covenant, but is exclusive of it; for the Lord Christ is there called a mediator with respect unto the ransom that he paid in his death and blood-shedding. This respected not the confirmation of the old covenant, but was the abolition of it: and the old was confirmed with the blood of beasts, as the apostle expressly declares, Hebrews 9:18-19.[3. The Lord Christ was indeed, in his divine person, the immediate administrator of that covenant, the angel and messenger of it on the behalf of God the Father: but this doth not constitute him a mediator properly; for “a mediator is not of one, but God is one.” [4. The Lord Christ was a mediator under that covenant, as to the original promise of grace, and the efficacy of it, which were administered therein: but he was not the mediator and surety of it as it was a covenant; for had he been so, he being “the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,” that covenant could never have been disannulled. (2.) Some assert Moses to have been the surety of the old testament; for so it is said that “the law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” Galatians 3:19, — that is, of Moses, whom the people desired to be the internuncius between God and them, Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27; Deuteronomy 18:16. Ans. [1. Moses may be said to be the mediator of the old covenant in a general sense, inasmuch as he went between God and the people, to declare the will of God unto them, and to return the profession of obedience from them unto God; but he was in no sense the surety thereof. For, on the one side, God did not appoint him in his stead to give assurance of his fidelity unto the people. This he took absolutely unto himself, in those words wherewith all his laws were prefaced, “I am the LORD thy God.” Nor did he, nor could he, on the other side, undertake unto God for the people; and so could not be esteemed in any sense the surety of the covenant. [2. The apostle hath no such argument in hand as to compare Christ with Moses, nor is he treating of that office wherein he compares him with him, and prefers him above him; which was his prophetical office, whereof he had before discoursed, Hebrews 3:4-6. Wherefore, —(3.) It was the high priest alone who was the surety of that covenant. It was made and confirmed by sacrifices, Psalms 50:5; as we shall see more at large afterwards, Hebrews 9:19-20. And if Moses were concerned herein, it was as he executed the office of the priest in an extraordinary manner. Therefore the high priest, offering solemn sacrifices in the name and on the behalf of the people, making atonement for them according to the terms of that covenant, supplied the place of the surety thereof. And we may observe, that, —Obs. 8. How good and glorious soever any thing may appear to be, or really be, in the worship of God, or as a way of our coming to him, or walking before him, if it be not ratified in and by the immediate suretiship of Christ, it must give way unto that which is better; it could be neither durable in itself, nor make any thing perfect in them that made use of it.Secondly, In what is positively asserted in the words we may observe, —1. The person who is the subject spoken of; and that is “Jesus.” He had in general declared the nature of the priesthood of him who was to have that office, according to the order of Melchisedec; but he had not yet, in this whole chapter, — that is, from the beginning of this discourse, — mentioned who that person was, or named him. But here he makes application of the whole unto him. It is Jesus who in all these things was intended. And this he doth suitably unto his design and occasion. For two things were in question among the Hebrews:(1.) What was the nature of the office of the Messiah?(2.) Who was the person? For the first of these, he proves unto them, from their own acknowledged principles, that he was to be a priest; as also what was the nature of that priesthood, and what would be the necessary consequence of the setting up of that office in the church, and the exercise of it: this his whole precedent discourse is designed unto. Now he asserts the second part of the difference, namely, that it is Jesus who is this priest; because in him alone do all things concur that were to be in that priest, and he had now discharged the principal part and duty of that office. It was sufficient for the church of the Jews to believe in the Messiah, and to own the work of redemption which he was to accomplish. Nor did the mere actual coming of Christ make it absolutely necessary that they should all immediately be obliged to believe him to be the person. Many, I doubt not, died after his incarnation and went to heaven without an actual belief that it was he who was their Redeemer. But their obligation unto faith towards that individual person arose from the declaration that was made of him, and the evidences given to prove him to be the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. So he tells those unto whom he preached and who saw his miracles, “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”, John 8:24. It would not now suffice them to believe in the Messiah in general, but they were also to believe that Jesus was he, or they must perish for their unbelief. Howbeit they only were intended who, hearing his words and seeing his miracles, had sufficient evidence of his being the Son of God. Of others in the same church this was not as yet required. Nor, it may be, cloth our Savior oblige them immediately unto faith in this matter; only he declares what would be the event with them who, upon his accomplishment of his work on the earth, and the sending of the Holy Ghost after his ascension, — whereby he gave the principal declaration and evidence of his being the Messiah, — should continue in their unbelief. Hereon, and not before, the belief in his individual person, in “Jesus, the Son of God,” became the foundation of the church; so that whoever believed not in him did die in their sins. Wherefore the apostles, immediately upon the coming of the Holy Ghost, made this the first and principal subject of their preaching, namely, that “Jesus was the Christ.” See Acts 2-5. So our apostle in this place, having asserted the nature of the office of the promised Messiah, makes an application of it unto his person; as he also had done, Acts 2:9. And we may observe, that, —Obs. 9. All the privileges, benefits, and advantages of the offices and mediation of Christ will not avail us, unless we reduce them all unto faith in his person. Indeed it is not so much what is done, though that be inconceivably great, as by whom it is done, namely, “Jesus, the Son of God,” God and man in one person. It is a matter of somewhat a surprising nature, that divers in these days do endeavor to divert the minds and faith of men from a respect unto the person of Christ. But that the crafts of Satan have made nothing, be it never so foolish or impious in religion, to seem strange, a man could not but admire how such an attempt should be either owned or countenanced. For my part, I must acknowledge that I know no more of Christian religion but what makes me judge that the principal trouble of believers in this world lies herein, that they can no more fervently love, nor more firmly believe in the person of Christ, than what they have as yet attained unto. But this notion hath been vented and carried on among us by persons who, out of an aim after things novel and contrary to the received faith, have suffered themselves to be imposed on by those who have other principles than what they seem to own. For the Socinians, denying the divine nature of Christ, do their utmost, in the pursuit of that infidelity, to take the minds of men from a regard unto his person, and would reduce all religion unto a mere obedience unto his commands. And indeed there can be no place for that divine faith in him, trust on him, and love unto him, which the church has always professed, if it be supposed that he is not God and man in one person. And their reasonings, they are unto this purpose, which some represent unto us, who yet will not avow that principle from whence alone they are taken and do rise. But so long as we can hold the head, or this great foundation of religion, that the Lord Christ is the eternal Son of God, — which alone gives life and efficacy unto his whole work of mediation, — our faith in all its actings will be reduced unto his person; there it beginneth, there it endeth. It is Jesus who is this mediator and surety of the covenant, in whose person “God redeemed the church with his own blood.” 2. That which is affirmed of this person is, that he was “made a surety.” The way whereby he became so is expressed by γέγονε, — he was “made” so. So is this word used with respect unto him, Hebrews 1:4 : of the same importance with another translated “appointed,” Hebrews 3:2; and it signifies what is expressed, Hebrews 5:5. The places may be consulted with our exposition of them. Respect is had herein unto the acts of God the Father in this matter. What are those acts of God, whether eternal or temporal, that did concur unto or any way belong unto the investiture of Christ in his offices, I have at large declared on Hebrews 1:1-3. And more particularly for what concerns his priesthood, it hath been handled apart in our exercitations on that subject. But we may here also observe, that, — Obs. 10. The whole undertaking of Christ, and the whole efficacy of the discharge of his office, depend on the appointment of God, even the Father.3. It is affirmed that he was thus “made,” “appointed,” or “constituted,” that is, by God himself, a “surety;” which is further declared by the addition of that whereunto his suretiship had a respect, namely, “a better covenant,” — κρείττονοςδιαωθήκνς.Of the proper signification of the word διαθήκη, and its use, we must treat expressly afterwards. Here we shall only observe, that in this word the apostle takes many things as granted among the Hebrews; as, — (1.) That there was to be another covenant or testament of God with and towards the church, besides that which he made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. The promises hereof are so frequently repeated by the prophets, especially those who prophesied towards the latter end of their church-state, that there could be no question about it, nor could they be ignorant of it.(2.) That this new covenant or testament should be better than the former, which was to be disannulled thereby. This carried along with it its own evidence. For after God, in his wisdom and goodness, had made one covenant with his people, he would not remove it, abolish it, and take it away by another, unless that other were better than it; especially declaring so often as he doth that he granted them this new covenant as the highest effect of his grace and kindness towards them. And that indeed it was expressly promised to be a better covenant than the former, we shall see in the next chapter, if we live and God will.(3.) It is supposed that this better covenant must have a surety. The original covenant that God made with Adam had none, and therefore was it quickly broken and disannulled. The especial covenant made with Israel had no surety, properly so called; only therein the high priest did represent what was to be done by any one that should undertake to be such a surety. Of the word and its signification we have spoken before. And in our inquiry into the nature of this suretiship of Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, namely, ‘Whether the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the part of God unto us, to assure us that the promise of the covenant on his part should be accomplished; or also an undertaker on our part for the performance of what is required, if not of us, yet with respect unto us, that the promise may be accomplished?’The first of these is vehemently asserted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond, in their annotations on this place. The words of Schlichtingius are: “Sponsor foederis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis spoponderit; id est, fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse. Non vero quasi pro nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, foedus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se recepit, ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter sed foederis sponsor nominatur. Spopondit autem Christus pro foederis divini veritate, non tantium quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetuo testatus est, sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem maximis rerum ipsarum comprobavit documentis, tum perfecta vitae innocentia et sanctitate, tum divinis plane quae patravit operibus, tum mortis adeo truculentae, quam pro doctrinae suae veritate subiit, perpessione.” After which he subjoins a long discourse about the evidences which we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account of their whole opinion concerning the mediation of Christ. The words of Grotius are: “Spopondit Christus; i.e., nos certos promissi fecit, non solis verbis, sed perpetua vitae sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata, et miraculis plurimis;” which are an abridgment of the discourse of Schlichtingius. To the same purpose Dr. Hammond expounds it, that “he was a sponsor or surety for God unto the confirmation of the promises of the covenant.” On the other hand, the generality of expositors, ancient and modern, of the Roman and Protestant churches, affirm that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, was properly a surety or undertaker unto God for us, and not a surety or undertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the faith and consolation of the church are highly concerned, I shall insist distinctly upon it. (1.) And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to prove that Christ was only a surety for God unto us. Now this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office and work of a surety, nor from the nature of the covenant whereof he was a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on is, “That we do not give Christ as a surety of the covenant unto God, but he gives him unto us; and therefore he is a surety for God and the accomplishment of his promises, and not for us, to pay our debts, or to answer what is required of us.” But there is no force in this argument; for it belongs not unto the nature of a surety by whom he is or may be designed unto his office and work therein. His own voluntary susception of the office and work is all that is required thereunto, however he may be designed or induced to undertake it. He who of his own accord doth voluntarily undertake for another, on what grounds, reasons, or considerations soever he doth so, is his surety. And this the Lord Christ did in the behalf of the church: for when it was said, “Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings for sin, God would not have,” or accept as sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so as that the covenant might be established and made effectual unto us; then said he, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” Hebrews 10:5-9. He willingly and voluntarily, out of his own abundant goodness and love, took upon him to make atonement for us; wherein he was our surety. And accordingly this undertaking is ascribed unto that love which he exercised herein, Galatians 2:20; 1 John 3:16; Revelation 1:5. And there was this in it, moreover, that he took upon him our nature, or the seed of Abraham; wherein he was our surety. So that although we neither did nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us that wherein and whereby he was so: which was as much as if we had designed him unto his work, as to the true reason of his being our surety. Wherefore, notwithstanding those antecedent transactions that were between the Father and him in this matter, it was the voluntary engagement of himself to be our surety, and his taking our nature upon him for that end, which was the formal reason of his being instituted in that office.(2.) We may consider the arguments whence it is evident that he neither was nor could be a surety unto us for God, but was so for us unto God. For, — [1. ῎Εγγυος, or ἐγγυητής, a “surety,” is one that undertaketh for another wherein he is defective, really or in reputation. Whatever that undertaking be, whether in words of promise, or in depositing of real security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life and body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any one becomes a surety. Such an one is sponsor, or “fidejussor,” in all good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a reputation every way unquestionable, there is no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words of a surety in the behalf of another, whose ability or reputation is dubious, are, “Ad me recipio, faciet aut faciam.”And when ἔγγυος is taken adjectively, as sometimes it is, it signifies him who is “satisdationibus obnoxius,” — liable to payments for others that are non-solvent.[2. God can therefore have no surety properly, because there can be no imagination of any defect on his part. There may be, indeed, a question whether any word or promise be a word or promise of God. To assure us hereof is not the work of a surety, but of any one or any means that may give evidence that so it is. But upon a supposition that what is proposed is his word or promise, there can be no imagination or fear of any defect on his part, so as that there should be any need of a surety for the performance of it. He doth, indeed, make use of witnesses to confirm his word; that is, to testify that such promises he hath made, and so he will do. So the Lord Christ was his witness: Isaiah 43:10, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen.” But they were not at all his sureties. So Christ affirms that he came into the world to “bear witness unto the truth,” John 18:37 : that is, the truth of the promises of God; for he was“a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises unto the fathers,” Romans 15:8.But a surety for God properly so called he was not, nor could be. The distance and difference are wide enough between a witness and a surety; for a surety must be of more ability, or more credit and reputation, than he for whom he is a surety, or there is no need of his suretiship. This none can be for God, no not the Lord Christ himself, who in his whole work was the servant of the Father. And the apostle doth not use this word in a general, improper sense, for any one that by any means gives assurance of any other thing: for so he had asserted nothing peculiar unto Christ; for in such a sense all the prophets and apostles were sureties for God, and many of them confirmed the truth of his word and promises with the laying down of their lives. But such a surety he intends as undertaketh to do that for others which they cannot do for themselves, or at least are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them. [3. The apostle had before at large declared who and what was God’s surety in this matter of the covenant, and how impossible it was that he should have any other: and this was himself alone interposing himself by his oath. For in this cause, “because he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself,” Hebrews 6:13-14. Wherefore if God would give any other surety besides himself, it must be one greater than he. This being every way impossible, he swears by himself only. Many ways he may and doth use for the declaring and testifying of his truth unto us, that we may know and believe it to be his word, — and so the Lord Christ in his ministry was the principal witness of the truth of God, — but other surety than himself he can have none. And therefore, — [4. When he would have us in this matter, not only to come unto the “full assurance of faith” concerning his promises, but also to have “strong consolation,” he resolves it wholly into “the immutability of his counsel,” as declared by his promise and oath, Hebrews 6:17-19. So that neither is God capable of having any surety properly so called, neither do we stand in need of any on his part, for the confirmation of our faith in the highest degree. [5. We on all accounts stand in need of a surety for us, or on our behalf. Neither without the interposition of such a surety could any covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or “an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure.” In the first covenant, made with Adam, there was no surety, but God and man were the immediate covenanters. And although we were then in a state and condition able to perform and answer all the terms of that covenant, yet was it broken and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the promise of God, it was necessary that, on the making of a new covenant, he should have a surety to undertake for him, that the covenant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false, and blasphemous to imagine. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Καὶοἱμὲνπλείονέςεἰσιγεγονότεςἱερεῖς, διὰτὸθανάτῳκωλύεσθαιπαραμένειν·ὁδὲδιὰτὸμένειναὐτὸνεἰςτὸναἰῶνα, ἀπαράβατονἔχειτὴνἱερωσύνην·ὅθενκαὶσώζεινεἰςτὸπαντελὲςδὺναταιτοὺςπροσερχομένουςδι᾿αὐτοῦτῷΘεῷ, πάντοτεζῶν, εἰςτὸἐντυηχάνεινὑπὲραὐτῶν.Καὶοἱμὲνπλείονες. Vulg. Lat., “et alii quidem plures faeti sunt sacerdotes,” “and many others truly were made priests;” or, “and others truly were made many priests.” The Rhemists reduce it to this sense, “and the other, indeed, were made priests being many;” rendering οἱμέν by”alii,” instead of” illi,” which corrupts the sense, and takes off from the immediate respect unto the priests of the order of Aaron, intended by the apostle. “Et illi quidem plures sunt facti sacerdotes,” “and they truly were many priests.” So the Syr., εְ ?δֲ ?πεּ ?οηֲ ?εεּ λּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψֵ ?ΰρַ ?βְּ ?ιָ ?ΰֵ ?ΰ“and they were many priests;” omitting the note of asseveration, μέν, “truly.”Εἰσιγεγονότες, “were made:” not only the event and matter of fact, but God’s institution is also intended. Διὰτὸθανάτῳκωλύεσθαι. Vulg. Lat., “idcirco quod morte prohiberentur permanere.” Rhem., “because that by death they were prohibited to continue.” Ours, “because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death;” “quoniam per mortem non sinebantur permanere,” which is the true meaning of the words. Syr., “because they died, and were not left to continue.”῾Οδέ, “hic autem,” “at iste;” “but this man,” διὰτὸμένειναὐτὸνεἰςτὸναἰῶνα, “quod maneat in anternum,” “quoniam ipse in aeternum maneat,” “propterea quod in aeternum manet;” all to the same purpose. Syr, ξֶ ?θεּ ?μγַּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?μַ ?νχַ ?ιָּ ?ν“because he standeth” (or “continueth “) “for ever.” ῾απαράζατονἔχειτὴνἱερωσύνην, “sempiternum,” “perpetuum habet sacerdotium.” Syriac, μָ ?ΰςָ ?αְ ?ψָ ?ΰλּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψεּ ?ϊֵ ?δּ, “his priesthood passeth not away.” ᾿Απαράβατος, “that may not be transgressed,” and so “not altered;” as ἀπαράζατοςνόμος, a “sacred law” which none ought to transgress, which cannot in any thing be dispensed withal: and by consequence only, it is that “which passeth not away,” “that priesthood (τὴνἱερωσύνην) which altereth not,” which cannot be changed. ῞Οθενκαὶσώζειν. Syr., .εּ ?ξֶ ?ωְׁ ?λַּ ?ημְ ?ξַ ?ΰηָ ?ιεּ, “and he can quicken,” or “enliven,” or “give eternal life.” Εἰςτὸπαντελές. Syr., μְ ?ςָ ?μַ ?ν“for ever,” respecting duration of time; “in perpetuum,” Vulg. Lat. Others, “perfecte,” “perfectly,” completely. Ours, “to the uttermost.”Τοὺςπροσερχομένους, “aecedentes per semetipsum ad Deum.” Rhemists, “he is able to save for ever, going by himself unto God;” strangely darkening the sense. For “going” seems to respect his own going to God, which the Vulg., “aceedentes,” will not bear, “eos qui per ipsum accedunt ad Deum,” “those who by him draw nigh to God.”Πάντοτεζῶν, “semper vivens ad interpellandum pro nobis;”” always living to make intercession for us,” instead of “for them,” αὐτῶν. Syr., εּ ?ξַ ?ρֵ ?χφְ ?μַ ?εְ ?ϊֵ ?ΰηֲ ?μָ ?τַ ?ιְ ?δεּ ?ο, “causing to ascend,” or “offering prayers for them.” [10] [10] . — ᾿Απαράβατος. A priesthood without succession. — Stuart. Not transferable. — Peils. Untransferable. — Craik. Such as cannot pass to a successor. — Ebrard. Giveth not his priesthood unto another. — Conybeare and Howson. Halt das Priesterthum als ein nicht ubergehendes. — De Wette. Tholuck prefers the passive signification: “He has the priesthood which cannot be passed over, or changed;” or, as Turner explains it, “which is indestructible.” Εἰςτὸπαντ., says Ebrard, does not signify “evermore,” but “to completeness;” — the precise antithesis to the words, verse 19, “the law made nothing perfect.” — ED.Hebrews 7:23-25. — And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able to save them also to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.The apostle in these words proceedeth unto his last argument from the consideration of the priesthood of Christ, as typed and represented by that of Melchisedec. And his intention is still to prove the excellency of it above the Levitical, and of his person above theirs. And in particular, he makes it manifest that “the bringing in of the better hope” did “perfect” or “consummate” all things, which the law could not do. That he hath in these verses a respect unto Melchisedec as a type of Christ, and what we are taught thereby, is evident from the matter treated of in them. He had observed, that, as to the description given of him in the Scripture, he “abideth a priest continually,” Hebrews 7:3; and that “it is witnessed of him that he liveth,” seeing it is nowhere mentioned that he died, Hebrews 7:8. And this is the last consideration of him which he improveth unto his purpose; and it is that which gives virtue and efficacy unto all the others that he had before insisted on. Set this aside, and all the others, whether advantages or excellencies, which he had discoursed of, would be as ineffectual unto the ends aimed at as the law itself. For what profit could it be unto the church, to have so excellent and glorious a priest for a season, and then immediately to be deprived of him, by the expiration of his office? Moreover, as what the apostle affirms here of Christ hath respect unto what he had before observed concerning Melchisedec; so what he affirms of the Levitical priests depends on what he had before declared concerning them, namely, that they were all mortal, dying men, and no more, and who actually died in their successive generations, Hebrews 7:8. The words, therefore, have three things in them in general: — 1. The state and condition of the Levitical priests by reason of their mortality, Hebrews 7:23. This he observes, because he is not declaring the dignity of Christ and his priesthood absolutely, but with respect unto them; whose state, therefore, was the antithesis in the comparison.2. The state and condition of the priesthood of Christ on the account of his glorious immortality, Hebrews 7:24.3. The blessed effects and consequents of the priesthood of Christ, inasmuch as, by virtue of his immortality, he was a priest for ever, Hebrews 7:25. In the FIRST (Hebrews 7:23) there is,1. The introduction of his assertion and observation; καὶοἱμέν, — “and they truly.” 2. What he affirms of those priests; “they were many.”3. Whence that came to pass; namely, “because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:” which is not alleged only as the cause and reason of their being many, but also as a proof of their weakness and infirmity.1. In the introduction of his assertion, there is a note of connection, and another of asseveration.The first is the copulative conjunction, καί, “and.” A process unto a new argument, to the same purpose with those foregoing, is intended hereby. The former design is continued, and a new confirmation of it is added: for he resolved to omit nothing that was of moment and unto his purpose. There is, secondly, a vehemency in his assertion, or a note of asseveration; “and they truly.” He had used the same note before in the same manner, Hebrews 7:21;. where we omit the emphasis of it without cause. And in other places the same translators render this particle by “truly,” as they do here, Acts 1:5. But he doth not so much assert a thing by it that was dubious, as positively declare that which was well known, and could no way be gainsaid by them with whom he had to do. And an argument pressed “ex concessis” is forcible. This is a known truth.2. That which he affirms of them is, that “they were many priests;” or, “there were many made priests;” or, “they who were made priests were many.” The sense is the same. By the appointment of God himself there were “many made priests,” or executed the office of the priesthood. It is the high priests only, Aaron and his successors, of whom he speaks; and it is with respect unto their succession one to another that he affirms they were “many.” This both the reason of it which he subjoins, and what he afterwards adds concerning the priesthood of Christ, wherein there was no succession, do evidently declare; for there neither was nor could be, by the law, any more than one at a time. Perhaps, in the disorder and confusion of that church, there might be more that were so called and esteemed, as were Annas and Caiaphas; but that confusion he takes no notice of, but attends unto what always was, or ought to have been, according to the law. By succession these high priests were many; for from Aaron, the first of them, unto Phinehas, who was destroyed with the temple, there were inclusively fourscore and three high priests. Of these, thirteen lived under the tabernacle, before the building of the temple by Solomon; eighteen under the first temple, unto its destruction by the Babylonians; and all the rest lived under the second temple, which yet stood no longer than the first. And the multiplication of high priests under the second temple the Jews look upon as a punishment, and token of God’s displeasure; for “because of the sins of a nation, their rulers are many,” and frequently changed. Whatever advantages there may be in an orderly succession, yet is it absolutely an evidence of imperfection. And by the appointment of this order God signified an imperfection and mutability in that church-state. Succession, indeed, was a relief against death; but it was but a relief, and so supposed a want and weakness, Under the gospel it is not so, as we shall see afterwards. Observe, that, — Obs. 1. God will not fail to provide instruments for his work that he hath to accomplish. If many priests be needful, many the church shall have.3. The reason of this multiplication of priests, was “because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death.” They were mortal men, subject unto death, and they died. Death suffered them not to continue in the execution of their office. It forbade them so to do, in the name of the great sovereign Lord of life and death. And hereof an instance was given in Aaron, the first of them. God, to show the nature of this priesthood unto the people, and to manifest that the everlasting priest was not yet come, commanded Aaron to die in the sight of all the congregation, Numbers 20:25-29. So did they all afterwards, as other men, die in their several generations. They were all by death forbidden to continue. Death laid an injunction on them, one after another, from proceeding any farther in the administration of their office. It is not, surely, without some especial design that the apostle thus expresseth their dying, ‘They were by death prohibited to continue.’Wherefore he shows hereby, (1.) The way whereby an end was put unto their personal administration; and that was by death. (2.) That there was an imperfection in the administration of that office, which was so frequently interrupted.(3.) That they were seized upon by death, whether they would or no; when, it may be, they would have earnestly desired to continue, and the people also would have rejoiced in it. Death came on them, neither desired nor expected, with his prohibition.(4.) That when death came and seized on them, it kept them under its power, so that they could never more attend unto their office. But it was otherwise with the priest of the better covenant, as we shall see immediately. Observe, —Obs. 2. There is such a necessity for the continual administration of the sacerdotal office in behalf of the church, that the interruption of it by the death of the priests was an argument of the weakness of that priesthood.The high priest is the sponsor and mediator of the covenant. Those of old were so typically, and by way of representation. Wherefore all covenant transactions between God and the church must be through him. He is to offer up all sacrifices, and therein represent all our prayers. And it is evident from thence what a ruin it would be unto the church to be without a high priest one moment. Who would venture a surprisal unto his own soul in such a condition? Could any man enjoy a moment’s peace, if he supposed that in his extremity the high priest might die? This now is provided against, as we shall see in the next verse. Hebrews 7:24. — “But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.” In opposition unto what was observed in the Levitical priests, the contrary is here affirmed of the Lord Christ. And the design of the apostle is still the same, — namely, to evince, by all sorts of instances, his pre-eminence as a priest above them as such also.1. The person spoken of is expressed by ὁδέ. The exceptive conjunction, δέ, “but,” answereth unto μέν, before used, and introduceth the other member of the antithesis; — ὁ, “hic,” “ille,” “iste;” ‘he of whom we speak, — namely, Jesus, the surety of the new testament.’We render it, “this man,” not improperly; he was the “mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Nor doth the calling of him “this man,” exclude his divine nature; for he was truly a man, though God and man in one person. And the things here ascribed unto him were wrought in and by the human nature, though he that wrought them was God also: “But he,” or “this man,” who was represented by Melchisedec, “of whom we speak.” 2. It is affirmed of this person, that he hath “an unchangeable priesthood;” the ground and reason whereof is assigned, namely, “because he continueth ever:” which must be first considered.The sole reason here insisted on by the apostle why the Levitical priests were many, is because they were forbidden by death to continue. It is sufficient, therefore, on the contrary, to prove the perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ, that he abideth for ever. For he doth not absolutely hereby prove the perpetuity of the priesthood, but his perpetual, uninterrupted administration of it; — διὰτὸμένεινεἰςτὸναἰῶνα.This was the faith of the Jews concerning the Messiah, and his office. “We have heard,” say they, “out of the law, ὅτιὁΧριστὸςμένειεἰςτὸναἰῶνα,” John 12:34; — “ that Christ abideth for ever:” whereon they could not understand what he told them about his being “lifted up” by death. And so the word μένει, signifieth “to abide,” “to continue” in any state or condition, John 21:22-23. And this was that which principally he was typed in by Melchisedec; concerning whom there is no record as to the beginning of days or end of life, but, as unto the Scripture description of him, he is said “to abide a priest for ever.”It may be said, in opposition hereunto, ‘That the Lord Christ died also, and that no less truly and really than did Aaron, or any priest of his order; wherefore it will not hence follow that he had any more an uninterrupted priesthood than they had.’ Some say the apostle here considers the priesthood of Christ only after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, after which “he dieth no more, death hath no more power over him.” And if we will believe the Socinians, then he first began to be a priest. This figment I have fully confuted elsewhere. And there is no ground in the context on which we may conjecture that the apostle intends the administration of his priesthood in heaven only, although he intends that also; for he speaks of his priesthood as typed by that of Melchisedec, which, as we have proved before, respected the whole of his office. I say, therefore, that although Christ died, yet he was not forbidden by death to abide in his office, as they were. He died as a priest, they died from being priests. He died as a priest, because he was also to be a sacrifice; but he abode and continued not only vested with his office, but in the execution of it, in the state of death. Through the indissolubleness of his person, his soul and body still subsisting in the person of the Son of God, he was a capable subject of his office. And his being in the state of the dead belonged unto the administration of his office, no less than his death itself. So that from the first moment of his being a priest he abode so always, without interruption or intermission. This is the meaning of διὰτὸμένειναὐτόν, he in his own person abideth. Nor doth the apostle say that he did not die, but only that he “abideth always.”3. It followeth from hence that he hath “an unchangeable priesthood;” — a priesthood subject to no change or alteration, that cannot pass away. But ἱερωσύνηπαραβατος, is “sacerdotium successivum,” “per successionem ab uno alteri traditum;” — such a priesthood as which, when one hath attained, it abideth not with him, but he delivereth it over unto another, as Aaron did his unto Eleazar his son, or it falls unto another by some right or law of succession; a priesthood that goes from hand to hand. ῾ιερωσύνηἀπαράβατος, is “a priesthood that doth not pass from one unto another.” And this the apostle seems directly to intend, as is evident from the antithesis. The priests after the order of Aaron were many, and that by reason of death: wherefore it was necessary that their priesthood should pass from one to another by succession; so that when one received it, he that went before him ceased to be a priest. And so it was; either the predecessors were taken off by death, or on any other just occasion; as it was in the case of Abiathar, who was put from the priest’s office by Solomon, 1 Kings 2:27. Howbeit our apostle mentions their going off by death only, because that was the ordinary way, and which was provided for in the law. With the Lord Christ it was otherwise. He received his priesthood from none. Although he had sundry types, yet he had no predecessor. And he hath none to succeed him, nor can have added or joined unto him in his office. The whole office of the priesthood of the covenant, and the entire administration of it, are confined unto his person. There are no more that follow him than went before him.The expositors of the Roman church are greatly perplexed in the reconciling of this passage of the apostle unto the present priesthood of their church. And they may well be so, seeing they are undoubtedly irreconcilable. Some of them say that Peter succeeded unto Christ in his priesthood, as Eleazar did unto Aaron. So Ribera. Some of them deny that he hath any successor, properly so called. “Successorem non habet, nec ita quisquam Catholicus loquitur, si bene et circumspecte loqui velit,” saith Estius. But it is openly evident that some of them are not so “circumspect” as Estius would have them, but do plainly affirm that Peter was Christ’s successor. A Lapide, indeed, affirms that Peter did not succeed unto Christ as Eleazar did unto Aaron, because Eleazar had the priesthood in the same degree and dignity with Aaron, and so had not Peter with Christ; but yet that he had the same priesthood with him, a priesthood of the same kind, he doth not deny. That which they generally fix upon is, that their priests have not another priesthood, nor offer another sacrifice, but are partakers of his priesthood, and minister under him; and so are not his successors, but his vicars: which, I think, is the worst composure of this difficulty they could have thought upon; for, — (1.) This is directly contrary unto the words and design of the apostle. For the reason he assigns why the priesthood of Christ doth not pass from him unto any other, is, because he abides himself for ever to discharge the office of it. Now this excludes all subordination and conjunction, all vicars as well as successors; unless we shall suppose, that although he doth thus abide, yet is he one way or other disenabled to discharge his office.(2.) The successors of Aaron had no more another priesthood but what he had, than it is pretended that the Roman priests have no other priesthood but what Christ had. Nor did they offer any other sacrifice than what he offered; as these priests pretend to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did. So that still the case is the same between Aaron and his successors, and Christ and his substitutes.(3.) They say that Christ may have substitutes in his office though he abide a priest still, and although the office still continue the same, unchangeable: so God, in the government of the world, makes use of judges and magistrates, yet is himself the supreme rector of all. But this pretense is vain also. For they do not substitute their priests unto him in that which he continueth to do himself, but in that which he doth not, — which he did, indeed, and as a priest ought to have done, but now ceaseth to do for ever in his own person. For the principal act of the sacerdotal office of Christ consisted in his oblation, or his “offering himself a sacrifice of a sweet- smelling savor unto God.” This he did once, and ceased for ever from doing so any more. But these priests are assigned to offer him in sacrifice every day, as partakers of the same priesthood with him; which is indeed not to be his substitutes, but his successors; and to take his office out of his hands, as if he were dead, and could henceforth discharge it no more. For they do not appoint priests to intercede in his room, because they grant he continueth himself so to do; but to offer sacrifice in his stead, because he doth so no more. Wherefore, if that be an act of priesthood, and of their priesthood, as is pretended, it is unavoidable that his priesthood is passed from him unto them. Now this is a blasphemous imagination, and directly contrary both unto the words of the apostle and the whole design of his argument. Nay, it would lay the advantage on the other side. For the priests of the order of Aaron had that privilege, that none could take their office upon them, nor officiate in it, whilst they were alive; but although Christ “abideth for ever,” yet, according unto the sense of these men, and their practice thereon, he stands in need of others to officiate for him, and that in the principal part of his duty and office; for offer himself in sacrifice unto God he neither now doth nor can, seeing “henceforth he dieth no more.” This is the work of the mass-priests alone; who must, therefore, be honored as Christ’s successors, or be abhorred as his murderers, for the sacrifice of him must be by blood and death. The argument of the apostle, as it is exclusive of this imagination, so it is cogent unto his purpose. For so he proceedeth: That priesthood which changeth not, but is always vested in the same person, and in him alone, is more excellent than that which was subject to change continually from one hand unto another. For that transmission of it from one unto another was an effect of weakness and imperfection. And the Jews grant that the frequency of their change under the second temple was a token of God’s displeasure. But thus it was with the priesthood of Christ, which never changeth; and that of Aaron, which was always in a transient succession. And the reasons he gives of this contrary state of these two priesthoods do greatly enforce the argument. For the first priesthood was so successive, because the priests themselves were obnoxious unto death, the sum and issue of all weaknesses and infirmities; but as to the Lord Christ, his priesthood is perpetual and unchangeable, because he abideth personally for ever, being made a priest “according to the power of an endless life,” which is the sum of all perfection that our nature is capable of. And we may observe, — Obs. 3. The perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ depends on his own perpetual life. — He did not undertake any office for the church to lay it aside whilst he lives, until the whole design and work of it be accomplished. And therefore he tells his disciples, that “because he liveth they shall live also,” John 14:19; for whilst he lives he will take care of them. But this must be spoken unto on the next verse.Obs. 4. The perpetuity of the priesthood of Christ, as unchangeably exercised in his own person, is a principal part of the glory of that office. — His discharge of this office for the church in his own person, throughout all generations, is the glory of it.1. Hereon depends the church’s preservation and stability. There is neither a ceasing nor any the least intermission of that care and providence, of that interposition with God on its behalf which are required thereunto. Our high priest is continually ready to appear and put in for us on all occasions. And his abiding for ever manifests the continuance of the same care and love for us that he ever had. The same love wherewith, as our high priest, he laid down his life for us, doth still continue in him. And every one may with the same confidence go unto him with all their concerns, as poor, diseased, and distempered persons went unto him when he was upon earth; when he never showed greater displeasure than unto those who forbade any to come unto him, whatever their pretences were. 2. Hereon depend the union and communion of the church with itself in all successive generations. For whereas he is their head and high priest, in whom they all center as unto their union and communion, and hath all their graces and duties in his hand, to present them unto God, they have a relation unto each other, and a concernment in one another. We that are alive in this generation have communion with all those that died in the faith before us; as shall be declared, if God will, on Hebrews 12:22-24. And they were concerned in us, as we are also in the generations that are to come. For all the prayers of the church from first to last are lodged in the hand of the same high priest, who abides for ever; and he returns the prayers of one generation unto another. We enjoy the fruits of the prayers, obedience, and blood of those that went before us; and if we are faithful in our generation, serving the will of God, those shall enjoy the fruits of ours who shall come after us. Our joint interest in this our abiding priest gives a line of communication unto all believers, in all generations. And,3. The consolation of the church also depends hereon. Do we meet with troubles, trials, difficulties, temptations, and distresses? hath not the church done so in former ages? What do we think of those days wherein prisons, tortures, swords, and flames, were the portion of the church all the world over? But did any of them miscarry? was any one true believer lost for ever? and did not the whole church prove victorious in the end? Did not Satan rage and the world gnash their teeth to see themselves conquered and their power broken, by the faith, patience, and suffering, of them whom they hated and despised? And was it by their own wisdom and courage that they were so preserved? did they overcome merely by their own blood? or were they delivered by their own power? No; but all their preservation and success, their deliverance and eternal salvation, depended merely on the care and power of their merciful high priest. It was through his blood, “the blood of the Lamb,” or the efficacy of his sacrifice, that they “overcame” their adversaries, Revelation 12:11. By the same blood were “their robes washed, and made white,” Revelation 7:14. From thence had they their righteousness in all their sufferings. And by him had the church its triumphant issue out of all its trials. Now, is he not the same that he ever was, vested with the same office? and hath he not the same qualifications of love, compassion, care, and power, for the discharge of it, as he always had? Whence, then, can any just cause of despondence in any trials or temptations arise? We have the same high priest to take care of us, to assist and help us, as they had, who were all of them finally victorious. 4. This gives perpetual efficacy unto his sacrifice, etc.Obs. 5. The addition of sacrificing priests, as vicars of, or substitutes unto Christ in the discharge of his office, destroys his priesthood as to the principal eminency of it above that of the Levitical priesthood.Hebrews 7:25. — “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”THIRDLY, In this verse the apostle brings his whole preceding mysterious discourse unto an issue, in the application of it unto the faith and comfort of the church. It was not his design merely to open mysterious truths in the notion of them; nor only to prove the glory and pre-eminence of the gospel church-state above that of the same church under Mosaical institutions, on the account of the priesthood of Christ: but his principal design was, to demonstrate the spiritual and eternal advantages of all true believers by these things. The sum of what he intends he proposeth in this verse, and afterwards enlargeth on unto the end of the chapter. What believers ought to seek in, and what they may expect from this blessed, glorious priesthood, is that which he now undertakes to declare. In like manner, on all occasions he manifests that the end of God, in the whole mystery of his grace by Jesus Christ, and institutions of the gospel, is the salvation of his elect, unto the praise of the glory of his grace. There are in the words, 1. The illative conjunction, or note of inference, “wherefore.”2. An ascription of power unto this high priest; “he is able.”3. The end of that power, or the effect of it; it is “to save:” which is further described, (1.) By the extent of it; it is “unto the uttermost:”(2.) The especial object of it; “those that come to God by him.”4. The reasons of the whole: which are,(1.) His perpetual life:(2.) His perpetual work; “he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”First, The note of inference, ὅθεν, is frequently made use of by our apostle in this argumentative discourse, as Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 8:3; Hebrews 9:18; Hebrews 11:19, and in this place; “ideo,” “quapropter.” Nor is it anywhere else in the New Testament used for the introduction of a conclusion or inference from premises in a way of argument. And the causality which here it includes may respect the whole foregoing discourse, as asserting that which necessarily follows thereon: or it may have respect only unto the ensuing clause in this verse; as if the apostle had only intended in particular, that the Lord Christ is “able to save to the uttermost, because he ever liveth.” But he rather seems to make an inference from the whole foregoing discourse, and the close of the verse is only an addition of the way and manner how the Lord Christ accomplisheth what is ascribed unto him by virtue of his office: ‘Being such an high priest as we have evidenced him to be, “made by an oath,” and “abiding for ever,” he is “able to save.”’ Obs. 6. Considerations of the person and offices of Christ ought to be improved unto the strengthening of the faith, and increase of the consolation of the church. — So they are here by the apostle. After the great and ample declaration that he had made of the excellency of his priestly office with respect unto his person, he applies all that he had spoken unto the encouragement of the faith and hope of them that endeavor to go to God by him. And all those who explode such considerations, and such improvements of them, are no otherwise to be looked on but as persons utterly ignorant both of Christ and faith in him. Secondly, That which is inferred to be in this priest, is power and ability. Δύναται, — “He is able;” “he can.” This is the second time the apostle ascribeth power or ability unto this priest. See Hebrews 2:18, and the exposition thereof. And it is not an ability of nature, but of office, that is intended. An ability of nature in Christ he had proved sufficiently in the first chapter of the epistle, and that accompanied with supreme power, or authority over all; but whereas, as our mediator, he hath undertaken such offices for us, he is, as such, able to do no more than he is so by virtue of them, or in the discharge of those offices. If, therefore, there be any thing needful for us, which, although it may be supposed within the compass of the divine power of the Son of God, is yet not to be effected in a way of office; that, as our mediator, he is not able for. Hence doth our apostle press his ability not absolutely, but as the high priest of the church. As, if a man who is mighty in wealth, riches, and power, be also made a judge, it is one thing what he can do by his might and power, another what he is able for and can do as a judge; and he who hath to deal with him as a judge, is to consider only what he is able for in the discharge of that office. And he doth this partly to evince his preeminence above the high priests of the law. For by reason of their personal infirmities, and the limited nature of their office, they were really unable to effect many things which the church stood in need of from those that discharged that office, supposing them the only way of our approach unto God. Were they never so ready, willing, diligent, and watchful, yet they were not able to do all that was necessary for the church. Being themselves sinful men, made priests by the law of a carnal commandment, and subject unto death, they had no ability to effect in the church what is expected from the priestly office. But the Lord Christ, our high priest, being free from all these imperfections, as he is a priest, “he is able.” But principally he insists upon it to encourage and confirm the faith of the church in him with respect unto this office. Wherefore, having by many demonstrations assured us of his love and compassion, Hebrews 2 and Hebrews 5, there remains nothing but to satisfy us also of his power and ability And this he hath now evinced, from the nature and dignity of his office, as vested in his person. This is the ability here intended; not an absolute divine power, inherent in the person of Christ, but a moral power, — a “jus,” a right; and what can be effected in the just discharge of this office. And hereon, — Obs. 7. The consideration of the office-power of Christ is of great use unto the faith of the church. To this end we may observe,—1. That the foundation of all the benefits which are received by Christ, — that is, of the spiritual and eternal salvation of the church, — is laid in his condescending to undertake the office of a mediator between God and man. And as this was the greatest effect of divine wisdom and grace, so it is the first cause, the root and spring, of all spiritual blessings unto us. This the whole Scripture beareth testimony unto, Hebrews 10:7; 1 John 3:16. This is the fundamental article of faith evangelical. And the want of laying this foundation aright, as it occasioneth many to apostatize from the gospel unto a natural religion, so it weakeneth and disordereth the faith of many believers. But this is the first ground of all friendship between God and man. 2. Having undertaken that office, all the actings of it for us and towards us, or towards God in our behalf, are circumscribed and limited by that office. We have no ground of faith to expect any thing from him or by him but what belongs unto the office that he hath undertaken. Neither are we, in our addresses unto him and expectations from him, to consider him absolutely as God, the eternal Son of God only, but as the mediator between God and man. We can look for no more from a king but what he can justly do as a king, nor from any other person in office; no more are we to look for from Christ himself. 3. This office of Christ in general, as the mediator and sponsor of the new covenant, is distinguished into three especial offices, of a king, a prophet, and a priest. Whatever, therefore, we receive from Christ, or by him, we do it as he acts in that threefold capacity, or in one of those offices, a king, a priest, or a prophet. Whatever he hath done for us, or continueth to do, whatever he doth over us, for us, or towards us, he doth it in and under one of these capacities; for unto them may all his office-relation unto us be reduced. And the kindness of all those other relations wherein he stands unto us, — as of a shepherd, the bishop of our souls, of an husband, of a brother, a friend, — he puts forth and exerciseth in the acts and actings of these offices. 4. All these offices, whether vested jointly in any one other person, or severally and distinctly in several persons, as they were under the old testament, could never extend their acts and effects unto all the occasions and necessities of the church. The business of our apostle, in this chapter, is to prove that the office of the priesthood as vested in Aaron and his successors made nothing perfect, did not consummate the church-state, nor could effect its salvation. The kingly office, as it was typically managed by David and others, was remote from answering that rule and safety which the church stood in need of. Neither did nor could any one prophet, no, nor yet all the prophets together, reveal and declare the whole counsel of God. But, — 5. These offices as they were in Christ did perfectly answer, and yet do, all that belongs to the redemption, sanctification, protection, and salvation, of the church. And this they do on two accounts: —(1.) Because they were committed unto him in a more full, ample, and unlimited manner, than either they were or could be unto others, on purpose that they might answer all the ends of God’s grace towards the church. So, as he was made a king, not this or that degree or enlargement of power was committed unto him, but “all power in heaven and in earth,” over all the creation of God, in all things, spiritual, temporal, and eternal. See our description and delineation of this power, on Hebrews 1:2-3. As a prophet, he did not receive this or that particular revelation from God, but “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were laid up in him,” and he knew the whole mind and counsel of God, as coming forth from his divine bosom. And as unto his sacerdotal office, we are now engaged in an inquiry into its especial nature, as differing from, and exalted above, whatever was committed unto any of the sons of men under that name. (2.) The principal reason of the all-sufficiency of the office-power and ability of Christ is taken from his own person, which alone was capable of a trust of such a power, and able to execute it unto all the ends of it. He alone, who was God and man in one person, was capable of being such a king, priest, and prophet, as was able to save the church unto the uttermost.Wherefore, in the consideration of this office-power of Christ, wherein all our salvation doth depend, we have two things to attend unto: (1.) His person who bears these offices, and who alone is fit and able so to do; and,(2.) The especial nature of the office as committed unto him. On these grounds he was able to do infinitely more as a priest than all the priests of the order of Aaron could do. So the apostle expresseth it in the next words.Thirdly, “He is able to save;” καὶσώζειν, — “even to save,” “to save also;” not for this or that particular end, but absolutely, — ‘“even to save.” The general sense of this word is limited and determined in the use and application of it throughout the Scripture. Not any temporal deliverances, but that which is supernatural, spiritual, and eternal, is intended thereby. And, — 1. The notion of the word includeth in it a supposition of some evil or danger that we are delivered from. This is sin, with its consequents of misery, in the curse of the law and the wrath to come. Wherefore it is said of Christ, that “he saves his people from their sins,” Matthew 1:21; “from the curse,” Galatians 3:13; and “from the wrath to come,” 1 Thessalonians 1:10. In these things all that is or can be evil unto our nature, here or unto eternity, are included. 2. The bringing of us into an estate of present grace and right unto future blessedness, with the enjoyment of it in its appointed season, is intended in it; for although this be not included in the first notion of the word, yet it belongs unto the nature of the thing intended.This salvation, called therefore “great’and “eternal salvation,” doth not merely respect the evil we are delivered from, but the contrary good also, in the present favor and future enjoyment of God. And concerning this salvation two things are to be considered: — 1. That there is power and ability required unto this work: “he is able to save.” It was no easy thing to take away sin, to subdue Satan, to fulfill the law, to make peace with God, to procure pardon, to purchase grace and glory, with all other things great and glorious, that belong unto this salvation. And it is the great concernment of faith well to fix this principle, that he who hath undertaken this work is able to accomplish it, and that by the means he hath designed to use, and the way wherein he will proceed. We are apt to pass this over without any inquiry into it, and to take it for granted that God is able to do whatever he pleaseth; but it is not of the absolute power of God whereof we speak, but of the power of God, or of Christ, put forth in such a peculiar way. And the want of faith herein is the first and most proper part of unbelief. Wherefore, as God engageth his omnipotency, or all-sufficiency, as the foundation of all his covenant actings towards us, Genesis 17:1; so he often pleadeth the same power to assure us of the accomplishment of his promises, Isaiah 40:28-29. And it is expressly asserted as the principal ground of faith, Romans 4:21; Romans 11:23; 1 Corinthians 10:13; Ephesians 3:20; 2 Timothy 1:12; Jude 1:24; and often in this epistle. 2. It is here supposed that the discharge of Christ’s priestly office is the way designed to save us by, or to effect this great work of salvation. No other way or means is appointed of God unto this end. Here we must look for it, or go without it. Wherefore the inquiry is necessary, whether, in the discharge of this office, and within the bounds and limits of it, he be able to save us with this salvation. For indeed many are like those “sons of Belial” who said of Saul, when God had anointed him king, “How shall this man save us? and despised him,” 1 Samuel 10:27. They understand not how Christ is able to save them by his priesthood; and therefore, under various pretences, they trust to themselves, and despise him. All false religion is but a choice of other things for men to place their trust in, with a neglect of Christ. And all superstition grows on the same root, in all effects or instances of it, be they great or small. Wherefore I say, we are to consider whether this office, and the acts of it, be suited and meet for the effecting of all things that belong to this salvation. For if we find them not so, we cannot believe that he is a priest able to save us. But they evidence themselves to be otherwise, unless our minds are darkened by the power of unbelief; as we shall see in the particulars afterwards insisted on by our apostle. And we are here taught, that, — Obs. 8. It is good to secure this first ground of evangelical faith, that the Lord Christ, as vested with his offices, and in the exercise of them, is able to save us.Salvation is that which all sinners, who have fallen under any convictions, do seek after. And it is from God they look for it. He alone, they know, can save them; and unless he do so, they cannot be saved. And that he can do so, they seem for a while to make no question, although they greatly doubt whether he will or no. Here, under these general apprehensions of the power of God, they cannot long abide, but must proceed to inquire into the way whereby he will save them, if ever they be saved. And this the whole Scripture testifieth to be no otherwise but by Jesus Christ. For “there is no salvation in any other; neither is there any other name under heaven given among men, whereby they must be saved,” Acts 4:12. When their thoughts are thus limited unto Christ alone, their next inquiry is, “How shall this man save us?” And hereon are they directed unto his offices, especially his priesthood, whereby he undertakes to deliver them from the guilt of their sins, and to bring them into favor with God. Is it not therefore highly incumbent on them to satisfy themselves herein, that Christ is able to save them in the exercise of this office? for if he be not, there is no salvation to be obtained. And when men are come thus far, as that they will not question in general but that the Lord Christ, in the discharge of his sacerdotal office, is able to save sinners in general, yet unbelief will keep them off from acquiescing in this power of his, as so limited, for their own salvation. As Naaman had thoughts in general that Elisha could cure men of their leprosy, yet he would not believe that he could cure them in the way and by the means he prescribed. He thought he would have taken another course with him, more suited unto his apprehensions, as a means for his recovery. Hereon he turns away in a rage; which if he had not by good advice been recalled from, he had lived and died under the plague of his leprosy, 2 Kings 5:10-14. When persons are reduced to look for salvation only by Christ, and do apprehend in general that he can save sinners, yet ofttimes, when they come to inquire into the way and manner of it, by the exercise of his priestly office, they cannot close with it. Away they turn again into themselves; from which if they are not recovered, they must die in their sins. Unless, therefore, we do well and distinctly fix this foundation of faith, that Christ as a priest is able to save us, or is able to do so in the discharge of his sacerdotal office, we shall never make one firm step in our progress. To this end we must consider, — That the Lord Christ as mediator, and in the discharge of his office, is “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” So saith our apostle, “Christ crucified is, to them that believe, the power of God, and the wisdom of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:23-24. His death is both an effect of divine power and wisdom; and thereby do they exert their efficacy unto the utmost, for the attaining of the end designed in it. Wherefore we are to look unto this priesthood of Christ, as that which divine wisdom hath appointed as the only way and means whereby we may be saved. And if there be any defect therein, — if Christ, in the discharge of it, be not able to save us, notwithstanding the difficulties which unto us seem insuperable, — it must be charged on divine wisdom, as that which was wanting in the contrivance of a due means unto its end. And so it is done by the world; for the apostle testifieth that this “wisdom of God” is looked on and esteemed by men as mere “foolishness.” The way proposed in it, to save sinners by the cross of Christ, is accounted as folly by all unbelievers, whatever else they pretend as the reason of their unbelief. But this faith is to fix upon; namely, that although we yet see not how it may be done, nor have the experience of it in our own souls, yet this being the way which infinite wisdom hath fixed on, there is no defect in it, but Christ by it is able to save us. For the very first notion which we have of wisdom as divine and infinite, is, that we are to acquiesce in its contrivances and determinations, though we cannot comprehend the reasons or ways of them. Besides, the Lord Christ is herein also “the power of God.” God in him and by him puts forth his omnipotent power for the accomplishing of the effect and end aimed at. Wherefore, although we are not to look for our salvation from the power of God absolutely considered, yet are we to look for it from the same omnipotency as acting itself in and by Jesus Christ. This is the way whereby infinite wisdom hath chosen to act omnipotent power; and into them is faith herein to be resolved. 1. He is able to save also εἰςτὸπαντελές. The word may have a double sense; for it may respect the perfection of the work, or its duration: and so it is variously rendered; “to the uttermost,” that is, completely; or “evermore,” that is, “always” or “for ever.” So the Syriac translation carries it.Take the word in the first sense, and the meaning is, that he will not effect or work out this or that part of our salvation, do one thing or another that belongs unto it, and leave what remains unto ourselves or others; but “he is our Rock, and his work is perfect.” Whatever belongs unto our entire, complete salvation, he is able to effect it. The general notion of the most that are called Christians lies directly against this truth. In the latter sense two things may be intended: (1.) That after an entrance is made into this work, and men begin to be made partakers of deliverance thereby, there may great oppositions be made against it, in temptations, trials, sins, and death, before it be brought unto perfection; but our Lord Christ, as our faithful high priest, fainteth not in his work, but is able to carry us through all these difficulties, and will do so, until it be finished for ever in heaven. (2.) That this salvation is durable, perpetual, eternal, Isaiah 45:17. “Salvare in aeternum;” to procure “salutem aeternam.” But “favores sunt ampliandi,” and there is nothing hinders but that we may take the words in such a comprehensive sense as to include the meaning of both these interpretations. He is able to save completely as to all parts, fully as to all causes, and for ever in duration. And we may observe, —Obs. 9. Whatever hinderances and difficulties lie in the way of the salvation of believers, whatever oppositions do rise against it, the Lord Christ is able, by virtue of his sacerdotal office, and in the exercise of it, to carry the work through them all unto eternal perfection. In the assertion of the ability of Christ in this matter, there is a supposition of a work whereunto great power and efficacy is required; and whereas it is emphatically affirmed, that “he is able to save unto the uttermost,” it is supposed that great oppositions and difficulties do lie in the way of its accomplishment. But these things are commonly spoken unto by our practical divines, and I shall not therefore insist upon them. 2. The whole is further declared by instancing in those who are to be saved, or made partakers of this salvation. “He is able to save to the uttermost,” but yet all are not to be saved by him; yea, they are but few that are so. Of the most it may be said, “They will not come unto him that they may have life.” Wherefore those whom he is thus able to save, and doth save accordingly, are all those, and only those, “who come unto God by him.”To “come to God” hath a double sense in the Scripture; for it is sometimes expressive of faith, sometimes of worship. (1.) To come to God, is to believe. Faith or believing is a coming to God. So Christ calling us unto faith in him, calleth us to come unto him, Matthew 11:28. And unbelief is a refusal to come to him, “Ye will not come unto me, that ye may have life.” Faith in God through him, is coming to the Father by him, John 14:6; so to come to God by Christ, is through him to believe in God, 1 Peter 1:21.(2.) Our access unto God in his worship, is our coming unto him. So is it most frequently expressed in the Old Testament, — “Drawing nigh unto God.” And the expression is taken from the approach that was made unto the tabernacle in and with all holy services. Worship is an approximation unto God, Psalms 78:28, ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινχִ ?ψְ ?αַ ?ϊ. So our apostle calls those who worshipped God in the ordinances of the law, τοὺςπροσερχομένους, Hebrews 10:1, — the “comers,” the worshippers; not those that come to the worship, but those who by that worship come to God. In answer hereunto, our evangelical worship is προσαγωγή, — an “access,” an approximation, a drawing nigh or coming to God, Ephesians 2:18; Hebrews 10:22. The latter sense is principally here intended; for the discourse of the apostle is concerning the state of the church under the new testament, with the advantage of it above that of old, by its relation unto the priesthood of Christ. They came of old to God with their worship by the high priest of the law; but those high priests could not save them in any sense. But the high priest of the new testament can “save to the uttermost” all gospel worshippers, — “all that come to God by him.” But the former sense of the word is also included and supposed herein. They that come unto God by Christ, are such as, believing in him, do give up themselves in holy obedience to worship God in and by him. So is the way expressed of this coming unto God, δι᾿αὐτοῦ — that is, “by him” as a high priest; as it is at large explained by the apostle, Hebrews 10:19-22.Now, to come unto God by Jesus Christ in all holy worship, so as thereon to be interested in his saving power as the high priest of the church, is so to come, (1.) In obedience unto his authority, as to the way and manner of it;(2.) With affiance in his mediation, as to the acceptance of it;(3.) With faith in his person, as the foundation of it.(1.) It is to come in obedience unto his authority, and that on a double account:[1. Of the way of coming. It is not by legal institutions, it is not by our own inventions; it is only by his appointment, Matthew 28:20. To come to God any other way, gives us no interest in the care or saving power of Christ, John 15:7-8.[2. Of that especial respect which we have in our souls and consciences unto his sovereign rule over us. (2.) With affiance in his mediation. And therein faith hath respect unto two things:[1. The sacrifice he hath offered, the atonement and reconciliation he hath made for us, whereon our whole liberty of access unto God doth depend, Hebrews 10:19-22. [2. To his intercession, whereby he procures actual acceptance for our persons and our duties, Hebrews 4:16; 1 John 2:1.(3.) The foundation of the whole is faith in his person as vested with his holy office, and in the discharge of it. It is so to believe in him, as to believe that “he is able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.” This is the ground whereon, in our holy worship we assemble in his name, Matthew 18:20; and make all our supplications unto God in his name, John 16:26; — that is, by an exercise of faith and trust in him,that by and through him we shall be accepted with God. And we may hence observe, —Obs. 10. The salvation of all sincere gospel worshippers is secured by the actings of the Lord Christ in the discharge of his priestly office.Obs. 11. Attendance unto the service, the worship of God in the gospel, is required to interest us in the saving care and power of our high priest. — Men deceive themselves, who look to be saved by him, but take no care to come to God in holy worship by him. Nor is it an easy or common thing so to do. All men pretend unto divine worship, some one way, some another, and in words they interpose the name of Christ therein; but really to come to God by him is a matter of another import. Two things are indispensably required thereunto:(1.) That the principle of saving faith be antecedent unto it;(2.) That the exercise of faith be concomitant with it. Unless we are true believers, our worship will not be accepted; and unless we are in the exercise of faith on God through Christ in the performance of it, it gives no glory to him, it brings no ad vantage unto ourselves.Obs. 12. Those who endeavor to come unto God any other way but by Christ, as by saints and angels, may do well to consider whether they have any such office in heaven as by virtue whereof they are able to save them to the uttermost. — That this is done by those of the Roman church, cannot with any modesty be denied; yea, it is avowed by them. For when they are charged with the wickedness of their doctrine and practice in this matter, evacuating the mediation of Christ, they reply, that they admit of no mediators of reconciliation with God, but only of intercession. Be it so. Ability to save to the utmost is here ascribed unto our high priest upon the account of his intercession. A respect unto his oblation, whereby he made reconciliation, is included; but it is the efficacy of his intercession that is expressly regarded: for being “reconciled by his death, we shall be saved by his life,” Romans 5:10. He, therefore, alone is the mediator of intercession, who is able, by virtue of his office, to save us to the utmost, through that intercession of his.Those by whom they choose to go to God are able to save them, or they are not. If they are not, is it not the greatest folly and madness imaginable, whilst we seek after salvation, to set Him aside on any occasion, in any one instance, who can save us to the utmost, and betake ourselves unto them who cannot save us at all? If they are able to save us in any sense, it is either by virtue of some office and office-power that they are invested withal in heaven, (as ministers are, in the discharge of their office, said to “save them that hear them,” 1 Timothy 4:16; that is, ministerially and instrumentally,) or without any such office. If they can do so without any office, they can do more than Jesus Christ can do; for he is able to do it by virtue of his office only. And if it might have been otherwise, what need was there that Christ should undertake and discharge this office of the priesthood, and that our apostle should so labor to prove the excellency of this his office, only to satisfy us that he is able to save them that come to God by him? If they do it by virtue of any office committed to them, let it be named what it is. Are they priests in heaven for ever after the order of Melchisedec? Dishonor enough is done unto Christ, by making any sacrificing priests on the earth, as they do in their mass; but to make interceding priests in heaven also, is the highest reproach unto him. Or are they the kings or prophets of the church? or under what name or title is this power intrusted with them? Such imaginations are most foreign from true Christian religion. A holy, painful minister on the earth can do much more towards the saving of the souls of men, than any saint or angel in heaven. For the work of doing it ministerially, by the dispensation of the word, is committed unto them in the way of office; but office in the church beareth none in heaven, but only Jesus Christ. And what is the reason why men should so readily close with other means, other mediators of intercession, to go to God by them? For when they pray to saints, although they should only pray unto them to intercede for them, as some of them pretend, (however openly and manifestly against their express and avowed practice,) yet do they go to God by them. For to speak of any religious prayer, and yet not to look on it in general as a going or coming to God, is a fond and senseless imagination. Wherefore, whenever they pray to saints, — as most of them do more than to Jesus Christ, — their design is to go to God by them. But what is it that should induce them hereunto? Our Lord Christ hath told us that “he is the way;” and that “no man cometh unto the Father but by him,” John 14:6. What reason can any man give why he should not believe him, but, although he hath said that “no man cometh unto the Father but by him,” should yet attempt to go another way? Have others more power in these things than he, so as it is advisable on that account to make our application unto them? Where is it said of any saints or angels, or all of them together, that they are able to save to the uttermost all that come to God by them? or where is any one word spoken of their power or interest in heaven unto that purpose? But it will be said, ‘That we may be relieved and saved, we stand not in need of power only, but of love, pity, and compassion: and although the saints have less ability than Christ, yet they may have more of love and compassion for us. For some of them, it may be, were our kindred, or progenitors, or countrymen, or such as may have an especial kindness for us: especially the blessed Virgin, and other female saints, are, by their natural constitution as well as their grace,’(who would not think so?) ‘mightily inclined unto pity and compassion.’And indeed they are marvellous things which some of them tell us concerning the blessed Virgin in this case, and her condescension in the pursuit of her love and pity. But yet this imagination is the highest pitch of folly and ingratitude. Certainly nothing can more stir up the indignation of God, than to have any creatures in heaven or earth, or all together, equalled in love and compassion to Jesus Christ. He that doth not know that there is an unparalleled eminency of these in him, who is not in some measure instructed in the cause and effect of them, knows no more of the gospel than a Jew. There is more love, pity, and compassion, in Christ Jesus, towards every poor sinner that comes unto God by him, than all the saints in heaven are able to comprehend. And if kindred or alliance may be of consideration in this matter, he is more nearly related unto us than father or mother, or wife or children, or all together; we being not only “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh,” but so joined to him as to be “one spirit” with him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ In this verse the apostle renders a reason of his whole preceding discourse, and why he laid so great weight upon the description of our high priest. And he hath probably in it a respect unto what he had last asserted in particular, concerning his ability to save them to the utmost that come to God by him. Hebrews 7:26. — Τοιοῦτοςγὰρἡμῖνἔπρεπενἀρχιερεὺς, ὅσιος, ἄκακος, ἀμίαντος, κεχωωρισμένοςἀπὸτῶνἀμαρτωλῶν, καὶὑψηλότεροςτῶνοὐρανῶνγενόμενος. [11] [11] VARIOUS READING. — Καὶ is prefixed to ἔπρεπεν by Scholz and Tischendorf; the latter of whom cites in support of it MSS. A B D E.. . — Conybeare and Howson, as also Ebrard, explain κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸτ. ἀμ. in reference to the obligation resting on the high priest to keep aloof from any one Levitically unclean, Leviticus 21:1-12. — ED. Τοιοῦτοςγὰρἡμῖνἔπρεπεν. Syr., γַּ ?ΰֵ ?ικְ ηָ ?πָ ?ΰβֵ ?ιψλּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψָ ?ΰΰַ ?σζָ ?γֵ ?χδֲ ?εָ ?ΰμַ ?ο, “for yet also this high priest was just to us;” that is, it was just, right, or meet, that we should have this high priest. All others, “talis nos decebat.” Ὅσιος. Syr., γַ ?λְ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “pure;” “sanctus,” “holy.”Ἄκακος. Syr., γְ ?μָ ?ΰαּ ?ιωׁ ?ε, “without malice.” Beza, “ab omni malo alienus.” “Innocens.” “Free from all evil.”Ἀμίαντος. Syr., γְ ?μָ ?ΰθεμωָ ?ΰ, “without spot.” Vulg., “impollutus;” Beza, “sine labe:” “unpolluted,” “without spot.”Κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶν. Syr., γְ ?τַ ?ψִ ?ιχξֵ ?οηַ ?θָּ ?δֵ ?ΰ, “separate from sins;” all others, “from sinners.”The words will be further explained in our inquiry into the things signified by them.Hebrews 7:26. — For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.There is something supposed and included in this assertion, namely, that if we intend to come unto God, we had need of a high priest to encourage and enable us thereunto; for if in particular we need such a high priest, it is supposed that without a high priest in general we can do nothing in this matter. This, therefore, is the foundation which in this argument the apostle proceedeth on, namely, that sinners, as we are all, can have no access unto God but by a high priest. And there was no need for him much to labor with those Hebrews in the confirmation hereof; for, from the first constitution of their church, they had no other way of approach unto God in and with their sacred services. And God had not only by the institution of that office among them, declared that this was the way whereby he would be worshipped; but also by legal prohibitions, fortified with severe penalties, he had forbidden all men, the highest, the greatest, the best and most holy, to come unto him any other way. Hereby were they taught the everlasting necessity of a high priest, and the discharge of his office, whatever end or issue their typical priests came unto. And herein lies a great aggravation of the present misery of the Jews: High priest of their own they have none, nor have had for many ages. Hereon all their solemn worship of God utterly ceaseth. They are the only persons in the world who, if all mankind would give them leave and assist them in it, cannot worship God as they judge they ought to do. For if Jerusalem were restored into their possession, and a temple re-edified in it more glorious than that of Solomon, yet could they not offer one lamb in sacrifice to God; for they know that this cannot be done without a high priest and priests infallibly deriving their pedigree from Aaron, of whom they have amongst them not one in all the world. And so must they abide under a sense of being judicially excluded and cast out from all solemn worship of God, until the veil shall be taken from their hearts, and, leaving Aaron, they return unto Him who was typed by Melchisedec, unto whom even Abraham their father acknowledged his subjection. Whence this necessity of a high priest for sinners arose, I have so largely inquired into and declared, in my Exercitations on the Original and Causes of the Priesthood of Christ, as that there is no need again to make mention of it. Every one’s duty it is to consider it, and rightly improve it for himself. The want of living up unto this truth evacuates the religion of most men in the world. Upon this supposition, of the necessity of a high priest in general, the apostle declares what sort of high priest was needful for us. And this he shows, 1. In his personal qualifications; 2. In his outward state and condition, Hebrews 7:26; 3. In the nature of his office and the manner of its discharge, Hebrews 7:27. And he confirmeth the whole by the consideration of the person who was this priest, and of the way and manner how he became so, compared with them and their consecration unto their office who were priests according unto the law, Hebrews 7:28. The first two are contained in this verse, namely, 1. The personal qualifications of him who was meet to be a priest for us, by whom we might come unto God; and, 2. His outward state and condition.And in the first place, the necessity of such a high priest as is here described, is expressed by ἔπρεπε, “became us;” “decuit,” “decebat,” “it was meet,” “it was just for us,” as the Syriac renders it. And respect may be had therein either unto the wisdom of God, or unto our state and condition, or unto both; — such a high priest it was meet for God to give, and such a high priest it was needful that we should have. If the condecency of the matter, which lies in a contrivance of proper means unto an end, be intended, then it is God who is respected in this word; if the necessity of the kind of relief mentioned be so, then it is we who are respected. The word is applied unto God in this very case, Hebrews 2:10, “It became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things.” Consider God as the supreme ruler and governor of the world, as the first cause and last end of all, and “it became him,” was necessary unto his infinite wisdom and holiness, that having designed the “bringing of many sons unto glory,” he should “make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” So the condecency here intended may respect,1. The wisdom, grace, and goodness of God. It became him to give us such a high priest as we stood in need of, namely, one that was able in the discharge of that office to save all to the uttermost that come unto God by him; for to design our salvation by a high priest, and not to provide such a one as was every way able to effect it, became not the wisdom and grace of God. 2. Respect may be had herein unto our state and condition. Such this was, as none but such a high priest could relieve us in, or save us from. For we stand in need of such a one, as our apostle declares, as(1.) Could make atonement for our sins, or perfectly expiate them; (2.) Purge our consciences from dead works, that we might serve the living God, or sanctify us throughout by his blood;(3.) Procure acceptance with God for us, or purchase eternal redemption;(4.) Administer supplies of the Spirit of grace unto us, to enable us to live unto God in all duties of faith, worship, and obedience;(5.) Give us assistance and consolation in our trials, temptations, and sufferings, with pity and compassion;(6.) Preserve us by power from all ruining sins and dangers;(7.) Be in a continual readiness to receive us in all our addresses to him;(8.) To bestow upon us the reward of eternal life.Unless we have a high priest that can do all these things for us, we cannot be “saved to the uttermost.” Such a high priest we stood in need of, and such a one it became the wisdom and grace of God to give unto us. And God, in infinite wisdom, love, and grace, gave us such a high priest as, in the qualifications of his person, the glory of his condition, and the discharge of his office, was every way suited to deliver us from the state of apostasy, sin, and misery, and to bring us unto himself, through a perfect salvation. — This the ensuing particulars will fully manifest. The qualifications of this high priest are expressed first indefinitely, in the word τοιοῦτος. A difference from other high priests is included herein. He must not be one of an ordinary sort, but one so singularly qualified unto his work, so exalted after his work, and so discharging his work unto such ends. In all these things we stood in need of such a high priest as was quite of another sort, order, and kind, than any the church had enjoyed under the law, as the apostle expressly concludes, Hebrews 7:28.FIRST, His personal, inherent qualifications are first expressed; and we shall consider first some things in general that are common unto them all, and then declare the especial intendment of every one of them in particular: “Such a high priest became us as is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” And,— First, There is some allusion in all these things,1. Unto what was typically represented in the institution of the office of the priesthood under the law. For the high priest was to be a person without blemish, not maimed in any part of his body. He was not to marry any one that was defiled; nor to defile himself among the people. On his forehead, in his ministrations, he wore a plate of gold with that inscription, “Holiness to the LORD.” And no doubt but personal holiness was required of him in an especial manner; for want whereof God cast out the posterity of Eli from the priesthood.But all those things were only outward representations of what was really required unto such a high priest as the church stood in need of. For they were mostly external, giving a denomination unto the subject, but working no real change in it. And where they were internal, they were encompassed with such a mixture of sins, weaknesses, infirmities, and the intercision of death, as that they had no glory in comparison of what was required. All these things the apostle observes, reducing them unto two heads, namely, that they were obnoxious unto sin and death; and therefore as they died, so they offered sacrifices for their own sins. But the church was taught by them, from the beginning, that it stood in need of a high priest whose real qualifications should answer all these types and representations of them. 2. It is possible that our apostle, in this description of our high priest, designed to obviate the prejudicate opinion of some of the Hebrews concerning their Messiah. For generally they looked on him as one that was to be a great earthly prince and warrior, that should conquer many nations, and subdue all their enemies with the sword, shedding the blood of men in abundance. In opposition unto this vain and pernicious imagination, our Savior testifies unto them that he came not to kill, but to save and keep alive. And our apostle here gives such a description of him, in these holy, gracious qualifications, as might attest his person and work to be quite of another nature than what they desired and expected. And their frustration herein was the principal occasion of their unbelief. See Malachi 3:1-3.3. I am sorry that it hath fallen from the pen of an able expositor of our own on this place, that “the time when the Lord Christ was thus made a high priest for ever, and that by an oath, was after he had offered one sacrifice, not many; for the people, not for himself; once, not often; of everlasting virtue, and not effectual for some petty expiations for a time; and after he was risen, ascended, and set at the right hand of God.” If by being “made a high priest,” only a solemn declaration of being made so is intended, these things may pass well enough; for we allow that in the Scripture, then a thing is ofttimes said to be, when it is first manifested or declared. So was the Lord Christ “determined to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead.” But if it be intended, — as the words will scarce admit of any other interpretation, — that the Lord Christ was first made a high priest after all this was performed, then the whole real priesthood of Christ and his proper sacrifice are overthrown. For it is said he was not made a high priest until “after that he had offered his one sacrifice;” and if it were so, then he was not a priest when he so offered himself. But this implies a contradiction; for there can be no sacrifice where there is no priest. And therefore the Socinians, who make the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his sacerdotal office to be by his entrance into heaven, do utterly deny his death to have been a sacrifice, but only a preparation for it, as they fancy the killing of the beast of old to have been. And the truth is, either the Lord Christ was a priest before and in the oblation of himself on the cross, or he was never any, nor needed so to be, nor could he so be; for after he was freed from death, he had nothing to offer. And it is a strange order of things, that the Lord Christ should first offer his only sacrifice, and after that be made a priest. But the order, time, and manner of the call and consecration of the Lord Christ unto his priesthood I have elsewhere declared. Wherefore, — 4. We may observe, that all these qualifications of our high priest were peculiarly necessary on the account of the sacrifice which he had to offer. They were not only necessary for him as he was to be the sacrificer, but also as he was to be the sacrifice; not only as he was to be the priest, but as he was to be the lamb. For the sacrifices were to be “without blemish,” as well as the sacrificers. So were we “redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter 1:19.But however the sacrifices were chosen under the law without blemish, yet were they still in their own nature but calves, and goats, and lambs; and therefore priests who had weaknesses, and infirmities, and sins of their own, might be meet enough to offer them: but here both priest and sacrifice were to be equally pure and holy. 5. We must not pass by the wresting of this text by the Socinians, nor omit its due vindication. For they contend that this whole description of our high priest doth “not respect his internal qualifications in this world, before and in the offering of himself by his blood, but his glorious state and condition in heaven.” For they fear (as well they may) that if the qualifications of a priest were necessary to him, and required in him whilst he was in this world, then he was so indeed. He who says, “Such an high priest became us, as is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” doth affirm that when he was so he was our high priest. In that state wherein these things were necessary unto him he was a priest. To avoid this ruin unto their pretensions, they offer violence unto the text, and the signification of every word in it, and dangerously insinuate a negation of the things intended, to be in Christ in this world. So speaks Schlichtingius on the place: “Unde apparet sequentibus verbis, seu epithetis Christo tributis, non mores ipsius seu vitam ab omni peccati labe puram, sed felicem ac beatum stature describi ac designari, ob quem fiat ut in aeternum vivens, nostri quoque perpetuam gerat curam. Licet enim omnia ista ratione vitae et morum de Christo intellects verissima sint, tamen nihil ad praesens auctoris institutum faciunt.” So also argues Smalcius, de Reg. Christi, cap. 23, whom we have elsewhere refuted. The paraphrase of one of our own seems to comply herewith; which is as followeth: “And this was a sort of high priests which we sinful, weak creatures had need of,” (which, by the way, I do not understand; for we stood not in need of a new “sort of high priests,” but of one single individual high priest,) “one that, being mercifully disposed, is also incapable of suffering any hurt, of being defiled or corrupted, and consequently of dying; and to that end is exalted unto a pitch above our sinful, corruptible condition here.” So ἄκακος and ἀμίαντος are rendered in the margin, “free from evil, and undefilable.” The sense is plainly the same with that of Schlichtingius, though there be some variety in the expressions of the one and the other. And therefore is Christ said to be exalted that he might be such as he is here described; as though he was not so before in the sense here intended by the apostle, however the words here in another sense might be applied unto him. Three things seem to be aimed at in this exposition: — (1.) To make way for another corrupt notion on the next verse, wherein these men, with Grotius, would have Christ in some sense offer for his own sins also; which there can be no pretense for, if these things be ascribed unto him as he was a priest in this world.(2.) To take care that the innocency, holiness, and absolute purity of our high priest, be not supposed to be necessary unto our justification, neither as the material nor formal cause of it. For if the Lord Christ in the sacrifice of himself died for our justification, and that he might do so, it was necessary that he should antecedently be “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners;” then was his being so necessary unto our justification, as a cause thereof.(3.) To obviate an apprehension of his being a high priest before his death, and to have offered his one sacrifice therein. For if he had not the qualifications necessary unto a high priest before his ascension into heaven, he could not be so before.But these things are none of them compliant with the truth; and, — (1.) This exposition is contrary to the concurrent sense of all sober ancient and modern expositors; and, which is more, it is contrary to the common sense of all Christians. Not one of them who knoweth aught of these things, — unless their minds are perverted with these men’s glosses, and that merely to comply with other opinions wherein the text is no way concerned, — but hold, in their first and last consideration of these words, that they respect Jesus Christ as to his personal holiness in this world. And that exposition had need be well confirmed, which is not only contrary to the judgment of all learned men, but also destructive of the common faith of Christians. But as yet we have nothing beyond crude assertions offered in the proof of it.(2.) It is contrary unto, or inconsistent, with, the sense and use of the words in all good authors, sacred and profane; and contrary unto the application of them unto the Lord Christ in other places of the Scripture, as we shall see immediately.(3.) It is contrary to the order of the apostle’s words; for he placeth all these properties as qualifications of his person antecedently unto his exaltation. He was first “holy, harmless, undefiled,” and then “made higher than the heavens;” but according unto this exposition, his being made higher than the heavens is the antecedent cause of his being made holy, etc. (4.) It is highly false, that the blessed state pretended to be here set forth was antecedently unto his being a priest, and the sacrifice which he offered; yea, such an estate was inconsistent with the oblation of himself. For he offered himself unto God in his blood, Hebrews 9:14; and that with strong cries and tears, Hebrews 5:7 : which were inconsistent with such a state; for it is so described on purpose to be exclusive of every thing required thereunto. (5.) Schlichtingius pleads,” That although all these things were true with respect unto the life and manners of Christ, yet it was no way unto the purpose of the apostle to mention them unto the end designed.” But,[1. If that be the sense of the words which he contends for, not one of them is true with respect unto the life and manners of Christ in this world; for they all belong unto his blessed estate in the other. [2. We shall see on the next verse how far he will allow them to be true of the life and manners of Christ in any sense, seeing in some sense he affirms him to have offered sacrifice for his own sins. And this he doth with an express contradiction unto his own main hypothesis: for by “sins” he understands weaknesses and infirmities; and whereas he will not allow Christ to have offered himself before his entrance into the holy place, and makes it necessary that he should be antecedently freed from all weaknesses and infirmities, it is the highest contradiction to affirm that he offered for them, seeing he could not offer himself until he was delivered from them. [3. We have only his bare word for it, that the ascription of those things unto our high priest as inherent qualifications, was not unto the purpose of the apostle. And his assertion is built on a false supposition, namely, that the Lord Christ was not a high priest on the earth, nor did offer himself unto God in his death; which overthrows the foundation of the gospel. Secondly, The vanity and falsehood of this novel exposition will yet further and fully be evinced, in an inquiry into the proper signification of these words as here used by the apostle; every one whereof is wrested to give countenance unto it: — 1. He is, or was to be, ὅσιος, “sanctus,” “holy;” that is, ηָ ?ρִ ?ιγ. For, Acts 2:27, ηֲ ?ρִ ?ιγְ ?κָ ?is rendered Τὸνὅσιόνσου, “Thine Holy One,” Psalms 16:10. And the Lord Christ is there said to he ὅσιος antecedently unto his resurrection; which must be with respect unto his internal holiness: “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” And in the New Testament the word is everywhere used for him that is internally holy, 1 Timothy 2:8; Titus 1:8. The Syriac renders it in this place by γּ ?λְ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “pure;” which is an inherent qualification; as it doth, 1 Timothy 2:8, and Titus 1:8, by ηρְ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “pious,” “holy.” Οσιος, saith Hesychius, καθαρός, δίκαιος, εὐσεβής, εἰρηνικός, ἅγιος, — “ pure,” “righteous,” “godly,” “peaceable,” “chaste.” So ὁσίως is used only for “holily,” 1 Thessalonians 2:10; and ὁσιότης is “internal holiness,” Luke 1:75; Ephesians 4:24. Nowhere is it used for a merciful disposition, much less for venerable and sacred, upon the account of an immortal nature, or any other privilege as it is pretended. Neither is the word used in any other good author to signify any one but him that is holy and righteous, or free from all sin and wickedness.It is therefore the holy purity of the nature of Christ that is intended in this expression. His life and actions are expressed in the ensuing epithets. His nature was pure and holy, absolutely free from any spot or taint of our original defilement. Hence, as he was conceived in the womb, and as he came from the womb, he was that τὸἅγιον, “holy thing” of God, Luke 1:35. All others since the fall have a polluted nature, and are originally unholy. ‘But his conception being miraculous, by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, and his nature not derived unto him by natural generation, (the only means of the propagation of original defilement,) and, in the first instant of its being, filled with all habitual seeds of grace, he was ὅσιος, “holy.” And such a high priest became us as was so. Had he had a nature touched with sin, he had not been meet either to be a priest or sacrifice. This holiness of nature was needful unto him who was to answer for the unholiness of our nature, and to take it away. Unholy sinners do stand in need of a holy priest and a holy sacrifice. What we have not in ourselves we must have in him, or we shall not be accepted with the holy God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. 2. He was to be ἄκακος. That is, saith Schlichtinius, “omnis mali expers, nullis amplius miseriis obnoxius.” “Incapable of suffering any hurt,” saith another, to the same purpose. (1.) The word is but once more used in the New Testament, and that in a sense remote enough from “one not exposed to misery,” or “incapable of suffering:” Romans 16:18, ἐξαπατῶσιτὰςκαρδίαςτῶνἀκάκων, — men “simple and harmless;” who for the most part are exposed to most evils and troubles in the world. (2.) It is never used in any good author in such a sense, nor can any instance be produced unto that purpose; but it constantly signifies one innocent, harmless, free from malice, who doth no evil. Nor did any one before these interpreters dream of a passive interpretation of this word. It is he who doth no evil; not he who can suffer no evil. Κακός is “mains,” or “qui dolo malo utitur;” an evil, malicious person. Κακία is “vitiositas,” in the judgment of Cicero. [Tusc. Quaest., lib. 4:cap. 15. “Virtutis,” saith he, “contraria est vitiositas: sic enim malo quam malitiam appellare eam, quam Graeci κακίαν appellant; ham malitia certi cujusdam vitii nomen est: vitiositas, omnium.” We render it sometimes “naughtiness,” James 1:21; sometimes “malice,” or “maliciousness,” 1 Peter 1:16; — all manner of evil with deceitful guile. Wherefore ἄκακος is he that is free from all evil, fraud, or sin; the same absolutely with that of the apostle Peter, 1 Peter 2:22, “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.”῞Οσιος, “holy,” is his epithet with respect unto his nature; ἄκακος, “harmless,” respects his life. The first includes all positive holiness; the other, an abnegation of all unholiness. As he was ὅσιος, he had not κακὸνπαρακείμενον, “sin present,” as we have with us, Romans 7:18; Romans 7:21; or ἁμαρτίανεὐπερίστατον, “sin easily besetting,” Hebrews 12:1. As he was ἄκακος, he was free from every effect of such a principle.And we had need of such a high priest. Had he not been innocent and every way blameless himself, he would have had other work to do than always to take care of our salvation, as the apostle observes in the next verse. He must first have offered for his own sins, as the high priest did of old, before he had offered for us or ours. And this added unto the merit of his obedience. For whereas he was absolutely innocent, harmless, and free from all evil and guile, he was reproached and charged with every thing that is evil; — a “seducer,” a “blasphemer,” a “seditious person,” the worst of malefactors. For herein also, as to the suffering part, “he was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” And a great encouragement this is unto those who suffer in the like kind, according to their measure. 3. He was to be ἀμίαντος, — “cujus felicitas et beatitas nulla vel minima adversitate quasi labe pollui inficique possit,” saith Schlichtingius; than which a more vain imagination or more absurd expression can hardly be thought on. But it is not for us to charge the apostle with such obscurity, and expressing of his mind in such uncouth terms, never used by any others, nor by himself in any other place in such a sense or signification. “Unpolluted,” “undefiled;” that is, “every way happy and blessed, not touched with the defilement of any adversity”! But the use of adversity is to purge and purify. And as that word doth properly signify “undefiled,” “unpolluted,” — that is, morally, with any sin or evil, — so it is not used in the New Testament in any other sense. See Hebrews 13:4; James 1:27; 1 Peter 1:4. The inquiry, therefore, is how this differs from ἄκακος, which contains a negation of all moral evil.Ans. The one is, “he did no evil in himself;” the other, that “he contracted none from any thing else,” nor from any persons with whom he conversed. This may fall out sometimes. Hence the prophet, in his consternation at the appearance of the glory of God unto him, cried out he was “undone;” not only because of his own sinful defilements, but because of the uncleanness of the people among whom he dwelt, Isaiah 6:5. And on this ground there was an atonement of old to be made for the holy place and tabernacle. Not that they had any uncleanness of their own, but because of the uncleanness of the people, and their remaining among them in the midst of their uncleannesses, Leviticus 16:16.And besides, many things might befall the high priests of old whereby they might be legally defiled, and so rendered incapable for the discharge of their office. And for this cause they always had a second priest in readiness, at the great solemn festivals, especially at the anniversary expiation, that in case any such pollution should befall the high priest, the other might for that time take his place and discharge his office. So it was with them principally with respect unto ceremonials, though immoralities might also defile them, and incapacitate them for their duty. But no such thing was our high priest liable unto, either from himself or from converse with others. As he was unconcerned in ceremonials, so in all moral obedience nothing could affix on him either spot or blemish. And “such an high priest became us;” for whereas it was his design and work to “sanctify and cleanse his church,” until it have “neither spot nor wrinkle,” but be “holy and without blemish,” as it was, Ephesians 5:26-27, how had he been meet to attempt or effect this work had not he himself been every way “undefiled?”4. He was κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶ. That is, saith Schlichtingius, “loco et conditione, ut statim additur, ‘excelsior coelis factus.’“ He is at the bottom of his notions and end of his invention, so that he can find out no sense for this expression, but puts us off to the next words, which are quite of another signification, or express a thing of another nature, and are distinguished from this expression by the conjunction, “and.” “Separate from sinners;” that is, saith he, “made higher than the heavens”! We must therefore inquire after another sense of these words, which readily offers itself unto us. “Separate from sinners:” “from sins,” saith the Syriac. But that was sufficiently secured before. From sinners as sinners, and in their sins. He was like unto us in all things, sin only excepted. We must therefore consider wherein he was, and wherein he was not separate from sinners: — (1.) He was not separate from them as unto community of nature; for God sent his own Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” Romans 8:3. He sent him in the flesh, for he sent him “made of a woman, made under the law,” Galatians 4:4; wherein “the Word was made flesh,” John 1:14 : but he sent him only “in the likeness of sinful flesh;” and that because “he made him sin for us, who knew no sin,” 2 Corinthians 5:21. He took our flesh, that is, our nature upon him, without sin; yet so as that, by reason of the charge of sin with the consequences thereof that was upon him, he was “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” He was not, therefore, really separate from sinners as they were flesh, but as they were sinful flesh. He “took upon him the seed of Abraham;” and “because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself also partook of the same.” Without this relation unto us, and union with us in one common nature, whereby “he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are of one,” he could not have been a high priest or sacrifice for us. He was not, therefore, so separated from sinners, as to be of another nature from them. “He took not on him the nature of angels,” nor was a mere spirit, but had “flesh and bones,” as he declared unto his disciples. And the same nature he hath still with him in heaven; and in the same will appear at judgment. It is equally destructive unto our faith and comfort, to suppose our high priest not separate from us in point of sin, and to be separate from us as to his nature. (2.) He was not separate from sinners as to the duties of outward conversation. He lived not in a wilderness, nor said unto the children of men, “Stand off, I am holier than you.” He conversed freely with all sorts of persons, even publicans and harlots; for which he was reproached by the proud, hypocritical Pharisees. His work was to call sinners to repentance, and to set before their eyes an example of holiness. This he could not have done had he withdrawn himself from all communication with them. Yea, he condescended unto them beyond the legal austerities of the Baptist, Matthew 11:18-19. Hence those who of old, pretending more than ordinary holiness and devotion, did withdraw themselves into wildernesses from the converse of men, did quite forget the example and work of their Master: yea, they did avowedly prefer the example of the Baptist, as they supposed, before that of our Savior; which sufficiently reflects on his wisdom and holiness. Nor indeed, did they in the least express the pattern which they proposed unto themselves for imitation. For although John lived in the wilderness of Judea for the most part, yet was he “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” He lived there where it was most convenient for him to discharge his ministry, and preach the word of God. And his austerities in food and raiment, were but to express outwardly the doctrine of repentance enforced by threats which he preached. But as these persons forsook the example of Christ and the gospel, to go back unto John and his ministry, so they utterly mistook their pattern, and instead of making their retirement a means and help to discharge the ministry in calling others unto faith and repentance, they made it a covert for their own ignorance and superstition. And for those votaries of the Roman church who pretend, in the foolish imitation of them, to fancy a wilderness in the midst of populous cities, there can be no course of life invented more alien from the conduct of natural light, more useless unto the glory of God and the good of the community of mankind, nor more contrary to the example and commands of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. (3.) He is not said to be separate from sinners so in state and condition as kings and potentates are from persons poor and mean; and who therefore, out of a sense of their own meanness, and the others’state and greatness of mind, dare not approach unto them. No; but as he was meek and lowly, and took up his whole converse with the lower sort of the people, the poor of this world, so he did by all ways and means invite and encourage all sorts of sinners to come unto him.(4.) He is not said to be separate from sinners, as though he had been ever in any communion with them, in any thing wherein he was afterwards separated from them. The participle, κεχωρισμένος, hath the sense of an adjective, declaring what is, and not how he came so to be. He was always in such a state and condition, so holy, so harmless, and undefiled, as never to have a concern in any thing from which he was to be separated.It appeareth hence plainly wherein it was that he was “separate from sinners;” namely, in sin, in its nature, causes, and effects. Whatever of that sort he underwent was upon our account, and not his own. He was every way, in the perfect holiness of his nature and his life, distinguished from all sinners; not only from the greatest, but from those who ever had the least taint of sin, and who otherwise were most holy. And so it became us that he should be. He that was to be a middle person between God and sinners, was to be separate from those sinners in that thing on the account whereof he undertook to stand in their stead. And these are the properties of the human nature of our high priest, and which were necessary antecedently unto the discharge of any part or duty of his office. , His present state and condition is in the next place expressed: “And made higher than the heavens.”῾Υψηλότεροςγενόμενος, — “made higher.” God is called ΰֵ ?μςֵ ?μִ ?ιεοΘεὸςϋψιστος, — “the most high God,” “God above.” And glory is to be ascribed unto him ἐνὑψίστοις, “in the highest,” Luke 2:14. And the Lord Christ in his exaltation is said to “sit down at the right hand of the Majesty ἐνὑψηλοῖς, Hebrews 1:3, — “on high.”He was for a season “made lower than the angels,” made on the earth, and “descended into the lower parts of the earth;” and that for the discharge of the principal part of his priestly office, namely, the offering of himself for a sacrifice unto God. But he abode not in that state, nor could he discharge his whole office and all the duties of it therein; and therefore was “made higher than the heavens.” He was not made higher than the heavens that he might be a priest: but being our high priest, and as our high priest, he was so made, for the discharge of that part of his office which yet remained to be performed; for he was to live for ever to make intercession for us. ῾Υψηλός, as may be seen in the foregoing instances, hath a double signification;1. Of place; 2. Of state and condition.1. If it be place that is meant, then by “the heavens” which he is made above, those aspectable heavens with all their glory are intended. He is no longer on the earth, but exalted into a throne of majesty above these heavens. So it is said that he “passed through the heavens,” when he went into the presence of God, Hebrews 4:14-15. And there he abides. For although “the heaven of heavens cannot contain him,” as unto the immensity of his divine nature, yet as unto his human nature, here spoken of, “the heaven must receive him, until the times of the restitution of all things,” Acts 3:21. He is in this sense no more on the earth, nor subject unto any of those inconveniencies which his abode here below must be exposed unto. Yea, had he always continued here, he could not have been such a high priest as became us, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 8:4.2. ῾Υψηλός may respect state and condition, or the glorious state on the right hand of the Majesty on high which he is exalted unto. And in this sense, by “the heavens,” than which Christ is “made higher,” exalted above, the angels, the sacred inhabitants of those heavenly places, are intended. And this our apostle in other places often insists upon, as a great manifestation of the glory of Christ. See Ephesians 1:21-22; Philippians 2:10-11; Hebrews 1:4; Hebrews 2:7-8.I see no reason but that both these may be included in this expression. He was so exalted, as to the place of his residence, from the earth, above these aspectable heavens, as withal to be placed, in honor, dignity, and power, above all the inhabitants of heaven, He only excepted who puts all things under him. And so we have finished the exposition of these words, with the vindication of the proper meaning of them. Two ends there are why the apostle gives us such a description of the high priest that “became us,” or which we stood in need of: — 1. To manifest that the Levitical priests were in no way qualified for this office, no way meet or able to bring us unto God. Some things they did represent, but nothing of themselves they did effect. They all of them came short in every qualification which was necessary unto this end. They were all sinners; and living and dying on the earth, they never attained unto that condition of glory and dignity which was necessary unto the full and final discharge of that office. So he declares his mind to have been expressly in the next verses.2. To encourage the faith of believers, by evidencing unto them, that whatever was needful in a high priest, to bring them to God, and to save them to the utmost, was found in all perfection in Christ Jesus. And we may observe, that, —Obs. 1. Although these properties of our high priest are principally to be considered as rendering him meet to be our high priest, yet are they also to be considered as an exemplar and idea of that holiness and innocency which we ought to be conformable unto. — If we will give up ourselves to the conduct of this high priest, if by him alone we design to approach unto God, conformity unto him in holiness of nature and life, according unto our measure, is indispensably required of us. None can more dishonor the Lord Christ, nor more perniciously deceive and betray their own souls, than by professing him to be their priest, with their trust thereby to be saved by him, and yet not endeavor to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” like unto him. Obs. 2. Seeing all these properties were required unto Christ. and in him, that he might be our high priest, he was all that he is here said to be for us, and for our sakes; and benefit from them doth redound unto us. — For seeing he was a priest for us, all that he was that he might be a priest was for us also. “Such a high priest became us,” and such a high priest we have.Obs. 3. The infinite grace and wisdom of God are always to be admired by us, in providing such a high priest as was every way meet for us, with respect unto the great end of his office, namely, the bringing of us unto himself.Obs. 4. The dignity, duty, and safety of the gospel church, depend solely on the nature, qualifications, and exaltation of our high priest. Or, our high priest every way answering the mind, the holiness, and wisdom of God, as also all our wants and necessities, our whole state and condition, the work of our salvation is absolutely secured in his hand. — The great design of the gospel is to satisfy believers herein. And God would have it so, that he might provide not only for our future salvation, but for our present consolation also. Obs. 5. If such a high priest “became us,” was needful unto us, for the establishment of the new covenant, and the communication of the grace thereof unto the church, then all persons, Christ alone excepted, are absolutely excluded from all interest in this priesthood. — He that takes upon himself to be a priest under the gospel, must be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” — that is, absolutely so; or he is an impostor, who endeavors to deceive the souls of men. Obs. 6. If, therefore, we consider aright what it is that we stand in need of, and what God hath provided for us, that we may be brought unto him in his glory, we shall find it our wisdom to forego all other expectations, and to betake ourselves unto Christ alone. ῞Οςοὐκἔχεικαθ᾿ἡμέρανἀνάγκην, ὥσπερσἰἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερονὑπὲρτῶνἰδίωνἁμαρτιῶνθυσίαςἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτατῶντοῦλαοῦ ?v τοῦτογὰρἐποίνσενἐφάπαξ, ἑαυτὸνἀνενέγκας. ῾Ονόμοςγὰρἀνθρώπουςκαθίστησινἀρχιερεῖςἔχονταςἀσθένειαν·ὁλόγοςδὲτῆςὁρκωμοσίαςτῆςμετὰτὸννόμον, Υἱὸνεἰςτὸναἰῶνατετελειωμένον.The words used in this context have been opened in several places before. And in one thing only is there any material difference among the translators of them; and this is in these words, τῆςμετὰτὸννόμον. For the Syriac reads them, αָּ ?ϊַ ?ψπָ ?ξεּ ?ρָ ?ΰγַּ ?ηֲ ?εָ ?ϊ, rendering the article in the masculine gender, “who was after the law;” and so doth the Vulgar Latin also, “qui post legem est,” referring unto λόγος as the antecedent, and not ὁρκωμοσίας. And Erasmus renders μετὰτὸννόμον by “supra legem,” “above the law.” But others think, and that rightly, that μετά with an accusative case is never to be rendered by “supra,” or “above.” [12] [12] . — Καθ᾿ἡμέραν has occasioned much perplexity; for the high priest only offered the sin-offerings here referred to once a-year, on the day of atonement, Leviticus 16, and Exodus 30:7-10. Wemust either suppose (with Tholuck) that the καθ᾿ἡμέραν is used for διαπαντός, perpetually, — i.e., year after year; or we must suppose a reference to the high priest as taking part in the occasional sacrifices made by all the priests, for sins of ignorance, Leviticus 4; or we must suppose that the regular acts of the priesthood are attributed to the high priests, as representatives and heads of the whole order; or, finally, we must take οἱἀρχιερεῖς, as in Matthew 2:4, Acts 5:24, for the heads of the twenty-four classes into which the priests were divided, who officiated in turn. This latter view is perhaps the most natural. — Conybeare and Howson. — ED. Hebrews 7:27-28. — Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, the Son, who is perfected for evermore.As these verses contain other instances of the pre-eminence of our high priest above those of the order of Aaron, so all those mentioned in the former of them do depend directly on and flow from the qualifications and endowments of his person expressed in that foregoing. For whereas he is such an one as is there described, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” — for such an one alone “became us,” — he was above and freed from all those things and services which the Levitical priests were obliged unto, for want of these qualifications. For all the things ascribed, Hebrews 7:27, unto them and denied concerning him, were all effects of the weakness and imperfection of their persons and their services; which he, as unto his person, was absolutely exempt and free from, so that he had no need to do as they did. And this being declared, the whole matter, with the fundamental reason of all the differences insisted on, is summarily expressed, Hebrews 7:28, as we shall see in the exposition of the words. Hebrews 7:27. — “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”The words are a negation as they respect our high priest, and include an affirmation with respect unto the priests of the law, both in sundry instances. And the design of them is to exclude all those imperfections from him which they were subject unto. And we may observe in the words, — 1. The manner of the negation, Οὐκἔχειἀνάγκην, — “He needeth not;” it is not necessary for him. The things expressed were not such as those priests might do or omit, as they saw occasion, but they were necessarily obliged unto them. And the necessity the apostle intends was not only that which arose from God’s institution, who appointed them to offer daily, “first for themselves, and then for the people,” but that also which arose from their own state and condition, and from the nature of the sacrifices that they offered: for themselves being weak, infirm, and sinful; and their offerings being only of earthly things, that could never perfectly expiate sin; these things were necessary for them, and so God had ordained. Wherefore there are three grounds or reasons of the necessity here ascribed unto these priests: — (1.) God had appointed them so to do. This comes first to view although there be another reason even of this appointment. And God taught hereby both them and the church their utter incapacity to effect the work committed unto them at once, whereon they were to multiply their oblations.(2.) The nature of the offerings and sacrifices which they offered did make the manner of it here expressed necessary unto them. For they were such as could not attain the end of expiating sin, but only could represent that which did so; and therefore the repetition of them was needful, because their principal use was to be instructive only. Things that are really efficient themselves may at once produce and perfect their effects; but those which are instructive only must be reiterated. (3.) This necessity arose from their own state before God, and the state of the people. For they themselves often sinned, and having no other to offer for them, it was necessary that they should often offer for themselves. And so it was with the people also. They sinned still, and still must be offered for. After one offering, their sins again increased on them, and made another necessary.From all these considerations our high priest was absolutely exempted; and that on a twofold account: (1.) Of his person; which being “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” he needed not to offer for himself.(2.) Of his offering; which being at once perfectly expiatory of the sins of the people, needed not to be repeated. And on these grounds God also had appointed that he should offer himself only “once for all.”2. The second thing in these words is the declaration of them that lay under this necessity which our high priest was not liable unto, ῝Ωσπεροἱἀρχιερεῖς. — “As the high priests;” that is, those high priests of the law concerning whom he had treated. So we well render the words, “As those high priests;” — in like manner as they were, or as they had need. For the apostle, with respect unto the Levitical priesthood, carrieth on the comparison between Christ and them; especially in the instance of the high priests, and the discharge of their office, for they were the head of the priesthood, and the glory of the church of Israel. Howbeit all other priests, employed in the holy offerings and sacrifices of the people, are included herein. And it is apparent, that if the priesthood of Christ doth so far excel that office in the high priests of the old testament, it must needs excel it in those of a subordinate order or degree. All those priests had need to offer in the manner here expressed.3. A threefold difference is intimated between our high priest and them; as, — (1.) In the frequency of their offerings: they were to offer “daily,” — which also includes the order of their offering, “first for themselves, and then for the people,” — whereas he offered “once” only.(2.) It is supposed they offered the sacrifices appointed by the law, which were of brute creatures only, — whence their insufficiency and frequent repetition did proceed, as declared, Hebrews 10:1-3, — he “offered up himself.”(3.) In the cause of their offering; they offered for their own sins, but he had none of his own to offer for.Now all the things here ascribed unto the Levitical priests, are weaknesses and imperfections in their office. And hereby the main position of the apostle, and which was destructive of the whole fabric of Mosaical worship, namely, that “the law” whereby they were constituted “made nothing perfect,” was abundantly confirmed. For the greatest effect of that law was the constitution of this priesthood. And what perfection can be expected by such a priesthood, where the priests were obliged continually to offer for their own sins? No sooner was one offering past, but they were providing matter making another necessary. And so it was with respect unto the sins of the people. And what perfection could be comprised in an everlasting rotation of sins and sacrifices? Is it not manifest that this priesthood and these sacrifices could never of themselves expiate sin, nor make perfect them that came to God by them? Their instructive use was excellent: they both directed faith to look unto the great future priest and sacrifice, and established it, in that they were pledges given of God in assurance thereof. The eye of them all was a continual guidance unto the church to look unto Him who alone was to make atonement for sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness. Howbeit they were of that nature, and were so ordained of God, that they could never give perfect ease and peace unto them that were exercised in them. Some relief they found in them, but complete peace they did not afford. Nor can any thing do so that is often to be repeated. The frequent repetition of the sacrifice of the mass in the church of Rome, doth sufficiently manifest that there is no solid, abiding peace with God in that church; for this is not to be attained by any thing that must be frequently repeated. So our apostle affirms expressly, that if the sacrifices of the law could have made perfect them that came to God by them, or. given them perfect peace with God, they would have ceased to be offered. And so it would be with the sacrifice of the mass. Only by the one offering of Christ they are perfected, as to peace with God, for whom he offered. And it gave great evidence unto their instructive efficacy, that in themselves they were so weak, so imperfect, and ineffectual. It was therefore unbelief heightened unto obstinacy which caused the Hebrews to refuse this high priest and sacrifice when exhibited of God, whereas before they could never attain unto peace firm and stable. But love of carnal worship, and adherence unto self-righteousness, are inseparable companions. Obs. God requireth our faith and obedience in and unto nothing but what is, as absolutely needful for us, so highly reasonable unto the minds of them that are enlightened. — Such was this priesthood of Christ, now proposed unto the faith of the church, in comparison of what was before enjoyed.4. There is in the words the time and season of the performance of what is here ascribed unto these high priests, as necessary for them. They were to do it καθ᾿ἡμέραν “daily;” that is, so often as occasion required, according unto the law. For there is no reason to confine the apostle’s intention unto the annual expiatory sacrifice only; as though καθ᾿ἡμέραν were the same with κατ᾿ἐνιαυτόν, Hebrews 10:1, — “daily” as much as “yearly.” It is true, that in that sacrifice the high priest offered “first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people;” but πρότερον, here used, doth not express that order, as we shall see. Nor is it the ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ, or “daily sacrifice” alone, that is intended, though that be included also; for that “juge sacrificium” had respect unto the sins of the whole church, both priests and people. And we are obliged to pray for the pardon of sin every day, by virtue of that sacrifice which is πρόσφατοςκαὶζῶσα, “new and living” in its efficacy continually, and as occasion doth require. And so there was an obligation on the priest to offer for himself a sin-offering, as often as he “sinned according to the sin of the people:” Leviticus 4:3,“If the priest that is anointed” (that is, the high priest) “do sin according to the sin of the people, then let him bring, for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin-offering.” And unto this institution the apostle here hath respect. 5. What they were thus obliged unto is declared: Θυσίαςἀναφέρεινὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν, — “To offer sacrifices for sins.” All propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices are intended; but possibly a principal regard is had unto the great anniversary sacrifice, in the feast of expiation, Leviticus 16. For although the apostle mentions θυσίας, “sacrifices,” in the plural number, and that was but one, yet because of the repetition of it, it being “offered year by year continually,” as he speaks, Hebrews 10:1, it maybe signified hereby. And those sacrifices were ὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶν. And in answer unto them our Lord Jesus Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin. And this is expressed by περὶἁμαρτίας, “for sin,” only, without the mention of sacrifice, Romans 8:3. For because ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊsignifies both “the sin and the sacrifice” for it, as the verb, ηָ ?θָ ?ΰ, signifies in one conjugation “to sin,” and in another “to expiate sin,” the sacrifice itself is expressed by περὶἁμαρτίας, “for sin.”6. The order of these sacrifices is expressed by πρότερον and ἔπειτα, — “first” and “then:” “first for his own, and “then for those of the people.” Either the whole discharge of the office of the high priest may be intended in this order, or that which was peculiar unto the feast of expiation. For he was in general to take care in the first place about offering for his own sins, according to the law, Leviticus 4 : for if that were not done in due order, if their own legal guilt were not expiated in its proper season, according to the law, they were no way meet to offer for the sins of the congregation; yea, they exposed themselves unto the penalty of excision. And this order was necessary, seeing the law appointed men to be priests who had infirmities of their own, as is expressed in the next verse. Or the order intended may respect in an especial manner the form and process prescribed in the solemn anniversary sacrifice at the feast of expiation, Leviticus 16. First he was to offer a sin-offering for himself and his house, and then for the people; both on the same day. (1.) ᾿Υπὲρτῶνἰδίωνἀμαρτιῶν, — “For his own sins.” And this upon a double account:[1. Because he was really a sinner, as the rest of the people were: “If he do sin according to the sin of the people,” Leviticus 4:3.[2. That upon the expiation of his own sins in the first place, he might be the more meet to represent Him who had no sin. And therefore he was not to offer for himself in the offering that he made for the people, but stood therein as a sinless person, as our high priest was really to be. (2.) Τῶντοῦλαοῦ, — “For the sins of the people;” that is, for the whole congregation of Israel, according to the law, Leviticus 16:21.This was the duty, the order and method of the high priests of old, in their offerings and sacred services. This their weaknesses, infirmities, and sins, as also the sacrifices which they offered, did require. All that could be learned from it was, that some more excellent priest and sacrifice were to be introduced. For no perfection, no consummation in divine favor, no settled peace of conscience, could in this way be obtained; all things openly declared that so they could not be. And hence have we an evidence of what is affirmed, John 1:17, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” And the privilege or advancement of the church, in its deliverance from those various, multiplied, obscure means of instruction, into the glorious light of the way and causes of our adoption, justification, and salvation, is inexpressibly great and full of grace. No longer are we now obliged unto a rigid observance of those things which did not effect what they did represent. An increase in thankfulness, fruitfulness, and holiness, cannot but be expected from us.These are the things that are here denied of our high priest: lie had no need to offer sacrifice in this way, order, and method. The offering of sacrifice is not denied, — that is, sacrifice for the sins of the people; yea, it is positively asserted in the next words: but that he offered daily, many sacrifices, or any for himself, or had need so to do, this is denied by the apostle. That alone which he did is asserted in the remaining words of the verse: “For this he did once, when he offered up himself.” And two things are in the words: 1. What he did in general; 2. In particular, how he did it: —For the first, it is said, Τοῦτογὰρἐποίησεν, — “This he did.” Τοῦτο refers only unto one clause of the antecedent, namely, “offering for the sins of the people.” “This he did once, when he offered up himself.” For himself he did not offer.But contrary unto the sense of the whole church of God, contrary to the analogy of faith, and with no small danger in the expression, Socinus first affirmed that the Lord Christ offered also for himself, or his own sins. And he is followed herein by those of his own sect, as Schlichtingius on this place: and so he is also by Grotius and Hammond; — which is the channel whereby many of his notions and conceptions are derived unto us. It is true, that both he and they do acknowledge that the Lord Christ had no sins of his own properly so called, — that is, “transgressions of the law;” but his infirmities, say some of them, whereby he was exposed unto death, his sufferings, say others, are called his sins. But nothing can be more abhorrent from truth and piety than this assertion. For, — 1. If this be so, then the apostle expressly in terms affirms that Christ “offered for his own sins,” and that distinctly from “the sins of the people.” And from this blasphemy we are left to relieve ourselves by an interpretation that the Scripture nowhere gives countenance unto, namely, that by “sins,” infirmities or miseries are intended. It is true that “infirmity,” ἀσθένεια, doth sometimes signify sin, or obnoxiousness unto sin; but “sin” doth nowhere signify natural infirmities, but moral evils always. It is true, Christ was “made sin:” but where it is said so, it is also added that it was “for us;” and, to take off all apprehensions of any thing in him that might be so called, that “he knew no sin.” He was “made sin for us,” when he “offered for the sins of the people;” and other distinct offering for himself he offered none. And therefore in sundry places where mention is made of his offering himself, it is still observed that he “did no sin,” but was “as a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Let, therefore, men put what interpretation they please on their own words (for they are not the words of the apostle, that “Christ offered himself for his own sins”), the language is, and must be, offensive unto every holy heart, and hath an open appearance of express contradiction unto many other testimonies of the Scripture. 2. The sole reason pretended to give countenance unto this absurd assertion is, that τοῦτο, “this,” must answer to the whole preceding proposition, which is its antecedent. Now therein is mention of the priests “offering first for their own sins, then for the sins of the people;” and this, it is said, Christ did, — that is, he offered first for his own sins, and then for the people’s. But to answer the whole antecedent, in both parts of it, it is indispensably necessary that he must, as they did, offer two distinct offerings, — one, namely the “first,” for himself; and the other, or “then,” for the people. For so did they, so were they obliged to do by the law; and other offerings for themselves and the people, in any other order or method, there never were, nor could be. But this is expressly contradictory unto what is here affirmed of the Lord Christ and his offering, namely, that he “offered himself once” only: and if but once, he could not offer “first for himself, then for the people;” nor at all for himself and them in the same offering, which the high priests themselves could not do. 3. This insinuation not only enervates, but is contradictory unto the principal design of the apostle in the verse foregoing, and in that which follows. For verse 26, he on purpose describes our high priest by such properties and qualifications as might evidence him to have no need to offer for his own sins, as those other priests had; for from this consideration, that “he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” the apostle makes this inference, that “he needeth not to offer for himself, as those high priests did.” But according unto this interpretation, no such thing ensues thereon; but notwithstanding all those qualifications, he had need to offer for his own sins. And Hebrews 7:28, the difference he puts between him and them is this, that they were “men subject to infirmities,” but he is “the Son, consecrated for ever:” which apparently exempts him from any necessity of offering for himself; for, as is apparent from the antithesis, he was not subject unto any of those infirmities which made it necessary unto them to offer for themselves. Wherefore the whole design of the apostle in these verses is utterly perverted and overthrown by this interpretation. 4. When those priests offered for their own sins, their sins were of the same nature with the sins of the people: “If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people,” Leviticus 4:3. If, therefore, this be to be repeated ἐκτοῦκοινοῦ, “this he did when he offered for his own sins and for the people’s,” “sins” being only expressed in the first place and understood in the latter, sins properly so called must be intended; which is the height of blasphemy.5. If the Lord Christ offered for himself, or his own infirmities, then those infirmities were such as were obstructions and hinderances unto his offering for others; for that is the only reason why he should offer for their removal or taking away. But this is so far otherwise, as that indeed he was obnoxious unto no infirmity but what was necessary that he might be a meet high priest and sacrifice for us, — for so was every thing that is inseparable from human nature, — which is utterly destructive of this figment.6. This imagination will admit of no tolerable sense in its exposition or application. For how can we conceive that the Lord Christ offered for his own infirmities; that is, his sorrows, sufferings, and obnoxiousness unto death? It must be by his sufferings and death; for in and by them he offered himself unto God. But this is absurd and foolish: By his sufferings he offered for his sufferings! What he offered for, he took away, as he did the sins of the people; but his own sorrows and sufferings he took not away, but underwent them all. 7. It is contradictory unto the principal maxim of the Socinians with respect unto the priesthood of Christ. For they maintain that his one perfect offering, or expiatory sacrifice, was in heaven only, and not on the earth. But he could not at his appearance in the holy place offer for his own infirmities and miseries, for they were all past and finished, himself being exalted in immortality and glory. These things are sufficient to repress the vanity of this figment. But because there is no small danger in the proposal that hath been made of it, I shall briefly examine what reasons its authors and promoters do produce to give countenance unto it. Thus proceeds and argues Crellius or Schlichtingius on the place: “Peccata proprie dicta, id est, divinarum legum transgressiones, cum in Christo locum non habeant ullum, 1. Necesse est ut in voce ‘peccatorum’sit improprietas, significenturque Christi infirmitates et perpessiones, 2. Qua de re jam egimus, cap. 5, Hebrews 7:2; Hebrews 3:3. Sic vidimus istarum infirmitatum et perpessionum contraria, sanctitatis et innocentiae nomine paulo ante versu superiore describi; qui duo versiculi mutuo se illustrant: (‘seipsum offerens.’) 4. Docet quando Christus pro se obtulerit, preces nimirum et supplicationes ut cap. 5, Hebrews 7:7, vidimus: tune nempe cum in eo esset, ut seipsum Deo offerret, cum sese ad oblationem sui ipsius accingeret, hoe est, cum tanquam victima mactaretur. 5. Oblatio enim Christi sic hoc loco extendenda est ut mortem ipsius tanquam necessarium antecedens, et quoddam veluti initium complectatur. 6. Cum vero hic versiculus ex superiori commate pendent et inferatur, vel hinc apparet, non agi isthic de moribus, sed de natura, deque felici statu ac conditione nostri pontificia Nec enim ideo Christus opus non habet amplius pro se offerre, quod sanctus sit et inculpatus, ratione morum sen actionum suarum, cum semper talis fuerit; sed quod in perpetuum ab omnibus malis et afflictionibus sit liberatus.” I have transcribed his words at large, because what is offered by others unto the same purpose is all included in them. But the whole of it will be easily removed; for, — 1. The impropriety of speech pretended, that “sins” should be put for “infirmities,” is that which the use of the Scripture will give no countenance unto. It is only feigned by these men at their pleasure. Let them, if they can, produce any one place where by “sins,” not moral evils, but natural infirmities, are intended. But by feigning improprieties of speech at our pleasure, we may wrest and pervert the Scripture also even as we please. 2. Of the infirmities of the human nature of Christ, which were necessary that he might be a sacrifice, and useful unto his being a priest, we have also treated in the place quoted, Hebrews 5:2-3; whereunto the reader is referred.3. Not the contrary unto these infirmities, but the contrary unto sin original and actual, is intended by “holiness” and “innocency” in the verse foregoing; as hath been proved in the exposition of that verse, whereunto the reader is referred.4. The Lord Christ offered up prayers and supplications unto God “when he offered up himself;” — not to expiate his own infirmities by his offering, but that he might be carried through and supported in his oblation which he offered for the sins of the people; and had success therein. See the exposition on Hebrews 5:7.5. He is more kind than ordinary, in extending the oblation of Christ unto his death also. But he recalls his grant, affirming that he did only prepare himself for his offering thereby. And this also casts his whole exposition into much confusion. Christ “offered himself once,” saith the apostle; — ἐφάπαξ, once, and at one time. This, I suppose, is agreed. Then ‘he offered for himself and his own sins,’or not at all; for he offered but once, and at one time. Where then did he thus offer himself and when? ‘In heaven, upon his ascension,’say the Socinians with one accord. Where then and when did he offer for himself? ‘On the earth.’Then he offered himself twice? ‘No, by no means; he offered not himself on the earth.’ How then did he offer for himself on the earth? ‘He did not, indeed, offer himself on the earth, but he prepared himself for his offering on the earth, and therein he offered for himself;’— that is, he did and he did not offer himself upon the earth! For they cannot evade by saying that he did it when he offered up prayers on the earth; for the apostle says expressly in this place, that what he did he did it when he offered himself. And it must be by such an offering as answered the offering of the high priest for himself, which was bloody. 6. The close of his discourse, whereby he would prove the truth of his exposition of the verse foregoing from his interpretation of this, is absurd; as that which would give countenance unto an evident falsehood, from what is more evidently so.Grotius adds little unto what Schlichtingius offers in this case. Only he tells us that ἁμαρτία is taken for “those griefs which are commonly the punishment of sin, Romans 6:10.” But it is a mistake: ἁμαρτία, in that place, signifies nothing but the guilt of sin, which Christ died to expiate and take away. “He died once for sin;” that is, he suffered once for sin. He says, moreover, that profluvium mulierum is called ηֲ ?θָ ?ΰָ ?δ, Leviticus 12:8; Leviticus 15:30; as also is the leprosy, Leviticus 14:13. But herein also he ismistaken; both the one and the other subject unto those defiling distempers were appointed to offer a sin-offering for the sins which those defilements were tokens of, and the sin of nature which they proceeded from. Again he says, that “Christ in his offering was freed from those infirmities and miseries per mortem acceleratam.” But his death was not hasted one moment until all was finished; nor did he offer for the hastening of his death. And his ensuing words are most ambiguous: “Christ offered pro doloribus istis qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quos Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit.” If the “sorrows” intended were not true “punishments of sin,” they could not be “offered for.” And what sorrows Christ underwent, so far as they were penal, he offered for them when he offered for “the sins of the people,” and not otherwise. But those which are called “his own sins,” must be every way distinct from the sins of the people, and have no relation unto them; as the sins of the high priests of old had not. Wherefore, if by the “occasion of the sins of men,” he intend that his sufferings and griefs were for the sins of men, then he offered for them when he offered for the sins of the people, when he bare our sins and sorrows, and had no need to offer distinctly for them as his own. And if it were a sorrow that was not for sin, it cannot be called sin. Christ’s suffering on the “occasion of the sins of mankind,” is well understood by those who are any way skilled in the Socinian mysteries. Hammond says the same. “He both,” saith he, “offered for himself, that is, made expiation, as it were, not to deliver himself from sin, for he was never guilty of any, but from the infirmities assumed by him, but especially from death itself; and so is now never likely to die, and to determine his Melchisedecian priesthood.” Ans. 1. To “make expiation, as it were, from the infirmities assumed by him,” or to be “delivered from them,” is hard to be understood. 2. Much more is it, how “by death, wherein he offered himself,” he should “make expiation to be delivered from death itself.”3. And it is as hard to say, that Christ “offered for himself once by death,” that he might die no more; seeing “it is appointed unto all men only once to die.”I have digressed thus far, to crush this novel invention; which, as it is untrue and alien from the sense of the apostle, so it hath in the expression of it an ungrateful sound of impiety. But I expect not so much sobriety, as that, considering the means of its conveyance unto the minds of men at present, it should not be vented again until what hath been here pleaded in its confutation be answered. At present I shall proceed with the exposition of the remainder of the words. How and what Christ offered for the sins of the people is declared in the words remaining. 1. For the way or manner of it. He did it ἐφάπαξ, “once only.” This is directly opposed unto the frequency of the legal sacrifices, repeated “daily” as there was occasion. Those high priests offered καθ᾿ἡμέραν, “daily,” on all occasions; he ἐφάπαξ, “once only.”And I cannot but observe by the way, that this assertion of the apostle is no less absolutely exclusive of the missatical sacrifices of the priests of the Roman church than it is of the Levitical sacrifices of the high priest of the church of the Jews. Their expositors on this place do generally affirm, in plea for their church, that they offer it not to make expiation of sins, but only to represent and make application of the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross. But in their mass itself they speak otherwise, and expressly “offer it to God a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead.” Neither yet do we inquire unto what end they do what they do’and this is all they say, that they offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, — that is, himself. And this they do a thousand times more frequently than the expiatory sacrifices were among the Jews. Neither were their sacrifices offered properly, by God’s appointment, to make atonement for sin by their own virtue and efficacy; but only to be a representation and application of the sacrifice of Christ to come. Whatever ends they therefore fancy unto themselves, by pretending to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, they contradict the words of the apostle, and wholly evert the force of his argument. For if the same sacrifice which the Lord Christ offered be often offered, and had need so to be, the whole argument to prove the excellency of his priesthood, in that he offered himself but once, above them who often offered the same sacrifices, falls to the ground. And hence also the foundation of this fiction is raised. For it is, that the Lord Christ offered himself at the supper, the night before he was betrayed, as the Trent council affirms, sess. 22, cap. 1. For if he did so, he offered himself more than once, — twice at least; which being a matter of fact, is to give the apostle the lie. 2. What he offered is expressed in the last place; and therein the reason is contained why he offered but once, and needed not to do so daily, as those priests did. And this is taken from the excellency of his offering: he offered ἑαυτόν, — himself. And this gives the highest preference of the priesthood of Christ above that of Levi. For,(1.) Those priests had nothing of their own to offer, but must be furnished with offerings from among the other creatures.(2.) Though they had the best from them, the blood and fat, yet it was but the blood of calves, and sheep, and goats. And what can this do for the real expiating of the sins of our souls? See Micah 6:6-7. Wherefore, when at any time the people were brought under any serious conviction of sin, they could not but apprehend that none of those sacrifices, however multiplied, could deliver them from their guilt. But the Lord Christ had something of his own to offer, that which was originally and absolutely his own, not borrowed or taken from any thing among the creatures. And this was “himself,” — a sacrifice able to make atonement for all the sins of mankind. And from the words thus expounded we may observe, — Obs. 1. That no sinful man was meet to offer the great expiatory sacrifice for the church; much less is any sinful man fit to offer Christ himself. — As the first part of this assertion declares the insufficiency of the priests of the church of the Jews, so doth the latter the vain pretense of the priests of the church of Rome. The former the apostle proves and confirms expressly. For no other high priest but such a one as was in himself perfectly sinless did become us, or our state and condition. He that was otherwise could neither have any thing of his own to offer, and must in the first place offer for himself; and this he must be doing day by day. And the latter, on many accounts, is a vile, presumptuous imagination. For a poor sinful worm of the earth to interpose himself between God and Christ, and offer the one in sacrifice unto the other, — what an issue is it of pride and folly! Obs. 2. The excellency of Christ’s person and priesthood freed him in his offering from many things that the Levitical priesthood was obliged unto. — And the due apprehension hereof is a great guide unto us in the consideration of those types. For many things we shall meet withal which we cannot see how they had a particular accomplishment in Christ, nor find out what they did prefigure. But all of them were such as their own infirm state and condition did require. Such were their outward call and consecration, which they had by the law, in the sacrifice of beasts, with certain washings and unctions; their sacrificing often, and for themselves; their succession one to another; their purifications for legal pollutions. These, and sundry things of like nature, were made necessary unto them from their own sins and infirmities, and so had no particular accomplishment in Christ. However, in general, all the ordinances and institutions about them all, taught the church thus much, that nothing of that was to be found in the true high priest wherein they were defective. Obs. 3. No sacrifice could bring us unto God, and save the church to the utmost, but that wherein the Son of God himself was both priest and offering. — Such a high priest became us, who offered himself once for all. And we may consider,1. That this was one of the greatest effects of infinite divine wisdom and grace. His incarnation, wherein he had a body prepared for him for this purpose, his call to his office by the oath of the Father and unction of the Spirit, his sanctifying himself to be a sacrifice, and his offering up himself through the eternal Spirit unto God, are all full of mysterious wisdom and grace. All these wonders of wisdom and love were necessary unto this great end of bringing us unto God.2. Every part of this transaction, all that belongs unto this sacrifice, is so filled up with perfection, that no more could be required on the part of God; nor is any thing wanting, to give countenance unto our unbelief. The person of the priest, and the offering itself, are both the same; both the Son of God. One view of the glory of this mystery, how satisfactory is it unto the souls of believers! 3. A distinct consideration of the person of the priest and of his sacrifice will evidence this truth unto the faith of believers. What could not this priest prevail for, in his interposition on our behalf? Must he not needs be absolutely prevalent in all he aims at? Were our cause intrusted in any other hand, what security could we have that it should not miscarry? And what could not this offering make atonement for? what sin, or whose sins could it not expiate? “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Obs. 4. It was burdensome and heavy work, to attain relief against sin and settled peace of conscience under the old priesthood, attended with so many weaknesses and infirmities. — Herein lies the greatest part of that yoke which the apostle Peter affirms that “neither they nor their fathers were able to bear,” Acts 15:10; which the Lord Christ gives us deliverance from, Matthew 11:27-30. Hebrews 7:28. — “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”The apostle in this verse summeth up the whole of his precedent discourse, so as to evidence the true and proper foundation, which all along he hath built and proceeded on. 1. One principle there was agreed upon between him and the Hebrews who adhered unto Mosaical institutions; and this was, that a high priest over the church there must be, and without such an one there is no approach unto God. So it was under the law; and if the same order be not continued, the church must needs fall under a great disadvantage. To lose the high priest out of our religion, is to lose the sun out of the firmament of the church. This was a common principle agreed on between them, whereon the apostle doth proceed. 2. He grants unto them that the high priests who officiated in the tabernacle and the temple were called and appointed by God unto their office in the law. 3. Hereon ensued the main difference between him and them. They were persuaded and hoped that these priests should continue for ever in the church, without change or alteration. He contends that there was a time designed wherein they were to be removed, and a priest of another order introduced in their room; which would be so far from being any disadvantage unto the church, as that the whole safety, glory, and blessedness thereof, did depend thereon. And this he proves by many cogent and irrefragable arguments unto them; as, —(1.) That before the erection of the Levitical priesthood by the law, there was another priest of the most high God, who was far greater and more excellent than those priests, yea, than Abraham himself, from whom they derived all their privileges.(2.) Because, after the giving of the law and the setting up of the Levitical priesthood thereby, God again promiseth to raise up another priest, in another kind, after another order, after the manner of him who was called unto that office long before the giving of the law. Wherefore he was prefigured before the law, and promised after the law, so that his introduction could not be prejudiced by the law.(3.) That this high priest, thus promised, neither was to be nor could be of the same stock, nature, or order, with the Levitical priests, but one that was not only distinct from them, but really inconsistent with them. He manifests that there was no possibility they should be priests together, or that the church should be under the conduct of them both.(4.) Whereas hereon it may be said, ‘Who knows whether this change and alteration will be to the advantage of the church or no; whether it were not better to adhere unto those priests which we have already, than, relinquishing them and all benefits by them, to betake ourselves unto this new high priest?’the apostle, in answer unto this possible objection, declares in sundry instances the excellency of this other priest above them. And not only so, but he proves undeniably, that by all which those other priests did perform in divine service, and by all that the law could, effect, whereby they were constituted and made priests, there was no access unto God, no perfection or consummation in peace of conscience, to be obtained. For there were so many defects and weaknesses that accompanied them and their services, as rendered them wholly unable to attain those great ends. On the other hand, he manifesteth and proveth, that by this one single high priest now introduced, and his one sacrifice, offered once for all, by reason of the perfection of the one and the other, all those blessed ends were completely accomplished. This being the design of the apostle’s discourse in this chapter, he giveth us a summary of the whole, and of the principal grounds which he proceeds upon, with wonderful brevity, in this last verse. For upon an acknowledgment of the different principles mentioned, he shows us, in an elegant antithesis, — 1. The different means of the constitution of these different priests: on the one hand, the law; and on the other, the word of the oath.2. The different times of their constitution: the one in the giving of the law; the other after the law.3. The difference of their persons: those of the first sort were men, and no more; the other was the Son.4. The difference in their state and condition: the former had infirmities; the latter is consecrated for ever. This also is included in the words, that those of the first sort were many (“men that have infirmity”); he of the latter was one only.And in these things, as we shall briefly see, lie the springs of all the arguments which the apostle hath used in this case, and a plain representation is given us of the truth he contended for. 1. The first difference is in the constituting principles of these distinct offices: That on the part of the Levitical priesthood was ὁνόμος, — “the law;” that is, the ceremonial law, as we call it, — the law given in Horeb concerning religious rites, the way and manner of the solemn worship of God in the tabernacle. It was not the moral law, not immediately the commands of the decalogue, but the especial law of divine service and worship, that is intended.And what doth the law do? Καθίστησι, “It appointeth.” It did so morally; God appointed them in and by the law. And he speaks in the present tense:‘So long as the law continueth in force and efficacy it appointeth such priests. None other are to be looked for in or expected from the law.’ Now, a moral rule or institution is sufficient to convey power and authority of office unto men. So is it under the new testament. It is the gospel that makes ministers, and not the people, or any others, who have no power but only. to act in obedience unto the laws thereof. Hereby those other priests came so to be. Hereunto is opposed λόγοςτῆςὁρκωμοσίας, “the word of the oath,” as the constituting cause of this new priest and priesthood. Thus much it had in common with the other way; it was a “word,” as that was also. The law was λόγοςλαληθεὶςδι᾿ἀγγέλων, “the word spoken by angels,” Hebrews 2:2;-the word of God, though spoken by them. And a word in this sense is either a mere word of command or a word of promise; either of which is sufficient to constitute an office, being declarations of the authority of God himself. By this word was both the office of the priesthood of Christ consecrated, and himself called to be a priest. See the exposition on Hebrews 5:5-6. But herein especially did this word excel the word of the law, in that it was confirmed by the oath of God. It was the word, the will, the promise of God, declared in and by his oath. And herein hath it many advantages above the law, which was not so; as, — (1.) A high federal solemnity. Things confirmed by an oath are peculiarly sacred, and are distinguished from all things that are not so; and therefore the interposition of an oath was originally (it may be solely) used in t, he confirmation of covenants about things of moment, and wherein several parties were highly concerned.(2.) An oath declares the immutability of that counsel whence the matter sworn unto doth proceed. In the giving of the law, God declared his will, so far as to what he would have the people at present obliged unto; but he did not by any means declare that he had in his unchangeable counsel determined that the kind of worship and state of the church then erected should continue for ever; yea, he did many ways intimate that he did reserve unto himself the power of altering the whole. But now the immutability of God’s counsel is declared by his oath. What was this oath of God, and how the Lord Christ was made a priest thereby, hath been before at large declared. The apostle takes notice of it here only as it was given out in prophecy by David; which was but a solemn declaration of the eternal compact between the Father and the Son. 2. The difference of the time wherein these priesthoods were ordained is included on the one hand and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the law was given whereby they were made priests: the latter was μετὰτὸννόμον, “after the law,” or the giving of it. This, I confess, doth not appear at first view to be to the advantage of the apostle’s design, namely, that this oath was after the law; for in another place he expressly argues on the other hand, that what is first in such cases hath the pre- eminence, and cannot be disannulled by what doth ensue: Galatians 3:17, “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” May it not be as well said, that this oath, which was declared about four hundred years after the giving of the law, could not disannul it, or make it of none effect? The objection being not without its difficulty, I shall spend a little time in the full solution of it. I answer, therefore, that what followeth after cannot disannul what went before, — (1.) If that which is afterwards introduced be consistent with what was before established. For in that case there is no intimation of the pleasure of God that it should be disannulled. He may add what he will unto what is already ordained, so it be consistent with it, without prejudicing the first institution.(2.) Especially it cannot do so if it be inferior unto that which went before, either in dignity or use and benefit, and so be made subservient unto it.(3.) And it must be invalid unto any such purpose if it had no other antecedent foundation, that did indeed precede the former grant: for if it have so, it may rationally be supposed to be further declared on purpose to supersede it.Now thus it was with the law in respect unto the promise, which, as the apostle proves, going before it, could not be disannulled by it. For, — (1.) The law, as it was then ordained of God, was consistent with the promise, yea, and given in the pursuit of it; so as that there was no need that any should forsake the promise to comply with the will of God in giving the law.(2.) The law, as it was inferior in dignity and use unto the promise, so it was made subordinate and subservient unto it; for the main end of giving the law, was to guide and direct the church unto the right use and benefit of the promise.(3.) The promise had an absolute priority above the law. There was no ground or foundation laid for the law, no intimation of its future introduction, before the giving of the promise: and therefore the promise could not be disannulled by it. But in the present case all things are otherwise; for, — (1.) The priesthood confirmed by an oath, and introduced after the law, was utterly inconsistent with the law and the priesthood thereof. This the apostle hath fully proved before. Wherefore of necessity either the law and the priesthood of it must be disannulled, or the oath of God must be of none effect; for what he had sworn unto was inconsistent with the continuance of what was before appointed for a time.(2.) This new priesthood could no way be made subordinate or subservient unto the other, so as to leave it a place in the church; but as it was eminently above it in dignity and benefit, so the use of the other was only to be an introduction unto it, and therefore must cease thereon. (3.) This priesthood had its reasons, grounds, foundation, and representation, long before the giving of the law. For besides that it had a virtual constitution in the first promise, two thousand years before the giving of the law, it had also a typical representation before it, in the priesthood of Melchisedec; and it received only a declaration and confirmation in the account given of the oath of God after the law.Wherefore the direct contrary is here the matter in hand unto what is spoken unto in that other argument of the apostle. And therein the first thing, namely, the promise, was confirmed by an oath; the latter was not. But here the latter, which was after the law, was confirmed by the oath of God; which the law was not. And hereon its being after the law is a sufficient evidence of its preeminence above the law, and all the institutions of it; for hereby was that introduced which was to supply all the defects and weaknesses of the law and its priesthood, and so to disannul them and take them out of the way. 3. The third difference is, that the law made ἀνθρώπους, “men,” to be high priests; that is, those who were mere men, and no more. And therefore, notwithstanding the office and dignity which they were called and exalted unto, they were all but servants in the house of God; nor could they be any other, as the apostle proves, Hebrews 3:5. In opposition hereunto, “the word of the oath maketh Υἱόν,” “the Son,” an high priest; that Son who is Lord over the whole house, and whose the house is, as he declares in the same place, verses 5, 6. And in this word the apostle openeth the necessity and dignity of the priesthood of the new testament; for it consists in the dignity of the person designed unto that office. This was no other, nor could be other, but the Son, the eternal Son of God. “Filium, nempe Dei, non hominem, caeteris parem, nascendi sorte,” saith Grotius; as though Christ were here called “the Son,” that is, the Son of God, because he was differenced from other men in the way and manner of his birth, being born of a virgin. But this is not the true and formal reason of this denomination. Christ is the Son of God by eternal generation; and thereon alone doth his sonship depend. But many ways there were whereby he was manifested so to be, especially by his miraculous conception and nativity, and by his resurrection from the dead. Hence with respect unto them he is sometimes called the Son of God; not that he became so thereby, but was only “declared” so to be. This, therefore, the apostle resolves the force of his argument into, namely, the dignity of the person of our high priest, he was the Son of God; for hereon the whole excellency and efficacy of his priesthood doth depend. 4. It is added, in the last place, that the law made men priests ἔχονταςἀσθένειαν, — “that had infirmity,” — subject to infirmities. And these were of two sorts, moral and natural; neither could they be freed from either of them during the whole time of their priesthood. The first were their sins: hence they were obliged continually to offer sacrifice for their own sins, and that to the very last day of their lives. The sum and issue of their natural weakness was death itself. This seized on every one of them, so as to put an everlasting end unto their sacerdotal administrations.But wherefore did the law make such priests, men, mere men, that had infirmity, subject to sin and death, so as to put an end unto their office? The reason is, because it could neither find any better, nor make them any better whom it found in that condition. The law must be content with such as were to be had, and in itself it had no power to make them better. In opposition hereunto it is said, “the word of the oath made the Son, τετελειωμένονεἰςτὸναἰῶνα,” — “consecrated for ever.” What was the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his office, and wherein it did consist, I have before at large declared. That which the apostle intends here, in an especial manner, is his absolute freedom from the infirmities which those other priests were obnoxious unto, — namely, such infirmities in the first place as with respect whereunto sacrifice was to be offered unto God; that is, their own sins. And the apostle here, opposing the consecration of Christ unto their having infirmities, showeth sufficiently that he intended not to insinuate that he offered for any infirmities of his own, seeing he is wholly different from them and opposed unto them who had such infirmities. And if he had offered for his own infirmities, the apostle could not have objected it as the weakness of the law, that it made priests which had infirmity; for, in that sense, the word of the oath should have done so also. But whereas his exaltation into heaven for the discharge of the remaining duties of his priesthood, in his intercession for the church, belonged unto the perfection of his consecration, he was therein also freed from all those natural infirmities which were necessary unto him that he might be a sacrifice. The ensuing observations offer themselves unto us: — Obs. 5. There never was, nor ever can be, any more than two sorts of priests in the church; the one made by the law, the other by the oath of God. Wherefore, —Obs. 6. As the bringing in of the priesthood of Christ after the law and the priesthood constituted thereby, did abrogate and dis-annul it; so the bringing in of another priesthood after his will abrogate and disannul that also. And therefore, —Obs. 7. Plurality of priests under the gospel overthrows the whole argument of the apostle in this place; and if we have yet priests that have infirmities, they are made by the law, and not by the gospel.Obs. 8. The sum of the difference between the law and the gospel is issued in the difference between the high priest of the one and the other state; which is inconceivable. Obs. 9. The great foundation of our faith, and the hinge whereon all our consolation depends, is this, that our high priest is the Son of God.Obs. 10. The everlasting continuance of ‘the Lord Christ in his office is secured by the oath of God.ΜόνῳτῷΘεῷδόξα. THERE are two general parts of this chapter 1. A further explication of the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, or of Christ himself as vested with that office, — that is, both in his personal glory and in the usefulness of his office unto the church, — above those of the order of Aaron.2. A further confirmation hereof; wherein is introduced the consideration, of the two covenants, the old and the new. For unto the former was the whole administration of the Levitical priests confined; of the latter, Christ, as our high priest, was the mediator and surety. And therefore the apostle fully proves the excellency of this new covenant above the old; which redounds unto the glory of its mediator.The first part is contained in the first five verses; the latter extends from thence to the end of the chapter. In the first part two things are designed: 1. A recapitulation of some things before delivered.2. The addition of some further arguments in the confirmation of the same truth, so long before insisted on. Both of them he compriseth in three instances of the excellency of Christ in his priesthood, or in the discharge of his office:1. In his exaltation and the place of his present residence, Hebrews 8:1. 2. In the sanctuary whereof he is a minister, and the tabernacle wherein at present he doth administer, Hebrews 8:2. 3. In the sacrifice he had to offer, or which he offered before his entrance into that sanctuary, Hebrews 8:3; which he illustrates by two especial considerations, Hebrews 8:4-5. Κεφάλαιονδὲἐπὶτοῖςλεγομένοις, τοιοῦτονἔχομενἀρχειρέα, ὅςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦθρόνουτῆςμεγαλωσύνηςἐντοῖςοὐραςοῖς.Κεφάλαιον. Syr., ψִ ?ιωָׁ ?ΰִ, “caput.” Vulg., “capitulum,” “summa.” Beta, “caeterum eorum quae diximus haec summa est,” “moreover this is the sum of what we speak;” “summatim autem dicendo,” “to speak briefly.”᾿Επὶτοῖςλεγομένοις. Syr., γְּ ?λֻ ?μְּ ?δֵ ?ιο, “of all these things;” the head, chief, or principal of all these things. Vulg., “super ea quae dicuntur.” Rhem., “the sum concerning these things which he said.” Τοιοῦτονἔχομεν. Syr., “We have an high priest, him who sitteth;” omitting this word, or including it in ΰֵ ?ιπָ ?ΰ, “is,” “ille.”Τῆςμεγαλωσύνης. Vulg., “magnitudinis;” which the Rhemists render by “majesty;” and they retain “sedis” for θρόνου. Beza, “majestatis illius;” or, “throni virtutis magnificandi.” [1] [1] . — . Literally, “of the things which are being spoken.” — Conybeare and Howson. “Of which we are speaking.” — Craik.” In the course of being spoken.” — Turner. “To what has been hitherto said.”— Ebrard. Κεφάλ. “The prominent point.” — Turner. “The crowning point.” — Craik. “‘Sum’will do here, if understood not of a recapitulation, but as a product resulting from all that goes before.” — Ebrard. “The most important thing in regard to what we are now treating of.” — Stuart. — ED. Hebrews 8:1.— Now of the things that are spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.This first verse contains two things: 1. A preface unto that part of the ensuing discourse which immediately concerns the priesthood of Christ, unto the end of verse 5. 2. A declaration of the first pre-eminence of our high priest; which the apostle would have us in an especial manner to consider.First, The preface is in these words, κεφάλαιονδὲἐπὶτοῖςλεγομένοις: which may be considered either as unto its design in general, or as unto the sense of the words: —1. The design of the apostle in this interlocution (which is not unusual with him), is to stir up the Hebrews unto a diligent consideration of what he insisted on, and to leave an impression of it on their minds. And this he doth for two reasons: — (1.) Lest the length and difficulty of his preceding discourse should have any way discomposed their minds, or wearied them in their attention, so as that they could not well retain the substance of what he pleaded. In such cases it was always usual with them who pleaded important causes before the wisest judges, to recapitulate what had been spoken at length before, and to show what hath been evinced by the arguments they had used in their plea. To this purpose speaks Quintilian, lib. 6: cap. i.:“Perorationis duplex ratio est posita, aut in rebus, aut in affectibus. Rerum repetitio et congregatio, quae Graece dicitur ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, a quibusdam Latinorum enumeratio, et memoriam judicis reficit, et totam simul causam ante oculos ponit; et etiam si per singula minus moverat, turba valet. In hac, quaae repetemus quam brevissime dicenda sunt, et (quod Graeco verbo patet) decurrendum per capita.”How this whole course is steered by the apostle in this place is easy for any one to observe. (2.) Because of the importance of the matter in hand. He is treating of the very head of all the differences between the law and the gospel, between those who adhered unto Mosaical institutions and those who embraced the faith. Hence he calleth them unto a renewed attention unto what he delivered. For herein he set life and death before them, and was zealous for them, and earnest with them, that they would choose life, and not die in their unbelief.2. The sense of the words is to be considered. Κεφάλαιον is “capitulum,” “caput;” properly the “head” of any living creature. But the most frequent use of it is in a sense metaphorical, as it is here used by the apostle. And so it hath a double sense and use, whereunto it is principally applied (for it hath also other significations). For,(1.) It is taken for that which is chief and principal in any matter, business, or cause. Κεφάλαιονὅλουτοῦπράγματος, Isoc.; — ”The head of the whole business.” κεφάλαιονδὴπαιδείας, κέγομεντὴνὀρθὴντροφήν, Plato, de Legib., lib.; — ”The principal thing in education or instruction.” And so is “caput” used among the Latins: “Caput est in omni procuratione negotii et muneris publici, ut avaritiae pellatur etiam minima suspicio;” — ”This is the chief or principal thing in the management of all public affairs, that all suspicion of covetousness be far away.” (2.) It is taken for the sum and substance of what hath been spoken or declared, reduced into a short scheme: ῾Ωςδὲἐνκεφαλαίῳεἰπεῖν, — “Ut summatim dicam,” Demosthenes. And so some render these words “summatim dicendo.” And Isocrates hath an expression directly answering that of the apostle in this place, Nicoc.: Κεφάλαιονδὲτῶνεἰρημένων, — ”The sum of what hath been spoken.” So ψΰֹ ?ωׁ, “caput,” the “head,” is used in the Hebrew: ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μαִּ ?ιϊִ ?ωָּׂ ?ΰΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ψΰֹ ?ωׁ αְּ ?πֵ ?ιΰּ, Exodus 30:12; — ”When thou takest the head” (the “sum”) of the children of Israel.” So also Numbers 4:2. And in this sense is ἀνακεφαλαιοῦμαι, used by our apostle, as some think, Ephesians 1:10 : but it may have another sense in that place.In whether of these two significations it is here used by our apostle, will best appear from the consideration of what it is applied unto, — ἐπὶτοῖςλεγομένοις. For these words also are capable of a double interpretation.(1.) ᾿Επί may be put for ἐν, “in” or “among;” and then the things themselves treated of may be intended., And if so, κεφάλαιον requires the first signification, “the chief and principal thing” or “matter:” ‘Among all the things treated of, this is the principal;’— as indeed it is, and that which all other things in debate did depend upon.(2.) If ἐπί be in a manner redundant, and no more is intended but τῶνλεγομένων, “of the things spoken,” then κεφάλαιον is to be taken in the second signification, and denotes a recapitulation of them: ‘This is that which my arguments amount unto, the sum of what I have pleaded.’Both these senses are consistent. For the apostle in this and the ensuing verses doth both briefly recapitulate what he had evinced by his preceding arguments, and also declare what is the principal thing that he had contended for and proved. I incline unto the latter signification of the word, respected in our translation; yet so as that the former also is true, and safely applicable unto the text. And some directions we may take from the wisdom of the apostle in this management of his present subject, in our preaching or teaching of spiritual things; for, — Obs. 1. When the nature and weight of the matter treated of, or the variety of arguments wherein it is concerned, do require that our discourse of it should be drawn forth unto a length more than ordinary, it is useful to refresh the minds and relieve the memories of our hearers, by a brief recapitulation of the things insisted on. — It is so, I say, sometimes; as this way is taken once, and but once, by our apostle. When it is necessary, is left unto the wisdom and choice of those who are called unto this work. I mean, of such who, laboring diligently and conscientiously in the discharge of it, do really consider at all times what is for the benefit and edification of their hearers. But this is to be done only on great and important occasions. The usual way of the repetition of the heads of sermons before preached, is, in my judgment, useless and unprofitable. Obs. 2. When doctrines are important, and such as the eternal welfare of the souls of men are immediately concerned in, we are by all means to endeavor an impression of them on the minds of our hearers. — Be they never so precious and worthy of all acceptation, ofttimes they will not obtain an entrance into men’s minds, unless they have an edge ministerially put upon them. Wherefore they are by all suitable means, with gravity and zeal, to be called unto a diligent attendance unto them. Weight is to be laid doctrinally, in their delivery, on things that are of weight really in themselves. And this is the first part of this verse, or the preface of what ensues, Secondly, The second part of it, in the following words, contains the first general pre-eminence of our high priest, and that taken from his present and eternal state or condition. And there are three things considerable in the words:1. Our relation unto this high priest. 2. The general denotation of him. 3. His eminency and dignity in particular above all others.1. Our relation unto him is expressed in the word ἔχομεν, “we have.” For the apostle, together with his assertion of the priesthood of Christ, and the declaration of the nature of it, doth frequently intersert the mention of our interest therein, or our relation unto him in the discharge of that office: “Such an high priest became us,” Hebrews 7:26; “We have not an high priest that cannot,” etc., Hebrews 4:15; “The high priest of our profession,” Hebrews 3:1; and here, “We have such an high priest.” And to the same purpose, “We have an altar,” Hebrews 13:10. And three things the apostle seems to design herein: —(1.) The dignity of the Christian church, as now separated from the church of the Jews. In all their confidence in their worship, that which they principally boasted of was their high priest and his office. He was anointed with the holy oil. He wore the garments that were made “for beauty and for glory.” He had on his forehead a plate of gold with that glorious inscription, “Holiness unto Jehovah.” And he alone entered into the holy place, having made expiation for the sins of the people. The Christians, who were now separated from them, they despised, as those who had no lot nor portion in all this glory; — no such visible high priest as they had. So the same persons were afterwards reproached by the Pagans, that they had neither temples, nor altars, nor images or visible deities. So hard was it to call off the carnal minds of men from things visible and sensible in divine worship, unto those that are spiritual and heavenly. And herein lies the reproach of degenerated Christians, especially those of the Roman church, that whereas the gospel, in asserting the pure, heavenly, spiritual worship of God, had prevailed against the world, and triumphed over all that is carnal, invented to please the senses and satisfy the superstitious minds of men; they have made themselves the scorn and spoil of their conquered enemies, by returning to the same kind of worship, in various degrees, which was before destroyed and triumphed over.. And as therein they seem to make a public acknowledgment, that the gospel, in the management of their predecessors, had much injured the world, in the introduction of a worship spiritual and divine, excluding all those visible glories which it had found out to entertain the minds of men; so it will appear in the issue that they have made themselves transgressors, by building up what was before destroyed. But the primitive Christians did still oppose the spiritual worship of sanctified souls, in the observation of the institutions of Christ, unto all the pretences of glory and beauty pleaded to be in their outward forms. So the apostle here, to evince the dignity of the Christian church against the unbelief of the Jews, pleads their relation unto an invisible, spiritual high priest, exalted in glory and dignity far above all that they could enjoy by virtue of a carnal commandment. ‘Whatever you think of us, whatever you boast of yourselves, “we have an high priest;”’and that such an one as he immediately declares. (2.) He would teach us, that whatever be the glory and dignity of this high priest, without an interest in him, without an especial relation unto him, unless “we have an high priest,” we are not concerned therein. Many do give their assent unto this truth, that Christ is a high priest; but how or wherein he is so to them they know not, nor yet do they make any use of him as such. Yea, unto many, the principal mysteries of the gospel are but mere notions and barren speculations; what it is to be practically influenced by them, and to live in the power of them, they know not. That there is a high priest, they believe, but what it is for them to have a high priest, they cannot understand. But this is that we are to look after, if we intend any benefit by it. And we may know whether we have a high priest or no, really and substantially, by the use which we make of him as such in all our approaches unto God. For he presides over the whole house of God, and all the sacred services thereof. None can come unto the Father but by him. Through him have we boldness, through him have we ability, through him have we access unto and acceptance with God. He presents both our persons and duties unto him. Without a daily improvement by faith of the office of Christ unto these ends, it cannot be said that we have a high priest. (3.) That the office of the priesthood of Christ is confined unto the church, unto believers. Theirs he is, and for them alone doth he administer before God in this office.2. There is a general denotation of this priest, as to his qualifications, in the word τοιοῦτον. He doth not now say, that ‘we have an high priest,’ only; nor ‘another high priest, not according to the ordinances of the law,’ — which he had proved before, from the type of Melchisedec and the testimony of the psalmist; but moreover such an one as hath that dignity and those excellencies which he now ascribes unto him. The salvation of the church doth not depend merely on its having a high priest, — which yet in itself is absolutely necessary thereunto, — but on his dignity and excellency, his exaltation and glory. Wherefore it is affirmed of him, that he is “such an high priest as is set on the right hand of the throne of the glorious Majesty in the heavens.” And two things we must consider in these words: (1.) The design of the apostle in them; and,(2.) Their particular interpretation: —(1.) The design of the apostle, as we observed before, was not to prove the reality of his priesthood, that he was truly a priest; nor yet absolutely the qualifications of his person; but his dignity and excellency. For our LORD Jesus Christ, when he was on the earth, and whilst he offered up to God his great propitiatory sacrifice, was, as unto his outward state and condition, inferior unto the Levitical high priests, who were in great honor and veneration among the people. But the state and condition of any in the bearing and discharge of an office is not to be esteemed and reckoned from what he condescends unto, with respect unto any action or duty belonging unto that office, — for a king may condescend unto very mean services, when the condition of his subjects and good of the kingdom require it of him, — but it is to be reckoned from his durable estate, and perpetual abode therein. Now, although our LORD Christ was for a season in a condition of deep humiliation, taking on him “the form of a servant,” and being esteemed even as “a worm, and no man,” — which was necessary unto the sacrifice he had to offer, — yet as unto his durable state, wherein he continues in the discharge of his office, he is incomparably exalted above all the high priests under the law. And this is that which the apostle designs here to declare. For what did the high priest do, after he had offered the anniversary sacrifice of expiation unto God? He entered, indeed, into the holy place with the blood of the sacrifice, presenting it there before the august pledges of the presence of God; but all the while he was there, he stood before the typical throne, or ark and mercy-seat, with holy awe and reverence; and immediately on the discharge of his present duty, he was to withdraw and go out of the holy place. A great privilege this was, and a great honor was herein put on the high priest; for all others, both priests and people, were everlastingly excluded out of that sanctuary. But what is this unto the glory of our high priest? For after he had offered his great sacrifice unto God, he “entered not into the holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself.” And he entered, not to stand with humble reverence before the throne, but to sit on the throne of God, at his right hand. Nor did he do so to abide there for a season, but for evermore. (2.) As to the words themselves, we may observe, that the apostle three times in this epistle maketh use of them with some little variety, Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 12:2, and in this place. Hebrews 1:3, “He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” where there is no mention of the throne. Hebrews 12:2, “He is set down at the right hand of the throne of God;” where “Majesty” is not added. Here we have both, “The right hand of the throne of the Majesty.” In the first place, the glory of his kingly power is intended; in the last, his exaltation and glory, as they ensued on his sufferings; and in this place, the declaration of his glory in his priestly office. The same glory and advancement hath respect unto various acts and powers in the LORD Christ: — [1. The manner of his enjoyment of this dignity and glory is expressed in the word ἐκάθισεν, “he sat down.” Hereof there was nothing typical in the legal high priest, who never sat down in the holy place. But as he was in many things typed by the Levitical priests, so in what they could not reach unto, he was represented in Melchisedec, who was both a king and a priest. And hence he is prophesied of as “a priest upon his throne,” Zechariah 6:13. And the immutable stability of his state and condition is also intended.[2. The dignity itself consists in the place of his residence, where he sat down; and this was ἐνδεξιᾷ, “at the right hand.” See the exposition hereof, Hebrews 1:3.[3. This right hand is said to be τοῦθρόνουτῆςμεγαλωσύνης. There is frequent mention in the Scripture of the throne of God. A throne is “insigne regium,” — an ensign of royal power. That intended by it is the manifestation of the glory and power of God, in his authority and sovereign rule over all. [4. This throne is here said to be τῆςμεγαλωσύνης, of “Majesty,” or “glorious greatness and power;” that is, of God himself, for his essential glory and power are intended. “The right hand of the throne of Majesty,” is the same with “the right hand of God;” only God is represented in all his glory, — as on his throne. Christ is set down at the right hand of God, as considered in all his glorious power and rule. Higher expression there cannot be used to lead us into a holy adoration of the tremendous invisible glory which is intended. And this is the eternal stable condition of the LORD Christ, our high priest, — a state of inconceivable power and glory. Herein he dischargeth the remaining duties of his mediation, according as the nature of his especial offices do require. In this state doth he take care to provide for the application of the benefits of his oblation or sacrifice unto believers; and that by intercession, whereof we have spoken. [5. Thus is he said to be ἐνοὐρανοῖς, — in the heavens;” as in the other place ἐνὐψηλοῖς, “in the highest,” — that is, heavens. And by “the heavens” here, not these visible, aspectable heavens are intended, — for with respect unto them he is said to be “exalted above all heavens,” and to have “passed through them,” — but it is that which the Scripture calls “the heaven of heavens,” 1 Kings 8:27, wherein is the especial residence and manifestation of the glorious presence of God. With respect hereunto our Savior hath taught us to call on “our Father which is in heaven.” And from the words we may observe, that, —Obs. 3. The principal glory of the priestly office of Christ depends on the glorious exaltation of his person. — To this end is it here pleaded by the apostle, and thereby he evinceth his glorious excellency above all the high priests under the law. To evidence and make useful this observation, the things ensuing are to be observed: — 1. The divine nature of Christ is capable of no real exaltation by an addition of glory, but only by the way of manifestation. So God absolutely is often in the Scriptures said to be “exalted;” — that is, he is so when he himself, by any acts of grace or providence, makes the eternal glory of his power, his holiness, or any other property of his nature, manifest and conspicuous; or when others ascribe unto him the glory and praise that are his due. So only may the LORD Christ be exalted, or made glorious, with respect unto his divine nature, wherein he is essentially “over all, God blessed for ever.” And there is in this way an exaltation or manifestation of glory peculiar and proper unto the person of Christ, as distinct from the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit; for he did in a peculiar way and manner for a season forego and leave his glory, as to the manifestation of it. For “being” (essentially) “in the form of God, and counting it not robbery to be equal with God,” yet he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,” Philippians 2:6-7.In his incarnation, and his whole converse on the earth, he cast a veil over his eternal glory, so as that it appeared not in its own native lustre. Those, indeed, who believed on him, “beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth,” John 1:14;but they saw it “darkly,” and “as in a glass,” during the time of his humiliation. But after his resurrection his glory was unveiled, and made conspicuous, even when he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead,” Romans 1:4.2. The person of Christ, as to his divine nature, was always on the throne, and is incapable of the exaltation here mentioned, of sitting down at the right hand of it. Although “he came down from heaven,” although “he descended into the lower parts of the earth,” although he was exposed unto all miseries, was “obedient unto death, the death of the cross,” wherein “God redeemed his church with his own blood,” yet did he all this in the human nature that he assumed. His divine person can no more really leave the throne of majesty than cease to be. So he saith of himself,“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Sea of man, which is in heaven,” John 3:13,His ascension into heaven in this place, which preceded the actual ascension of his human nature, is nothing but his admission into the knowledge of heavenly things, of all the secrets of the counsel of God (see John 1:18, Matthew 11:27); for it is of the knowledge of heavenly mysteries that he is there discoursing with Nicodemus. In his incarnation, he came down from heaven, assuming a nature upon the earth; — the highest condescension of God, And whereas the acting of his power on the earth is often called his coming down from heaven, Genesis 18:21, Isaiah 64:1, how much more may this infinite condescension of the second person in assuming our nature be so called! But yet he was still in heaven; — ”the Son of man, which is in heaven.” In his divine nature he was still on the throne of majesty; for this being an inseparable property of divine authority, he could never really forego it. Then, —3. It is the human nature of Christ, or Christ in his human nature, or with respect unto it, that is capable of this real exaltation, by a real addition of glory. It is not the manifestation of his glory with respect unto his human nature, but the real collation of glory on him after his ascension, that is intended. This the whole Scripture testifieth unto, namely, a real communication of glory unto Christ by the Father, after his ascension, which he had not before. See Luke 24:26; John 17:24; Acts 2:33, Romans 14:9; Ephesians 1:20-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 12:2; 1 Peter 1:21; Revelation 5:12. And concerning this glory given him of God, we may observe, — (1.) That it is not absolutely infinite and essentially divine glory. This cannot be communicated unto any. A creature, as was the human nature of Christ, cannot be made God, by an essential communication of divine properties unto it. Neither are they so communicable, nor is that a capable subject of their inhesion. Wherefore they speak dangerously who assert a real communication of the properties of the one nature of Christ unto the other, so as that the human nature of Christ shall be omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient: neither doth the union of the two natures in the person of Christ require any more the transfusion of the divine properties into the human, than those of the human into the divine. If, therefore, by that union, the human nature should be thought to be rendered subjectively omnipotent and omnipresent, the divine, on the other hand, must become limited and finite. But whatever belongs unto Christ with respect unto either nature, belongs unto the person of Christ; and therein he is all that he is in either nature; and in both hath done and doth what in either of them he hath done and doth, they yet continuing distinct in their essential properties. (2.) Yet this exaltation and glory of Christ in his human nature is not only absolutely above, but also of another kind, than the utmost of what any other created being either hath or is capable of. It is more than any other creature is capable of, because it is founded in the union of his person; — a privilege which no other creature can ever pretend unto, or be made partaker of unto eternity, Hebrews 2:16. This renders his glory in his exaltation of another kind than that of the most glorious creatures in their best condition. Again, it consists greatly in that power and authority over the whole creation, and every individual in it, and all their concerns, which is committed unto him. See our explanation hereof at large on Hebrews 1:3. 4. This exaltation of the person of Christ gives glory unto his office, as the apostle here declares. It is the person of Christ which is vested with the office of the priesthood, or God could not have “redeemed the church with his own blood;” although he exercises all the duties of it, both here below and above, in the human nature only. And it is the person of Christ which is thus exalted and made glorious, although the especial subject of this exaltation and glory be the human nature only. And this gives glory unto his office; for, — (1.) This is a manifest pledge and evidence of the absolute perfection of his oblation, and that “‘by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified.” When the high priest of old appeared for a while in the holy place, he returned again unto his former station, that he might be in a condition to offer another sacrifice at the return of the year; and hence doth our apostle prove that none of the worshippers were perfected by those sacrifices. But our high priest, having offered himself once for all, now sitting down for ever at the right hand of God, in glory and majesty inconceivable, it is evident that he hath fully expiated the sins of all that come unto God by him. And this declares the glory of his office. (2.) By his glorious power he makes all things subservient unto the ends of his mediation; for he is given to be “head over all things to the church.” All things are in his power and at his disposal, as he is exalted at the right hand of God; and he will assuredly make them all work together for the good of them that do believe. And, —(3.) He is able to render the persons and duties of believers accepted in the sight of God. To present them unto God is the great remaining duty of his office. That they be so, is their only real concern in this world, and that alone which their minds are principally exercised about. And what greater security can they have hereof than the interest and glory which this their high priest hath in heaven? 1 John 2:1-2. The second pre-eminence of our LORD Christ as our high priest, which the apostle calls over in this summary of his discourse, is contained in this second verse. Hebrews 8:2. — Τῶνἀγίωνλειτουργὸς, καὶτῆςσκηνῆςτῆςἀληθινῆς, ἥνἔπηξενὁΚύριοςκαὶοὐκἄνθρωπος.Λειτουρηγός, “minister.” Τῶνἁγίων. Vulg. Lat., “sanctorum.” Rhem., “of the holies.” Syr., γְּ ?αֵ ?ιϊϊχεּ ?γְ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ, “of the holy house,” or “domus sanctuarii;” “of the house of the sanctuary.” “Sanctuarii,” “of the sanctuary,” as we shall see. ῞ΗνἔπηξενὁΚύριος. Vulg. Lat., “quod fixit Deus,” “which God hath fixed” or “pitched.” Rhem., “which our LORD pight;” following the original as to the word Κύριος. Syr. ΰַ ?μָ ?δָ ?ΰ“God” εְ ?μָ ?ΰαַּ ?ιπָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ“and not a son of man.” Some copies of the Vulgar Latin, “Dominus.”Hebrews 8:2. — A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the LORD pitched, and not man.There are two parts of these words, expressing, — 1. What is affirmed of our high priest; namely, that he was “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle.”2. An amplification of what is so affirmed, by the description and distinction of this tabernacle; “which the LORD fixed, and not man.”In the first also there are two things: — 1. The assertion of his office; he is “a minister.”2. The assignation and limitation of his discharge of that office; it is “the sanctuary and true tabernacle.” 1. It is affirmed that he is λειτουργός, “a minister.” Having declared the glory and dignity which he is exalted unto, as “sitting down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,” what can be further expected from him? There he lives, eternally happy in the enjoyment of his own blessedness and glory. Is it not reasonable it should be so, after all the hardships and miseries which he, being the Son of God, underwent in this world? Who can expect that he should any longer condescend unto office and duty? Neither generally have men any other thoughts concerning him. But where, then, would lie the advantage of the church in his exaltation, which the apostle designs in an especial manner to demonstrate? Wherefore unto the mention of it he immediately subjoins the continuation of his office. He is still λειτουργός, — a “public minister” for the church.Λειτουργέω is “to minister,” either with God or before God, as a priest for others; or for God, in the name of God towards others, as do magistrates and ministers of the gospel. And therefore all these sorts are called λειτουργοί, or said to be λειτουργῆσαι. The LORD Christ is expressly spoken of here as a priest; it is a name of his priestly office, wherein he acts towards God. Nor is he anywhere called or said to be διάκονος in any of his actings from God towards us; although he be said therein to be διάκονος, Romans 15:8 : that is, he was so in the days of his flesh, but that name now no way belongeth unto him. He is not therefore styled “a minister,” because he executeth the purposes of God towards us, as Schlichtingius fancieth; but he acts towards God and before God on our behalf, according to the duty of a priest. He went into heaven to “appear in the presence of God for us,” and to discharge his office before God on our behalf. And it is granted also, that by virtue thereof he doth also communicate all good things from God unto us; for the whole administration of things sacred between God and the church is committed unto him. And we must observe, that, —Obs. 1. The LORD Christ, in the height of his glory, condescends to discharge the office of a public minister in the behalf of the church. — We are not to bound our faith on Christ as unto what he did for us on the earth. The life and efficacy of the whole of his mediation depend on what he did antecedently thereunto, and what he doth consequently unto it; for in these things doth the glory of his love and grace most eminently appear. Antecedently unto what he did on earth, and to make way for it, there was his infinite condescension in assuming our nature. He was “in the form of God,” and in the eternal enjoyment of all the blessedness which the divine nature is essentially accompanied withal. Yet being thus “rich,” this was his “grace,” that “for our sakes he became poor.” This ineffable grace and love of Christ is the principal object of our faith and admiration, as it is declared by the apostle, Philippians season, to undertake the work of mediation; so now he hath resumed his glory, as to the manifestation of his divine power, and hath the highest addition of glory in his human nature, by his exaltation at the right hand of God, yet he continueth his care of and love towards the church, so as to discharge the office of a public minister in their behalf. As all the shame, reproach, misery, with death, that he was to undergo on the earth, deterred him not from undertaking this work; so all the glory which he is environed withal in heaven diverts him not from continuing the discharge of it. 2. There is a limitation of this ministration of our high priest, with respect unto its proper object, and that in a double expression. For he is a minister,(1.) Τῶνἁγίων.(2.) Τῆςσκηνῆςτῆςἀληθιν'ης.(1.) He is so τῶνἁγίων. The word may be either of the masculine or of the neuter gender, and so respect either persons or things. If it be taken in the former way, it is of the saints. And this is the ordinary sense of ἅγιοι in the books of the New Testament, — ”saints,” or “holy persons.” But they cannot be here precisely intended; and the apostle useth this word frequently in another sense in this epistle. Τῶνἁγίων, from ἅγια, of the neuter gender, may have a double signification:[1. Of holy things in general; [2. Of holy places: — [1. Of things. So the Vulg. Lat. renders the word, “sanctorum;” which the Rhemists translate “holies;” that is, of holy persons or holy things. And ours place “holy things” in the margin. And the sense is true, if the signification of the word be extended unto all holy things; for the ministration of them all is committed unto Jesus Christ. But the word hath yet a more peculiar signification. [2. The inmost part of the tabernacle our apostle calls ἅγιαἁγίων, Hebrews 9:3; that is, χֹ ?ψֶ ?ωׁ δַ ?χֵּ ?γָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν, — the “holy of holies,” “the most holy place.” And absolutely he calls it ἅγια, “the holies,” Hebrews 9:8; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 13:11. And in answer thereunto, he calleth our spiritual presence before God, whereunto we have an access by the blood of Christ, by the same name, Hebrews 10:19. And hence the word is rendered by sanctuary;” — particularly that part of the tabernacle whereinto the high priest entered alone, and that but once a year. Take this sanctuary properly and literally, and Christ was not the minister of it. He never entered into it, nor could, nor had any right so to do; because it belonged and was appropriated unto others, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 10:4. Wherefore we must take our direction herein from the words following. For mentioning the whole tabernacle, as he doth here one part of it, namely, the sanctuary, he gives it a note of distinction from the old tabernacle of Moses, — ”the true tabernacle.” So must “the sanctuary” be distinguished from that of old. It is that which answers thereunto. And this is nothing but heaven itself. Heaven, not as considered absolutely, but as the place of God’s glorious presence, the temple of the living God, where the worship of the church is presented, and all its affairs transacted. This is called God’s sanctuary, Psalms 102:19 : “He looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth.” And so the apostle himself plainly interprets this place, Hebrews 9:24 : “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself.”And this is called “the sanctuary,” because there doth really dwell and abide all that was typically represented in the sanctuary below. And therein doth the LORD Christ discharge his priestly office for the good of the church. It was a joyful time with the church of old, when the high priest entered into the holy place; for he carried with him the blood wherewith atonement was made for all their sins. Yet he was quickly again to leave that place, and his ministration therein. But our high priest abides in the sanctuary, in the holy place, for ever, always representing the efficacy of the blood whereby atonement was made for all our sins. As no interposition between heaven and us should discourage us, while Christ is there ministering for us; so his being there will draw our hearts and minds thither continually, if so be we are really interested in his holy ministrations. These things are to some in darkness and obscurity; if not wholly out of their sight, yet out of their practice. In their faith, worship, and obedience, they find no concernment in the heavenly ministrations of this high priest. Things within the veil are hid from them. Yet would such persons be esteemed Christians. But the relief, the direction, the consolation, which true believers do or may, in the due exercise of faith, receive by the consideration hereof, are gracious and pleasant, yea, full of glory. (2.) The second part of the limitation of the ministration of our high priest is in these words, καὶτῆςσκηνῆςτῆςἀληθινῆς, — ”and of that true tabernacle;” which is further described by its efficient cause, expressed both positively and negatively, “which the LORD pitched, and not man.”Expositors generally agree that by “true” in this place, that which is substantial, solid, and abiding, is intended; for it is opposed unto that which is umbratile, transitory, and figurative. The old tabernacle could in no sense be said to be false, or deceiving; for it was an ordinance of God, set up and used by his appointment, and gave true directions unto its proper end. But it was figurative and typical, denoting somewhat that was to be the true and substantial tabernacle of God. So is the expression interpreted, John 6:32, “Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven;” — that is, spiritually substantial and abiding, nourishing the soul unto eternal life. But what is the “tabernacle” here intended, deserves our diligent inquiry. And I find a fourfold sense to be given of these words, “the true tabernacle:” — [1. Some (as Grotius) take it for “this whole universe, the fabric of heaven and earth.” This some, even among the heathen, have called “the tabernacle and temple of God.” This he hath made as it were to dwell in, as a certain fixed place for the manifestation of his glory. And whereas the ministry of Christ, at least as unto the effects of it, is not confined unto any certain place, above or below, to no material tabernacle or temple, the whole universe is called his tabernacle, as being that which is true, substantial, and abiding. And thus it may answer what is affirmed of “all power being given unto him in heaven and in earth,” and his being “given to be the head over all things unto the church.” I see nothing absurd in this opinion, nor contradictory unto the analogy of faith. But the design of the apostle in using these words and expressions, will not allow this to be his especial meaning; for somewhat he doth intend that the old tabernacle did typify and represent, which it did not the fabric of the universe, but that especial pattern which was showed unto Moses in the mount. [2. Some, with more probability, do judge that by “‘the true tabernacle,’ the universal spiritual, catholic church,” is intended; for this is compared expressly unto a tabernacle, Isaiah 33:20; Isaiah 54:2. And herein doth God dwell, and walk amongst men. Hereof Christ may be said to be the minister; for as he is the head of it, so he dwelleth in it. And it is undoubtedly in the behalf of this tabernacle that he continueth to administer in the holy place; and all the benefits of his ministration do redound hereunto. But yet all this doth not suffice to have the LORD Christ called the minister of this tabernacle. This, indeed, is that which he ministereth for; but it is not that which he ministereth by. The tabernacle and the things contained in it were the means of worship, and that which was materially employed in divine service; which the catholic church answereth not unto. Neither was the tabernacle of old, which is here alluded unto, a type of the church, but of Christ himself. [3. Most expositors take “the tabernacle,” as they do “the sanctuary,” for heaven itself. And they would have the word “true,” by a zeugma, to belong unto the sanctuary as well as unto the tabernacle; which we have also before allowed. But yet this proveth not that the sanctuary and the tabernacle must be the same, though both be equally true in the same sense. This way go the Greek expositors, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and OEcumenius, on the place. And because this tabernacle is said to be “fixed of God,” Chrysostom reproacheth them who say that the heavens do move and are spherical, though he never had a prophetical dream of the Copernican hypothesis, But yet, as Beza well observes, they forsook their own interpretation on Hebrews 9:11-12, where the tabernacle is spoken of in the same sense that here it is. But besides the reasons that shall be given immediately for another interpretation, two things will not comply with this: For, 1st. There is no reason why the apostle should express the same thing, first under the name of the sanctuary, and then of a tabernacle.2dly. There is no especial reason why it should be added peculiarly concerning the heavens, “which God hath fixed, and not man;” for this was never questioned. [4. I say, therefore, that by this “true tabernacle,” the human nature of the LORD Christ himself is intended. Hereof he is the minister; herein doth he minister before God above. For, — 1st. Hereof the old tabernacle was a type. Thence is the expression taken, and thereunto is opposition made in the epithet, “true.” This, therefore, is our best direction and rule in the interpretation of this expression. For look what that type did signify, what was to be the substantial antitype of it, — that is the “true tabernacle,” whereof the LORD Christ is the minister; for all agree that it is called “true” in opposition and answer unto that which was umbratile and figurative. Now that tabernacle was not erected to be a type of heaven, nor is any such thing intimated in the Scripture. A token, pledge, and means it was, of God’s presence with his people here on earth, of his nearness unto them; whence also he is said to “dwell among them.” But this he doth really and substantially only through Christ. He therefore alone is this “true tabernacle.” For, — 2dly. In answer hereunto, when he was incarnate, and came into the world, it is said that ἐσκήνωσε, “he fixed his tabernacle among us,” John 1:14; that is the signification of the word which we have translated to “dwell,” because the tabernacle of old was the way and means of God’s dwelling among the people, in the pledges of his gracious presence. All that old curious structure, for a habitation for God, did only represent his taking our nature upon him, fixing his tent thereby among men. What was the pattern of this tabernacle, showed unto Moses on the mount, we must inquire, on Hebrews 8:5. 3dly. He himself called his own body his temple, with respect unto the temple of Jerusalem, which was of the same nature and use with the tabernacle, John 2:19-22. And this he did, because his body was that true, substantial temple and tabernacle whereof he was the minister.4thly. That is the true tabernacle, which God truly and really inhabiteth, and on the account whereof he is our God. This was the nature, use, and end of the tabernacle of old. God dwelt therein, in the signs and pledges of his presence; and was on the account thereof the God of that people, according to the terms of the covenant between them, Exodus 25:8; Revelation 21:3. That, therefore, wherein God dwells really and substantially, and on the account whereof he is our God in the covenant of grace, that, and no other, is the true tabernacle. But this is in Christ alone; for “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9. Thus the human nature of Christ is that true, substantial tabernacle, wherein God dwelleth personally.5thly. He is the only way and means of our approach unto God in holy worship, as the tabernacle was of old; which we have elsewhere declared.That alone which seems to be of any force against this interpretation, is, ‘That the human nature of Christ is that whereby he is the minister of this tabernacle; it cannot therefore be the tabernacle itself wherein he doth administer: and therefore the place of his abode must be intended by the tabernacle whereof he is the minister.’ Ans. By the same rule it would follow, that because Christ is the high priest, he is not the sacrifice; for the priest and the sacrifice among men cannot be the same. Howbeit Christ offered himself only. And the reason of these things is, that he was in his own person, and what he did therein, to answer all those types of priest, sacrifice, altar, tabernacle, and what belonged thereunto. He was the body and substance of them all, Colossians 2:17. No one of them was able to represent the fullness of grace that was to be in Christ; therefore were there many of them ordained, and those of various sorts. And therefore his being eminently intended in one of them, no way hinders his being so in another. He was all in himself, — priest, tabernacle, altar, and sacrifice. Again; The efficient cause of this true tabernacle is declared, both positively and negatively; “which the LORD pitched, and not man,” — ἥνἔπηξενὁΚύριος. It is in the article ἥν confined unto the tabernacle, and extends not unto the sanctuary mentioned before; “of the true tabernacle, which the LORD pitched.” And hereby this tabernacle is distinguished from both the sanctuaries, the typical here below, and the real above, even heaven itself; for it was not of the same building with either of them, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 9:11.῎Επηξεν, “pitched,” “fixed.” It is a word proper unto the erection and establishment of a tabernacle. The fixing of stakes and pillars, with the fastening of cords thereunto, was the principal means of setting up a tabernacle, Isaiah 54:2. The preparation of the human nature or body of Christ is that which is intended. “A body hast thou prepared me,” Hebrews 10:5. And this body was to be taken down, and folded up for a season, and afterwards to be erected again, without the breaking or loss of any part of it. This of all buildings was peculiar unto a tabernacle, and so was it with the body of Christ in his death and resurrection. ῾ΟΚύριος. The author of this work was “the LORD.” This is the word or name whereby the writers of the New Testament do express the name Jehovah. And whereas, in the revelation of that name, God declared that self-subsisting firmitude and unchangeableness of his nature, whereby he would infallibly give subsistence unto his word, and accomplishment unto his promises, the apostle hath respect unto it in this great work, wherein all the promises of God became “yea and amen.” How this tabernacle was prepared and fixed immediately by the Holy Ghost, acting the infinite power of God alone therein, I have at large elsewhere declared. It is added negatively, “and not man.” Some suppose a pleonasm in the words, and that this expression is redundant; for to say it was pitched by God, sufficiently includes that it was not done by man. But the expression is emphatical, and the apostle hath an especial design in it; for, — 1. The old tabernacle itself may in some sense be said to be pitched by God. It was done by his command, order, and direction, as were all other ordinances of his appointment. But it cannot be said that God pitched it, and not man; which excludes the whole service and ministry of man: for the ministry of men was used in the preparation, framing, and erection of it. But the pitching of this “true tabernacle” was the work of God alone, without any ministry or service of men: “A body hast thou prepared me.” 2. The apostle hath an especial respect unto the incarnation of Christ, without the concurrence of man in natural generation. This is expressed in answer unto that inquiry of the blessed Virgin, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Luke 1:34-35.This was “the true tabernacle, which the LORD pitched,” and whereof Christ is the “minister.” And we may observe, — Obs. 2. That all spiritually sacred and holy things are laid up in Christ. — All the utensils of holy worship of old, all means of sacred light and purification, were all placed and laid up in the tabernacle. And these were all “patterns of the heavenly things themselves,” which are all laid up in Christ, “the true tabernacle.” They are all enclosed in him, and it will be in vain to seek for them elsewhere. For, Obs. 3. He hath the ministration of all these holy things committed unto him. — He is the minister both of the sanctuary and tabernacle, and of all things contained in them. Herein he stands in no need of help or assistance; nor can any take his work out of his hand.Obs. 4. The human nature of Christ is the only true tabernacle, wherein God would dwell personally and substantially. — The dwelling of God with men was ever looked on as an infinite condescension. So Solomon expressed it, in his prayer at the dedication of the temple, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee,” 1 Kings 8:27.But there are various degrees of this condescension, various kinds of this inhabitation of God among men. Under the old testament, he dwelt in the tabernacle and temple, by many symbols and pledges of his glorious presence. Such in especial were the ark and mercy-seat; whence that which was done before the ark is said to be done “before the LORD,” Exodus 30:8. This was, as Solomon expresseth it, a great condescension in the infinite, incomprehensible God; and there was a great glory accompanying this his presence. Under the new testament, God dwelleth in his saints by his Spirit, whereby they become a holy temple unto him. And of this inhabitation of God I have treated elsewhere. [2] But his dwelling in the human nature of Christ is quite of another nature than either of these; and his love with his condescension, inconceivably more conspicuous than in them. [2] See vol. 2:232, 3:549, 4:383, of the author’s miscellaneous works. — ED. Hence is that expression of our apostle: “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9. It is not any sign or token, it is not any effect of the divine power, goodness, and grace, that dwells in him, but “the fullness of the Godhead;” that is, the divine nature itself. And this dwelleth in him “bodily;” that is, by the assumption of the body or the human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God. How glorious should this be in our eyes! How did they admire the condescension of God of old, in his dwelling in the tabernacle and temple by the glorious signs of his presence! and yet was it all but a dark representation and shadow of this glorious love and grace, whereby he dwells in our nature in Christ. Obs. 5. The church hath lost nothing by the removal of the old tabernacle and temple, all being supplied by this sanctuary, true tabernacle, and minister thereof. — The glory and worship of the temple was that which the Jews would by no means part withal. They chose rather to reject Christ and the gospel than to part with the temple, and its outward, pompous worship. And it is almost incredible how the vain mind of man is addicted unto an outward beauty and splendor in religious worship. Take it away, and with the most you destroy all religion itself; — as if there were no beauty but in painting; no evidence of health or vigor of body, but in warts and wens. The Christians of old suffered in nothing more, from the prejudice of the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, than in this, that they had a religion without temples, altars, images, or any solemnity of worship. And in later ages men ceased not, until they had brought into Christianity itself a worship vying for external order, ceremony, pomp, and painting, with whatever was in the tabernacle or temple of old; coming short of it principally in this, that that was of God’s institution for a time, this of the invention of weak, superstitious, and foolish men. Thus is it in the church of Rome. And a hard thing it is to raise the minds of men unto a satisfaction in things merely spiritual and heavenly. They suppose they cannot make a worse change, nor more to their disadvantage, than to part with what is a present object and entertainment unto their senses, fancies, carnal affections, and superstitions, for that which they can have no benefit by, nor satisfaction in, but only in the exercise of faith and love, inclining us to that within the veil. Hence is there at this day so great a contest in the world about tabernacles and temples, modes of worship and ceremonies, which men have found out in the room of them which they cannot deny but God would have removed; for so they judge that he will be satisfied with their carnal ordinances in the church, when the time is come that he would bear his own no longer. But “unto them that believe Christ is precious” And this “true tabernacle,” with his ministration, is more unto them than all the old pompous ceremonies and services of divine institution, much more the superstitious observances of human invention. Obs. 6. We are to look for the gracious presence of God in Christ only. — Of old all the tokens and symbols of God’s presence were confined unto and included in the tabernacle. There were they to be found, and nowhere else. Many altars the people of old did erect elsewhere, many high places they found out and prepared: but they were all sin and misery unto them; God granted his presence unto none of them all, Hosea 8:11; Hosea 12:11. And many ways there are whereby men may and do seek after the presence of God, after his favor, and acceptance with him, not in and by this “true tabernacle:” but they labor in vain, and spend their strength for that which doth not profit; neither the love, nor grace, nor goodness, nor mercy of God, is elsewhere to be found, nor can we by any other way be made partakers of them. Obs. 7. It is by Christ alone that we can make our approach unto God in his worship. — All sacrifices of old were to be brought unto the door of the tabernacle. What was offered elsewhere was an abomination to the LORD. With the instruments, with the fire, with the incense that belonged unto the tabernacle, were they to be offered, and not otherwise. And it is now by Christ alone that we have an “access in one Spirit unto the Father,” Ephesians 2:18. He is the only way of going to him, John 14:6. And it is in and by his blood that he hath “consecrated a new and living way” unto the holy place, Hebrews 10:19-20.Obs. 8. It was an institution of God, that the people in all their distresses should look unto and make their supplications towards the tabernacle, or holy temple, 1 Kings 8:29-30. — And it is unto the LORD Christ alone, who is both the true tabernacle and the minister thereof, that we are to look in all our spiritual distresses.Obs. 9. If any one else can offer the body of Christ, he also is the minister of the true tabernacle. — For the LORD Christ did no more. He did but offer himself; and they that can offer him, do put themselves in his place. The summary description of our high priest designed is carried on in this verse. And the apostle manifests, that as he wanted nothing which any other high priest had, that was necessary unto the discharge of his office, so he had it all in a more eminent manner than any other had. Hebrews 8:3. — Πᾶςγὰρἀρχειρεὺςεἰςτὸπροσφέρεινδῶράτεκαὶθυσίαςκαθίσταται·ὅθενἀναγκαῖονἔχειντικαὶτοῦτοὅπροσενέγκῃ.Καθίσταταιεἰςτὸπροσφέρειν. Syr., γְּ ?χָ ?ΰֵ ?νγַּ ?πְ ?χַ ?ιִ ?α“qui stat ut offerat,” “who standeth” (that is, at the altar) “that he may offer;” rendering καθίσταται neutrally, the whole sense is imperfect, “For every high priest who standeth” (at the altar) “that he may offer gifts and sacrifices; therefore,” etc.Δῶρα. Syr., χιּ ?ιְ ?αָּ ?πֵ ?ΰ, “oblationem.” Vulg., “munera.” Some rather use “dona,” and some “donaria,” “sacred gifts.” Καὶθυσίας. Syr.. γְ ?αָ ?ηֵ ?ΰ. that is ζְ ?αָ ?ηִ ?ιν, “sacrifices.” Vulg., “hostias;” and the Rhemists, “hosts;” — It may be to countenance their name of the host in the mass.᾿Αναγκαῖον. Syr., ζָ ?γְ ?χָ ?ΰηֲ ?ιָ ?ϊ, “justum erat,” “aequum erat;” “it was just and equal.” Vulg., “necesse est,” in the present tense; “it is necessary.” Beza, “necesse fuit,” “it was necessary;” properly: and so the Syriac renders the verb substantive understood in the original, or included in the infinitive mood following, in the preterimperfect tense.῎Εχειν, “habere,” “hunt habere.” Syr., μְ ?δָ ?πָ ?ΰγְּ ?ιֶ ?δְ ?εֵ ?ΰμֵ ?δּ ?“huic ut esset ei;” “to this man that there should be to him,” or “with him.”῞Οπροσενεγκῆ. Vulg., “aliquid quod offerat;” “something that he may offer.” Syr., ξֵ ?γֵ ?νγַּ ?πְ ?χַ ?ιֵ ?α, “something that he should offer.” The Arabic adds, “for himself,” corruptly.Hebrews 8:3. — For every high priest is ordained [appointed] to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity [it was necessary] that this man [should] have somewhat also to offer. The connection of these words unto what was before asserted, which giveth us the design of the apostle in them, is expressed in the causal conjunction, γάρ, “for.” He both giveth a confirmation of what he had before affirmed, — namely, — that Christ was the “minister of the true tabernacle,” that is, of his body, — and rendereth a reason why it should so be; and this he further confirms in the verses ensuing.The reason he insists on is taken from the general nature of the office of “every high priest” That the LORD Christ is our high priest, he had sufficiently demonstrated and confirmed before; this, therefore, he now assumes as granted. And hereon what belongs unto him as such he further manifests, by showing what the nature of that office required, and what did necessarily belong unto every one that was partaker thereof. There are therefore two things in the words: 1. A general assertion of the nature, duty, and office of every high priest. 2. A particular inference from thence, of what did necessarily belong unto the LORD Christ in the susception and discharge of this office.In the first, 1. The universality of the expression is to be observed: Πᾶςἀρχιερεύς, — ”Every high priest.” By the context, this universal is cast under a limitation with respect unto the law: “Every high priest” that is “made” or “appointed by the law;” for of those alone the apostle treateth.There was, indeed, never any high priest accepted of God but those ordained by the law, yet was it necessary unto the apostle to make mention of the law also. And although they were many of them, yet were they all of the same order and office; and so were all alike authorized and obliged unto the same duties. Wherefore the apostle thus expresseth it by “every high priest,” to evidence that there lay no exception against his argument, seeing that, in the whole multitude of high priests, in their succession from first to last, there was no one but he was appointed unto this end, and had this duty incumbent on him. Yea, it is not one especial duty of their office, that might be omitted, which he insisteth on, but the general end for which they were ordained; as he expresseth it in the next word. 2. Καθίσταται, “is ordained;” that is, appointed of God by the law. Of the sense of this word I have spoken before, as also of the thing intended. See Hebrews 5:1-2.Obs. 1. God’s ordination or appointment gives rules, measures, and ends, unto all sacred offices and employments. — Whoever undertakes any thing in religion or divine worship without it, besides it, beyond it, is a transgressor, and therein worshippeth God in vain. He whom God doth not ordain in his service, is an intruder; and that which he doth not appoint is a usurpation. Nor will he accept of any duties, but what he himself hath made so. 3. The principal end why the high priests were ordained of God is expressed; it was “to offer gifts and sacrifices.”This appears in their original institution, Exodus 28, 29. (1.) They were to offer. God appointed Aaron and his successors, on purpose to offer gifts and sacrifices for the whole people.(2.) None but they were to offer; that is, none but the priests were to offer, — none but they might approach unto God, to offer any thing sacredly unto him. The people might bring their offerings unto God; but they could not offer them on the altar. And some offerings, as those at the feast of expiation, were appropriated unto the high priests only. So is the case stated by Azariah, the high priest, 2 Chronicles 26:18 :“Not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated;”Exodus 30:7, Numbers 18:7. And God hereby taught the people that nothing should ever be accepted from them, but in and by the hand of the great high priest who was to come. And this is that which we are yet taught thereby. And whoever he be, if as great and prosperous as king Uzziah, who shall think to approach unto God immediately, without the interposition of this high priest, he is smitten with the plague of spiritual leprosy.4. What they were to offer is also declared: “gifts and sacrifices;” — δῶρα, “munera,” “donaria,” “dona.” Sometimes all χָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?πִ ?ιν, the “corbanim” in general, are intended by this word; for all sacred offerings, of what sort soever, are so called at their first institution, Leviticus 1:2 : “If any one among you bring his corban unto the LORD.” And thereon the especial kinds of offerings and sacrifices are enumerated, which in general were all “corbanim.” So every thing that is brought unto the altar is called δῶρον, Matthew 5:23-24 : Προσφέρῃςτὸδῶρον, — ”When thou bringest thy gift;” that is, ΰִ ?νΰּ ?ϊַּ ?χְ ?ψִ ?ιαχָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?πְ ?κָ, — to “offer gifts,” sacred gifts of all sorts, especially sacrifices properly so called. Or, by δῶρα the ξִ ?πְ ?δεֹ ?ϊ, “minchoth,” may be intended; as by θυσίας the “zebachim” are. For these two contain the whole complex of sacred offering, For “zebachim,” or θυσίαι, are bloody sacrifices, sacrifices by immolation or killing, of what sort soever the matter of it was, or unto what especial end soever it was designed; and the “minchoth” were offerings of dead things, as of corn, oil, meats, and drinks. To offer all these was the office of the priesthood ordained. And we are taught thereby, that,Obs. 2. There is no approach unto God without continual respect unto sacrifice and atonement. The principal end of sacrifices was to make atonement for sin. — And so necessary was this to be done, that the office of the priesthood was appointed for it. Men do but dream of the pardon of sin, or acceptance with God, without atonement. This the apostle layeth down as that which was necessary for “every high priest,” by God’s institution. There never was any high priest, but his office and duty it was to “offer gifts and sacrifices;” for unto that end was he ordained of God.Secondly, Hence he infers that it was necessary that “this man should have somewhat to offer.” For being a minister of the heavenly sanctuary, and the true tabernacle, a high priest he was. But this he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer unto God. A priest that hath nothing to offer, that was not ordained unto that end, is indeed no priest at all. And in this assumption of the apostle we may observe, 1. The note of inference, “wherefore.”2. The designation of the person spoken of, “this man.”3. The manner of the ascription made unto him, “he must have.”4. The matter of it, “somewhat to offer:” —1. The note of inference is ὅθεν, “wherefore.” It is frequently used by the apostle in this epistle, when he proves his present assertions, from the old institutions of the law and their signification, Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 9:18. And the whole force of this inference, especially that in this place, depends on this supposition, that all the old typical institutions did represent what was really to be accomplished in Christ; whence it was “necessary” that he should be what they did signify and represent. Hence it is often observed in the Gospel, that he did or suffered such things, or in such a manner, because things were so ordered under the law. 2. The designation of the person is expressed: τοῦτον, “this man;” ‘he of whom we speak, this high priest of the new testament; — whom he had before described, and specified by his name, “Jesus;” and by his dignity, “the Son of God:” that “this man,” this Jesus, the high priest of the new testament.3. The subject being stated, that which he affirms thereof is, that he, this priest, must have “somewhat to offer.” And this was “of necessity” that so it should be. For whatever otherwise this glorious person were, or might be, yet a high priest he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer; for to offer gifts and sacrifices is the sole end of that office. This “necessity,” then, was absolute. For without this no office of priesthood could be discharged, and consequently no atonement be made, nor could we be brought unto God. And it is said that it was thus necessary ἔχειν, “that he should have.” And it is not possession only that is intended, but possession with respect unto use. He was so to have somewhat to offer, as to offer it accordingly. For it would not avail the church to have a high priest that should have somewhat to offer, if it were not actually offered. Wherefore respect is had both unto the meetness of Christ unto his office and his faithfulness therein. He had what to offer, and he did offer it.4. The matter of his offering is expressed: τὶὁπροσενέγκη, “somewhat to offer;” that is, in sacrifice unto God. The apostle expresseth it indefinitely, τὶὁ: but what it is which he was to have, he doth riot as yet declare. He was not engaged further by his present argument. But he elsewhere declares expressly what this was that he had to offer, what was the matter of his sacrifice, and what it was necessary that it should be. And this was “himself,” — his whole human nature, soul and body.It may be it will be said, that it doth not necessarily follow, that if he have somewhat to offer, it must be himself; for he might offer somewhat else out of the flocks and herds, as they did of old. Nor, indeed, doth the apostle intend directly to prove it in this place, namely, that it must be himself which he must offer. But it doth necessarily follow from the arguments before insisted on, Hebrews 7; for whatever else God had appointed or approved of to be offered in sacrifice, he had ordained the Levitical priesthood to offer, and appropriated the offering of it unto them; so as no such sacrifice could ever be offered by any who was not of the seed of Aaron. Whereas, therefore, our high priest was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, it is evident that he could not offer any of the things which were appropriated unto their ministry and service. And hence our apostle in the next verse affirms directly, that “if he were on the earth,” — that is, to officiate in his office with the things of the earth, after the manner of other priests, — he could not be so much as a priest at all; seeing all such services were appropriated unto and performed by the priests of another order. Again; if he might have done so, and accordingly had done so, our apostle manifests that his priesthood must have been ineffectual as unto the proper ends of it. For “the law could make nothing perfect;” not only because of the infirmity and imperfection of its priests, but also because of the insufficiency of its sacrifices unto the great ends of expiating sin, by whomsoever they were offered. For “it is impossible,” as he declares, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” or “purge the conscience” of the sinner, Hebrews 10:1-4, etc. Wherefore, as it was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, so it was necessary that this somewhat should be himself, and nothing else.Something must yet be added as unto the rendering of the words themselves, which influenceth their proper sense. ᾿Αναγκαῖον, “necessary,” “of necessity,” must have the verb substantive added, to determine its signification. Erasmus adds “est,” “it is necessary;” and we render it, “it is of necessity.” Beza supplies “fuit,” as doth the Syriac interpreter δֲ ?εָ ?ΰ, “fuit,” “erat;” “it was necessary.” And so he renders ὁπροσενέγκῃ by “quod offerret,” “which he should offer;” in both respecting the time past. Others render it by “quod offerat,” “which he may offer;” with respect unto the time present or to come. And Beza gives this account of his translation, namely, that the apostle having respect unto the sacrifice of Christ, which was past, affirms that “it was necessary that he should have somewhat that he might offer;” and not that “it is necessary that he should have somewhat to offer.” And although I will not deny but that the Lord, by reason of the perpetual efficacy of his oblation, and the representation of it in his intercession, may be said to offer himself, yet his sacrifice and oblation of himself were properly on the earth, as I have fully proved elsewhere. This text being urged by Grotius with respect unto the offering and sacrifice of Christ, Crellius replies, “Concludit scriptor divinus ex eo quod Christus sit sacerdos, necesse esse ut habeat quod offerat; non, ut loquitur Grotius, necesse fuisse ut haberet quod offerret, quasi de re praeterita loquatur,” Respons. ad cap. 10. But, as Beza very well observes, the apostle had before mentioned the one offering of Christ as already perfected and completed, Hebrews 7:27. He cannot, therefore, speak of it now but as that which was past; and here he only shows how necessary it was that he should have himself to offer, and so to offer himself, as he had done. And from these words we may observe, —Obs. 3. That there was no salvation to be had for us, no, not by Jesus Christ himself, without his sacrifice and oblation. — ”It was of necessity that he should have somewhat to offer,” as well as those priests had of old according to the law. Some would have it that the Lord Christ is our Savior because he declared unto us the way of salvation, and gave us an example of the way whereby we may attain it, in his own personal obedience. But whence, then, was it “of necessity that he must have somewhat to offer” unto God as our priest; that is, for us? For this belongeth neither unto his doctrine nor example. And it was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, in answer unto those sacrifices of old which were offered for the expiation of sin. Nor could our salvation be otherwise effected, by any other acts or duties of our high priest; for the church could not be saved without taking away the guilt of sin. And the whole design of the priests and sacrifices of old, was to teach and instruct the church how alone this might be performed. And this was only by making atonement for it by sacrifice; wherein the beast sacrificed did suffer in the room of the sinner, and did by God’s institution bear his iniquity. And this our apostle hath respect unto, and the realizing of all those typical representations in Christ; without which his whole discourse is useless and vain. Wherefore there was no other way for our salvation, but by a real propitiation or atonement made for our sins. And whosoever looketh for it otherwise but in the faith and virtue thereof, will be deceived. Obs. 4. As God designed unto the Lord Christ the work which he had to do, so he provided for him, and furnished him with whatever was necessary thereunto. — Somewhat he must have to offer. And this could not be any thing which was the matter of the sacrifices of the priests of old. For all those sacrifices were appropriated unto the discharge of the priesthood; and besides, they were none of them able to effect that which he was designed to do. Wherefore a body did God prepare for him, as is declared at large, Hebrews 10:1-8, etc. Obs. 5. The Lord Christ being to save the church in the way of office, he was not to be spared in any thing necessary thereunto. — And in conformity unto him, —Obs. 6. Whatever state or condition we are called unto, what is necessary unto that state is indispensably required of us. — So are holiness and obedience required unto a state of reconciliation and peace with God. Εἰμὲνγὰρη῏νἐπὶγῆς, οὐδ᾿ἅνἧνἱερεὺς, ὄντωντῶνἱερέωντῶνπροσφερόντωνκατὰτὸννόμοντὰδῶρα.Vulg. Lat., “si esset super terrain;” all others, “in terra,” to the same purpose. Syr., αַּ ?ΰψְ ?ςָ ?ΰ, “in the earth.” Οὐδ᾿ἄνη῏νἱερεύς, ΰַ ?σμָ ?ΰλּ ?ιּ ?ξָ ?ψֵ ?ΰδָ ?εֵ ?ΰ, “even also he should not be a priest.” ῎Οντωντῶνἱερέων. The Vulgar omits ἱερέων, and renders the words, “cure essent qui offerrent.” Rhem., “whereas there were who did offer.” The Syriac agrees with the original. Beza, “manentibus illis sacerdotibus;” “quum sint alii sacerdotes.”In the preceding discourses the apostle hath fully proved, that the introduction of this new priesthood under the gospel had put an end unto the old; and that it was necessary so it should do, because, as he had abundantly discovered in many instances, it was utterly insufficient to bring us unto God, or to make the church-state perfect. And withal he had declared the nature of this new priesthood. In particular he hath showed, that although this high priest offered his great expiatory sacrifice once for all, yet the consummation of this sacrifice, and the derivation of the benefits of it unto the church, depended on the following discharge of his office, with his personal state and condition therein; for so was it with the high priest under the law, as unto his great anniversary sacrifice at the feast of expiation, whose efficacy depended on his entrance afterwards into the holy place. Wherefore he declares this state of our high priest to be spiritual and heavenly, as consisting in the ministry of his own body in the sanctuary of heaven. Having fully manifested these things, unfolding the mystery of them, he proceeds in this verse to show how necessary it was that so it should be,— namely, that he should neither offer the things appointed in the law, nor yet abide in the state and condition of a priest here on earth, as those other priests did. In brief, he proves that he was not in any thing to take on him the administration of holy things in the church according as they were then established by law. For whereas it might be objected, ‘If the Lord Christ was a high priest, as he pleaded, why then did he not administer the holy things of the church, according to the duty of a priest?’To which he replies, that so he was not to do; yea, a supposition that he might do so was inconsistent with his office, and destructive both of the law and the gospel. For it would utterly overthrow the law, for one that was not of the line of Aaron to officiate in the holy place; and God had by the law made provision of others, that there was neither room nor place for his ministry. And the gospel also would have been of no use thereby, seeing the sacrifice which it is built upon would have been of the same nature with those under the law. This the apostle confirms in this verse. Hebrews 8:4. — For indeed if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.The words are a hypothetical proposition, with the reason or confirmation of it. The proposition is in the former part of the verse, “For indeed if he were on earth, he should not be a priest.” Hereof the remainder of the words is the reason or confirmation, “Seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.” And we may consider first the causal connection, “for,” which relates unto what he had discoursed immediately before, as introducing a reason why things ought to be as he had declared. He had in sundry instances manifested his present state and condition, with the way and manner of the discharge of his office. A priest he was; and therefore he must have somewhat to offer; which must be somewhat of his own, seeing the law would not accommodate him with a sacrifice, nor yet the whole creation; the law having prepossessed unto its own use all that was clean and fit to be offered unto God. A sanctuary he must also have wherein to officiate; and this was to be heaven itself, because he was himself exalted into heaven, and set down at the right hand of God. And of all this there was yet another special reason: “For if he were on the earth,” etc. “If indeed he were on earth.” The emphasis of the particle μέν, is not to be omitted, — ’If really it were so;’for therein is force granted unto the concession that the apostle here makes: ‘Truly it must be so.’ “If he were on earth,” includes two things: —1. His continuance and abode on the earth: — If he were not exalted into heaven in the discharge of his office; if he were not at the right hand of God; if he were not entered into the heavenly sanctuary, but could have discharged his whole office here on the earth, without any of these things. If he were thus on the earth, or thus to have been on the earth. 2. The state and condition of his priesthood: — If he were on the earth, or had a priesthood of the same order and constitution with that of the law; if he were to have offered the same sacrifices, or of the same kind with them, which were to be perfected on the earth; if he were not to have offered himself, wherein his sacrifice could not be absolutely consummated without the presentation of himself in the most holy place not made with hands.These two things the apostle was treating of: 1. His present state and condition, as to the sanctuary wherein he administered; which was heavenly. 2. His sacrifice and tabernacle; which was himself. In opposition unto both these is this supposition made, “If he were on the earth.”This, therefore, is the full sense of this supposition, which is well to be observed, to clear the meaning of the whole verse, — which the Socinians endeavor with all their skill and force to wrest unto their heresy, — ‘If we did aver him to have such a priesthood as in the discharge thereof he were always to continue on the earth, and to administer in the sanctuary of the tabernacle or temple, with the blood of legal sacrifices.’On this supposition the apostle grants that “he could not be a priest.” He had not been, or could not be so much as a priest, or a priest at all in any sense. That a priest he was to be, and that of necessity he must be so, had proved before. And on the occasion thereof he declares the nature of his sacrifice, tabernacle, and sanctuary; and now proves that they were so necessary for him, that without them he could not have been a priest. It will be said, that he was a priest “on the earth;” and that therein he offered his great expiatory sacrifice, in and by his own blood. And it is true. But, 1. This was not “on the earth” in the sense of the law, which alone appointed the sacrifices on the earth; it was not in the way nor after the manner of the sacrifices of the law, which are expressed by that phrase, “on the earth.”2. Although his oblation or sacrifice of himself was complete on the earth, yet the whole service belonging thereunto, to make it effectual in the behalf of them for whom it was offered, could not be accomplished on the earth. Had he not entered into heaven, to make a representation of his sacrifice in the holy place, he could not have been the high priest of the church from that offering of himself; because the church could have enjoyed no benefit thereby. Nor would he ever have offered that sacrifice, if he had been to abide on the earth, and not afterwards to have entered the heavenly sanctuary to make it effectual. The high priest, on the great day of expiation, perfected his sacrifice for his own sin and the sins of the people without the tabernacle; but yet he neither could, nor would, nor ought to have attempted the offering of it, had it not been with a design to carry the blood into the holy place, to sprinkle it before the ark and mercy-seat, — the throne of grace. So was Christ to enter into the holy place not made with hands, or he could not have been a priest. The reason of this assertion and concession is added in the latter part of the verse, “Seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.” ῎Οντωντῶνἱερέων, “sacerdotibus existentibus,” “cum sint sacerdotes;” “whereas there are priests.” The apostle doth not grant that at that time when he wrote this epistle there were legal priests” de jure,” offering sacrifices according to the law. “De facto,” indeed, there were yet such priests ministering in the temple, which was yet standing; but in this whole epistle, as to right and acceptance with God, he proves that their office was ceased, and their administrations useless. Wherefore ὄντων respects the legal institution of the priests, and their right to officiate then, when ther Lord Christ offered his sacrifice. Then there were priests who had a right to officiate in their office, and to “offer gifts according to the law.” Two things are to be inquired into, to give us the sense of these words, and the force of the reason in them: 1. Why might not the Lord Christ be a priest, and offer his sacrifice, continuing on the earth to consummate it, notwithstanding the continuance of these priests according unto the law?2. Why did he not in the first place take away and abolish this order of priests, and so make way for the introduction of his own priesthood?1. I answer unto the first, That if he had been a priest on the earth, to have discharged the whole work of his priesthood here below, whilst they were priests also, then he must either have been of the same order with them, or of another; and have offered sacrifices of the same kind as they did, or sacrifices of another kind. But neither of these could be. For he could not be of the same order with them. This the apostle proves because he was of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded from the priesthood, in that it was appropriated unto the tribe of Levi, and family of Aaron. And therefore also he could not offer the same sacrifices with them; for none might do so by the law but themselves. And of another order together with them he could not be.; for there is nothing foretold of priests of several orders in the church at the same time. Yea, as we have proved before, the introduction of a priesthood of another order was not only inconsistent with that priesthood, but destructive of the law itself, and all its institutions. Wherefore, whilst they continued priests according to the law, Christ could not be a priest among them, neither of their order nor of another; that is, if the whole administration of his office had been upon the earth together with theirs, he could not be a priest among them. 2. Unto the second inquiry, I say the Lord Christ could not by any means take away that other priesthood, until he himself had accomplished all that ever was signified thereby, according unto God’s institution. The whole end and design of God in its institution had been frustrated, if the office had ceased “de jure” before the whole of what was prefigured by its being, duties, and offices, was fulfilled. And therefore, although there was an intercision of its administrations for seventy years, during the Babylonish captivity, yet was the office itself continued in its right and dignity, because what it designed to prefigure was not yet attained. And this was not done till the Lord Christ ascended into the heavenly sanctuary, to administer in the presence of God for the church; for until then, the high priest’s entering into the holy place in the tabernacle once a year had not an accomplishment in what was prefigured thereby. Wherefore there was not an end put unto their office and ministration by the oblation of Christ on the cross, but they still continued to offer sacrifices according to the law; for there yet remained, unto the fulfilling of what was designed in their whole office, his entering into the holy place above. Wherefore they were still to continue priests, until he had completed the whole service prefigured by them, in the oblation of himself, and entering thereon into the heavenly sanctuary. This, therefore, is the sense of the apostle’s reasoning in this place: The priests of the order of Aaron continued “de jure” their administrations of holy things, or were so to do, until all was accomplished that was signified thereby. This was not done until the ascension of Christ into heaven; for the first tabernacle was to stand until the way was made open into the holiest of all, as we shall see afterwards. Now, the Lord Christ was not a priest after their order, nor could he offer the sacrifices appointed by the law. Hence it is evident, that he could not have been a priest had he been to continue on the earth, and to administer on the earth: for so their priesthood, with which his was inconsistent, could never have had an end; for this could not be without his entrance as a priest into the heavenly sanctuary. It appears, therefore, how vain the pretense of the Socinians is, from this place to prove that the Lord Christ did not offer his expiatory sacrifice here on the earth. For the apostle speaks nothing of his oblation, which he had before declared to have been “once for all,” before he entered into heaven to make intercession for us; but he speaks only of the order of his priesthood, and the state and condition wherein the present administration of it was to be continued. Obs. 1. God’s institutions, tightly stated, do never interfere. — So we see those of the ancient priesthood and that of Christ did not. They had both of them their proper bounds and seasons; nor could the latter completely commence and take place until the former was expired. The entrance of Christ into the holy place, which stated him in that condition wherein he was to continue the exercise of his priesthood unto the consummation of all things, put an absolute period unto the former priesthood, by accomplishing all that was signified thereby, with a due and seasonable end unto all legal worship, as to fight and efficacy. When he had done all that was figured by them, he took the whole work into his own hand. Obs. 2. The discharge of all the parts and duties of the priestly office of Christ, in their proper order, was needful unto the salvation of the church. — His oblation was to be on the earth, but the continuation of the discharge of his office was to be in heaven. Without this the former would not profit us; if he had done no more he could not have been a priest. For, 1. As this dependeth on the infinite wisdom of God, ordering and disposing all things that concern the discharge of this office unto their proper times and seasons; so,2. Believers do find in their own experience, how all things are suited unto their conditions and wants. Unless the foundation of a propitiation for their sins be first laid, they can have no hope of acceptance with God. This, therefore, was first done, in “the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” But when this is done, unless they have a continual application of the efficacy of it unto their souls, neither their peace with God nor their access unto God can be maintained. And this is done by the ministration of his office in the heavenly sanctuary, which ensues thereon. Οἵτινεςὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷλατρεύουσιτῶνἐπουρανίων, καθὼςκεχρημάτισταιΜωϋσῆς, μέλλωνἐπιτελεῖντὴνσκηνή·Οραγὰρ, φησὶ, ποιήσῃςπάντακατὰτὸντύποντὸνδειχθέντασοιἐντῷὄρει.Οἵτινες, “qui,” “ut qui;” “as those who.” Λατρεύουσι, “deserviunt,” “inserviunt.” Syr, γַּ ?ξְ ?ωַׁ ?ξְ ?ωִׁ ?ιο, “who ministered,” (as in a sacred office); properly. ῾ψποδείγματι, “exemplari.” Rhem., “that serve the exemplar and shadow;” every way imperfectly. Syr., μִ ?γְ ?εּ ?ϊֵ ?ΰ, “unto the similitude.” Τῶνἐπουρανίων. Eras., “ecelestium.” Others, “rerum coelestium;” “of heavenly things.” Syr., γְּ ?αַ ?ωַׁ ?ξιָּ ?ΰγְּ ?δָ ?μֵ ?ιο. “of the things which are in heaven.” Καθὼςκεχρημάτιοται, “sicut responsum est Mosi.” Rhem., “as it was answered Moses.” Κρηματισμός is not an “answer,” but an “oracle,” given out upon inquiry, and so “any divine instruction.” “Quemadmodum divinitus dictum est.” “Admonished of God,” say we. Syr., γֶּ ?ΰϊַ ?ΰξְ ?ψַ ?ϊ, “it was spoken,” simply; which expresseth not the original.Hebrews 8:5. — Who serve [in sacred worship] unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, even as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.1. We must first consider the reading of these words, by reason of the testimony which the apostle quotes out of the law, and his rendering thereof. The words in the original, Exodus 25:40, are, εַ ?ςֲ ?ωֵׁ ?δαְּ ?ϊַ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊָ ?νΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψִַ ?ΰϊָּ ?δξָ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δαָּ ?δָ ?ψεּ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δ; — ”And look” (or “take heed”) “and make after their pattern which was showed thee in the mount.” The apostle adds πάντα, “all things;” which is not in the original, nor in the version of the LXX. But,(1.) He might take it from verse 9 of the chapter, where the word is expressed, ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δΰεֹ ?ϊְ ?κָ λְּ ?λֹ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰֲ ?πִ ?ι; — ”according unto all that I shall show thee.” (2.) Things indefinitely expressed are to be expounded universally: 1 Kings 8:39, “And to give to every man according to his ways;” that is, 2 Chronicles 6:30, “and render to every man according to all his ways.”Deuteronomy 19:15, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the month of three witnesses, shall the matter be established;” that is, 2 Corinthians 13:1, “shall every word be established.” Psalms 110:1, “Until I make thine enemies thy footstool;” that is, 1 Corinthians 15:25, “all enemies.” Wherefore the apostle, by the addition of πάντα, “all things,” says no more but what is expressed in one place, and necessarily understood in the other.αְּ ?ϊַ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊָ ?ν, “according to their pattern,” or “the pattern of them,” the apostle renders by κατὰτὸτύπον only, “according to the pattern;” which comes all to one.Τύπος. The word is from αָּ ?πָ ?δ, to “bind;” and it is used for a prepared pattern or similitude that any thing is to be framed unto. So whereas the apostle renders it by τύπος, he intends πρωτότυπος, or ἀρχέτυπος, not ἔκτυπος, — such a type or pattern as other things are to be framed by, and not that which is the effigy or representation of somewhat else.2. The connection of these words with the preceding discourse, which gives us the general design of the apostle, is nextly to be considered. He had before intimated two things:(1.) That the high priests according to the law did not minister the heavenly things;(2.) That the Lord Christ alone did so: whence he concludes his dignity and pre-eminence above them; — which is the argument he hath in hand.Both these he confirms in these words. For he confines their ministry unto the types of heavenly things, exclusively unto the heavenly things themselves. And by showing, as in the verse preceding, that if Christ had been to continue on the earth he could not have been a priest, he manifests that he alone was to administer those heavenly things. 3. The argument in general whereby the apostle proves that “they served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” — that is, only so, and no more, — is taken from the words of God to Moses. And the force of the argument is evident. For God in those words declares that there was something above and beyond that material tabernacle which was prescribed unto him; for he showed him either an original or an exemplar in the top of the mount, which what he was to do below did but shadow and represent. And therefore they who ministered in what he was to make could serve only therein to be “the example and shadow of heavenly things.” This, therefore, is the apostle’s argument from this testimony: ‘If God showed unto Moses on the top of the mount that which was heavenly, and he was to make an example or shadow of it; then they that ministered therein “served only unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.”’ In the words may be observed, 1. The persons spoken of; “who.”2. What is ascribed unto them; they “serve.”3. The limitation of that service: wherein there is,(1.) The present immediate object of it; an “example and shadow:”(2.) The ultimate things intended; “heavenly things.”4. The proof of the whole assertion, from the words of God to Moses: wherein there is, (1.) The manner of the instruction given him; “he was warned of God:” (2.) The instruction or warning itself;. “See that thou make,” etc.1. There are the persons spoken of; οἵτινες, — ”who.” It refers unto the priests mentioned verse 4, “Seeing there are priests that offer gifts; who.” But although that expression comprises the whole order of Levitical priests, yet it refers in particular unto the high priests, verse 3, Πᾶςγὰρἀρχιερεύς, — ”Every high priest ......; which high priests.”2. What is ascribed unto them; λατρέουσι, — ”do serve.” The general signification of the English word “to serve” is not intended, as any thing doth serve for an end, or one person serves another. For it is a sacred word, and signifies only to minister in sacred worship and service, as the Syriac translation renders it. And in particular, it respects here all the δικαιώματαλατρείας, “the ordinances of divine service,” which were appointed under the first tabernacle, Hebrews 9:1. “They do serve,” —‘They do, according unto the law, officiate in sacred things; that is, they did so “de jure,” in their first institution, and continue “de facto” so to do still.’And the word λατρεύω is applied both unto the inward spiritual, and outward instituted holy worship of God. See Matthew 4:10; Acts 7:7; Romans 1:9. It respects, therefore, all that the high priests did, or had to do, in the worship of God, in the tabernacle or temple.3. The limitation of their sacred service, is, that it was ὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷ, — ”to an example and shadow.” Δεῖγμα is a “specimen” of any thing; that whereby any thing is manifested by a part or instance. It is used in the New Testament only in Jude 1:7 : Πρόκεινταιδεῖγμα, — ”Are set forth for an example,” (speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah,) or a “particular instance” of what would be God’s dealing with provoking sinners at the last day.(1.) Δειγματίζω, which is framed of δεῖγμα, is but once used in the New Testament, Colossians 2:15, where we render it to “make a show;” that is, a representation of what was done. ῾ψπόδειγμα, the word here used, is an “example” showing or declaring any thing in a way of instance: John 13:15, ῾ψπόδειγμαἔδωκαὑμῖν, — “I have given you an example,” saith our Savior, when he had washed his disciples’feet; that is, ‘showed you, in what I have done, what ye ought to do also.’So James 5:10, “Take, my brethren, the prophets for an example.” But whereas principally and commonly examples are patterns of other things, that which they are to be conformed unto, as in the places cited, John 13:15, James 5:10, this cannot be the sense of it in this place; for the heavenly things were not framed and fashioned after the example of these, but on the contrary. Wherefore examples are of two sorts, “effigiantia” and “effigiata;” that is, πρωτότυπα and ἔκτυπα, — such as other things are framed by, or such as are framed by other things. In this latter sense it is here used; and I would choose to render it by a “resemblance.” It is less than δεῖγμα, “simile,” “quiddam,” — an obscure representation. Hence it is added, —Καὶσκιᾷ, “and the shadow.” Some suppose a “shadow” is taken artificially, and opposed unto an express image or complete delineation of any thing, by a similitude taken from the first lines and shadows of any thing that is afterwards to be drawn to the life; and so they say it is used Hebrews 10:1, “The law had only a shadow of good things to come, and not the express image of the things themselves.” But properly it is taken naturally, and opposed unto a body, or substance: Colossians 2:17, “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is Christ.” It is indifferent in whether sense we here take the word, for what is affirmed is true in both. If we take it in the first way, it intends that obscure delineation of heavenly mysteries which was in the legal institutions. They did represent and teach them, and so were taught and represented in the divine service of those priests; but it was so obscurely, that none could see their beauty and excellency therein. If it be used in the latter way, then it declares that the substance of what God intended in all his worship was not contained nor comprised in the services of those priests. There were some lines and shadows, to represent the body, but the body itself was not there. There was something above them and beyond them, which they reached not unto. (2.) The things themselves whence they are restrained by this limitation are expressed; “of heavenly things.” The things intended in these words are no other than what God showed unto Moses in the mount; and therefore we shall defer our inquiry into them until we come unto those words. This, therefore, is the meaning of the words: ‘The whole ministry of the priests of old was in and about earthly things, which had in them only a resemblance and shadow of things above.’And we may observe by the way, — Obs. 1. God alone limits the signification and use of all his own institutions. — We ought not to derogate from them, nor to take any thing out of them which God hath put into them; nor can we put any thing into them that God hath not furnished them withal. And we are apt to err in both extremes. The Jews to this day believe that the ministration of their priests contained the heavenly things themselves. They do so, contrary to the nature and end of them, which the Scripture so often speaks unto. This is one occasion of their obstinacy in unbelief. They will imagine that there was nothing above or beyond their legal institutions, no other heavenly mysteries of grace and truth but what is comprised in them. They put more in them than ever God furnished them withal, and perish in their vain confidence.It hath so fallen out also under the new testament. God hath instituted his holy sacraments, and hath put this virtue into them, that they should represent and exhibit unto the faith of believers the grace which he intendeth and designeth by them. But men have not been contented herewith; and therefore they will put more into them than God hath furnished them withal. They will have them to contain the grace in them which they exhibit in the way of a promise, and to communicate it unto all sorts of persons that are partakers of them. Thus, some would have baptism to be regeneration itself, and that there is no other evangelical regeneration but that alone, with the profession which is made thereon. Every one who is baptized is thereby regenerated. The sign and figure of grace, they would have to be the grace itself. Nothing can be invented more pernicious unto the souls of men; for all sorts of persons may be brought to a ruinous security about their spiritual condition by it, and diverted from endeavors after that real internal work, in the change of their hearts and natures, without which none shall see God. This is to put that into it which God never placed there. Some suppose it to be such a distinguishing, or rather separating ordinance, that the administration of it in such a way or at such a season, is the fundamental rule of all church fellowship and communion; whereas God never designed it unto any such end. In the supper of the Lord, the church of Rome in particular is not contented that we have a representation and instituted memorial of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the signs of his body as broken and his blood as shed for us, with an exhibition of grace in the word of promise, or the gospel; but they will have the natural body and blood of Christ, his flesh and bones, to be contained therein, and to be eaten or devoured by all that partake of the outward signs! This is to put that into the ordinance which God never put into it, and so to overthrow it. And there are two grounds or ends of what they do. The First is, to turn the wisdom of faith into a carnal imagination. It requires the light and wisdom of faith to apprehend the spiritual exhibition of Christ in the sacrament unto us. It is a great spiritual mystery, not at all to be apprehended but by the supernatural light of faith. This, the vain, darkened minds of men like not, they cannot away with it; it is foolishness unto them. Wherefore, under the name of a “mystery,” they have invented the most horrible and monstrous figments that ever befell the minds of men. This is easily received and admitted by a mere act of carnal imagination; and the more blind and dark men are, the more are they pleased with it. Secondly, They do it to exclude the exercise of faith in the participation of it. As they deal with the wisdom of faith as unto its nature, so they do with the exercise of faith as unto its use. God hath given this measure unto this ordinance, that it shall exhibit and communicate nothing unto us, that we shall receive no benefit by it, but in the actual exercise of faith. This the carnal minds and hearts of men like not. It requires a peculiar exercise of this grace, and that in a peculiar manner, unto a participation of any benefit by it. But this, under the notion of bringing more into the ordinance than ever. God put into it, they exclude, and ease all men of. Let them but bring their mouths and their teeth, and they fail not of eating the body and drinking the very blood of Christ. So, under a pretense of putting that in the ordinance which God never put into it, they have cast out of the hearts of men the necessity of those duties which alone render it useful and beneficial. Some, on the other side, do derogate from them, and will not allow them that station or use which God hath appointed unto them in the church. (1.) Some do so from their dignity. They do so, by joining their own appointments unto them, as of equal worth and dignity with them.(2.) Some do so from their necessity, practically setting light by or disregarding the participation of them.(3.) Some do so from their use, openly denying their continuance in the church of God.The reasons why men are so prone to deviate from the will of God in his institutions, and to despise the measures he hath given them, are, (1.) Want of faith in its principal power and act, which is submission and resignation of soul unto the sovereignty of God. Faith alone renders that an all-sufficient reason of obedience. (2.) Want of spiritual wisdom and understanding to discern the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in them.Obs. 2. It is an honor to be employed in any sacred service that belongs unto the worship of God, though it be of an inferior nature unto other parts of it. — It is so, I say, if we are called of God thereunto. This was the greatest honor that any were made partakers of under the old testament, that they “served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things” only. And if now God call any of us into his service, wherein yet, by the meanness of our gifts, or want of opportunities, we cannot serve him in so eminent a manner as some others do, yet if we abide in our station and duty, there is great honor in the meanest divine service. Obs. 3. So great was the glory of heavenly ministration in the mediation of Jesus Christ, as that God would not at once bring it forth in the church, until he had prepared the minds of men, by types, shadows, examples, and representations of it. — This was the end of all legal institutions of divine worship and service. And herein the wisdom of God provided in these to cases that were necessary. [3] [3] The meaning intended seems to be, “made provision to accomplish two necessary objects.” — ED. (1.) He filled them with glory and beauty, that they might affect the minds of men with an admiration and expectation of that greater glory which they represented and pointed unto. And this they did among all them who truly believed; so that they continually looked and longed after the coming of Him, the glory of whose ministry was represented in them. In these two things did their faith principally act itself:[1. In a diligent inquiry into the mediation and ministry of Christ, with the glory which it was to be accompanied withal, 1 Peter 1:10-11.[2. In earnest desire after the enjoyment of what they saw afar off, and which was obscurely represented unto them, Son 2:17; Son 4:6. From both these arose that fervent love unto, zeal for, and delight in those ordinances of worship, which did so lead them unto these things that were so glorious; which in the Scripture are everywhere expressed, and which were so well-pleasing unto God. (2.) On the other hand, because these institutions were to be so glorious, that they might be shadows of heavenly things, and the people unto whom they were given were carnal, and given to rest themselves in present outward appearances, God was pleased to intermix with them many services that were hard to be borne, and many laws with penalties severe and dreadful. This provision was laid in by divine wisdom, that they might not rest in what he designed only to prepare their minds for the introduction of that which was far more glorious. And well is it for us if we have a due apprehension of the glory of the heavenly ministration of Christ, now it is introduced. It is too evident that with many, yea, with most that are called Christians, it is far otherwise; for they are still seeking after the outward glory of a carnal worship, as though they had no view of the spiritual glory of the heavenly ministration of the gospel in the hand of Jesus Christ, our high priest. Nor will it be otherwise with any of us, unless we are enabled by faith to look within the veil, and see the beauty of the appearance of Christ at the right hand of God. The apostle tells us, that “the ministration of the law was glorious; yet had it no glory in comparison of that which doth excel.” But if we are not able to discern this more excellent glory, and satisfy ourselves therein, it is a great sign that we ourselves are carnal, and therefore are delighted with those things that are so. But we must proceed with our exposition. 4. The proof of the foregoing assertion is added by the apostle, in the words which God spake unto Moses with respect unto his building the tabernacle, which was the seat of all the divine service they were to administer. And there are two things to be considered in this testimony:(1.) The manner of its introduction.(2.) The words of the testimony itself: —(1.) The words of the introduction are, καθὼςκεχρημάτισταιΜωϋσῆς,— ”admonished of God.” Χρηματισμός we render “the answer of God,” Romans 11:4 : “But what saith unto him ὁχρματισμός,” — “the divine oracle;” a “responsum,” a word or answer from God, giving caution or direction. And it is used principally for such an oracle of God as hath a warning or caution in it, for the avoiding somewhat on the one hand, as well as doing what is given in charge on the other. So Joseph was χρηματισθείς, “divinely warned” to avoid the danger that was designed unto the child Jesus, Matthew 2:22; as the wise men were to avoid going unto Herod, Matthew 2:12. So Hebrews 11:7, “Noah being χρηματισθείς,” — “divinely warned, was moved with fear.” Yet sometimes it is used for any immediate private revelation, Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22. Wherefore two things are intended in this expression:[1. That Moses had an immediate word, command, or oracle, from God, to the purpose intended. And, [2. That he was to use great caution and heed about what was enjoined him, that there might be no miscarriage or mistake: “Admonished of God.” And the manner of the expression in the original carrieth admonition in it: εּ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?διַ ?ςֲ ?ωֵׂ ?δ, — ”And look to it and do,” Exodus 25:40; take diligent care about it. The same is the sense of ὅρα, when thus used, “take heed,” “look well to it.” When John, upon surprisal, would have fallen down before the angel to worship him, he replied, ῞Οραμή, — ”See thou do it not,” avoid it with care, Revelation 22:9. The matter was of the greatest importance, and the utmost diligence was to be used about it; whence the divine oracle was given out in a way of charge and admonition, as we have well rendered the word. And we may observe, — Obs. 4. That our utmost care and diligence in the consideration of the mind of God are required in all that we do about his worship. — There is nothing wherein men for the most part are more careless. Some suppose it belongs unto their own wisdom to order things in the worship of God as it seems most meet unto them; — an apprehension that I shall leave this world in admiration of, that ever it should befall the minds of so many good and honest men as it hath done. But the power of prejudice is inexpressible. Some think they are no further concerned in these things than only to follow the traditions of their fathers. This unto the community of Christians is the only rule of divine worship. To suppose that it is their duty to inquire into the way and manner of the worship of God, the grounds and reasons of what they practice therein, is most remote from them. ‘It was Moses that had the command to take care about the making of the tabernacle, and not the people. There was nothing left unto them but to do and observe what he had appointed.’And it is true; when God first reveals the way of his worship immediately from himself, as he did first by Moses, and last of all by his Son Jesus Christ, the people have nothing to do therewith, but only to observe and do what is appointed, as our Savior expressly declares, Matthew 28:20 : but when his worship is so revealed and declared, there is not the meanest person, who professeth obedience unto him, who is exempted from this command of taking most diligent care about the due discharge of his duty herein. And this care and diligence are necessary, — [1. From the aptness and proneness of the minds of men unto pernicious extremes in this matter; for, — 1st. The generality of men have been stupidly negligent herein, as if it were a matter wherein they were not at all concerned. What is provided for them, what is proposed unto them, what comes in the ordinary way whereunto they have been accustomed, whatever it be, that they follow. And as they take it up on light grounds, so they observe it with light spirits. And this hath been the true cause of that inundation of profaneness which is come on the Christian world. For when once men come unto such an unconcernment in the worship of God, as to engage in it they know not well why, and to perform it they know not how, all manner of impiety will ensue in their lives; as is manifest in experience beyond the evidence of a thousand arguments. 2dly. Many in all ages have been prone to indulge unto their own imaginations and inventions, in the disposal of divine worship. And this bitter root hath sprung up into all the superstition and idolatry that the earth is filled withal at this day. From these two poisoned springs hath proceeded that woful apostasy from Christ and evangelical worship which the world groans under. Wherefore our utmost care and diligence are required herein.[2. The concernment of the glory of God calls for the same care in like manner. It were no hard thing to demonstrate, that the principal way and means whereby God expects that we should give glory unto him in this world, is by a due observation of the divine worship that he hath appointed; for herein do we in an especial manner ascribe unto him the glory of his sovereignty, of his wisdom, of his grace and holiness. When in his worship we bow down our souls under his authority alone; when we see such an impress of divine wisdom on all his institutions, as to judge all other ways folly in comparison of them; when we have experience of the grace represented and exhibited in them; then do we glorify God aright. And without these things, whatever we pretend, we honor him not in the solemnities of our worship. But we return. (2.) In the charge given to Moses two things are observable:[1. The time when it was given him. [2. The charge itself. [1. The time when it was given: Μέλλωνἐπιτελεῖντὴνσκηνήν, — “When he was about to make the tabernacle.” Μέλλων expresseth that which is immediately future. He was “in procinctu,” in readiness for that work; just as it were taking it in hand, and going about it. This made the divine warning seasonable. It was given him upon the entrance of his work, that it might make an effectual impression on his mind. And it is our duty, upon an entrance into any work we are called unto, to charge our consciences with a divine admonition. What immediate revelation was to Moses, that the written word is to us. To charge our consciences with rule from it, and its authority, will preserve us in whatever may fall out in the way of our duty; and nothing else will do it. ᾿Επιτελεῖν is “perficere,” “to accomplish,” “to perfect,” “to finish.” But it includes here the beginning as well as the end of the work which he was to perfect. The same with,ποιῆσαι, Acts 7:44, where this whole passage is somewhat otherwise expressed, to the same purpose: ΚαθὼςδιετάξατωὁλαλῶντῷΜωϋσῇ·ποιῆσαιαὐτὴνκατὰτὸντὺπονὅνἑωράκει “As he appointed who spake unto Moses,” (which was God himself, as our apostle here declares, in the second person, the great Angel of the covenant), “that he should make it according to the pattern which he saw.” Wherefore ἐπιτελεῖν compriseth the whole service of Moses, in making, framing, and finishing the tabernacle.[2. The warning and charge itself is, that “he should make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount.” What, this “pattern” was, how it was “showed unto Moses,” and how he was to “make all things according unto it,” are all of them things not easy to be explained. In general, it is certain that God intended to declare hereby that, the work which Moses had to do, — the tabernacle he was to erect, and the worship thereof, — was not, either in the whole, or in any part of it, or any thing that belonged unto it, a matter of his own invention or contrivance, nor what he set upon by chance; but an exact representation of what God had instructed him in and showed unto him. This was the foundation of all the worship of God under the old testament, and the security of the worshippers. Hence, at the finishing of this work, it is eight times repeated in one chapter, that all things were done “as the LORD commanded Moses.” And herein was that truth fully consecrated unto the perpetual use of the church in all ages, that the will and command of God are the sole reason, rule, and measure, of all religious worship. For the pattern itself, expositors generally agree, that on the top of the mount God caused to appear unto Moses, the form, fashion, dimensions, and utensils, of that tabernacle which he was to erect. Whether this representation were made to Moses by the way of internal vision, as the temple was represented unto Ezekiel, or whether there were an ethereal fabric proposed unto his bodily senses, is hard to determine. And this ϊַּ ?αְ ?βִ ?ιϊ, “exemplar,” or “pattern,” our apostle here calls “heavenly things.”For to prove that the priests served only unto “the resemblance and shadow of heavenly things,” he produceth this testimony, that Moses was to “make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount.” And this pattern, with all that belonged unto it, is called “heavenly things,” because it was made to appear in the air on the top of the mount, with respect unto that which was to be made beneath: or it may be called “heavenly,” because it was the immediate effect of the power of God, who worketh from heaven. But supposing such an ethereal tabernacle represented unto Moses, yet it cannot be said that it was the substance of the heavenly things themselves, but only a shadow or representation of them. The heavenly things themselves, in the mind of God, were of another nature, and this pattern on the mount was but an external representation of them. So that here must be three things intended: 1st. The heavenly things themselves;2dly. The representation of them on the mount;3dly. The tabernacle made by Moses in imitation thereof: wherefore this tabernacle and its worship, wherein the Levitical priests administered their office, was so far from being the shadow of the substance of the heavenly things themselves, as that they were but a shadow of that shadow of them which was represented in the mount.I know not that there is any thing in this exposition of the words that is contrary unto the analogy of faith, or inconsistent with the design of the apostle; but withal I must acknowledge, that these things seem to me exceeding difficult, and such as I know not how fully to embrace, and that for the reasons following: — 1st. If such a representation were made unto Moses in the mount, and that be the “pattern” intended, then the tabernacle with all its ministry was a shadow thereof. But this is contrary unto our apostle in another place, who tells us that indeed all legal institutions were only a “shadow,” but withal that the “substance” or “body was of Christ,” Colossians 2:17. And it is the body that the shadow doth immediately depend upon and represent. But according unto this exposition, this figure or appearance made in the mount must be the body or substance which those legal institutions did represent. But this figure was not Christ. And it is hard to say that this figure was the body which the tabernacle below was the shadow of, and that body was the shadow of Christ. But that Christ himself, his mediation and his church, — that is, his mystical body, — were not immediately represented by the tabernacle and the service of it, but somewhat else that was a figure of them, is contrary unto the whole dispute of the apostle in this place, and the analogy of faith. 2dly. I do not see how the priests could minister in the earthly tabernacle as an example and shadow of such an ethereal tabernacle. For if there were any such thing, it immediately vanished after its appearance; it ceased to be any thing, and therefore could not be any longer a “heavenly thing.” Wherefore, with respect thereunto, they could not continue to “serve unto the example of heavenly things,” which were not. 3dly. No tolerable account can be given of the reason or use of such a representation. For God doth not dwell in any such tabernacle in heaven, that it should be thought to represent his holy habitation; and as unto that which was to be made on the earth, he had given such punctual instructions unto Moses, confirming the remembrance and knowledge of them in his mind by the Holy Spirit, by whom he was acted and guided, as that he needed no help from his imagination, in the view of the representation of such a fabric.4thly. Whatever Moses did, it was “for a testimony unto the things which were to be spoken afterwards,” Hebrews 3:5. But these were the things of Christ and the gospel; which therefore he was to have an immediate respect unto.The sense of the words must be determined from the apostle himself. And it is evident, — 1st. That “the heavenly things,” unto whose resemblance the legal priests did minister, and “the pattern showed unto Moses in the mount,” were the same. Hereon depends the whole force of his proof from this testimony.2dly. These “heavenly things,” he expressly tells us, were those which were consecrated, dedicated unto God, and purified, by the sacrifice of the blood of Christ, Hebrews 9:23. 3dly. That Christ by his sacrifice did dedicate both himself, the whole church, and its worship, unto God. From these things it follows, —4thly. That God did spiritually and mystically represent unto Moses the incarnation and mediation of Christ, with the church of the elect which was to be gathered thereby, and its spiritual worship. And moreover, he let him know how the tabernacle and all that belonged thereunto, did represent him and them. For the tabernacle that Moses made was a sign and figure of the body of Christ. This we have proved in the exposition of the second verse of this chapter; and it is positively affirmed by the apostle, Colossians 2:17. For therein would God dwell really and substantially: Colossians 2:9, “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” And the tabernacle was but to represent this inhabitation of God in Christ. Therefore did he dwell therein typically by sundry pledges of his presence, that he might represent the real substantial inhabitation of the Godhead in the body or human nature of Christ. This, therefore, was the ἀρχέτυπος, whereunto the tabernacle was to be framed; and this was that which was showed unto Moses on the top of the mount. These were the “heavenly things,” which they served unto the resemblance and shadow of. It is therefore most probable, and most agreeable unto the mystery of the wisdom of God in these things, that, before the building of the tabernacle below, God did show unto Moses what was to be signified and represented thereby, and what he would introduce when that was to be taken away. He first showed “the true tabernacle,” then appointed a figure of it, which was to abide and serve the worship of the church, until that true one was to be introduced, when this was to be taken down and removed out of the way: which is the substance of what the apostle designeth to prove. It will be said, ‘That what was showed unto Moses in the mount was only ϊַּ ?αְ ?πֹ ?ιϊ and τύπος, as here; that is, a “likeness,” “similitude,” and “type” of other things. This, therefore, could not be Christ himself and his mediation, which are the substance of heavenly things, and not a resemblance of them.’I answer, 1st. All representations of Christ himself, antecedent unto his actual exhibition in the flesh (as his appearances in human shape of old), were but resemblances and types of what should be afterwards. 2dly. His manifestation unto Moses is so called, not that it was a type of any other things above, but because it was the prototype of all that was to be done below.(1st.) This was the foundation of the faith of the church of Israel in all generations. Their faith in God was not confined unto the outward things they enjoyed, but [rested] on Christ in them, and represented by them. They believed that they were only resemblances of him and his mediation; which when they lost the faith of, they lost all acceptance with God in their worship. The relation of their ordinances unto him, their expression of him as their prototype and substance, was the line of life, wisdom, beauty, glory, and usefulness, that ran through them all. This being now taken away, they are all as a dead thing. When Christ was in them they were the delight of God, and the joy of the souls of his saints. Now he hath unclothed himself of them, and left them to be rolled up as a vesture, as a monument of the garments he thought meet to wear in the immature age of the church, they are of no more use at all. Who now could see any beauty, any glory, in the old temple administrations, should they be revived? Where Christ is, there is glory, if we have the light of faith to discern it; and we may say of every thing wherein he is not, be it never so pompous unto the eyes of flesh, “Ichabod,” — ”Where is the glory of it?” or “It hath no glory.” Jude tells us of a contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses, verse 9. It is generally thought that the devil would have hindered the burial of it, that in process of time it might have been an occasion of idolatry among that people. But that which was signified hereby, was the contest he made to keep the body of Moses, the whole system of Mosaical worship and ceremonies, from being buried, when the life and soul of it was departed. And this hath proved the ruin of the Jews unto this day. (2dly.) Consider the progress of these heavenly things; that is, of Jesus Christ, and all the effects of his mediation in grace and glory. [1st.] The idea, the original pattern or exemplar of them, was in the mind, the counsel, the wisdom, and will of God, Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:8-9.[2dly.] Hereof God made various accidental representations, preparatory for the full expression of the glorious eternal idea of his mind. So he did in the appearance of Christ in the form of human nature to Abraham, Jacob, and others; so he did in the pattern that he showed unto Moses in the mount, which infused a spirit of life into all that was made unto a resemblance of it; so he did in the tabernacle and temple, as will be more fully declared afterwards. [3dly.] He gave a substantial representation of the eternal idea of his wisdom and grace in the incarnation of the Son, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt substantially, and in the discharge of his work of mediation. [4thly.] An exposition of the whole is given us in the Gospel, which is God’s means of instructing us in the eternal counsels of his wisdom, love, and grace, as revealed in Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:18.The actings of faith with respect unto these heavenly things do begin where the divine progress of them doth end, and end where it begins. Faith in the first place respects and receives the revelation of the Gospel, which is the means of its receiving and resting in Christ himself; and through Christ our faith is in God, 1 Peter 1:21, as the eternal spring and fountain of all grace and glory. Νυνὶδὲδιαφορωτέραςτέτευχελειτουργίας, ὅσῳκαὶκρείττονόςἐστιδιαθήκηςμεσίτης, ἥτιςἐπὶκρείττοσινἐπαγγελίαιςνενομοθέτηται. [4] [4] . — Turner remarks that νυνί, now, is not here so much a mark of time, as a formula to introduce with earnestness something which has close, and may have even logical, connection with what precedes. See also for this use of the term, ch. 11:16, 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 12:18; 1 Corinthians 12:20; in which passages it does not refer to time, but implies strong conviction grounded upon preceding arguments. — ED. There is no material difference in any translators, ancient or modern, in the rendering of these words; their signification in particular will be given in the exposition. Hebrews 8:6. — But now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.In this verse beginneth the second part of the chapter, concerning the difference between the two covenants, the old and the new, with the pre- eminence of the latter above the former, and of the ministry of Christ above the high priests on that account. The whole church-state of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and the privileges annexed unto it, depended wholly on the covenant that God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of this new priesthood whereof the apostle is discoursing, did necessarily abolish that covenant, and put an end unto all sacred ministrations that belonged unto it. And this could not well be offered unto them without the supply of another covenant, which should excel the former in privileges and advantages. For it was granted among them that it was the design of God to carry on the church unto a perfect state, as hath been declared on Hebrews 7; wherefore he would not lead it backward, nor deprive it of any thing it had enjoyed, without provision of what was better in its room. This, therefore, the apostle here undertakes to declare. And he doth it after his wonted manner, from such principles and testimonies as were admitted among themselves. Two things unto this purpose he proves by express testimonies out of the prophet Jeremiah: 1. That besides the covenant made with their fathers in Sinai, God had promised to make another covenant with the church, in his appointed time and season. 2. That this other promised covenant should be of another nature than the former, and much more excellent, as unto spiritual advantages, unto them who were taken into it.From both these, fully proved, the apostle infers the necessity of the abrogation of that first covenant, wherein they trusted, and unto which they adhered, when the appointed time was come. And hereon he takes occasion to declare the nature of the two covenants in sundry instances, and wherein the differences between them did consist. This is the substance of the remainder of this chapter. This verse is a transition from one subject unto another; namely, from the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, unto the excellency of the new covenant above the old. And herein also the apostle artificially compriseth and confirmeth his last argument, of the pre- eminency of Christ, his priesthood and ministry, above those of the law. And this he doth from the nature and excellency of that covenant whereof he was the mediator in the discharge of his office. There are two parts of the words: First, An assertion of the excellency of the ministry of Christ. And this he expresseth by way of comparison; “He hath obtained a more excellent ministry:” and after he declareth the degree of that comparison; “By how much also.”Secondly, He annexeth the proof of this assertion; in that he is “the mediator of a better covenant, established on better” or “more excellent promises.”In the first of these there occur these five things: — 1. The note of its introduction; “But now:”2. What is ascribed in the assertion unto the Lord Christ; and that is a “ministry:”3. How he came by that ministry; “He hath obtained it:”4. The quality of this ministry; it is “better” or “more excellent” than the other: 5. The measure and degree of this excellency; “By how much also:” all which must be spoken unto, for the opening of the words:— 1. The introduction of the assertion is by the particles νυνὶδέ, — ”but now.” Νῦν, “now,” is a note of time, of the present time. But there are instances where these adverbial particles, thus conjoined, do not seem to denote any time or season, but are merely adversative, Romans 7:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 7:14. But even in those places there seems a respect unto time also; and therefore I know not why it should be here excluded. As, therefore, there is an opposition intended unto the old covenant, and the Levitical priesthood; so the season is intimated of the introduction of the new covenant, and the better ministry wherewith it was accompanied; — “now,” at this time, which is the season that God hath appointed for the introduction of the new covenant and ministry.’To the same purpose the apostle expresseth himself, treating of the same subject, Romans 3:26 : “To declare ἐντῷνῦνκαιρῷ,” “at this instant season,” now the gospel is preached, “his righteousness.” For, —Obs. 1. God, in his infinite wisdom, gives proper times and seasons unto all his dispensations unto and towards the church. — So the accomplishment of these things was in “the fullness of times,” Ephesians 1:10; that is, when all things rendered it seasonable and suitable unto the condition of the church, and for the manifestation of his own glory. He hasteneth all his works of grace in their own appointed times, Isaiah 60:22. And our duty it is to leave the ordering of all the concerns of the church, in the accomplishment of promises, unto God in his own time, Acts 1:7. 2. That which is ascribed unto the Lord Christ is λειτουγρία, — a “ministry.” The priests of old had a ministry; they ministered at the altar, as in the foregoing verse. And the Lord Christ was “a minister” also; so the apostle had said before, he was λείτουργοςτῶνἀγίων, Hebrews 8:2, — ”a minister of the holy things.” Wherefore he had a “liturgy,” a “ministry,” a service, committed unto him. And two things are included herein: —(1.) That it was an office of ministry that the LORD Christ undertook. He is not called a minister with respect unto one particular act of ministration; — so are we said to “minister unto the necessity of the saints,” which yet denotes no office in them that do so. But he had a standing office committed unto him, as the word imports. In that sense also he is called διάκονος, a “minister” in office, Romans 15:8. (2.) Subordination unto God is included herein. With respect unto the church his office is supreme, accompanied with sovereign power and authority; he is “ Lord over his own house.” But he holds his office in subordination unto God, being “faithful unto him that appointed him.” So the angels are said to minister unto God, Daniel 7:10; that is, to do all things according unto his will, and at his command. So had the Lord Christ a ministry. And we may observe, —Obs. 2. That the whole office of Christ was designed unto the accomplishment of the will and dispensation of the grace of God. For these ends was his ministry committed unto him. We can never sufficiently admire the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, in undertaking this office for us. The greatness and glory of the duties which he performed in the discharge thereof, with the benefits we receive thereby, are unspeakable, being the immediate cause of all grace and glory. Yet we are not absolutely to rest in them, but to ascend by faith unto the eternal spring of them. This is the grace, the love, the mercy of God, all acted in a way of sovereign power. These are everywhere in the Scripture represented as the original spring of all grace, and the ultimate object of our faith, with respect unto the benefits which we receive by the mediation of Christ. His office was committed unto him of God, even the Father; and his will did he do in the discharge of it. Yet also, — Obs. 3. The condescension of the Son of God to undertake the office of the ministry on our behalf is unspeakable, and for ever to be admired. — Especially will it appear so to be, when we consider who it was who undertook it, what it cost him, what he did and underwent in the pursuance and discharge of it, as it is all expressed, Philippians 2:6-8. Not only what he continueth to do in heaven at the right hand of God belongeth unto this ministry, but all that he suffered also upon the earth. His ministry, in the undertaking of it, was not a dignity, a promotion, a revenue, Matthew 20:28. It is true, it is issued in glory, but not until he had undergone all the evils that human nature is capable of undergoing. And we ought to undergo any thing cheerfully for him who underwent this ministry for us.Obs. 4. The Lord Christ, by undertaking this office of the ministry, hath consecrated and made honorable that office unto all that are rightly called unto it, and do rightly discharge it. — It is true, his ministry and ours are not of the same kind and nature; but they agree in this, that they are both of them a ministry unto God in the holy things of his worship. And considering that Christ himself was God’s minister, we have far greater reason to tremble in ourselves on an apprehension of our own insufficiency for such an office, than to be discouraged with all the hardships and contests we meet withal in the world upon the account of it. 3. The general way whereby our Lord Christ came unto this ministry is expressed: Τέτευχε, — ”He obtained it.” Τυγχάνω is either “sorte contingo,” “to have a lot or portion;” or to have any thing befall a man, as it were by accident; or “assequor,” “obtineo,” to “attain” or “obtain” any thing which before we had not. But the apostle designeth not to express in this word the especial call of Christ, or the particular way whereby he came unto his ministry, but only in general that he had it, and was possessed of it, in the appointed season, which before he had not. The way whereby he entered on the whole office and work of his mediation he expresseth by κεκληρονόμνκε, Hebrews 1:4, — he had it by “inheritance;” that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made unto him as the Son. See the exposition on that place.There were two things that concurred unto his obtaining this ministry: (1.) The eternal purpose and counsel of God designing him thereunto; an act of the divine will accompanied with infinite wisdom, love, and power.(2.) The actual call of God, whereunto many things did concur, especially his unction with the Spirit above measure for the holy discharge of his whole office. Thus did he obtain this ministry, and not by any legal constitution, succession, or carnal rite, as did the priests of old. And we may see that, —Obs. 5. The exaltation of the human nature of Christ into the office of this glorious ministry depended solely on the sovereign wisdom, grace, and love of God. — When the human nature of Christ was united unto the divine, it became, in the person of the Son of God, meet and capable to make satisfaction for the sins of the church, and to procure righteousness and life eternal for all that do believe. But it did not merit that union, nor could do so. For as it was utterly impossible that any created nature, by any act of its own, should merit the hypostatical union, so it was granted unto the human nature of Christ antecedently unto any act of its own in way of obedience unto God; for it was united unto the person of the Son by virtue of that union. Wherefore, antecedently unto it, it could merit nothing. Hence its whole exaltation, and the ministry that was discharged therein, depended solely on the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God. And in this election and designation of the human nature of Christ unto grace and glory, we may see the pattern and example of our own. For if it was not upon the consideration or foresight of the obedience of the human nature of Christ that it was predestinated and chosen unto the grace of the hypostatical union, with the ministry and glory which depended thereon, but of the mere sovereign grace of God; how much less could a foresight of any thing in us be the cause why God should choose us in him before the foundation of the world unto grace and glory! 4. The quality of this ministry, thus obtained, as unto a comparative excellency, is also expressed: Διαφορωτέρας, — “More excellent.” The word is used only in this epistle in this sense, Hebrews 1:4, and in this place. The original word denotes only a difference from other things; but in the comparative degree, as here used, it signifies a difference with a preference, or a comparative excellency. The ministry of the Levitical priests, was good and useful in its time and season; this of our Lord Jesus Christ so differed from it as to be better than it, and more excellent; πολλῷἄμεινον. And, —5. There is added hereunto the degree of this pre-eminence, so far as it is intended in this place and the present argument, in the word ὅοῷ, — “by how much.” ‘So much more excellent, by how much.’The excellency of his ministry above that of the Levitical priests, bears proportion with the excellency of the covenant whereof he was the mediator above the old covenant wherein they administered; whereof afterwards.So have we explained the apostle’s assertion, concerning the excellency of the ministry of Christ. And herewith he closeth his discourse which he had so long engaged in, about the pre-eminence of Christ in his office above the high priests of old. And indeed, this being the very hinge whereon his whole controversy with the Jews did depend, he could not give it too much evidence, nor too full a confirmation. And as unto what concerns ourselves at present, we are taught thereby, that, — Obs. 6. It is our duty and our safety to acquiesce universally and absolutely in the ministry of Jesus Christ. — That which he was so designed unto, in the infinite wisdom and grace of God; that which he was so furnished for the discharge of by the communication of the Spirit unto him in all fullness; that which all other priesthoods were removed to make way for, must needs be sufficient and effectual for all the ends unto which it is designed. It may be said, ‘This is that which all men do; all that are called Christians do fully acquiesce in the ministry of Jesus Christ.’But if it be so, why do we hear the bleating of another sort of cattle? What mean those other priests, and reiterated sacrifices, which make up the worship of the church of Rome? If they rest in the ministry of Christ, why do they appoint one of their own to do the same things that he hath done, — namely, to offer sacrifice unto God ? Secondly, The proof of this assertion lies in the latter part of these words; “By how much he is the mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises” The words are so disposed, that some think the apostle intends now to prove the excellency of the covenant from the excellency of his ministry therein. But the other sense is more suited unto the scope of the place, and the nature of the argument which the apostle presseth the Hebrews withal. For on supposition that there was indeed another, and that a “better covenant,” to be introduced and established, than that which the Levitical priests served in, — which they could not deny, — it plainly follows, that he on whose ministry the dispensation of that covenant did depend must of necessity be “more excellent” in that ministry than they who appertained unto that covenant which was to be abolished. However, it may be granted that these things do mutually testify unto and illustrate one another. Such as the priest is, such is the covenant; such as the covenant is in dignity, such is the priest also. 1. What is in general ascribed unto Christ, declaring the nature of his ministry; he was a “mediator:”2. The determination of his mediatory office unto the new covenant; “of a better covenant:”3. The proof or demonstration of the nature of this covenant as unto its excellency, it was “established on better promises:” — 1. His office is that of a mediator, — μεσίτης, one that interposed between God and man, for the doing of all those things whereby a covenant might be established between them, and made effectual Schlichtingius on the place gives this description of a mediator: “Mediatorem foederis esse nihil aliud est, quam Dei esse interpretem, et internuntium in foedere cum hominibus pangendo; per quem scilicet et Deus voluntatem suam hominibus declarer, et illi vicissim divinae voluntatis notitia instructi ad Deum accedant, cumque eo reconciliati, pacem in posterum colant,” And Grotius speaks much unto the same purpose. But this description of a mediator is wholly applicable unto Moses, and suited unto his office in giving of the law. See Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27-28. What is said by them doth indeed immediately belong unto the mediatory office of Christ, but it is not confined thereunto; yea, it is exclusive of the principal parts of his mediation. And whereas there is nothing in it but what belongs unto the prophetical office of Christ, — which the apostle here doth not principally intend, — it is most improperly applied as a description of such a mediator as he doth intend. And therefore, when he comes afterwards to declare in particular what belonged unto such a mediator of the covenant as he designed, he expressly placeth it in his “death for the redemption of transgressions,” Hebrews 9:15; affirming that “for that cause he was a mediator.” But hereof there is nothing at all in the description they give us of this office. But this the apostle doth in his, elsewhere, 1 Timothy 2:5-6,“There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all.”The principal part of his mediation consisted in the “giving himself a ransom,” or a price of redemption for the whole church. Wherefore this description of a mediator of the new testament is feigned only, to exclude his satisfaction, or his offering himself unto God in his death and blood- shedding, with the atonement made thereby. The Lord Christ, then, in his ministry, is called μεσίτης, the “mediator” of the covenant, in the same sense as he is called ἔγγυος, the “surety;” whereof see the exposition on Hebrews 7:22. He is, in the new covenant, the mediator, the surety, the priest, the sacrifice, all in his own person. The ignorance and want of a due consideration hereof, are the great evidence of the degeneracy of Christian religion. Whereas this is the first general notion of the office of Christ, that which compriseth the whole ministry committed unto him, and containeth in itself the especial offices of king, priest, and prophet, whereby he dischargeth his mediation, some things must be mentioned that are declarative of its nature and use. And we may unto this purpose observe, — (1.) That unto the office of a mediator it is required that there be different persons concerned in the covenant, and that by their own wills; as it must be in every compact, of what sort soever. So saith our apostle, “A mediator is not of one, but God is one,” Galatians 3:20; that is, if there were none but God concerned in this matter, as it is in an absolute promise or sovereign precept, there would be no need of, no place for a mediator, such a mediator as Christ is. Wherefore our consent in and unto the covenant is required in the very notion of a mediator. (2.) That the persons entering into covenant be in such a state and condition as that it is no way convenient or morally possible that they should treat immediately with each other as to the ends of the covenant; for if they are so, a mediator to go between is altogether needless. So was it in the original covenant with Adam, which had no mediator. But in the giving of the law, which was to be a covenant between God and the people, they found themselves utterly insufficient for an immediate treaty with God, and therefore desired that they might have an internuncius to go between God and them, to bring his proposals, and carry back their consent, Deuteronomy 5:23-27. And this is the voice of all men really convinced of the holiness of God, and of their own condition. Such is the state between God and sinners. The law and the curse of it did so interpose between them, that they could not enter into any immediate treaty with God, Psalms 5:3-5. This made a mediator necessary, that the new covenant might be established; whereof we shall speak afterwards.(3.) That he who is this mediator be accepted, trusted, and rested in on both sides, or the parties mutually entering into covenant. An absolute trust must be reposed in him, so that each party may be everlastingly obliged in what he undertaketh on their behalf; and such as admit not of his terms, can have no benefit by, no interest in the covenant. So was it with the Lord Christ in this matter. On the part of God, he reposed the whole trust of all the concernments of the covenant in him, and absolutely rested therein. “Behold,” saith he of him, “my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,” or is “well pleased,” — ἐνᾧεὐδόκησα, Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 3:17. When he undertook this office, and said, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” the soul of God rested in him, Exodus 23:21; John 5:20-22. And to him he gives an account at last of his discharge of this thing, John 17:4. And on our part, unless we resign ourselves absolutely unto a universal trust in him and reliance on him, and unless we accept of all the terms of the covenant as by him proposed, and engage to stand unto all that he hath undertaken on our behalf, we can have neither share nor interest in this matter. (4.) A mediator must be a middle person between both parties entering into covenant; and if they be of different natures, a perfect, complete mediator ought to partake of each of their natures in the same person. The necessity hereof, and the glorious wisdom of God herein, I have elsewhere at large demonstrated, and shall not therefore here again insist upon it.(5.) A mediator must be one who voluntarily and of his own accord undertaketh the work of mediation. This is required of every one who will effectually mediate between any persons at variance, to bring them unto an agreement on equal terms. So it was required that the will and consent of Christ should concur in his susception of this office; and that they did so, himself expressly testifieth, Hebrews 10:5-10. It is true, he was designed and appointed by the Father unto this office; whence he is called his “servant,” and constantly witnesseth of himself, that he came to do the will and commandment of him that sent him: but he had that to do in the discharge of this office, which could not, according unto any rule of divine righteousness, be imposed on him without his own voluntary consent. And this was the ground of the eternal compact that was between the Father and the Son, with respect unto his mediation; which I have elsewhere explained. And the testification of his own will, grace, and love, in the susception of this office, is a principal motive unto that faith and trust which the church placeth in him, as the mediator between God and them. Upon this his voluntary undertaking doth the soul of God rest in him, and he reposeth the whole trust in him of accomplishing his will and pleasure, or the design of his love and grace in this covenant, Isaiah 53:10-12. And the faith of the church, whereon salvation doth depend, must have love unto his person inseparably accompanying it. Love unto Christ is no less necessary unto salvation, than faith in him. And as faith is resolved into the sovereign wisdom and grace of God in sending him, and his own ability to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him; so love ariseth from the consideration of his own love and grace in his voluntary undertaking of this office, and the discharge of it. (6.) In this voluntary undertaking to be a mediator, two things were required: —[1. That he should remove and take out of the way whatever kept the covenanters at a distance, or was a cause of enmity between them. For it is supposed that such an enmity there was, or there had been no need of a mediator. Therefore in the covenant made with Adam, there having been no variance between God and man, nor any distance but what necessarily ensued from the distinct natures of the Creator and a creature, there was no mediator. But the design of this covenant was to make reconciliation and peace. Hereon, therefore, depended the necessity of satisfaction, redemption, and the making of atonement by sacrifice. For man having sinned and apostatized from the rule of God, making himself thereby obnoxious unto his wrath, according unto the eternal rule of righteousness, and in particular unto the curse of the law, there could be no new peace and agreement made with God unless due satisfaction were made for these things. For although God was willing, in infinite love, grace, and mercy, to enter into a new covenant with fallen man, yet would he not do it unto the prejudice of his righteousness, the dishonor of his rule, and the contempt of his law. Wherefore none could undertake to be a mediator of this covenant, but he that was able to satisfy the justice of God, glorify his government, and fulfill the law. And this could be done by none but him, concerning whom it might be said that “God purchased his church with his own blood. [2. That he should procure and purchase, in a way suited unto the glory of God, the actual communication of all the good things prepared and proposed in this covenant; that is, grace and glory, with all that belong unto them, for them and on their behalf whose surety he was. And this is the foundation of the merit of Christ, and of the grant of all good things unto us for his sake. (7.) It is required of this mediator, as such, that he give assurance to and undertake for the parties mutually concerned, as to the accomplishment of the terms of the covenant, undertaking on each hand for them: —[1. On the part of God towards men, that they shall have peace and acceptance with him, in the sure accomplishment of all the promises of the covenant. This he doth only declaratively, in the doctrine of the gospel, and in the institution of the ordinances of evangelical worship. For he was not a surety for God, nor did God need any, having confirmed his promise with an oath, swearing by himself, because he had no greater to swear by. [2. On our part, he undertakes unto God for our acceptance of the terms of the covenant, and our accomplishment of them, by his enabling us thereunto. These things, among others, were necessary unto a full and complete mediator of the new covenant, such as Christ was. And, — Obs. 7. The provision of this mediator between God and man was an effect of infinite wisdom and grace; yea, it was the greatest and most glorious external effect of them that ever they did produce, or ever will do in this world. The creation of all things at first out of nothing was a glorious effect of infinite wisdom and power; but when the glory of that design was eclipsed by the entrance of sin, this provision of a mediator, — one whereby all things were restored and retrieved into a condition of bringing more glory unto God, and securing for ever the blessed estate of them whose mediator he is, — is accompanied with more evidences of the divine excellencies than that was. See Ephesians 1:10.2. Two things are added in the description of this mediator:(1.) That he was a mediator of a covenant;(2.) That this covenant was better than another which respect is had unto, whereof he was not the mediator: —(1.) He was the mediator of a “covenant.” And two things are supposed herein: —[1. That there was a covenant made or prepared between God and man; that is, it was so far made, as that God who made it had prepared the terms of it in a sovereign act of wisdom and grace. The preparation of the covenant, consisting in the will and purpose of God graciously to bestow on all men the good things which are contained in it, all things belonging unto grace and glory, as also to make way for the obedience which he required herein, is supposed unto the constitution of this covenant. [2. That there was need of a mediator, that this covenant might be effectual unto its proper ends, of the glory of God and the obedience of mankind, with their reward. This was not necessary from the nature of a covenant in general; for a covenant may be made and entered into between different parties without any mediator, merely on the equity of the terms of it. Nor was it so from the nature of a covenant between God and man, as man was at first created of God; for the first covenant between them was immediate, without the interposition of a mediator. But it became necessary from the state and condition of them with whom this covenant was made, and the especial nature of this covenant. This the apostle declares, Romans 8:3,“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”The law was the moral instrument or rule of the covenant that was made immediately between God and man: but it could not continue to be so after the entrance of sin; that is, so as that God might be glorified thereby, in the obedience and reward of men. Wherefore he “sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh;” that is, provided a mediator for a new covenant. The persons with whom this covenant was to be made being all of them sinners, and apostatized from God, it became not the holiness or righteousness of God to treat immediately with them any more. Nor would it have answered his holy ends so to have done. For if when they were in a condition of uprightness and integrity, they kept not the terms of that covenant which was made immediately with them, without a mediator, although they were holy, just, good, and equal; how much less could any such thing be expected from them in their depraved condition of apostasy from God and enmity against him! It therefore became not the wisdom of God to enter anew into covenant with mankind, without security that the terms of the covenant should be accepted, and the grace of it made effectual. This we could not give; yea, we gave all evidences possible unto the contrary, in that “God saw that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually,” Genesis 6:5.Wherefore it was necessary there should be a mediator, to be the surety of this covenant. Again, the covenant itself was so prepared, in the counsel, wisdom, and grace of God, as that the principal, yea, indeed, all the benefits of it, were to depend on what was to be done by a mediator, and could not otherwise be effected. Such were satisfaction for sin, and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness; which are the foundation of this covenant. (2.) To proceed with the text; this covenant, whereof the Lord Christ is the mediator, is said to be a “better covenant.” Wherefore it is supposed that there was another covenant, whereof the Lord Christ was not the mediator. And in the following verses there are two covenants, a first and a latter, an old and a new, compared together. We must therefore consider what was that other covenant, than which this is said to be better; for upon the determination thereof depends the right understanding of the whole ensuing discourse of the apostle. And because this is a subject wrapped up in much obscurity, and attended with many difficulties, it will be necessary that we use the best of our diligence, both in the investigation of the truth and in the declaration of it, so as that it may be distinctly apprehended. And I shall first explain the text, and then speak to the difficulties which arise from it: — [1. There was an original covenant made with Adam, and all mankind in him. The rule of obedience and reward that was between God and him was not expressly called a covenant, but it contained the express nature of a covenant; for it was the agreement of God and man concerning obedience and disobedience, rewards and punishments. Where there is a law concerning these things, and an agreement upon it by all parties concerned, there is a formal covenant. Wherefore it may be considered two ways: — 1st. As it was a law only; so it proceeded from, and was a consequent of the nature of God and man, with their mutual relation unto one another. God being considered as the creator, governor, and benefactor of man; and man as an intellectual creature, capable of moral obedience; this law was necessary, and is eternally indispensable.2dly. As it was a covenant; and this depended on the will and pleasure of God. I will not dispute whether God might have given a law unto men that should have had nothing in it of a covenant, properly so called; as is the law of creation unto all other creatures, which hath no rewards nor punishments annexed unto it. Yet this God calls a covenant also, inasmuch as it is an effect of his purpose, his unalterable will and pleasure, Jeremiah 33:20-21. But that this law of our obedience should be a formal, complete covenant, there were moreover some things required on the part of God, and some also on the part of man. Two things were required on the part of God to complete this covenant, or he did so complete it by two things: — (1st.) By annexing unto it promises and threatenings of reward and punishment; the first of grace, the other of justice.(2dly.) The expression of these promises and threatenings in external signs; the first in the tree of life, the latter in that of the knowledge of good and evil. By these did God establish the original law of creation as a covenant, gave it the nature of a covenant. On the part of man, it was required that he accept of this law as the rule of the covenant which God made with him. And this he did two ways: —[1st.] By the innate principles of light and obedience concreated with his nature. By these he absolutely and universally assented unto the law, as proposed with promises and threatenings, as holy, just, good, — what was meet for God to require, what was equal and good unto himself. [2dly.] By his acceptance of the commands concerning the tree of life, and that of the knowledge of good and evil, as the signs and pledges of this covenant. So was it established as a covenant between God and man, without the interposition of any mediator. This is the covenant of works, absolutely the old, or first covenant that God made with men. But this is not the covenant here intended; for, — 1st. The covenant called afterwards “the first,” was διαθήκη, a “testament.” So it is here called. It was such a covenant as was a testament also. Now there can be no testament, but there must be death for the confirmation of it, Hebrews 9:16. But in the making of the covenant with Adam, there was not the death of any thing, whence it might be called a testament. But there was the death of beasts in sacrifice in the confirmation of the covenant at Sinai, as we shall see afterwards. And it must be observed, that although I use the name of a “covenant,” as we have rendered the word διαθήκη, because the true signification of that word will more properly occur unto us in another place, yet I do not understand thereby a covenant properly and strictly so called, but such a one as hath the nature of a testament also, wherein the good things of him that makes it are bequeathed unto them for whom they are designed. Neither the word used constantly by the apostle in this argument, nor the design of his discourse, will admit of any other covenant to be understood in this place. Whereas, therefore, the first covenant made with Adam was in no sense a testament also, it cannot be here intended. 2dly. That first covenant made with Adam, had, as unto any benefit to be expected from it, with respect unto acceptation with God, life, and salvation, ceased long before, even at the entrance of sin. It was not abolished or abrogated by any act of God, as a law, but only was made weak and insufficient unto its first end, as a covenant. God had provided a way for the salvation of sinners, declared in the first promise. When this is actually embraced, that first covenant ceaseth towards them, as unto its curse, in all its concerns as a covenant, and obligation unto sinless obedience as the condition of life; because both of them are answered by the mediator of the new covenant. But as unto all those who receive not the grace tendered in the promise, it doth remain in fill force and efficacy, not as a covenant, but as a law; and that because neither the obedience it requires nor the curse which it threatens is answered. Hence, if any man believeth not, “the wrath of God abideth on him.” For its commands and curse depending on the necessary relation between God and man, with the righteousness of God as the supreme governor of mankind, they must be answered and fulfilled. Wherefore it was never abrogated formally. But as all unbelievers are still obliged by it, and unto it must stand or fall, so it is perfectly fulfilled in all believers, — not in their own persons, but in the person of their surety.“God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8:3-4.But as a covenant, obliging unto personal, perfect, sinless obedience, as the condition of life, to be performed by themselves, so it ceased to be, long before the introduction of the new covenant which the apostle speaks of, that was promised “in the latter days.” But the other covenant here spoken of was not removed or taken away, until this new covenant was actually established. 3dly. The church of Israel was never absolutely under the power of that covenant as a covenant of life; for from the days of Abraham, the promise was given unto them and their seed. And the apostle proves that no law could afterwards be given, or covenant made, that should disannul that promise, Galatians 3:17. But had they been brought under the old covenant of works, it would have disannulled the promise; for that covenant and the promise are diametrically opposite. And moreover, if they were under that covenant, they were all under the curse, and so perished eternally: which is openly false; for it is testified of them that they pleased God by faith, and so were saved. But it is evident that the covenant intended was a covenant wherein the church of Israel walked with God, until such time as this better covenant was solemnly introduced. This is plainly declared in the ensuing context, especially in the close of the chapter, where, speaking of this former covenant, he says, it was “become old,” and so “ready to disappear.” Wherefore it is not the covenant of works made with Adam that is intended, when this other is said to be a “better covenant.” [2. There were other federal transactions between God and the church before the giving of the law on mount Sinai. Two of them there were into which all the rest were resolved:— 1st. The first promise, given unto our first parents immediately after the fall. This had in it the nature of a covenant, grounded on a promise of grace, and requiring obedience in all that received the promise.2dly. The promise given and sworn unto Abraham, which is expressly called the covenant of God, and had the whole nature of a covenant in it, with a solemn outward seal appointed for its confirmation and establishment. Hereof we have treated at large on the sixth chapter.Neither of these, nor any transaction between God and man that may be reduced unto them, as explanations, renovations, or confirmations of them, is the “first covenant” here intended. For they are not only consistent with the “new covenant,” so as that there was no necessity to remove them out of the way for its introduction, but did indeed contain in them the essence and nature of it, and so were confirmed therein. Hence the Lord Christ himself is said to be “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers,” Romans 15:8. As he was the mediator of the new covenant, he was so far from taking off from, or abolishing those promises, that it belonged unto his office to confirm them. Wherefore, — [3.. The other covenant or testament here supposed, whereunto that whereof the Lord Christ was the mediator is preferred, is none other but that which God made with the people of Israel on mount Sinai. So it is expressly affirmed, verse 9: “The covenant which I made with your fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” This was that covenant which had all the institutions of worship annexed unto it, Hebrews 9:1-3; whereof we must treat afterwards more at large. With respect hereunto it is that the Lord Christ is said to be the “mediator of a better covenant;” that is, of another distinct from it, and more excellent.It remains unto the exposition of the words, that we inquire what was this covenant, whereof our Lord Christ was the mediator, and what is here affirmed of it. This can be no other in general but that which we call “the covenant of grace.” And it is so called in opposition unto that of “works,” which was made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, do divide the ways of our relation unto God, being diametrically opposite, and every way inconsistent, Romans 11:6. Of this covenant the Lord Christ was the mediator from the foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise, Revelation 13:8; for it was given on his interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation. But here ariseth the first difficulty of the context, and that in two things; for, —[1. If this covenant of grace was made from the beginning, and if the LORD Christ was the mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the gospel-state in opposition unto the law, by virtue of this covenant, seeing that under the law also the Lord Christ was the mediator of that covenant, which was from the beginning ? [2. If it be the covenant of grace which is intended, and that be opposed unto the covenant of works made with Adam, then the other covenant must be that covenant of works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved. The answer hereunto is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant: νενομοθέτηται, whose meaning we must inquire into. I say, therefore, that the apostle doth not here consider the new covenant absolutely, and as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world, in the way of a promise; for as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the apostle proves expressly, that the renovation of it made unto Abraham was no way abrogated by the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. There was no interruption of its administration made by the introduction of the law. But he treats of such an establishment of the new covenant as wherewith the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which was therefore to be removed out of the way. Wherefore he considers it here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper unto it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges wherewith they are accompanied. It is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the church’s faith, obedience, and worship, in all things. This is the meaning of the word νενομοθέτηται: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by νενομοθέτηται, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. 3. In the last place, the apostle tells us whereon this establishment was made; and that is ἐπικρείττοσινἐπαγγελίαις, — ”on better promises.” For the better understanding hereof we must consider somewhat of the original and use of divine promises in our relation unto God. And we may observe, —(1.) That every covenant between God and man must be founded on and resolved into “promises.” Hence essentially a promise and a covenant are all one; and God calls an absolute promise, founded on an absolute decree, his covenant, Genesis 9:11. And his purpose for the continuation of the course of nature unto the end of the world, he calls his covenant with day and night, Jeremiah 33:20. The being and essence of a divine covenant lies in the promise. Hence are they called “the covenants of promise,”Ephesians 2:12; — such as are founded on and consist in promises. And it is necessary that so it should be. For, —[1. The nature of God who maketh these covenants requireth that so it should be. It becometh his greatness and goodness, in all his voluntary transactions with his creatures, to propose that unto them wherein their advantage, their happiness and blessedness, doth consist. We inquire not how God may deal with his creatures as such; what he may absolutely require of them, on the account of his own being, his absolute essential excellencies, with their universal dependence on him. Who can express or limit the sovereignty of God over his creatures? All the disputes about it are fond. We have no measures of what is infinite. May he not do with his own what he pleaseth? Are we not in his hands, as clay in the hands of the potter? And whether he make or mar a vessel, who shall say unto him, What doest thou? He giveth no account of his matters. But upon supposition that he will condescend to enter into covenant with his creatures, and to come to agreement with them according unto the terms of it, it becometh his greatness and goodness to give them promises as the foundation of it, wherein he proposeth unto them the things wherein their blessedness and reward do consist. For, 1st. Herein he proposeth himself unto them as the eternal spring and fountain of all power and goodness. Had he treated with us merely by a law, he had therein only revealed his sovereign authority and holiness; the one in giving of the law, the other in the nature of it. But in promises he revealeth himself as the eternal spring of goodness and power; for the matter of all promises is somewhat that is good; and the communication of it depends on sovereign power. That God should so declare himself in his covenant, was absolutely necessary to direct and encourage the obedience of the covenanters; and he did so accordingly, Genesis 15:1; Genesis 17:1-2.2dly. Hereby he reserves the glory of the whole unto himself. For although the terms of agreement which he proposeth between himself and us be in their own nature “holy, just, and good,” — which sets forth his praise and glory, — yet if there were not something on his part which hath no antecedent respect unto any goodness, obedience, or desert in us, we should have wherein to glory in ourselves; which is inconsistent with the glory of God. But the matter of those promises wherein the covenant is founded is free, undeserved, and without respect unto any thing in us whereby it may in any sense be procured. And so in the first covenant, which was given in a form of law, attended with a penal sanction, yet the foundation of it was in a promise of a free and undeserved reward, even of the eternal enjoyment of God: which no goodness or obedience in the creature could possibly merit the attainment of. So that if a man should by virtue of any covenant be justified by works, though he might have whereof to glory before men, yet could he not glory before God, as the apostle declares, Romans 4:2; and that because the reward proposed in the promise doth infinitely exceed the obedience performed.[2. It was also necessary on our part that every divine covenant should be founded and established on promises; for there is no state wherein we may be taken into covenant with God, but it is supposed we are not yet arrived at that perfection and blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and which we cannot but desire. And therefore when we come to heaven, and the full enjoyment of God, there shall be no use of any covenant any more, seeing we shall be in eternal rest, in the enjoyment of all the blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and shall immutably adhere unto God without any further expectation. But whilst we are in the way, we have still somewhat, yea principal parts of our blessedness, to desire, expect, and believe. So in the state of innocency, though it had all the perfection which a state of obedience according unto a law was capable of, yet did not the blessedness of eternal rest, for which we were made, consist therein. Now, whilst it is thus with us, we cannot but be desiring and looking out after that full and complete happiness, which our nature cannot come to rest without. This, therefore, renders it necessary that there should be a promise of it given as the foundation of the covenant; without which we should want our principal encouragement unto obedience. And much more must it be so in the state of sin and apostasy from God; for we are now not only most remote from our utmost happiness, but involved in a condition of misery, without a deliverance from which we cannot be any ways induced to give ourselves up unto covenant obedience. Wherefore, unless we are prevented in the covenant with promises of deliverance from our present state, and the enjoyment of future blessedness, no covenant could be of use or advantage unto us. [3. It is necessary from the nature of a covenant. For every covenant that is proposed unto men, and accepted by them, requires somewhat to be performed on their part, otherwise it is no covenant; but where any thing is required of them that accept of the covenant, or to whom it is proposed, it doth suppose that somewhat be promised on the behalf of them by whom the covenant is proposed, as the foundation of its acceptance, and the reason of the duties required in it. All this appears most evidently in the covenant of grace, which is here said to be “established on promises;” and that on two accounts. For, — [1. At the same time that much is required of us in the way of duty and obedience, we are told in the Scripture, and find it by experience, that of ourselves we can do nothing. Wherefore, unless the precept of the covenant be founded in a promise of giving grace and spiritual strength unto us, whereby we may be enabled to perform those duties, the covenant can be of no benefit or advantage unto us. And the want of this one consideration, that every covenant is founded in promises, and that the promises give life unto the precepts of it, hath perverted the minds of many to suppose an ability in ourselves of yielding obedience unto those precepts, without grace antecedently received to enable us thereunto; which overthrows the nature of the new covenant. [2. As was observed, we are all actually guilty of sin before this covenant was made with us. Wherefore unless there be a promise given of the pardon of sin, it is to no purpose to propose any new covenant terms unto us. For “the wages of sin is death;” and we having sinned must die, whatever we do afterwards, unless our sins be pardoned. This, therefore, must be proposed unto us as the foundation of the covenant, or it will be of none effect. And herein lies the great difference between the promises of the covenant of works and those of the covenant of grace. The first were only concerning things future; eternal life and blessedness upon the accomplishment of perfect obedience. Promises of present mercy and pardon it stood in need of none, it was not capable of. Nor had it any promises of giving more grace, or supplies of it; but man was wholly left unto what he had at first received. Hence the covenant was broken. But in the covenant of grace all things are founded in promises of present mercy, and continual supplies of grace, as well as of future blessedness. Hence it comes to be “ordered in all things, and sure.” And this is the first thing that was to be declared, namely, that every divine covenant is established on promises. (2.) These promises are said to be “better promises.” The other covenant had its promises peculiar unto it, with respect whereunto this is said to be “established on better promises.” It was, indeed, principally represented under a system of precepts, and those almost innumerable; but it had its promises also, into the nature whereof we shall immediately inquire. With respect, therefore, unto them is the new covenant, whereof the Lord Christ is the mediator, said to be “established on better promises.” That it should be founded in promises, was necessary from its general nature as a covenant, and more necessary from its especial nature as a covenant of grace. That these promises are said to be “better promises,” respects those of the old covenant. But this is so said as to include all other degrees of comparison. They are not only better than they, but they are positively good in themselves, and absolutely the best that God ever gave, or will give unto the church. And what they are we must consider in our progress. And sundry things may be observed from these words: — Obs. 8. There is infinite grace in every divine covenant, inasmuch as it is established on promises. — Infinite condescension it is in God, that he will enter into covenant with dust and ashes, with poor worms of the earth. And herein lies the spring of all grace, from whence all the streams of it do flow. And the first expression of it is in laying the foundation of it in some undeserved promises. And this was that which became the goodness and greatness of his nature, the means whereby we are brought to adhere unto him in faith, hope, trust, and obedience, until we come unto the enjoyment of him; for that is the use of promises, to keep us in adherence unto God, as the first original and spring of all goodness, and the ultimate satisfactory reward of our souls, 2 Corinthians 7:1.Obs. 9. The promises of the covenant of grace are better than those of any other covenant, as for many other reasons, so especially because the grace of them prevents any condition or qualification on our part. — I do not say the covenant of grace is absolutely without conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of obedience which God requireth of us in and by virtue of that covenant; but this I say, the principal promises thereof are not in the first place remunerative of our obedience in the covenant, but efficaciously assumptive of us into covenant, and establishing or confirming in the covenant. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Εἰγὰρἡπρώτηἐκείνηη῏νἄμεμπτος, οὐκἄνδευτέραςἐζητεῖτοτόπος.For if that first [covenant] had been blameless, then should no place have been sought for the second. In this verse, and so also in those that follow unto the end of this chapter, the apostle designeth a confirmation of what he had before asserted and undertaken to prove. And this was, that there is a necessity of a new and better covenant, accompanied with better promises and more excellent ordinances of worship than the former. Hereon it follows that the first was to be disannulled and abolished: which was the main thesis he had to prove. And there are two parts of his argument to this purpose. For first he proveth, that on the supposition of another and better covenant to be introduced, it did unavoidably follow that the first was to be abolished, as that which was not perfect, complete, or sufficient unto its end; which he doth in this verse. Secondly, he proves that such a new, better covenant was to be introduced, in the verses following. What he had before confirmed in sundry particular instances, he summarily concludes in one general argument in this verse, and that built on a principle generally acknowledged. And it is this, ‘All the privileges, all the benefits and advantages of the Aaronical priesthood and sacrifices, do all belong unto the covenant whereunto they were annexed, a chief part of whose outward administrations consisted in them.’This the Hebrews neither could nor did question. The whole of what they pleaded for, the only charter and tenure of all their privileges, was the covenant that God made with their fathers at Sinai. Wherefore that priesthood, those sacrifices, with all the worship belonging unto the tabernacle or temple, were necessarily commensurate unto that covenant. Whilst that covenant continued, they were to continue; and if that covenant ceased, they were to cease also. These things were agreed between the apostle and them. Hereon he subsumes, ‘But there is mention of another covenant to be made with the whole church, and to be introduced long after the making of that at Sinai.’Neither could this be denied by them. However, to put it out of controversy, the apostle proves it by an express testimony of the prophet Jeremiah. In that testimony it is peculiarly declared, that this new covenant, that was promised to be introduced “in the latter days,” should be better and more excellent than the former, as is manifest from the promises whereon it is established; yet in this verse the apostle proceeds no further but unto the general consideration of God’s promising to make another covenant with the church, and what would follow thereon. From this supposition the apostle proves that the first covenant is imperfect, blamable, and removable. And the force of his inference depends on a common notion or presumption, that is clear and evident in its own light, And it is this, when once a covenant is made and established, if it will serve unto and effect all that he who makes it doth design, and exhibit all the good which he intends to communicate, there is no reason why another covenant should be made. The making of a new for no other ends or purposes but what the old was every way sufficient for, argues lightness and mutability in him that made it. Unto this purpose doth he argue, Galatians 3:21,“If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.”Could the first covenant have perfected and consecrated the church, could it have communicated all the grace and mercy that God intended to indulge unto the children of men, the wise and holy author of it would have had no thought about the introduction and establishment of another. It would have been no way agreeable unto his infinite wisdom and faithfulness so to do. Wherefore the promise hereof doth irrefragably prove, that both the first covenant and all the services of it were imperfect, and therefore to be removed and taken away. Indeed this promise of a new covenant, diverse from that made at Sinai, or not like unto it, as the prophet speaks, is sufficient of itself to overthrow the vain pretences of the Jews wherein they are hardened to this day. The absolute perpetuity of the law and its worship, — that is, of the covenant at Sinai, — is the principal, fundamental article of their present faith, or rather unbelief. But this is framed by them in direct opposition unto the promises of God. For let it be demanded of them, whether they believe that God will make another covenant with the church, not according to the covenant which he made with their fathers at Sinai. If they shall say they do not believe it, then do they plainly renounce the prophets, and the promises of God given by them. If they do grant it, I desire to know of them with what sacrifices this new covenant shall be established; by what priest, with what worship, it shall be administered. If they say that they shall be done by the sacrifices, priests, and worship of the law, they deny what they granted before, namely, that it is a new and another covenant; for the sacrifices and priests of the law cannot confirm or administer any other covenant, but that which they belong and are confined unto. If it be granted that this new covenant must have a new mediator, a new priest, a new sacrifice, — as it is undeniable it must, or it cannot be a new covenant, — then must the old cease and be removed, that this may come into its place. Nothing but obstinacy and blindness can resist the force of this argument of the apostle. The general design of the apostle in this verse being cleared, we may consider the words more particularly. And there are two things in them: 1. A positive assertion, included in a supposition, “If the first covenant had been blameless,” — had not been defective; that is, it was so.2. The proof of this assertion: “If it had not been so, place would not have been sought for the second;” which that there was, he proves in the following verses: —1. In the first part of the words there is,(1.) A causal conjunction, rendering a reason; “for.”(2.) The subject spoken of: “That first covenant.”(3.) What is affirmed of it, as the affirmation is included in a negative supposition: It was not blameless, it is not blameless: —(1.) The conjunction, γάρ, “for,” showeth that the apostle intends the confirmation of what he had before discoursed. But he seems not to refer only unto what he had immediately before affirmed concerning the better promises of the new testament, but unto the whole argument that he hath in hand. For the general reason which here he insists upon, proves all that he had before delivered concerning the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and the whole worship of the first covenant depending thereon. (2.) The subject spoken of is ἡπρώτηἐκείνη, — ”that first;” that is, προτέραδιαθήκη, that “former covenant:” the covenant made with the fathers at Sinai, with all the ordinances of worship thereunto belonging, whose nature and use we have before declared. (3.) Hereof it is said, εἰἄμεμπτοςη῏ν. Vulg. Lat., “si culpa vacasset.” And so we, “if it had been faultless.” I am sure the expression is a little too harsh in our translation, and such as the original word will not bear, at least doth not require. For it seems to intimate, that absolutely there was something faulty or blameworthy in the covenant of God. But this must not be admitted. For besides that the author of it, which was God himself, doth free it from any such charge or imputation, it is in the Scripture everywhere declared to be “holy, just, and good.” There is, indeed, an intimation of a defect in it; but this was not with respect to its own particular end, but with respect to another general end, whereunto it was not designed. That which is defective with respect unto its own particular end whereunto it is ordained, or which it is designed to accomplish, is really faulty; but that which is or may be so with respect unto some other general end, which it was never designed to accomplish, is not so in itself. This the apostle discourseth concerning, Galatians 3:19-22. We must therefore state the signification of the word from the subject-matter that he treats about in this place; and this is the perfection and consummation, or the sanctification and salvation of the church. With respect hereunto alone it is that he asserts the insufficiency and imperfection of the first covenant. And the inquiry between him and the Hebrews was, not whether the first covenant was not in itself holy, just, good, and blameless, every way perfect with respect unto its own especial ends; but whether it was perfect and effectual unto the general ends mentioned. This it was not, saith the apostle; and proves it undeniably, from the promise of the introduction of another general covenant for the effecting of them. Whereas, therefore, to be not ἄμεμπτος, is either to have some fault or vice accompanying any thing and adhering unto it, whereby it is unsuited unto or insufficient for its own proper end; or it is that whereunto somewhat is wanting with respect unto another general end which is much to be desired, but such as it was never designed to accomplish; — as the art of arithmetic, if it be perfectly taught, is sufficient to instruct a man in the whole science of numeration; if it be not, it is faulty as unto its particular end; but it is no way sufficient unto the general end of making a man wise in the whole compass of wisdom, a thing far to be preferred before its particular end, be it never so perfect in its own kind; — it is in the latter sense only that the apostle affirms that the first covenant was not ἄμεμπτος,” or “blameless.” If it had been such as unto which nothing more was required or needful perfectly to complete and sanctify the church, — which was the general end God aimed at, — it had been absolutely perfect. But this it was not, in that it never was designed for the means of it. To the same purpose he argues, Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 7:19. And with respect unto this end it is said that “the law was weak,” Romans 8:3; Galatians 3:21; Acts 13:38-39.In brief, that which the apostle designeth to prove is, that the first covenant was of that constitution, that it could not accomplish the perfect administration of the grace of God unto the church, nor was ever designed unto that end; as the Jews then falsely, and their posterity still foolishly also imagine it to have done. 2. The ensuing words in this verse include the general proof of his assertion concerning the insufficiency of the first covenant unto the ends of God towards the church: Οὐκἃνδευτέραςἐζητεῖτοτόπος.His argument is plainly this: ‘The promise of a new covenant doth unavoidably prove the insufficiency of the former, at least unto the ends for which the new one is promised. For otherwise unto what end serves the promise, and covenant promised?’But there is some difficulty in the manner of the expression: “The place of the second had not been sought;” so the words lie in the original. But “the place of the second” is no more but “the second taking place;” the bringing in, the introduction and establishment of it. And this is said to be “sought;” but improperly, and after the manner of men. When men have entered into a covenant which proves insufficient for some end they do intend, they take counsel and seek out after other ways and means, or an agreement and covenant on such other terms as may be effectual unto their purpose. Wherefore this signifies no alteration, no defect in the wisdom and counsel of God, as unto what is now to be done, but only the outward change which he would now effect in the introduction of the new covenant. For as such changes among men are the issue of the alteration of their minds, and the effect of new counsels for the seeking out of new means for their end, so is this outward change, in the taking away of the old covenant and introduction of the new, represented in God; being only the second part of his counsel or purpose “which he had purposed in himself before the foundation of the world.” And we may hence observe, — Obs. 1. That whatever God had done before for the church, yet he ceased not, in his wisdom and grace, until he had made it partaker of the best and most blessed condition whereof in this world it is capable. — He found out place for this better covenant. Obs. 2. Let those unto whom the terms of the new covenant are proposed in the gospel take heed to themselves that they sincerely embrace and improve them; for there is neither promise nor hope of any further or fuller administration of grace. Μεμρόμενοςγὰραὐτοῖςλέγει, ᾿Ιδοὺ, ἡμέραιἔρχονται, λέγειΚύριος, καὶσυντελέσωἐπὶτὸνοι῏κον᾿Ισραὴλκαὶἐπὶτὸνοι῏κον᾿Ιούδαδιαθήκηνκαινήν. [7] [7] . — Stuart and Conybeare and Howson connect the αὐτοῖς with λέγει: “But finding fault [with the first covenant], he says to them;” i.e., the Jews. Μεμφόμενος, according to the first of these critics, appears to reduplicate upon the ἄμεμπτὸς of the preceding verse. — ED. For finding fault with them, [complaining of them,] he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the LORD , and I will make [when I will make] a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In this verse the apostle entereth upon the proof of his argument laid down in that foregoing. And this was, that the first covenant was not ἄμεμπτος, “unblamable,” or every way sufficient for God’s general end; because there was room left for the introduction of another, which was done accordingly. Of this covenant, so to be introduced, he declareth, in the testimony of the prophet afterwards, two things: 1. The qualification of it, or its especial adjunct; it was “new,” Hebrews 8:8.2. A description of it:(1.) Negative, with respect unto the old, Hebrews 8:9.(2.) Positive, in its nature and effectual properties, Hebrews 8:10-12.From all which he inferreth the conclusion which he was contending for, enforced with a new consideration confirming it, Hebrews 8:13 : which is the sum of the last part of this chapter. There are two general parts of this verse: 1. The introduction of the testimony, to be improved from the occasion of it, as expressed by the apostle. 2. The testimony itself which he insists on.The FIRST is in these words: “For finding fault with them, he saith.” Wherein we have,1. The note of connection; 2. The ground whereon the testimony is built; 3. The true reading of the words is to be considered: — 1. There is the causal conjunction, γάρ, “for,” which gives them connection unto the foregoing verse. That which is designed, is the confirmation of the foregoing argument. This is the proof of the assertion, that place was sought for another covenant, which evinced the insufficiency of the former; “for.” And the reason it intimates doth not consist in the words wherewith it is joined, “finding fault with them;” but respects those following, “he saith,” — ”For... he saith, Behold, the days come:” which directly prove what he had affirmed.2. There is the ground intimated of what is affirmed in the ensuing testimony. For the new covenant was not to be introduced absolutely, without the consideration of anything foregoing, but because the first was not ἄμεμπτος, or “unblamable.” Therefore the apostle shows that God brought it in a way of blame. He did it “finding fault with them.”3. These words may be diversely distinguished and read. For,(1.) Placing the note of distinction thus, Μεμφόμενοςγὰρ, αὐτοῖςλέγει, the sense is, “For finding fault,” complaining, blaming, “he saith unto them;” so that expression, μεμφόμενος, “finding fault,” respects the covenant itself. Piscator was the first, that I know of, who thus distinguished the words; who is followed by Schlichtingius and others. But(2.) Place the note of distinction at αὐτοῖς, as it is by most interpreters and expositors, and then the sense of the words is rightly expressed in our English translation, “For finding fault with them,” (that is, with the people,)” he saith.” And αὐτοῖς may be regulated either by μεμφόμενος or λέγει.The reasons for fixing the distinction in the first place are, (1.) Because μεμφόμενος, “finding fault,” answers directly unto οὐκἄμεμπτος, “was not without fault. And this contains the true reason why the new covenant was brought in. And,(2.) It was not God’s complaint of the people that was any cause of the introduction of the new covenant, but of the old covenant itself, which was insufficient to sanctify and save the church.But these seem not of force to change the usual interpretation of the words, For, — (1.) Although the first covenant was not every way perfect with respect unto God’s general end towards his church, yet it may be it is not so safe to say that God complained of it. When things or persons change the state and condition wherein they were made or appointed of God, he may complain of them, and that justly. So when man filled the world with wickedness, it is said that “it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth.” But when they abide unaltered in the state wherein they were made by him, he hath no reason to complain of them. And so it was with the first covenant. So our apostle disputes about the law, that all the weakness and imperfection of it arose from sin; where there was no reason to complain of the law, which in itself was holy, just, and good. (2.) God doth in this testimony actually complain of the people, namely, that they “brake his covenant;” and expresseth his indignation thereon, — “he regarded them not.” But there is not in this testimony, nor in the whole context or prophecy whence it is taken, nor in any other place of Scripture, any word of complaint against the covenant itself, though its imperfection as unto the general end of perfecting the church-state, be here intimated.(3.) There is an especial remedy expressed in the testimony against the evil which God complains of, or finds fault with in the people. This was, that “they continued not in his covenant.” This is expressly provided against in the promise of this new covenant, verse 10. Wherefore, —(4.) God gives this promise of a new covenant together with a complaint against the people, that it might be known to be an effect of free and sovereign grace. There was nothing in the people to procure it, or to qualify them for it, unless it were that they had wickedly broken the former. And we may hence observe, —Obs. 1. God hath ofttimes just cause to complain of his people, when yet he will not utterly cast them off. — It is mere mercy and grace that the church at all seasons lives upon; but in some seasons, when it falls under great provocations, they are signalized.Obs. 2. It is the duty of the church to take deep notice of God’s complaints of them. — This, indeed, is not in the text, but ought not to be passed by on this occasion of the mention of God’s complaining, or “finding fault with them.” And God doth not thus find fault only when he speaks immediately by new revelations, as our Lord Jesus Christ found fault with and rebuked his churches in the revelation made unto the apostle John; but he doth it continually, by the rule of the word. And it is the especial duty of all churches, and of all believers, to search diligently into what God finds fault withal in his word, and to be deeply affected therewith, so far as they find themselves guilty. Want hereof is that which hath laid most churches in the world under a fatal security. Hence they say, or think, or carry themselves, as though they were “rich and increased in goods, and had need of nothing,” when indeed “they are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” To consider what God blames, and to affect our souls with a sense of guilt, is that “trembling at his word” which he so approves of. And every church that intends to walk with God unto his glory ought to be diligent in this duty. And to guide them herein, they ought carefully to consider, — 1. The times and seasons that are passing over them. God brings his church under variety of seasons; and in them all requires especial duties from them, as those wherein he will be glorified in each of them. If they miss it herein, it is that which God greatly blames and complains of. Faithfulness with God in their generation, — that is, in the especial duties of the times and seasons wherein they lived, — is that which Noah, and Daniel, and other holy men, are commended for. Thus there are seasons of the great abounding of wickedness in the world; seasons of great apostasy from truth and holiness; seasons of judgment and of mercy, of persecution and tranquillity. In all these, and the like, God requireth especial duties of the church; whereon his glory in them doth much depend. If they fail here, if they are not faithful as unto their especial duty, God in his word finds fault with them, and lays them under blame. And as much wisdom is required hereunto, so I do not judge that any church can discharge its duty in any competent measure without a due consideration of it. For in a due observation of the times and seasons, and an application of ourselves unto the duties of them, consists that testimony which we are to give unto God and the gospel in our generation. That church which considers not its especial duty in the days wherein we live, is fast asleep; and it may be doubted whether, when it is awaked, it will find oil in its vessel or no. 2. The temptations which are prevalent, and which unavoidably we are exposed unto. Every age and time hath its especial temptations; and it is the will of God that the church should be exercised with them and by them. And it were easy to manifest, that the darkness and ignorance of men, in not discerning the especial temptations of the age wherein they have lived, or neglecting of them, have been always the great causes and means of the apostasy of the church. Hereby hath superstition prevailed in one age, and profaneness in another; as false and noxious opinions in a third. Now, there is nothing that God requires more strictly of us, than that we should be wakeful against present prevalent temptations; and he chargeth us with guilt where we are not so. And those which are not awake with respect unto those temptations which are at this day prevalent in the world, are far enough from walking before God unto all well-pleasing. And sundry other things of the like nature might be mentioned unto the same purpose. Obs. 3. God often surpriseth the church with promises of grace and mercy. — In this place, where God complaineth of the people, findeth fault with them, chargeth them for not continuing in his covenant, and declares, that, as unto any thing in themselves, he “regarded them not,” it might be easily expected that he would proceed unto their utter casting off and rejection. But instead hereof, God surpriseth them, as it were, with the most eminent promise of grace and mercy that ever was made, or could be made unto them. So he doth in like manner, Isaiah 7:13-14; Isaiah 57:17-19. And this he will do, — 1. That he may glorify the riches and freedom of his grace. This is his principal end in all his dispensations towards his church. And how can they be made more conspicuous than in the exercise of them then, when a people are so far from all appearance of any desert of them, as that God declares his judgment that they deserve his utmost displeasure?2. That none who have the least remainder of sincerity, and desire to fear the name of God, may utterly faint and despond at any time, under the greatest confluence of discouragements. God can come in, and will ofttimes, in a way of sovereign grace, for the relief of the most dejected sinners. But we must proceed with our exposition.The SECOND thing contained in this verse, is the testimony itself insisted on. And there is in the testimony,1. The author of the promise declared in it, “He saith;” as afterwards, “Saith the Lord .”2. The note of its introduction, signalizing the thing intended, “Behold.” 3. The time of the accomplishment of what is here foretold and here promised, “The days come wherein.”4. The thing promised is “a covenant:” concerning which is expressed,’(1.) He that makes it, “I,” — ”I will make;”(2.) Those with whom it is made, “the house of Israel, and the house of Judah;”(3.) The manner of its making, συντελέσω;(4.) The property of it, it is “a new covenant.”1. He who gives this testimony is included in the word λέγει, “he saith,” — “For finding fault with them, he saith.” He who complains of the people for breaking the old covenant, promiseth to make the new. So in the next verse it is expressed, “Saith the Lord .” The ministry of the prophet was made use of in the declaration of these words and things, but they are properly his words from whom they are by immediate inspiration. Obs. 4. “He saith,” — that is, πְ ?ΰֻ ?νιְ ?δָֹ ?εδ, “saith the LORD ,” — is the formal object of our faith and obedience. — Hereinto are they to be referred, herein do they acquiesce, and in nothing else will they so do. All other foundations of faith, as, ‘Thus saith the pope,’or ‘Thus saith the church,’or ‘Thus said our ancestors,’are all but, delusions. “Thus saith the LORD ,” gives rest and peace. 2. There is the note of introduction, calling, unto attendance, δִ ?πֵּ ?δ, ᾿Ιδού, — ”Behold.” It is always found eminent, either in itself or in some of its circumstances, that is thus prefaced. For the word calls for a more than ordinary diligence in the consideration of and attention unto what is proposed. And it was needful to signalize this promise; for the people unto whom it was given were very difficultly drawn from their adherence unto the old covenant, which was inconsistent with that now promised. And there seems to be somewhat more intimated in this word than a call unto special attention; and that is, that the thing spoken of is plainly proposed unto them concerned, so as that they may look upon it, and behold it clearly and speedily. And so is this new covenant here proposed so evidently and plainly, both in the entire nature and properties of it, that unless men wilfully turn away their eyes, they cannot but see it. Obs. 5. Where God placeth a note of observation and attention, we should carefully fix our faith and consideration. — God sets not any of his marks in vain. And if, upon the first view of any place or thing so signalized, the evidence of it doth not appear unto us, we have a sufficient call unto further diligence in our inquiry. And if we are not wanting unto our duty, we shall discover some especial impression of divine excellency or another upon every such thing or place. Obs. 6. The things and concernments of the new covenant are all of them objects of the best of our consideration. As such are they here proposed; and what is spoken of the declaration of the nature of this covenant in the next verse is sufficient to confirm this observation. 3. The time is prefixed for the accomplishment of this promise: ξִ ?ιναָּ ?ΰִ ?ινἡμέραιἔρχονται, — the days come.” “Known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world;” and he hath determined the times of their accomplishment. As to the particular precise times or seasons of them, whilst they are future, he hath reserved them unto himself, unless where he hath seen good to make some especial revelation of them. So he did of the time of the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt, Genesis 15:13; of the Babylonish captivity, and of the coming of the Messiah after the return of the people, Daniel 9. But from the giving of the first promise, wherein the foundation of the church was laid, the accomplishment of it is frequently referred unto “the latter days.” See our exposition on Hebrews 1:1-2. Hence under the old testament the days of the Messiah were called “the world to come,” as we have showed, Hebrews 2:5. And it was a periphrasis of him, that he was ὁἐρχόμενος, Matthew 11:3, — “He that was to come.” And the faith of the church was principally exercised in the expectation of his coming. And this time is here intended. And the expression in the original is in the present tense, ἡμέραιἔρχονται, from the Hebrew, ιָ ?ξִ ?ιναָּ ?ΰִ ?ιν, “the days coming;” not the days that come, but “the days come.” And two things are denoted thereby: —(1.) The near approach of the days intended. The time was now hastening apace, and the church was to be awakened unto the expectation of it: and this accompanied with their earnest desires and prayers for it; which were the most acceptable part of the worship of God under the old testament. (2.) A certainty of the thing itself was hereby fixed in their minds. Long expectation they had of it, and now stood in need of new security, especially considering the trial they were falling into in the Babylonish captivity; for this seemed to threaten a defeat of the promise, in the casting away of the whole nation. The manner of the expression is suited to confirm the faith of them that were real believers among them against such fears. Yet we must observe, that from the giving of this promise unto the accomplishment of it was near six hundred years. And yet about ninety years after, the prophet Malachi, speaking of the same season, affirms, “that the Lord , whom they sought, should suddenly come to his temple,” Malachi 3:1.Obs. 7. There is a time limited and fixed for the accomplishment of all the promises of God, and all the purposes of his grace towards the church. See Habakkuk 2:3-4. And the consideration hereof is very necessary unto believers in all ages:(1.) To keep up their hearts from desponding, when difficulties against their accomplishment do arise, and seem to render it impossible. Want hereof hath turned aside many from God, and caused them to cast their lot and portion into the world.(2.) To preserve them from putting themselves on any irregular ways for their accomplishment.(3.) To teach them to search diligently into the wisdom of God, who hath disposed times and seasons, as unto his own glory, so unto the trial and real benefit of the church.4. The subject-matter of the promise given is a “covenant,” — αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ. The LXX. render it by διαθήκη, — ”a testament.” And that is more proper in this place than “a covenant.” For if we take “covenant” in a strict and proper sense, it hath indeed no place between God and man. For a covenant, strictly taken, ought to proceed on equal terms, and a proportionate consideration of things on both sides; but the covenant of God is founded on grace, and consists essentially in a free, undeserved promise. And therefore αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, “a covenant,” is never spoken of between God and man, but on the part of God it consists in a free promise, or a testament. And “a testament,” which is the proper signification of the word here used by the apostle, is suited unto this place, and nothing else. For, —(1.) Such a covenant is intended as is ratified and confirmed by the death of him that makes it. And this is properly a testament: for this covenant was confirmed by the death of Christ, and that both as it was the death of the testator, and as it was accompanied with the blood of a sacrifice; whereof we must treat afterwards at large, if God will. (2.) It is such a covenant, as wherein the covenanter, he that makes it, bequeatheth his goods unto others in the way of a legacy; for this is done by Christ herein, as we must also declare afterwards. Wherefore our Savior calls this covenant “the new testament in his blood.” This the word used by the apostle doth properly signify; and it is evident that he intends not a covenant absolutely and strictly so taken. With respect hereunto the first covenant is usually called the “old testament.” For we intend not thereby the books of Scripture, or oracles of God committed unto the church of the Jews, (which yet, as we have observed, are once called “the Old Testament,” 2 Corinthians 3:14,) but the covenant that God made with the church of Israel at Sinai, whereof we have spoken at large. And this was called a “testament” for three reasons: — [1. Because it was confirmed by death; that is, the death of the sacrifices that were slain and offered at its solemn establishment. So saith our apostle, “The first testament was not dedicated without blood,” Hebrews 9:18. But there is more required hereunto; for even a covenant properly and strictly so called may be confirmed with sacrifices. Wherefore, —[2. God did therein make over and grant unto the church of Israel the good things of the land of Canaan, with the privileges of his worship. [3. The principal reason of this denomination, “the old testament,” is taken from its being typically significative of the death and legacy of the great testator, as we have showed. We have treated somewhat before concerning the nature of the new testament, as considered in distinction from and opposition unto the old. I shall here only briefly consider what concurreth unto the constitution of it, as it was then future, when this promise was given, and as it is here promised. And three things do concur hereunto: — (1.) A recapitulation, collection, and confirmation of all the promises of grace that had been given unto the church from the beginning, even all that was spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets that had been since the world began, Luke 1:70. The first promise contained in it the whole essence and substance of the covenant, of grace. All those afterwards given unto the church, on various occasions, were but explications and confirmations of it. In the whole of them there was a full declaration of the wisdom and love of God in sending his Son, and of his grace unto mankind thereby. And God solemnly confirmed them with his oath, namely, that they should be all accomplished in their appointed season. Whereas, therefore, the covenant here promised included the sending of Christ for the accomplishment of those promises, they are all gathered into one head therein. It is a constellation of all the promises of grace. (2.) All these promises were to be reduced into an actual covenant or testament two ways: —[1. In that, as unto the accomplishment of the grace principally intended in them, they received it in the sending of Christ; and as to the confirmation and establishment of them for the communication of grace unto the church, they received it in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice of agreement or atonement. [2. They are established as the rule and law of reconciliation and peace between God and man. This gives them the nature of a covenant; for a covenant is the solemn expression of the terms of peace between various parties, with the confirmation of them. (3.) They are reduced unto such form of law, as to become the only rule of the ordinances of worship and divine service required of the church. Nothing unto these ends is now presented unto us, or required of us, but what belongeth immediately unto the administration of this covenant, and the grace thereof. But the reader must consult what hath been discoursed at large unto this purpose on the 6th verse. And we may see from hence what it is that God here promiseth and foretelleth, as that which he would do in the “days that were coming.” For whereas they had the promise before, and so virtually the grace and mercy of the new covenant, it may be inquired: ‘What is yet wanting, that should be promised solemnly under the name of a covenant?’For the flail resolution of this question, I must, as before, refer the reader unto what hath been discoursed at large about the two covenants, and the difference between them, on verse 6. Here we may briefly name some few things, sufficient unto the exposition of this place; as, — (1.) All those promises which had before been given out unto the church from the beginning of the world, were now reduced into the form of a covenant, or rather of a testament. The name of “a covenant” is indeed sometimes applied unto the promises of grace before or under the old testament; but αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, the word used in all those places, denoteth only “a free, gratuitous promise,” Genesis 9:9; Genesis 17:4. But they were none of them, nor all of them together, reduced into the form of a testament; which they could not be but by the death of the testator. And what blessed privileges and benefits were included herein hath been showed before, and must yet further be insisted on in the exposition of the ninth chapter, if God permit.(2.) There was another covenant superadded unto the promises, which was to be the immediate rule of the obedience and worship of the church. And according unto their observance of this superadded covenant, they were esteemed to have kept or broken covenant with God. This was the old covenant on Sinai, as hath been declared. Wherefore the promises could not be in the form of a covenant unto the people, inasmuch as they could not be under the power of two covenants at once, and those, as it afterwards appeared, absolutely inconsistent. For this is that which our apostle proves in this place, namely, that when the promises were brought into the form and had the use of a covenant unto the church, the former covenant must needs disappear, or be disannulled. Only, they had their place and efficacy to convey the benefits of the grace of God in Christ unto them that did believe; but God here foretelleth that he will give them such an order and efficacy in the administration of his grace, as that all the fruits of it by Jesus Christ shall be bequeathed and made over unto the church in the way of a solemn covenant. (3.) Notwithstanding the promises which they had received, yet the whole system of their worship sprang from, and related unto the covenant made at Sinai. But now God promiseth a new state of spiritual worship, relating only unto the promises of grace as brought into the form of a covenant.Obs. 8. The new covenant, as re-collecting into one all the promises of grace given from the foundation of the world, accomplished in the actual exhibition of Christ, and confirmed in his death, and by the sacrifice of his blood, thereby becoming the sole rule of new spiritual ordinances of worship suited thereunto, was the great object of the faith of the saints of the old testament, and is the great foundation of all our present mercies. All these things were contained in that new covenant, as such, which God here promiseth to make. For, — (1.) There was in it a recapitulation of all the promises of grace. God had not made any promise, any intimation of his love or grace unto the church in general, nor unto any particular believer, but he brought it all into this covenant, so as that they should be esteemed, all and every one of them, to be given and spoken unto every individual person that hath an interest in this covenant. Hence all the promises made unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the other patriarchs, and the oath of God whereby they were confirmed, are all of them made unto us, and do belong unto us no less than they did unto them to whom they were first given, if we are made partakers of this covenant. Hereof the apostle gives an instance in the singular promise made unto Joshua, which he applies unto believers, Hebrews 13:5. There was nothing of love or grace in any of them but was gathered up into this covenant.(2.) The actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh belonged unto this promise of making a new covenant; for without it, it could not have been made. This was the desire of all the faithful from the foundation of the world; this they longed after, and fervently prayed for continually. And the prospect of it was the sole ground of their joy and consolation. “Abraham saw his day, and rejoiced.” This was the great privilege which God granted unto them that walked uprightly before him; such an one, saith he, “shall dwell on high: his place of defense shall be the munition of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure. Thine eyes shall see the King in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off,” Isaiah 33:16-17.That prospect they had by faith of the King of saints in his beauty and glory, though yet at a great distance, was their relief and their reward in their sincere obedience. And those who understand not the glory of this privilege of the new covenant, in the incarnation of the Son of God, or his exhibition in the flesh, wherein the depths of the counsels and wisdom of God, in the way of grace, mercy, and love, opened themselves unto the church, are strangers unto the things of God. (3.) It was confirmed and ratified by the death and bloodshedding of Christ, and therefore included in it the whole work of his mediation. This is the spring of the life of the church; and until it was opened, great darkness was upon the minds of believers themselves. What peace, what assurance, what light, what joy, depend hereon, and proceed from it, no tongue can express.(4.) All ordinances of worship do belong hereunto. What is the benefit of them, what are the advantages which believers receive by them, we must declare when we come to consider that comparison that the apostle makes between them and the carnal ordinances of the law, Hebrews 9.Whereas, therefore, all these things were contained in the new covenant, as here promised of God, it is evident how great was the concernment of the saints under the old testament to have it introduced; and how great also ours is in it, now it is established. 5. The author or maker of this covenant is expressed in the words, as also those with whom it was made: —(1.) The first is included in the person of the verb, “I will make;” “I will make, saith the Lord .” It is God himself that makes this covenant, and he takes it upon himself so to do. He is the principal party covenanting: “I will make a covenant.” God hath made a covenant: “He hath made with me an everlasting covenant.” And sundry things are we taught therein: —[1. The freedom of this covenant, without respect unto any merit, worth, or condignity in them with whom it is made. What God doth, he doth freely, — “ex mera gratia et voluntate.” There was no cause without himself for which he should make this covenant, or which should move him so to do. And this we are eminently taught in this place, where he expresseth no other occasion of his making this covenant but the sins of the people in breaking that which he formerly made with them. And it is expressed on purpose to declare the free and sovereign grace, the goodness, love, and mercy, which alone were the absolute springs of this covenant. [2. The wisdom of its contrivance. The making of any covenant to be good and useful, depends solely on the wisdom and foresight of them by whom it is made. Hence men do often make covenants, which they design for their good and advantage, but they are so ordered, for want of wisdom and foresight, that they turn unto their hurt and ruin. But there was infinite wisdom in the constitution of this covenant; whence it is, and shall be, infinitely effective of all the blessed ends of it. And they are utterly unacquainted with it, who are not affected with a holy admiration of divine wisdom in its contrivance. A man might comfortably spend his life in the contemplation of it, and yet be far enough from finding out the Almighty in it unto perfection. Hence is it that it is so divine a mystery in all the parts of it, which the wisdom of the flesh cannot comprehend. Nor, without a due consideration of the infinite wisdom of God in the contrivance of it, can we have any true or real conceptions about it: ῾Εκὰςἑκὰςἔστεβέβηλοι. Profane, unsanctified minds can have no insight into this effect of divine wisdom.[3. It was God alone who could prepare and provide a surety for this covenant. Considering the necessity there was of a surety in this covenant, seeing no covenant between God and man could be firm and stable without one, by reason of our weakness and mutability; and considering of what a nature this surety must be, even God and man in one person; it is evident that God himself must make this covenant. And the provision of this surety doth contain in it the glorious manifestation of all the divine excellencies, beyond any act or work of God whatever. [4. There is in this covenant a sovereign law of divine worship, wherein the church is consummated, or brought into the most perfect estate whereof in this world it is capable, and established for ever. This law could be given by God alone. [5. There is ascribed unto this covenant such an efficacy of grace, as nothing but almighty power can make good and accomplish. The grace here mentioned in the promises of it, directs us immediately unto its author. For who else but God can write the divine law in our hearts, and pardon all our sins? The sanctification or renovation of our natures, and the justification of our persons, being pro-raised herein, seeing infinite power and grace are required unto them, he alone must make this covenant with whom all power and grace do dwell. “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God. Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy,” Psalms 62:1 l, 12. [6. The reward promised in this covenant is God himself: “I am thy reward.” And who but God can ordain himself to be our reward? Obs. 9. All the efficacy and glory of the new covenant do originally arise from, and are resolved into, the author and supreme cause of it, which is God himself. — And we might consider, unto the encouragement of our faith, and the strengthening of our consolation, —[1. His infinite condescension, to make and enter into covenant with poor, lost, fallen, sinful man. This no heart can fully conceive, no tongue can express; only we live in hope to have yet a more clear prospect of it, and to have a holy admiration of it unto eternity. [2. His wisdom, goodness, and grace, in the nature of that covenant which he hath condescended to make and enter into. The first covenant he made with us in Adam, which we brake, was in itself good, holy, righteous, and just; — it must be so, because it was also made by him. But there was no provision made in it absolutely to preserve us from that woeful disobedience and transgression which would make it void, and frustrate all the holy and blessed ends of it. Nor was God obliged so to preserve us, having furnished us with a sufficiency of ability for our own preservation, so as we could no way fall but by a wilful apostasy from him. But this covenant is of that nature, as that the grace administered in it shall effectually preserve all the covenanters unto the end, and secure unto them all the benefits of it. For, — [3. His power and faithfulness are engaged unto the accomplishment of all the promises of it. And these promises do contain every thing that is spiritually and eternally good or desirable unto us. “O LORD, our Lord , how excellent is thy name in all the earth’.” How glorious art thou in the ways of thy grace towards poor sinful creatures, who had destroyed themselves! And, — [4. He hath made no created good, but himself only to be our reward. (2.) The persons with whom this covenant is made are also expressed: “The house of Israel, and the house of Judah.” Long before the giving of this promise, that people were divided into two parts. The one of them, in way of distinction from the other, retained the name of Israel. These were the ten tribes, which fell off from the house of David, under the conduct of Ephraim; whence they are often also in the Prophets called by that name. The other, consisting of the tribe properly so called, with that of Benjamin and the greatest part of Levi, took the name of Judah; and with them both the promise and the church remained in a peculiar manner. But whereas they all originally sprang from Abraham, who received the promise and sign of circumcision for them all, and because they were all equally in their forefather brought into the bond of the old covenant, they are here mentioned distinctly, that none of the seed of Abraham might be excluded from the tender of this covenant. Unto the whole seed of Abraham according to the flesh it was that the terms and grace of this covenant were first to be offered. So Peter tells them, in his first sermon, that “the promise was unto them and their children” who were then present, — that is, the house of Judah; and “to all that were afar off,” — that is, the house of Israel in their dispersions, Acts 2:39. So again he expresseth the order of the dispensation of this covenant with respect to the promise made to Abraham, Acts 3:25-26,“Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first, God having raised his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you;”namely, in the preaching of the gospel. So our apostle, in his sermon unto them, affirmed that “it was necessary that the word should be first spoken unto them,” Acts 13:46. And this was all the privilege that was now left unto them; for the partition-wall was now broken down, and all obstacles against the Gentiles taken out of the way. Wherefore this house of Israel and house of Judah may be considered two ways:[1. As that people were the whole entire posterity of Abraham. [2. As they were typical, and mystically significant of the whole church of God. Hence alone it is that the promises of grace under the old testament are given unto the church under these names, because they were types of them who should really and effectually be made partakers of them. [1. In the first sense, God made this covenant with them, and this on sundry accounts: — 1st. Because He in and through whom alone it was to be established and made effectual was to be brought forth amongst them of the seed of Abraham, as the apostle Peter plainly declares, Acts 3:25.2dly. Because all things that belonged unto the ratification of it were to be transacted amongst them.3dly. Because, in the outward dispensation of it, the terms and grace of it were first in the counsel of God to be tendered unto them.4thly. Because by them, by the ministry of men of their posterity, the dispensation of it was to be carried unto all nations, as they were to be blessed in the seed of Abraham; which was done by the apostles and other disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ. So the law of the Redeemer went forth from Zion. By this means “the covenant was confirmed with many” of them “for one week,” before the calling of the Gentiles, Daniel 9:27.And because these things belonged equally unto them all, mention is made distinctly of “the house of Israel, and the house of Judah.” For the house of Judah was, at the time of the giving of this promise, in the sole possession of all the privileges of the old covenant; Israel having cut off themselves, by their revolt from the house of David; being cast out also, for their sins, amongst the heathen. But God, to declare that the covenant he designed had no respect unto those carnal privileges which were then in the possession of Judah alone, but only unto the promise made unto Abraham, he equals all his seed with respect unto the mercy of this covenant. [2. In the second sense the whole church of elect believers is intended under these denominations, being typified by them. These are they alone, being one made of twain, namely, Jews and Gentiles, with whom the covenant is really made and established, and unto whom the Mace of it is actually communicated. For all those with whom this covenant is made shall as really have the law of God written in their hearts, and their sins pardoned, according unto the promise of it, as the people of old were brought into the land of Canaan by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham. These are the true Israel and Judah, prevailing with God, and confessing unto his name. Obs. 10. The covenant of grace in Christ is made only with the Israel of God, the church of the elect. — For by the making of this covenant with any, the effectual communication of the grace of it unto them is principally intended. Nor can that covenant be said to be made absolutely with any but those whose sins are pardoned by virtue thereof, and in whose hearts the law of God is written; which are the express promises of it. And it was with respect unto those of this sort among that people that the covenant was promised to be made with them. See Romans 9:27-33; Romans 11:7. But in respect of the outward dispensation of the covenant, it is extended beyond the effectual communication of the grace of it. And in respect thereunto did the privilege of the carnal seed of Abraham lie.Obs. 11. Those who are first and most advanced as unto outward privileges, are oftentimes last and least advantaged by the grace and mercy of them. — Thus was it with these two houses of Israel and Judah. They had the privilege and pre-eminence, above all nations of the world, as unto the first tender, and all the benefits of the outward dispensation of the covenant; yet, “though the number of them was as the sand of the sea, a remnant only was saved.” They came behind the nations of the world as unto the grace of it; and this by reason of their unbelief, and the abuse of the privileges granted unto them. Let not those, therefore, who now enjoy the greatest privileges be high-minded, but fear. (3.) The manner of making this covenant is expressed by συντελέσω “perficiam,” “consummabo,” — “I will perfect” or “consummate.” In the Hebrew it is only ΰֶ ?λְ ?ψֹ ?ϊ, “pangam,” “feriam,” — ”I will make; but the apostle renders it by this word, to denote that this covenant was at once perfected and consummated, to the exclusion of all additions and alterations. Perfection and unalterable establishment are the properties of this covenant: “An everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure.”(4.) As unto its distinguishing character, it is called “a new covenant.” So it is with respect unto the old covenant made at Sinai. Wherefore by this covenant, as here considered, is not understood the promise of grace given unto Adam absolutely; nor that unto Abraham, which contained the substance and matter of it, the grace exhibited in it, but not the complete form of it as a covenant. For if it were only the promise, it could not be called “a new covenant,” with respect unto that made at Sinai; for so it was before it absolutely two thousand five hundred years, and in the person of Abraham four hundred years at the least. But it must be considered as before described, in the establishment of it, and its law of spiritual worship. And so it was called “new” in time after that on Sinai eight hundred years. Howbeit it may be called “a new covenant” in other respects also. As, first, because of its eminency; — so it is said of an eminent work of God, “Behold, I work a new thing in the earth:” and its duration and continuance, as that which shall never wax old, is denoted thereby. Οὐκατὰτὴνδιαθήκηςἥνἐποίηαστοῖςπατράσιναὐτῶν, ἐνἡμέρᾳὲπιλαβομένουμουτῆςχειρὸςαὐτῶν, ὲξαγαγεῖναὐτοὺςἐκγῆςΑἰγὑπτου·ὅτιαὐτοὶοὐκἐνέμεινανἐντῇδιαθήκῃμου, κἀγὼἠμέλησααὐτῶν, λέγειΚύριος.For the quotation and translation of these words out of the prophet Jeremiah, the reader may consult the Exereitations in the first volume, Exerc. 5. [p. 111. λָּ ?ψַ ?ϊִּ ?ι the apostle in this place renders by ἐποίησα, and in this place only; the reason whereof we shall see afterwards. ΰֲ ?ωָׁ ?ψΰּ ?δֵ ?ξָּ ?δδֵ ?τֵ ?ψεּ ΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊִ ?ιּ, — ”which my covenant they brake,” “rescinded,” “dissipated;” the apostle renders αὐτοὶοὐκἐνέμεινανἐνδιαθήκῃμου, — ”and they continued not in my covenant:” for not to abide faithful in covenant is to break it. εְ ?ΰָ ?βλִ ?ιαָּ ?ςַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ιαָ ?ν, — ””and I was an husband unto them,” or rather, “a lord over them;” in the apostle, κἀγὼἠμέλησααὐτῶν, — ”and I regarded them not.” On what reason and grounds the seeming alteration is made, we shall inquire in the exposition.Οὐκατὰτὴνδιαθήκην, “non secundum testamentum;” “secundum illud testamentum;” and so the Syriac, μָ ?ΰΰֵ ?ικְ δָ ?ιγִּ ?ιϊִּ ?ιχֵ ?ΰ, — ”not according unto that testament;” others, “foedus,” and “illud foedus.” Of the different translation of this word by a “testament” and a “covenant,” we have spoken before. ῝Ηνἐποίησα. Syr., γְּ ?ιַ ?δֲ ?αֵ ?ϊ, “which I gave;” “quod feci,” “which I made.” Τοῖςπατράσιν, for σὺντοῖςπατράσιν, “with the fathers;” for that is required to be joined to the verb ἐποίησα. And therefore the Syriac, omitting the preposition, turns the verb into “gave” — ”gave to the fathers;” which is properly ΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ΰֲ ?αεֹ ?ϊָ ?ν, “cum patribus eorum.”Οὐκἐνέμειναν. Vulg., “non permanserunt;” others, “perstiterunt.” So the Syriac, μָ ?ΰχַ ?ιְ ?ιεּ, “they stood not,” “they continued not.” “Maneo” is used to express stability in promises and covenants: “At tu dictis, Albane, maneres,” Virg. AEn. 8:643; and, “Tu modo promissis maneas,” AEn. 2:160. So is “permaneo in officio, in armis, in amicitia,” to continue steadfast unto the end. Wherefore it is as well so rendered as by “persisto.” ᾿Εμμένω is so used by Thucydides: ᾿Εμμένειν, — ”to abide firm and constant in covenants.” And ἐμμενής is he who is “firm,” “stable,” “constant” in promises and engagements.Κἀγὼἠμέλησα, “ego neglexi,” “despexi,” “neglectui habui.” Syr., αְּ ?ρִ ?ιϊ, “I despised,” “I neglected,” “I rejected them.” ᾿Αμελέω, is “curae non habeo,” “negligo,” “contemno;” a word denoting a casting out of care with contempt. [8] [8] . — Κἀγὼἠμέλησα. This is the Septuagint rendering. The Hebrew, according to A. V., ms, though I was an husband to them.” Some explain the discrepancy by conjecturing that the Greek translators had the guttural cheth instead of ayin in their copies. As the Arabic cognate word signifies to despise or reject, Kimchi and Pococke adopt this translation of the Hebrew word in this passage. Hengstenberg in his Christology denies that the word can bear this sense. — ED. Hebrews 8:9. — Not according to that covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. The greatest and utmost mercies that God ever intended to communicate unto the church, and to bless it withal, were enclosed in the new covenant. Nor doth the efficacy of the mediation of Christ extend itself beyond the verge and compass thereof; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant. But now God had before made a covenant with his people. A good and holy covenant it was; such as was meet for God to prescribe, and for them thankfully to accept of. Yet notwithstanding all the privileges and advantages of it, it proved not so effectual, but that multitudes of them with whom God made that covenant were so far from obtaining the blessedness of grace and glory thereby, as that they came short, and were deprived of the temporal benefits that were included therein. Wherefore, as God hereon promiseth to make a “new covenant” with them, seeing they had forfeited and lost the advantage of the former, yet if it should be of the same kind therewith, it might also in like manner prove ineffectual. So must God give, and the church receive, one covenant after another, and yet the ends of them never be obtained. To obviate this objection, and the fear that thence might arise, God, who provideth not only for the safety of his church, but also for their comfort and assurance, declares beforehand unto them that it shall not be of the same kind with the former, nor liable to be so frustrated, as to the ends of it, as that was. And there are some things remarkable herein: — 1. That the preface unto the promise of this new covenant is a blame charged on the people, — ”finding fault with them,” blaming them, charging them with sin against the covenant that he had made with them. 2. That yet this was not the whole ground and reason of making this new covenant. It was not so, I say, that the people were not steadfast in it and unto the terms of it. For had it been so, there would have no more been needful to reinstate them in a good condition, but only that God should pardon their former sins, and renew the same covenant unto them again, and give them another venture or trial thereon. But inasmuch as he would do so no more, but would make another covenant of another nature with them, it is evident that there was some defect in the covenant itself, — it was not able to communicate those good things which God designed to bless the church withal.3. These two things being the only reason that God gives why he will make this new covenant, namely, the sins of the people, and the insufficiency of the first covenant to bring the church into that blessed estate which he designed them; it is manifest that all his dealings with them for their spiritual and eternal good are of mere sovereign grace, and such as he hath no motive unto but in and from himself alone. There are sundry things contained in these words: — First, An intimation that God had made a former covenant with his people: Τὴνδιαθήκην. There is in these verses a repetition three times of making covenant,; and in every place in the Hebrew the same words are used, λָּ ?ψִ ?ϊִּ ?ιαְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ. But the apostle changeth the verb in every place. First, he expresseth it by συντελέσω, Hebrews 8:8; and in the last place by διαθήσομαι, which is most proper, Hebrews 8:10, (ζεῖναι and διατιθέναιδιαθήκην are usual in other authors;) here he useth ἐποίησα, in reference unto that covenant which the people brake and God disannulled. And it may be he did so, to distinguish their alterable covenant from that which was to be unalterable, and was confirmed with greater solemnity. God made this covenant as others of his outward works, which he resolved to alter, change, or abolish, at the appointed season. It was a work whose effects might be shaken, and itself afterwards be removed; so he speaks, Hebrews 12:27. The change of the things that are shaken is ὡςπεποιημένων, — ”as of things that are made,” made for a season; so made as to abide and endure for an appointed time only: such were all the things of this covenant, and such was the covenant itself. It had no “criteria aeternitatis” upon it, — no evidences of an eternal duration. Nothing hath so but what is founded in the blood of Christ. He is ΰֲ ?αִ ?ιΰּ ?ςַ ?γ, “the everlasting Father,” or the immediate author and cause of every thing that is or shall be everlasting in the church. Let men labor and contend about other things whilst they please; — they are all shaken, and must be removed. Obs. 1. The grace and glory of the new covenant are much set off and manifested by the comparing of it with the old. — This is done here by God, on purpose for the illustration of it. And it is greatly made use of in this epistle; partly to prevail with us to accept of the terms thereof, and to abide faithful therein; and partly to declare how great is their sin, and how sore will be the destruction of them by whom it is neglected or despised. As these things are insisted on in other places, so are they the subject of the apostle’s discourse, Hebrews 12 from verse 15 unto the end.Obs. 2. All God’s works are equally good and holy in themselves; but as unto the use and advantage of the church, he is pleased to make some of them means of communicating more grace than others. — Even this covenant, which the new was not to be like unto, was in itself good and holy; which those with whom it was made had no reason to complain of. Howbeit God had ordained that by another covenant he would communicate the fullness of his grace and love unto the church. And if every thing that God doth be improved in its season, and for its proper ends, we shall have benefit and advantage by it, though he hath yet other ways of doing us more good, whose seasons he hath reserved unto himself. But this is an act of mere sovereign goodness and grace, that whereas any have neglected or abused mercies and kindnesses that they have received, instead of casting them off on that account, God takes this other course, of giving them such mercies as shall not be so abused. This he did by the introduction of the new covenant in the room of the old; and this he doth every day. So Isaiah 57:16-18. We live in days wherein men variously endeavor to obscure the grace of God, and to render it inglorious in the eyes of men; but he will for ever be “admired in them that believe.”Obs. 3. Though God makes an alteration in any of his works, ordinances of worship, or institutions, yet he never changeth his intention, or the purpose of his will — In all outward changes there is with him “no variableness nor shadow of turning.” “Known unto him are all his works from the foundation of the world;” and whatever change there seems to be in them, it is all effected in pursuance of the unchangeable purpose of his will concerning them all. It argued not the least change or shadow of turning in God, that he appointed the old covenant for a season, and for some certain ends, and then took it away, by making of another that should excel it both in grace and efficacy. Secondly, It is declared with whom this former covenant was made: πατράσιναὐτῶν, — ”with their fathers.” Some Latin copies read, “cure patribus vestris,” — “with your fathers;” but having spoken before of “the house of Israel and of the house of Judah” in the third person, he continueth to speak still in the same. So likewise is it in the prophet, ΰַ ?αεֹ ?ϊָ ?ν, — ”their fathers.”1. “Their fathers,” their progenitors, were those that this people always boasted of. For the most part, I confess, they rose higher in their claim from them than those here principally intended, namely, unto Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs. But in general their fathers it was whereof they made their boast; and they desired no more but only what might descend unto them in the right of these fathers. And unto these God here sends them, and that for two ends: —(1.) To let them know that he had more grace and mercy to communicate unto the church than ever those fathers of theirs were made partakers of. So would he take them off from boasting of them, or trusting in them.(2.) To give warning by them to take heed how they behaved themselves under the tender of this new and greater mercy. For the fathers here intended were those that God made the covenant withal at Sinai; but it is known, and the apostle hath declared at large in the third chapter of this epistle, how they brake and rejected this covenant of God, through their unbelief and disobedience, so perishing in the wilderness. These were those fathers of the people with whom the first covenant was made; and so they perished in their unbelief. A great warning this was unto those that should live when God would enter into the new covenant with his church, lest they should perish after the same example. But yet was it not effectual towards them; for the greatest part of them rejected this new covenant, as their fathers did the old, and perished in the indignation of God.Obs. 4. The disposal of mercies and privileges, as unto times, persons, seasons, is wholly in the hand and power of God. — Some he granted unto the fathers, some to their posterity, and not the same to both. Our wisdom it is to improve what we enjoy, not to repine at what God hath done for others, or will do for them that shall come after us. Our present mercies are sufficient for us, if we know how to use them. He that wanteth not a believing heart shall want nothing else. 2. Who those fathers were with whom God made this covenant, is further evident from the time, season, and circumstances of the making of it: —(1.) For the time of it, it was done ἐνἡμέρα, that is, ἐκεῖνῃ, — ”in that day.” That a “day” is taken in the Scripture for an especial time and season wherein any work or duty is to be performed, is obvious unto all. The reader may see what we have discoursed concerning such a day on the third chapter. And the time here intended is often called the day of it: Ezekiel 20:6, “In the day I lifted up mine hand unto them to bring them forth of the land of Egypt;” — at that time or season. A certain, determinate, limited time, suited with means unto any work, occasion, or duty, is so called a “day.” And it answereth unto the description of the time of making the new covenant given in the verse foregoing, “Behold, the days are coming,” — the time or season approacheth. It is also used in a way of eminency; a day, or a signal eminent season: Malachi 3:2, “Who may abide the day of his coming?” — the illustrious glory and power that shall appear and be exerted at his coming. “In the day,” is, at that great, eminent season, so famous throughout all their generations.(2.) This day or season is described from the work of it: ἐπιλαβομένουμουτῆςχειρὸςαὐτῶν, ‘δֶ ?ηֳ ?ζִ ?ιχִ ?ι, — ”that I firmly laid hold.” And ἐπιλαμβάνω, is “to take hold of” with a design of helping or delivering; and sundry things are intimated as well as the way and manner of the deliverance of that people at that time: —[1. The woful, helpless condition that they were in then in Egypt. So far were they from being able to deliver themselves out of their captivity and bondage, that, like children, they were not able to stand or go, unless God took them and led them by the hand. So he speaks, Hosea 11:3, “I taught them to go, taking them by their arms.” And certainly never were weakly, froward children, so awkward to stand and go of themselves, as that people were to comply with God in the work of their deliverance. Sometimes they refused to stand, or to make a trial of it; sometimes they cast themselves down after they were set on their feet; and sometimes with all their strength went backwards as to what God directed them unto. He that can read the story of their deliverance with any understanding, will easily discern what pains God was at with that people to teach them to go when he thus took them by the hand. It is therefore no new thing, that the church of God should be in a condition of itself able neither to stand nor go. But yet if God will take them by the hand for their help, deliverance shall ensue. [2. It expresseth the infinite condescension of God towards this people in that condition, that he would bow down to take them by the hand. In most other places the work which he then accomplished is ascribed unto the lifting up or stretching out of his hand, Ezekiel 20:6. See the description of it, Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 26:8. It was towards their enemies a work of mighty power, of the lifting up of his hand; but towards them it was a work of infinite condescension and patience, — a bowing down to take them by the hand. And this was the greatest work of God. For such were the frowardness and unbelief, so multiplied were the provocations and temptations of that people, that if God had not held them fast by the hand, with infinite grace, patience, forbearance, and condescension, they had inevitably ruined themselves. And we know in how many instances they endeavored frowardly and obstinately to wrest themselves out of the hand of God, and to cast themselves into utter destruction. Wherefore this word, “When I took them by the hand,” for the end mentioned, compriseth all the grace, mercy, and patience, which God exercised towards that people, whilst he wrought out their deliverance by lifting up his hand amongst and against their adversaries. And indeed no heart can conceive, no tongue can express, that infinite condescension and patience which God exerciseth towards every one of us, whilst he holds us by the hand to lead us unto rest with himself. Our own hearts, in some measure, know with what waywardness and frowardness, with what wanderings from him and withdrawing from his holy conduct, we exercise and are ready to weary his patience continually; yet do not mercy and grace let go that hold which they have taken on us. O that our souls might live in a constant admiration of that divine grace and patience which they live upon; that the remembrance of the times and seasons wherein, if God had not strengthened his hand upon us, we had utterly destroyed ourselves, might increase that admiration daily, and enliven it with thankful obedience! [3. The power of this work intended is also included herein; not directly, but by consequence. For, as was said, when God took them by the hand by his grace and patience, he lifted up the hand of his power, by the mighty works which he wrought among their adversaries. What he did in Egypt, at the Red Sea, in the wilderness, is all included herein. These things made the day mentioned eminent and glorious. It was a great day, wherein God so magnified his name and power in the sight of all the world. [4. All these things had respect unto and issued in that actual deliverance which God then wrought for that people. And this was the greatest mercy which that people ever were or ever could be made partakers of, in that condition wherein they were under the old testament. As unto the outward part of it, consider what they were delivered from, and what they were led into, and it will evidently appear to be as great an outward mercy as human nature is capable of. But besides, it was gloriously typical, and representative of their own and the whole church’s spiritual deliverance from sin and hell, from our bondage to Satan, and a glorious traduction into the liberty of the sons of God. And therefore did God engrave the memorial of it on the tables of stone, “I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” For what was typified and signified thereby is the principal motive unto obedience throughout all generations; nor is any moral obedience acceptable unto God that doth not proceed from a sense of spiritual deliverance. And these things are here called over in this promise of giving a new covenant, partly to mind the people of the mercies which they had sinned against, and partly to mind them that no concurrence of outward mercies and privileges can secure our covenant-relation unto God, without the special mercy which is administered in the new covenant, whereof Jesus Christ is the mediator and surety. Thus great on all accounts was the day, and the glory of it, wherein God made the old covenant with the people of Israel; yet had it no glory in comparison of that which doth excel. The light of the sun of glory was on this day “seven-fold, as the light of seven days,” Isaiah 30:26. A perfection of light and glory was to accompany that day, and all the glory of God’s work and his rest therein, the light of seven days, was to issue in it. From the things we have observed, it is fully evident both what was the “covenant” that God made, and who were “the fathers” with whom it was made. The covenant intended is none other but that made at Sinai, in the third month after the coming of the people out of Egypt, Exodus 19:1; which covenant, in the nature, use, and end of it, we have before described. And the fathers were those of that generation, those who came out of Egypt, and solemnly in their own persons, they and their children, entered into the covenant, and took upon them to do all that was required therein; whereon they were sprinkled with the blood of it, Exodus 24:3-8, Deuteronomy 5:27. It is true, all the posterity of the people unto whom the promise was now given were bound and obliged by that covenant, no less than those who first received it; but those only are intended in this place who actually in their own persons entered into covenant with God. Which consideration will give light unto what is affirmed, that “they brake his covenant,” or” continued not in it.”A comparison being intended between the two covenants, this is the first general part of the foundation of it with respect unto the old. The second part of it is in the event of making this covenant; and this is expressed both on the part of man and God, or in what the people did towards God, and how he carried it towards them thereon. First, The event on the part of the people is in these words, “Because they continued not in my covenant,” — Οτιαὐτοὶοὐκἐνέμεινανἐντῆδιαθήκῃμου.ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψּ, “which,” in the original, is expressed by ὅτι, which we render “because;” ὅτι, as it is sometimes a relative, sometimes a redditive, “which,” or “because.” If we follow our translation, “because,” it seems to give a reason why God made a covenant with them not like the former; namely, because they continued not in the former, or brake it. But this indeed was not the reason of it. The reason, I say, why God made this new covenant not according unto the former, was not because they abode not in the first. This could be no reason of it, nor any motive unto it. It is therefore mentioned only to illustrate the grace of God, that he would make this new covenant notwithstanding the sin of those who brake the former; as also the excellency of the covenant itself, whereby those who are taken into it shall be preserved from breaking it, by the grace which it doth administer. Wherefore I had rather render ὅτι here by “which,” as we render ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ in the prophet, — ”which my covenant;” or “for,” — ”for they abode not.” And if we render it “because,” it respects not God’s making a new covenant, but his rejecting them for breaking the old.That which is charged on them is, that they “continued not,” they “abode not” in the covenant made with them. This God calls his covenant, “They continued not in my covenant;” because he was the author of it, the sole contriver and proposer of its terms and promises, δֵ ?τֵ ?ψεּ, they “brake,” they rescinded, removed it, made it void. The Hebrew word expresseth the matter of fact, what they did; they “brake” or made void the covenant: the word used by the apostle expresseth the manner how they did it; namely, by not continuing faithful in it, not abiding by the terms of it. The use of the word μένω, and ἐμμένω, unto this purpose, hath been before declared. And what is intended hereby we must inquire:—1. God made this covenant with the people on Sinai, in the authoritative proposition of it unto them; and thereon the people solemnly accepted of it, and took it upon themselves to observe, do, and fulfill the terms and conditions of it, Exodus 19:8, especially Exodus 24:3; Exodus 24:7,“The people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said, will we do.”And, “All that the LORD hath said, will we do, and be obedient.” So Deuteronomy 5:27. Hereupon the covenant was ratified and confirmed between God and them, and thereon the blood of the covenant was sprinkled on them, Exodus 24:8. This gave that covenant its solemn ratification.2. Having thus accepted of God’s covenant, and the terms of it, Moses ascending again into the mount, the people made the golden calf. And this fell out so suddenly after the making of the covenant, that the apostle expresseth it by, “They continued not in it,” — ’they made haste to break it.’He expresseth the sense of the words of God hereon, Exodus 32:7-8, “Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”For therein they brake the covenant wherein God had in a peculiar manner assumed the glory of that deliverance unto himself. 3. Wherefore the breaking of the covenant, or their not continuing in it, was firstly and principally the making of the molten calf. After this, indeed, that generation added many other sins and provocations, before all things proceeded so far that “God sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest.” This fell out on their professed unbelief and murmuring on the return of the spies, Numbers 14, whereof we have treated at large on Hebrews 3. Wherefore this expression is not to be extended unto the sins of the following generations, neither in the kingdom of Israel nor in that of Judah, although they variously transgressed against the covenant, disannulling it so far as lay in them. But it is their sin who personally first entered into covenant with God that is reflected on. That generation with whom God made that first covenant immediately brake it, continued not in it. And therefore let that generation look well to themselves unto whom this new covenant shall be first proposed. And it so fell out, that the unbelief of that first generation who lived in the first days of the promulgation of the new covenant, hath proved an occasion of the ruin of their posterity unto this day. And we may observe, — Obs. 5. That sins have their aggravations from mercies received. — This was that which rendered this first sin of that people of such a flagitious nature in itself, and so provoking unto God, namely, that they who contracted personally the guilt of it had newly received the honor, mercy and privilege, of being taken into covenant with God. Hence is that threatening of God with respect hereunto, “Nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them,” Exodus 32:34. He would have aremembrance of this provoking sin in all their following visitations. Let us therefore take heed how we sin against received mercies, especially spiritual privileges, such as we enjoy by the gospel. Obs. 6. Nothing but effectual grace will secure our covenant obedience one moment. — Greater motives unto obedience, or stronger outward obligation thereunto, no people under heaven could have than this people had newly received; and they had publicly and solemnly engaged themselves thereunto. But they “quickly turned out of the way.” And therefore in the new covenant is this grace promised in a peculiar manner, as we shall see on the next verse. Secondly, The acting of God towards them hereon is also expressed: “And I regarded them not.” There seems to be a great difference between the translation of the words of the prophet and these of the apostle taken from them. In the former place we read, “Although I was an husband unto them;” in this, “I regarded them not.” And hereby the utmost difference that can be objected against the rendering of these words by the apostle is represented. But there was no need of rendering the words in the prophet, εְ ?ΰָ ?πλִ ?ιαְּ ?ςַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ιαָ ?ν, “Although I was an husband unto them,” as we shall see. Howbeit many learned men have exceedingly perplexed themselves and others in attempting a reconciliation between these passages or expressions, because they seem to be of a direct contrary sense and importance. I shall therefore premise some things which abate and take off from the weight of this difficulty, and then give the true solution of it. And unto the first end we may observe, — 1. That nothing of the main controversy, nothing of the substance of the truth which the apostle proves and confirms by this testimony, doth any way depend on the precise signification of these words. They are but occasional, as to the principal design of the whole promise; and therefore the sense of it doth not depend on their signification. And in such cases liberty in the variety of expositions may be safely used.2. Take the two different senses which the words, as commonly translated, do present, and there is nothing of contradiction, or indeed the least disagreement between them. For the words, as we have translated them in the prophet, express an aggravation of the sin of the people: “They brake my covenant, although I was” (that is, therein) “an husband unto them,” exercising singular kindness and care towards them. And as they are rendered by the apostle, they express the effect of that sin so aggravated, — He “regarded them not;” that is, with the same tenderness as formerly: for he denied to go with them as before, and exercised severity towards them in the wilderness until they were consumed. Each way, the design is to show that the covenant was broken by them, and that they were dealt withal accordingly. But expositors do find or make great difficulties herein. It is generally supposed that the apostle followed the translation of the LXX., in the present copy whereof the words are so expressed. But how they came to render αָּ ?ςַ ?μϊּ ?ι by ἠμέλησα, they are not agreed. Some say the original copies might differ in some letters from those we now enjoy. Therefore it is thought: they might read, as some think, αָּ ?ηַ ?μְ ?ϊּ ?ι, neglexi,” or βַָּ ?ςַ ?μְ ?ϊִ ?ι, “fastidivi,” — “I neglected” or “loathed them.” And those who speak most modestly, suppose that the copy. which the LXX. made use of had one of these words instead of αָּ ?ςַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, which yet is the truer reading; but because this did not belong unto the substance of the argument which he had in hand, the apostle would not depart from that translation which was then in use amongst the Hellenistical Jews.But the best of these conjectures is uncertain, and some of them by no means to be admitted. Uncertain it is that the apostle made any of his quotations out of the translation of the LXX.; yea, the contrary is certain enough, and easy to be demonstrated. Neither did he write this epistle unto the Hellenistical Jews, or those who lived in or belonged unto their dispersions, wherein they made use of the Greek tongue; but unto the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea principally and in the first place, who made no use of that translation. He expressed the mind of the Scripture as he was directed by the Holy Ghost, in words of his own. And the coincidence of them with those in the present copies of the LXX. hath been accounted for in our Exercitations. Dangerous it is, as well as untrue, to allow of alterations in the original text, and then upon our conjectures to supply other words into it than what are contained in it. This is not to explain, but to corrupt the Scripture. Wherefore one learned man (Pococke in Miscellan.) hath endeavored to prove that αָּ ?ςַ ?μְ ?ϊּ ?ι, by all rules of interpretation, in this place must signify to “despise and neglect,” and ought to have been so translated. And this he confirms from the use of it in the Arabic language. The reader may find it in the place referred unto, with great satisfaction. My apprehensions are grounded on what I have before observed and proved. The apostle neither in this nor in any other place doth bind up himself precisely unto the translation of the words, but infallibly gives us the sense and meaning; and so he hath done in this place. For whereas αַּ ?ςַ ?μ signifies a “husband,” or to be a husband or a lord, αbeing added unto it in construction, as it is here, αָ ?ναָּ ?ςַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, it is as much as “jure usus sum maritali,” — ’I exercised the right, power, and authority of a husband towards them; I dealt with them as a husband with a wife that breaketh covenant:’that is, saith the apostle, ‘“ I regarded them not” with the love, tenderness, and affection of a husband.’So he dealt indeed with that generation which so suddenly brake covenant with him. He provided no more for them as unto the enjoyment of the inheritance, he took them not home unto him in his habitation, his resting-place in the land of promise; but he suffered them all to wander, and bear their whoredoms in the wilderness, until they were consumed. So did God exercise the right, and power, and authority of a husband towards a wife that had broken covenant. And herein, as in many other things in that dispensation, did God give a representation of the nature of the covenant of works, and the issue of it. Thirdly, There is a confirmation of the truth of these things in that expression, “Saith the Lord.” This assertion is not to be extended unto the whole matter, or the promise of the introduction of the new covenant; for that is secured with the same expression, verse 8, ΛέγειΚύριος, “Saith the Lord.” But it hath a peculiar πάθος in it, being added in the close of the words, — πְ ?ΰֻ ?νΰּ ?ιְ ?δεָ ?δ, and respects only the sin of the people, and God’s dealing with them thereon. And this manifests the meaning of the preceding words to be God’s severity towards them: ‘I used the authority of a husband, I regarded them not as a wife any more, saith the Lord.”Now, God thus uttered his severity towards them, that they might consider how he will deal with all those who despise, break, or neglect his covenant. ‘So,’saith he, ‘I dealt with them; and so shall I deal with others who offend in an alike manner.’ This was the issue of things with them with whom the first covenant was made. They received it, entered solemnly into the bonds of it, took upon themselves expressly the performance of its terms and conditions, were sprinkled with the blood of it; but they “continued not in it,” and were dealt withal accordingly. God used the right and authority of a husband with whom a wife breaketh covenant; he “neglected them,” shut them out of his house, deprived them of their dowry or inheritance, and slew them in the wilderness. On this declaration, God promiseth to make another covenant with them, wherein all these evils should be prevented. This is the covenant which the apostle designs to prove better and more excellent than the former. And this he doth principally from the mediator and surety of it, compared with the Aaronical priests, whose office and service belonged wholly unto the administration of that first covenant. And he confirms it also from the nature of this covenant itself, especially with respect unto its efficacy and duration. And hereunto this testimony is express, evidencing how this covenant is everlastingly, by the grace administered in it, preventive of that evil success which the former had by the sin of the people. Hence he says of it, Οὐκατὰτήν, — “Not according unto it;” a covenant agreeing with the former neither in promises, efficacy, nor duration. For what is principally promised here, namely, the giving of a new heart, Moses expressly affirms that it was not done in the administration of the first covenant. It is neither a renovation of that covenant nor a reformation of it, but utterly of another nature, by whose introduction and establishment that other was to be abolished, abrogated, and taken away, with all the divine worship and service which was peculiar thereunto. And this was that which the apostle principally designed to prove and convince the Hebrews of. And from the whole we may observe sundry things. Obs. 7. No covenant between God and man ever was, or ever could be stable and effectual, as unto the ends of it, that was not made and confirmed in Christ. — God first made a covenant with us in Adam. There was nothing therein but the mere defectibility of our natures as we were creatures that could render it ineffectual. And from thence did it proceed. In him we all sinned, by breach of covenant. The Son of God had not then interposed himself, nor undertaken on our behalf. The apostle tells us that “in him all things consist;” — without him they have no consistency, no stability, no duration. So was this first covenant immediately broken. It was not confirmed by the blood of Christ. And those who suppose that the efficacy and stability of the present covenant do depend solely on our own will and diligence, had need not only to assert our nature free from that depravation which it was under when this covenant was broken, but also from that defectibility that was in it before we fell in Adam. And such as, neglecting the interposition of Christ, do betake themselves unto imaginations of this kind, surely know little of themselves, and less of God. Obs. 8. No external administration of a covenant of God’s own making, no obligation of mercy on the minds of men, can enable them unto steadfastness in covenant obedience, without an effectual influence of grace from and by Jesus Christ. — For we shall see in the next verses that this is the only provision which is made in the wisdom of God to render us steadfast in obedience, and his covenant effectual unto us. Obs. 9. God, in making a covenant with any, in proposing the terms of it, retains his right and authority to deal with persons according to their deportment in and towards that covenant: “They brake my covenant, and I regarded them not.”Obs. 10. God’s casting men out of his especial care, upon the breach of his covenant, is the highest judgment that in this world can fall on any persons.And we are concerned in all these things. For although the covenant of grace be stable and effectual unto all who are really partakers of it, yet as unto its external administration, and our entering into it by a visible profession, it may be broken, unto the temporal and eternal ruin of persons and whole churches. Take heed of the golden calf. ὍτιαὕτηἡδιαθήκηἣνδιαθήσομαιτῷοἴκῳἸσραὴλμετὰτὰςἡμέραςἐκείνας, λέγειΚύριος, διδοὺςνόμουςμουεἰςτὴνδιάνοιαναὐτῶν, καὶἐπὶκαρδίαςαὐτῶνἐπιγράψωαὐτούς· καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖςεἰςΘεὸν, καὶαὐτοὶἔσονταίμοιεἰςλαόν· καὶοὐμὴδιδάξωσινἕκαστοςτὸνπλησίοναὑτοῦ, καὶἕκαστοςτὸνἄδελφοναὑτοῦ, λέγων, ΓνῶθιτὸνΚύριον· ὅτιπάντεςεἰδήσουσίμε, ἀπὸμικροῦαὐτῶνἕωςμεγάλουαὐτῶν· ὄτιἵλεωςἔσομαιταῖςἀδικίαιςαὐτῶν, καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶνκαὶτῶνἀνομιῶναὐτῶνοὐμὴμνησθῶἔτι[9] [9] VARIOUS READING. — Τὸνπλησίον has been rejected, and τὸνπολίτην substituted as the proper reading, by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. All the uncial MSS., with most of the versions, vindicate the propriety of the change. — ED. The design of the apostle, or what is the general argument which he is in pursuit of, must still be borne in mind throughout the consideration of the testimonies he produceth in the confirmation of it. And this is, to prove that the Lord Christ is the mediator and surety of a better covenant than that wherein the service of God was managed by the high priests according unto the law. For hence it follows that his priesthood is greater and far more excellent than theirs. To this end he doth not only prove that God promised to make such a covenant, but also declares the nature and properties of it, in the words of the prophet. And so, by comparing it with the former covenant, he manifests its excellency above it. In particular, in this testimony the imperfection of that covenant is demonstrated from its issue. For it did not effectually continue peace and mutual love between God and the people; but being broken by them, they were thereon rejected of God. This rendered all the other benefits and advantages of it useless. Wherefore the apostle insists from the prophet on those properties of this other covenant which infallibly prevent the like issue, securing the people’s obedience for ever, and so the love and relation of God unto them as their God. Wherefore these three verses give us a description of that covenant whereof the Lord Christ is the mediator and surety, not absolutely and entirely, but as unto those properties and effects of it wherein it differs from the former, so as infallibly to secure the covenant relation between God and the people. That covenant was broken, but this shall never be so, because provision is made in the covenant itself against any such event. And we may consider in the words, — 1. The particle of introduction, ὅτι, answering the Hebrew λִּ ?ι.2. The subject spoken of, which is διαθήκη; with the way of making it, ἥνδιαθήσομαι, — “which I will make.”3. The author of it, the Lord Jehovah; “I will ...... saith the Lord.”4. Those with whom it was to be made, “the house of Israel.”5. The time of making it, “after those days.”6. The properties, privileges, and benefits of this covenant, which are of two sorts:(1.) Of sanctifying, inherent grace; described by a double consequent:[1. Of God’s relation unto them, and theirs to him; “I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people,” Hebrews 10:10. [2. Of their advantage thereby, without the use of such other aids as formerly they stood in need of, Hebrews 10:11. (2.) Of relative grace, in the pardon of their sins, Hebrews 10:12. And sundry things of great. weight will fall into consideration under these several heads.Hebrews 8:10. — For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will give my laws into their mind, and write them upon their hearts: and I will be unto them a God, and they shall be to me a people.1. The introduction of the declaration of the new covenant is by the particle ὅτι. The Hebrew λִּ ?ι, which is rendered by it, is variously used, and is sometimes redundant. In the prophet, some translate it by an exceptive, “sed;” some by an illative, “quoniam.” And in this place ὅτι, is rendered by some quamobrem, “wherefore; and by others “nam,” or enim, as we do it by “for.” And it doth intimate a reason of what was spoken before, namely, that the covenant which God would now make should not be according unto that, like unto it, which was before made and broken. 2. The thing promised is a “covenant:” in the prophet αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, here διαθήκη. And the way of making it, in the prophet ΰֶ ?λְ ?ψֹ ?ϊ; which is the usual word whereby the making of a covenant is expressed. For signifying to “cut,” to “strike,” to “divide,” respect is had in it unto the sacrifices wherewith covenants were confirmed. Thence also were “foedus percutere,” and “foedus ferire.” See Genesis 15:9-10; Genesis 15:18. ΰֶ ?ϊּ, or ςַ ?ν, that is, “cure,” which is joined in construction with it, Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 5:2. The apostle renders it by διαθήσομαι, and that with a dative case without a preposition, τῷοἴκῳ, “I will make” or “confirm unto.” He had used before συντελέσω to the same purpose.We render the words αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ and διαθήκη in this place by a “covenant,” though afterward the same word is translated by a “testament.” A covenant properly is a compact or agreement on certain terms mutually stipulated by two or more parties. As promises are the foundation and rise of it, as it is between God and man, so it compriseth also precepts, or laws of obedience, which are prescribed unto man on his part to be observed. But in the description of the covenant here annexed, there is no mention of any condition on the part of man, of any terms of obedience prescribed unto him, but the whole consists in free, gratuitous promises, as we shall see in the explication of it. Some hence conclude that it is only one part of the covenant that is here described. Others observe from hence that the whole covenant of grace as a covenant is absolute, without any conditions on our part; which sense Estius on this place contends for. But these things must be further inquired into: — (1.) The word αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, used by the prophet, doth not only signify a “covenant” or compact properly so called, but a free, gratuitous promise also. Yea, sometimes it is used for such a free purpose of God with respect unto other things, which in their own nature are incapable of being obliged by any moral condition. Such is God’s covenant with day and night, Jeremiah 33:20; Jeremiah 33:25. And so he says that he “made his covenant,” not to destroy the world by water any more, “with every living creature,” Genesis 9:10-11. Nothing, therefore, can be argued for the necessity of conditions to belong unto this covenant from the name or term whereby it is expressed in the prophet. A covenant properly is συνθήκη, but there is no word in the whole Hebrew language of that precise signification.The making of this covenant is declared by λָּ ?ψַ ?ϊִּ ?ι. But yet neither doth this require a mutual stipulation, upon terms and conditions prescribed, unto an entrance into covenant. For it refers unto the sacrifices wherewith covenants were confirmed; and it is applied unto a mere gratuitous promise, Genesis 15:18, “In that day did the LORD make a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land.”As unto the word διαθήκη, it signifies a “covenant” improperly; properly it is a “testamentary disposition.” And this may be without any conditions on the part of them unto whom any thing is bequeathed.(2.) The whole of the covenant intended is expressed in the ensuing description of it. For if it were otherwise, it could not be proved from thence that this covenant was more excellent than the former, especially as to security that the covenant relation between God and the people should not be broken or disannulled. For this is the principal thing which the apostle designs to prove in this place; and the want of an observation thereof hath led many out of the way in their exposition of it. If, therefore, this be not an entire description of the covenant, there might yet be something reserved essentially belonging thereunto which might frustrate this end. For some such conditions might yet be required in it as we are not able to observe, or could have no security that we should abide in the observation of them: and thereon this covenant might be frustrated of its end, as well as the former; which is directly contrary unto God’s declaration of his design in it. (3.) It is evident that there can be no condition previously required, unto our entering into or participation of the benefits of this covenant, antecedent unto the making of it with us. For none think there are any such with respect unto its original constitution; nor can there be so in respect of its making with us, or our entering into it. For, —[1. This would render the covenant inferior in a way of grace unto that which God made with the people at Horeb. For he declares that there was not any thing in them that moved him either to make that covenant, or to take them into it with himself. Everywhere he asserts this to be an act of his mere grace and favor. Yea, he frequently declares, that he took them into covenant, not only without respect unto any thing of good in them, but although they were evil and stubborn. See Deuteronomy 7:7-8; Deuteronomy 9:4-5.[2. It is contrary unto the nature, ends, and express properties of this covenant. For there is nothing that can be thought or supposed to be such a condition, but it is comprehended in the promise of the covenant itself; for all that God requireth in us is proposed as that which himself will effect by virtue of this covenant. (4.) It is certain, that in the outward dispensation of the covenant, wherein the grace, mercy, and terms of it are proposed unto us, many things are required of us in order unto a participation of the benefits of it; for God hath ordained, that all the mercy and grace that is prepared in it shall be communicated unto us ordinarily in the use of outward means, wherewith a compliance is required of us in a way of duty. To this end hath he appointed all the ordinances of the gospel, the word and sacraments, with all those duties, public and private, which are needful to render them effectual unto us. For he will take us ordinarily into this covenant in and by the rational faculties of our natures, that he may be glorified in them and by them. Wherefore these things are required of us in order unto the participation of the benefits of this covenant. And if, therefore, any one will call our attendance unto such duties the condition of the covenant, it is not to be contended about, though properly it is not so. For, — [1. God doth work the grace of the covenant, and communicate the mercy of it, antecedently unto all ability for the performance of any such duty; as it is with elect infants. [2. Amongst those who are equally diligent in the performance of the duties intended he makes a discrimination, preferring one before another. “Many are called, but few are chosen;” and what hath any one that he hath not received? [3. He actually takes some into the grace of the covenant whilst they are engaged in an opposition unto the outward dispensation of it. An example of this grace he gave in Paul. (5.) It is evident that the first grace of the covenant, or God’s putting his law in our hearts, can depend on no condition on our part. For whatever is antecedent thereunto, being only a work or act of corrupted nature, can be no condition whereon the dispensation of spiritual grace is superadded. And this is the great ground of them who absolutely deny the covenant of grace to be conditional; namely, that the first grace is absolutely promised, whereon and its exercise the whole of it doth depend.(6.) Unto a full and complete interest in all the promises of the covenant, faith on our part, from which evangelical repentance is inseparable, is required. But whereas these also are wrought in us by virtue of that promise and grace of the covenant which are absolute, it is a mere strife about words to contend whether they may be called conditions or no. Let it be granted on the one hand, that we cannot have an actual participation of the relative grace of this covenant in adoption and justification, without faith or believing; and on the other, that this faith is wrought in us, given unto us, bestowed upon us, by that grace of the covenant which depends on no condition in us as unto its discriminating administration, and I shall not concern myself what men will call it. (7.) Though there are no conditions properly so called of the whole grace of the covenant, yet there are conditions in the covenant, taking that term, in a large sense, for that which by the order of divine constitution precedeth some other things, and hath an influence into their existence; for God requireth many things of them whom he actually takes into covenant, and makes partakers of the promises and benefits of it. Of this nature is that whole obedience which is prescribed unto us in the gospel, in our walking before God in uprightness; and there being an order in the things that belong hereunto, some acts, duties, and parts of our gracious obedience, being appointed to be means of the further additional supplies of the grace and mercies of the covenant, they may be called conditions required of us in the covenant, as well as duties prescribed unto us. (8.) The benefits of the covenant are of two sorts:[1. The grace and mercy which it doth collate. [2] The future reward of glory which it doth promise. Those of the former sort are all of them means appointed of God, which we are to use and improve unto the obtaining of the latter, and so may be called conditions required on our part. They are only collated on us, but conditions as used and improved by us. (9.) Although διαθήκη, the word here used, may signify and be rightly rendered a “covenant,” in the same manner as αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ doth, yet that which is intended is properly a “testament,” or a “testamentary disposition” of good things. It is the will of God in and by Jesus Christ, his death and bloodshedding, to give freely unto us the whole inheritance of grace and glory. And under this notion the covenant hath no condition, nor are any such either expressed or intimated in this place.Obs. 1. The covenant of grace, as reduced into the form of a testament, confirmed by the blood of Christ, doth not depend on any condition or qualification in our persons, but on a free grant and donation of God; and so do all the good things prepared in it. Obs. 2. The precepts of the old covenant are turned all of them into promises under the new. — Their preceptive, commanding power is not taken away, but grace is promised for the performance of them. So the apostle having declared that the people brake the old covenant, adds that grace shall be supplied in the new for all the duties of obedience that are required of us.Obs. 3. All things in the new covenant being proposed unto us by the way of promise, it is faith alone whereby we may attain a participation of them. — For faith only is the grace we ought to exercise, the duty we ought to perform, to render the promises of God effectual to us, Hebrews 4:1-2.Obs. 4. Sense of the loss of an interest in and participation of the benefits of the old covenant, is the best preparation for receiving the mercies of the new.3. The author of this covenant is God himself: “I will make it, saith the LORD .” This is the third time that this expression, “Saith the Lord,” is repeated in this testimony. The work expressed, in both the parts of it, the disannulling of the old covenant and the establishment of the new, is such as calls for this solemn interposition of the authority, veracity, and grace of God. “I will do it, saith the Lord.” And the mention hereof is thus frequently inculcated, to beget a reverence in us of the work which he so emphatically assumes unto himself. And it teacheth us that, —Obs. 5. God himself, in and by his own sovereign wisdom, grace, goodness, all-sufficiency, and power, is to be considered as the only cause and author of the new covenant; or, the abolishing of the old covenant, with the introduction and establishment of the new, is an act of the mere sovereign wisdom, grace, and authority of God. It is his gracious disposal of us, and of his own grace; — that whereof we had no contrivance, nor indeed the least desire. 4. It is declared whom this new covenant is made withal: “With the house of Israel.” Hebrews 8:8, they are called distinctly “the house of Israel, and the house of Judah.” The distribution of the posterity of Abraham into Israel and Judah ensued upon the division that fell out among the people in the days of Rehoboam. Before, they were called Israel only. And as in Hebrews 8:8 they were mentioned distinctly, to testify that none of the seed of Abraham should be absolutely excluded from the grace of the covenant, however they were divided among themselves; so here they are all jointly expressed by their ancient name of Israel, to manifest that all distinctions on the account of precedent privileges should be now taken away, that “all Israel might be saved.” But we have showed before, that the whole Israel of God, or the church of the elect, are principally intended hereby. 5. The time of the accomplishment of this promise, or making of this covenant, is expressed, “After those days.” There are various conjectures about the sense of these words, or the determination of the time limited in them.Some suppose respect is had unto the time of giving the law on mount Sinai. Then was the old covenant made with the fathers; but after those days another should be made. But whereas that time, “those days,” were so long past before this prophecy was given out by Jeremiah, namely, about eight hundred years, it was impossible but that the new covenant, which was not yet given, must be “after those days;” wherefore it was to no purpose so to express it that it should be after those days, seeing it was impossible that otherwise it should be. Some think that respect is had unto the captivity of Babylon and the return of the people from thence; for God then showed them great kindness, to win them unto obedience. But neither can this time be intended; for God then made no new covenant with the people, but strictly obliged them unto the terms of the old, Malachi 4:4-6. But when this new covenant was to be made, the old was to be abolished and removed, as the apostle expressly affirmeth, Hebrews 8:13. The promise is not of new obligation, or new assistance unto the observance of the old covenant, but of making a new one quite of another nature, which then was not done. Some judge that these words, “after those days,” refer unto what went immediately before, “And I regarded them not:” which words include the total rejection of the Jews. ‘After those days wherein both the house of Judah and the house of Israel shall be rejected, I will make a new covenant with the whole Israel of God.’But neither will this hold the trial; for, — (1.) Supposing that expression, “And I regarded them not,” to intend the rejection of the Jews, yet it is manifest that their excision and cutting off absolutely was not in nor for their non-continuance in the old covenant, or not being faithful therein, but for the rejection of the new when proposed unto them. Then they fell by unbelief, as the apostle fully manifests, Hebrews 3 of this epistle, and Romans 11. Wherefore the making of the new covenant cannot be said to be after their rejection, seeing they were rejected for their refusal and contempt of it. (2.) By this interpretation the whole house of Israel, or all the natural posterity of Abraham, would be utterly excluded from any interest in this promise. But this cannot be allowed: for it was not so “de facto,” a remnant being taken into covenant; which though but a remnant in comparison of the whole, yet in themselves so great a multitude, as that in them the promises made unto the fathers were confirmed. Nor on this supposition would this prediction of a new covenant have been any promise unto them, or any of them, but rather a severe denunciation of judgment. But it is said expressly, that God would make this covenant with them, as he did the former with their fathers; which is a promise of grace and mercy. Wherefore “after those days,” is as much as in those days, — an indeterminate season for a certain. So, “in that day,” is frequently used in the prophets, Isaiah 24:21-22; Zechariah 12:11. A time, therefore, certainly future, but not determined, is all that is intended in this expression, “after those days.” And herewith most expositors are satisfied. Yet is there, as I judge, more in the words.“Those days,” seem to me to comprise the whole time allotted unto the economy of the old testament, or dispensation of the old covenant. Such a time there was appointed unto it; in the counsel of God. During this season things fell out as described, verse 9. The certain period fixed unto these days is called by our apostle “the time of reformation,” Hebrews 9:10. “After those days,” — that is, in or at their expiration, when they were coming unto their end, whereby the first covenant waxed old and decayed, — God would make this covenant with them. And although much was done towards it before those days came absolutely unto an end and did actually expire, yet is the making of it said to be “after those days,” because being made in the wane and declension of them, it did by its making put a full and final end unto them. This in general was the time here designed for the making and establishing of the new covenant. But we must yet further inquire into the precise time of the accomplishment of this promise. And I say, the whole of it cannot be limited unto any one season absolutely, as though all that was intended in God’s making of this covenant did consist in any one individual act. The making of the old covenant with the fathers is said to be “in the day wherein God took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” During the season intended there were many things that were preparatory to the making of that covenant, or to the solemn establishment of it. So was it also in the making of the new covenant. It was gradually made and established, and that by sundry acts preparatory for it or confirmatory of it. And there are six degrees observable in it, — (1.) The first peculiar entrance into it was made by the ministry of John the Baptist. Him had God raised to send under the name and in the spirit and power of Elijah, to prepare the way of the Lord, Malachi 4. Hence is his ministry called “the beginning of the gospel,” Mark 1:1-2. Until his coming, the people were bound absolutely and universally unto the covenant in Horeb, without alteration or addition in any ordinance of worship. But his ministry was designed to prepare them, and to cause them to look out after the accomplishment of this promise of making the new covenant, Malachi 4:4-6. And these by whom his ministry was despised, did “reject the counsel of God against themselves,” — that is, unto their ruin; and made themselves liable to that utter excision with the threatening whereof the writings of the Old Testament are closed, Malachi 4:6. He therefore called the people off from resting in or trusting unto the privileges of the first covenant, Matthew 3:8-10; preached unto them a doctrine of repentance; and instituted a new ordinance of worship, whereby they might be initiated into a new state or condition, a new relation unto God. And in his whole ministry he pointed at, and directed and gave testimony unto Him who was then to come to establish this new covenant. This was the beginning of the accomplishment of this promise.(2.) The coming in the flesh and personal ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, was an eminent advance and degree therein. The dispensation of the old covenant did yet continue; for he himself, as “made of a woman,” was “made under the law,” yielding obedience unto it, observing all its precepts and institutions. But his coming in the flesh laid an axe unto the root of that whole dispensation; for therein the main end that God designed thereby towards that people was accomplished. The interposition of the law was now to be taken away, and the promise to become all unto the church. Hence upon his nativity this covenant was proclaimed from heaven, as that which was immediately to take place, Luke 2:13-14. But it was more fully and evidently carried on in and by his personal ministry. The whole doctrine thereof was preparatory unto the immediate introduction of this covenant. But especially there was therein and thereby, by the truth which he taught, by the manner of his teaching, by the miracles which he wrought, in conjunction with an open accomplishment of the prophecies concerning him, evidence given that he was the Messiah, the mediator of the new covenant. Herein was a declaration made of the person in and by whom it was to be established: and therefore he told them, that unless they believed it was he who was so promised, they should die in their sins. (3.) The way for the introduction of this covenant being thus prepared, it was solemnly enacted and confirmed in and by his death; for herein he offered that sacrifice to God whereby it was established. And hereby the promise properly became διαθήκη, a “testament,” as our apostle proves at large, Hebrews 9:14-16. And he declares in the same place, that it answered those sacrifices whose blood was sprinkled on the people and the book of the law, in the confirmation of the first covenant; which things must be treated of afterwards. This was the center wherein all the promises of grace did meet, and from whence they derived their efficacy. From henceforward the old covenant, and all its administrations, having received their full accomplishment, did abide only in the patience of God, to be taken down and removed out of the way in his own time and manner; for really and in themselves their force and authority did then cease, and was taken away. See Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-15. But our obligation unto obedience and the observance of commands, though formally and ultimately it be resolved into the will of God, yet immediately it respects the revelation of it, by which we are directly obliged. Wherefore, although the causes of the removal of the old covenant had already been applied thereunto, yet the law and its institutions were still continued not only lawful but useful unto the worshippers, until the will of God concerning their abrogation was fully declared. (4.) This new covenant had the complement of its making and establishment in the resurrection of Christ. For in order hereunto the old was to have its perfect end. God did not make the first covenant, and therein revive, represent, and confirm the covenant of works, with the promise annexed unto it, merely that it should continue for such a season, and then die of itself, and be arbitrarily removed; but that whole dispensation had an end which was to be accomplished, and without which it was not consistent with the wisdom or righteousness of God to remove it or take it away. Yea, nothing of it could be removed, until all was fulfilled. It was easier to remove heaven and earth than to remove the law, as unto its right and title to rule the souls and consciences of men, before all was fulfilled. And this end had two parts: — [1. The perfect fulfilling of the righteousness which it required. This was done in the obedience of Christ, the surety of the new covenant, in the stead of them with whom the covenant was made. [2. That the curse of it should be undergone. Until this was done, the law could not quit its claim unto power over sinners. And as this curse was undergone in the suffering, so it was absolutely discharged in the resurrection of Christ. For the pains of death being loosed, and he delivered from the state of the dead, the sanction of the law was declared to be void, and its curse answered. Hereby did the old covenant so expire, as that the worship which belonged unto it was only for a while continued, in the patience and forbearance of God towards that people. (5.) The first solemn promulgation of this new covenant, so made, ratified, and established, was on the day of Pentecost, seven weeks after the resurrection of Christ. And it answered the promulgation of the law on mount Sinai, the same space of time after the delivery of the people out of Egypt. From this day forward the ordinances of worship, and all the institutions of the new covenant, became obligatory unto all believers. Then was the whole church absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant, and the worship of it, though it was not manifest as yet in their consciences.(6.) The question being stated about the continuance of the obligatory force of the old covenant, the contrary was solemnly promulged by the apostles, under the infallible conduct of the Holy Ghost, Acts 15.These were the articles, or the degrees of the time intended in that expression, “after those days;” all of them answering the several degrees whereby the old vanished and disappeared. The circumstances of the making of this covenant being thus cleared, the nature of it in its promises is next proposed unto us. And in the exposition of the words we must do these two things: 1. Inquire into the general nature of these promises. 2. Particularly and distinctly explain them: —FIRST, The general nature both of the covenant and of the promises whereby it is here expressed must briefly be inquired into, because there are various apprehensions about them. For some suppose that there is an especial efficacy towards the things mentioned intended in these promises, and no more; some judge that the things themselves, the event and end, are so promised. In the first way Schlichtingius expresseth himself on this place: “Non ‘ut olim curabo leges meas in lapideis tantum tabulis inscribi, sed tale foedus cum illis feriam ut meae leges ipsis eorum mentibus et cordibus insculpantur:’— apparet haec verba intra vim et efficaciam accipienda esse, non veto ad ipsum inscriptionis effectum necessario porrigenda, qui semper in libera hominis potestate positus est; quod ipsum docent et sequentia Dei verba, Hebrews 8:12. Quibus ipse Deus causam seu modum ac rationem hujus rei aperit, quae ingenti illius gratia ac misericordia populo exhibenda continetur. Hac futurum dicit ut populus tanto ardore sibi serviat, suasque leges observet. Sensus ergo est, ‘tale percutiam foedus quod maximas et suficientissimas vires habebit populum meum in officio continendi.’” And another: “I will, instead of these external, carnal ordinances and observations, give them spiritual commands for the regulating of their affections, precepts most agreeable unto all men, [made] by the exceeding greatness of that grace and mercy. In this and many other particulars I shall incline their affections willingly to receive my law.” The sense of both is, that all which is here promised consisteth in the nature of the means, and their efficacy from thence, to incline, dispose, and engage men unto the things here spoken of, but not to effect them certainly and infallibly in them to whom the promise is given. And it is supposed that the efficacy granted ariseth from the nature of the precepts of the gospel, which are rational, and suited unto the principles of our intellectual natures. For these precepts, enlivened by the promises made unto the observance of them, with the other mercies wherewith they are accompanied in God’s dealing with us, are meet to prevail on our minds and wills unto obedience; but yet, when all is done, the whole issue depends on our own wills, and their determination of themselves one way or other. But these things are not only liable unto many just exceptions, but do indeed overthrow the whole nature of the new covenant, and the text is not expounded but corrupted by them; wherefore they must be removed out of the way. And, — 1. The exposition given can no way be accommodated unto the words, so as to grant a truth in their plain literal sense. For whereas God says, “He will put his laws in their mind, and write them in their heart, and they shall all know him,” — which declares what he will effectually do; the sense of their exposition is, that indeed he will not do so, only he will do that which shall move them and persuade them to do that themselves which he hath promised to do himself, and that whether they ever do so or no! But if any one concerning whom God says that he will write his law in his heart, have it not so written, be it on what account it will, — suppose it be that the man will not have it so written, — how can the promise be true, that God will write his law in his heart? It is a sorry apology, to say that God in making that promise did not foresee the obstruction that would arise, or could not remove it when it did so.2. It is the event, or the effect itself, that is directly promised, and not any such efficacy of means as might be frustrated. For the weakness and imperfection of the first covenant was evidenced hereby, that those with whom it was made continued not in it. Hereon God neglected them, and the covenant became unprofitable, or at least unsuccessful as unto the general end of continuing the relation between God and them, — of his being their God, and they being his people. To redress this evil, and prevent the like for the future, — that is, effectually to provide that God and his people may always abide in that blessed covenant relation, — he promiseth the things themselves whereby it might be secured. That which the first covenant could not effect, God promised to work in and by the new.3. It is nowhere said nor intimated in the Scripture, that the efficacy of the new covenant, and the accomplishment of the promises of it, should depend on and arise from the suitableness of its precepts unto our reason, or natural principles; but it is universally and constantly ascribed unto the efficacy of the Spirit and grace of God, not only enabling us unto obedience, but enduing us with a spiritual, supernatural, vital principle, from which it may proceed. 4. It is true, that our own wills, or the free actings of them, are required in our faith and obedience; whence it is promised that we shall be “willing in the day of his power.” But that our wills are left absolutely herein unto our own liberty and power, without being inclined and determined by the grace of God, is that Pelagianism which hath long attempted the church, but which shall never absolutely prevail.5. The putting the laws of God in our minds, and the writing of them in our hearts, that we may know him, and fear him always, is promised in the same way and manner as is the forgiveness of sin, verse 12; and it is hard to affix such a sense unto that promise, as that God will use such and such means that our sins may be pardoned, which yet may all of them fail. 6. As this exposition is no way suited unto the words of the text, nor of the context, or scope of the place, so indeed it overthrows the nature of the new covenant, and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which comes thereby. For, —(1.) If the effect itself, or the things mentioned are not promised, but only the use of means, left unto the liberty of men’s wills whether they will comply with them or no, then the very being of the covenant, whether it ever shall have any existence or no, depends absolutely on the wills of men, and so may not be. For it is not the proposal of the terms of the covenant, and the means whereby we may enter into it, that is called the making of this covenant with us; but our real participation of the grace and mercy promised in it. This alone gives a real existence unto the covenant itself, without which it is not a covenant; nor without it is it properly made with any.(2.) The Lord Christ would be made hereby the mediator of an uncertain covenant. For if it depend absolutely on the wills of men whether they will accept of the terms of it and comply with it or no, it is uncertain what will be the event, and whether ever any one will do so or no; for the will being not determined by grace, what its actings will be is altogether uncertain.(3.) The covenant can hereon in no sense be a testament; which our apostle afterwards proves that it is, and that irrevocably ratified by the death of the testator. For there can, on this supposition, be no certain heir unto whom Christ did bequeath his goods, and the inheritance of mercy, grace, and glory. This would make this testament inferior to that of a wise man, who determines in particular unto whom his goods shall come. (4.) It takes away that difference between this and the former covenant which it is the main scope of the apostle to prove; at least it leaves the difference to consist only in the gradual efficacy of outboard means; which is most remote from his purpose. For there were by the old covenant means supplied to induce the people unto constant obedience, and those in their kind powerful. This is pleaded by Moses, in the whole book almost of Deuteronomy. For the scope of all his exhortations unto obedience is to show that God had so instructed them in the knowledge of his will by giving of the law, and had accompanied his teachings with so many signal mercies, such effects of his mighty power, goodness, and grace; that the covenant was accompanied with such promises and threatenings, that therein life and death temporal and eternal were set before them; all which made their obedience so reasonable and necessary, that nothing but profligacy in wickedness could turn them from it. To this purpose are discourses multiplied in that book. And yet notwithstanding all this, it is added, “that God had not circumcised their hearts to fear him and obey him always,” as it is here promised. The communication of grace effectual, producing infallibly the good things proposed and promised in the minds and hearts of men, belonged not unto that covenant. If, therefore, there be no more in the making of the new covenant but only the adding of more forcible outward means and motives, more suitable unto our reasons, and meet to work on our affections, it differs only in some unassignable degrees from the former. But this is directly contrary unto the promise in the prophet, that it shall not be according unto it, or of the same kind; no more than Christ, the high priest of it, should be a priest after the order of Aaron. (5.) It would on this supposition follow, that God might fulfill his promise of “putting his laws in the minds of men, and writing them in their hearts,” and yet none have the laws put into their minds, nor written in their hearts; which things are not reconcilable by any distinction unto the ordinary reason of mankind.Wherefore we must grant that it is the effect, the event in the communication of the things promised, that is ascribed unto this covenant, and not only the use and application of means unto their production. And this will yet further appear in the particular exposition of the several parts of it. But yet, before we enter thereon, two objections must be removed, which may in general be laid against our interpretation. First, ‘This covenant is promised as that which is future, to be brought in at a certain time, “after those days,” as hath been declared. But it is certain that the things here mentioned, the grace and mercy expressed, were really communicated unto many both before and after the giving of the law, long ere this covenant was made; for all who truly believed and feared God had these things effected in them by grace: wherefore their effectual communication cannot be esteemed a property of this covenant which was to be made afterwards.’ Ans. This objection was sufficiently prevented in what we have already discoursed concerning the efficacy of the grace of this covenant before itself was solemnly consummated. For all things of this nature that belong unto it do arise and spring from the mediation of Christ, or his interposition on the behalf of sinners. Wherefore this took place from the giving of the first promise; the administration of the grace of this covenant did therein and then take its date. Howbeit the Lord Christ had not yet done that whereby it was solemnly to be confirmed, and that whereon all the virtue of it did depend. Wherefore this covenant is promised now to be made, not in opposition unto what grace and mercy was derived from it both before and under the law, nor as unto the first administration of grace from the mediator of it; but in opposition unto the covenant of Sinai, and with respect unto its outward solemn confirmation. Secondly, ‘If the things themselves are promised in the covenant, then all those with whom this covenant is made must be really and effectually made partakers of them. But this is not so; they are not all actually sanctified, pardoned, and saved, which are the things here promised.’ Ans. The making of this covenant may be considered two ways: 1. As unto the preparation and proposition of its terms and conditions. 2. As unto the internal stipulation between God and the souls of men.In this sense alone God is properly said to make this covenant with any. The preparation and proposition of laws are not the making of the covenant. And therefore all with whom this covenant is made are effectually sanctified, justified, and saved. , These things being premised, as it was necessary they should be, unto the right understanding of the mind of the Holy Ghost, I shall proceed unto the particular parts of the covenant as here expressed, namely, in the blessed properties and effects of it, whereby it is distinguished from the former.The first two expressions are of the same nature and tendency, “I will put my laws in their mind, and write them in their hearts.” In general it is the reparation of our nature by the restoration of the image of God in us, — that is, our sanctification, — which is promised in these words. And there are two things in the words both doubly expressed: 1. The subject wrought upon; which is the “mind” and the “heart.”2. The manner of producing the effect mentioned in them; and that is by “putting” and “writing.” And, 3. The things by these means so communicated; which are the “laws” of God. 1. The subject spoken of is the mind and heart. When the apostle treats of the depravation and corruption of our nature, he placeth them τῇδιανοίᾳ and ἐντῇκαρδίᾳ, Ephesians 4:18; that is, “the mind and the heart.” These are, in the Scripture, the seat of natural corruption, the residence of the principle of alienation from the life of God which is in us. Wherefore the renovation of our natures consists in the rectifying and curing of them, in the furnishing them with contrary principles of faith, love, and adherence unto God. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 6. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ in the new covenant, in its being and existence, in its healing, repairing efficacy, is as large and extensive as sin is in its residence and power to deprave our natures. — This is the difference about the extent of the new covenant, and the grace of it: Some would have it to extend unto all persons, in its tender and conditional proposition; but not unto all things, as unto its efficacy in the reparation of our natures. Others assert it to extend unto all the effects of sin, in the removal of them, and the cure of our natures thereby; but as unto persons, it is really extended unto none but those in whom these effects are produced, whatever be its outward administration, which was also always limited: unto whom I do subscribe. The first thing mentioned is the “mind.” χֶ ?ψֶ ?αּ the apostle renders by διάνοια, “the inward part.” The mind is the most secret, inward part or power of the soul. And the prophet expresseth it by the “inward part,” because it is the only safe and useful repository of the laws of God. When they are there laid up, we shall not lose them; neither men nor devils can take them from us. And he also declares wherein the excellency of covenant obedience doth consist. It is not in the conformity of our outward actions unto the law, although that be required therein also; but it principally lieth in the inward parts, where God searcheth for and regardeth truth in sincerity, Psalms 51:6. Wherefore διάνοια is the “mind and understanding,” whose natural depravation is the spring and principle of all disobedience; the cure whereof is here promised in the first place. In the outward administration of the means of grace, the affections, or, if I may so speak, the more outward part of the soul, are usually first affected and wrought upon: but the first real effect of the internal promised grace of the covenant is on the mind, the most spiritual and inward part of the soul. This in the New Testament is expressed by the renovation of the mind, Romans 12:2, Ephesians 4:23; and the opening of the eyes of our understandings, Ephesians 1:17-18; God shining into our hearts, to give us the knowledge of his glory in the face of Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 4:6. Hereby the enmity against God, the vanity, darkness, and alienation from the life of God, which the mind naturally is possessed and filled withal, are taken away and removed, — of the nature of which work I have treated at large elsewhere; [10] — for the law of God in the mind, is the saving knowledge of the mind and will of God, whereof the law is the revelation, communicated unto it and implanted in it. [10] See his treatise on the Holy Spirit, vol. 3 of his miscellaneous works. — ED. 2. The way whereby God in the covenant of grace thus works on the mind is expressed by διδούς: so the apostle tenders πָ ?ϊַ ?ϊִּ ?ι, “I will give.” Διδούς, “giving,” may by an enallage be put for δώσα, “I will give.” So is it expressed in the next clause, ἐπιγράψω, in the future tense, “I will write.” The word in the prophet is, “I will give;” we render it, “I will put.” But there are two things intimated in the word:(1.) The freedom of the grace promised; it is a mere grant, gift, or donation of grace.(2.) The efficacy of it. That which is given of God unto any is received by them, otherwise it is no gift. And this latter is well expressed by the word used by us, “I will put;” which expresseth an actual communication, and not a fruitless tender. This the apostle renders emphatically, διδούς; that is, εἰμί, ‘This is that which I do, am doing in this covenant; namely, freely giving that grace whereby my laws shall be implanted on the minds of men.’ 3. To show in general, before we proceed to the nature of this work, so far as is necessary unto the exposition of the words, we may here consider what was observed in the third place, namely, what it is that is thus promised to be communicated, and so carry it on with us unto the other clause of this promise.That which is to be put into this spiritual receptacle is in these words, Τοὺςνόμουςμου, “My laws;” in the plural number. Expositors inquire what laws are here intended, whether the moral law only, or others also. But there is no need of such inquiry. There is a metonymy of the subject and effect in the words. It is that knowledge of the mind and will of God which is revealed in the law, and taught by it, which is promised. The “laws of God,” therefore, are here taken largely, for the whole revelation of the mind and will of God. So doth ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δoriginally signify “doctrine” or “instruction.” By what way or revelation soever God makes known himself and his will unto us, requiring our obedience therein, it is all comprised in that expression of “his laws.”From these things we may easily discern the nature of that grace which is contained in this first branch of the first promise of the covenant. And this is, the effectual operation of his Spirit in the renovation and saving illumination of our minds, whereby they are habitually made conformable unto the whole law of God, — that is, the rule and the law of our obedience in the new covenant, — and enabled unto all acts and duties that are required of us. And this is the first grace promised and communicated unto us by virtue of this covenant, as it was necessary that so it should be. For, 1. The mind is the principal seat of all spiritual obedience.2. The proper and peculiar actings of the mind, in discerning, knowing, judging, must go before the actings of the will and affections, much more all outward practices. 3. The depravation of the mind is such, by blindness, darkness, vanity, and enmity, that nothing can inflame our souls, or make an entrance towards the reparation of our natures, but an internal, spiritual, saving operation of grace upon the mind.4. Faith itself is principally ingenerated by an infusion of saving light into the mind, 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 4:6. So, —Obs. 7. All the beginnings and entrances into the saving knowledge of God, and thereon of obedience unto him, are effects of the grace of the covenant.The second part of this first promise of the covenant is expressed in these words, “And will write them upon their hearts;” which is that which renders the former part actually effectual. Expositors generally observe, that respect is had herein unto the giving of the law on mount Sinai, — that is, in the first covenant; for then the law (that is, “the ten words”) was written in tables of stone. And although the original tables were broken by Moses, when the people had broken the covenant, yet would not God alter that dispensation, nor write his laws any other way, but commanded new tables of stone to be made, and wrote them therein. And this was done, not so much to secure the outward letter of them, as to represent the hardness of the hearts of the people unto whom they were given. God did not, God would not by virtue of that covenant otherwise dispose of his law. And the event that ensued hereon was, that they brake these laws, and abode not in obedience. This event God promiseth to obviate and prevent under the new covenant, and that by writing these laws now in our hearts, which he wrote before only in tables of stone; that is, he will effectually work that obedience in us which the law doth require, for he “worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.” The heart, as distinguished from the mind, compriseth the will and the affections; and they are compared unto the tables wherein the letter of the law was engraven. For as by that writing and engraving, the tables received the impression of the letters and words wherein the law was contained, which they did firmly retain and represent, so as that although they were stones still in their nature, yet were they nothing but the law in their use; so by the grace of the new covenant there is a durable impression of the law of God on the wills and affections of men, whereby they answer it, represent it, comply with it, and have a living principle of it abiding in them. Wherefore, as this work must necessarily consist of two parts, namely, the removal out of the heart of whatever is contrary unto the law of God, and the implanting of principles of obedience thereinto; so it comes under a double description or denomination in the Scripture. For sometimes it is called a “taking away of the heart of stone,” or” circumcising of the heart;” and sometimes the “giving of an heart of flesh,” the “writing of the law in our hearts;” — which is the renovation of our natures into the image of God in righteousness and the holiness of truth. Wherefore in this promise the whole of our sanctification, in its beginning and progress, in its work upon our whole souls and all their faculties, is comprised. And we may observe, — Obs. 8. The work of grace in the new covenant passeth on the whole soul, in all its faculties, powers, and affections, unto their change and renovation. — The whole was corrupted, and the whole must be renewed. The image of God was originally in and upon the whole, and on the loss of it the whole was depraved. See 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Obs. 9. To take away the necessity and efficacy of renewing, changing, sanctifying grace, consisting in an internal, efficacious operation of the principles, habits, and acts of internal grace and obedience, is plainly to overthrow and reject the new covenant.Obs. 10. We bring nothing to the new covenant but our hearts, as tables to be written in, with the sense of the insufficiency of the precepts and promises of the law, with respect unto our own ability to comply with them.The last thing in the words, is the relation that ensues hereon between God and his people: “I will be unto them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” This is indeed a distinct promise by itself, summarily comprising all the blessings and privileges of the covenant. And it is placed in the center of the account given of the whole, as that from whence all the grace of it doth spring, wherein all the blessings of it do consist, and whereby they are secured. Howbeit in this place it is peculiarly mentioned, as that which hath its foundation in the foregoing promise. For this relation, which implies mutual acquiescency in each other, could not be, nor ever had been, if the minds and hearts of them who are to be taken into it were not changed and renewed. For neither could God approve of and rest in his love towards them, whilst they were enemies unto him in the depravation of their natures; nor could they find rest or satisfaction in God, whom they neither knew, nor liked, nor loved. This is the general expression of any covenant relation between God and men, “He will be unto them a God, and they shall be to him a people.” And it is frequently made use of with respect unto the first covenant, which yet was disannulled. God owned the people therein for his peculiar portion, and they avouched him to be their God alone. Nor can this be spoken of God and any people, but on the ground of an especial covenant. It is true, God is the God of all the world, and all people are his; yea, he is a God unto them all. For as he made them, so he sustains, rules, and governeth them in all things, by his power and providence. But with respect hereunto God doth not freely promise that he will be a God unto any, nor can so do; for his power over all, and his rule of all things, is essential and natural unto him, so as it cannot otherwise be. Wherefore, as thus declared, it is a peculiar expression of an especial covenant relation. And the nature of it is to be expounded by the nature and properties of that covenant which it doth respect.Two things we must therefore consider, to discover the nature of this relation: 1. The foundation of it. 2. The mutual actings in it by virtue of this relation.1. Unto the manifestation of the foundation of it, some things must be premised: —(1.) Upon the entrance of sin there continued no such covenant relation between God and man, as that by virtue thereof he should be their God, and they should be his people. God continued still in the full enjoyment of his sovereignty over men; which no sin, nor rebellion, nor apostasy of man could in the least impeach. And man continued under an obligation unto dependence on God and subjection unto his will in all things. For these cannot be separated from his nature and being until final judgment be executed; after which God rules over them only by power, without any respect unto their wills or obedience. But that especial relation of mutual interest by virtue of the first covenant ceased between them.(2.) God would not enter into any other covenant with sinful, fallen man, to be “a God unto them,” and to take them to be a “peculiar people” unto him, immediately in their own persons. Nor was it consistent with his wisdom and goodness so to do; for if man was not steadfast in God’s covenant, but brake and disannulled it when he was sinless and upright, only created with a possibility of defection, what expectations could there be that now he was fallen, and his nature wholly depraved, any new covenant should be of use unto the glory of God or advantage of man? To enter into a new covenant that must necessarily be broken, unto the aggravation of the misery of man, became not the wisdom and goodness of God. If it be said, ‘God might have so made a new covenant immediately with men as to secure their future obedience, and to have made it firm and stable,’I answer, It would not have become the divine wisdom and goodness to have dealt better with men after their rebellion and apostasy than before, namely, on their own account. He did in our first creation communicate unto our nature all that grace and all those privileges which in his wisdom he thought meet to endow it withal, and all that was necessary to make them who were partakers of it everlastingly blessed. To suppose that, on his own account alone, he would immediately collate more grace upon it, is to suppose him singularly well pleased with our sin and rebellion. This, then, God would not do. Wherefore, — (3.) God provided in the first place that there should be a mediator, a sponsor, an undertaker, with whom alone he would treat about a new covenant, and so establish it. For there were, in the contrivance of his grace and wisdom concerning it, many things necessary unto it that could no otherwise be enacted and accomplished. Nay, there was not any one thing in all the good which he designed unto mankind in this covenant, in a way of love, grace, and mercy, that could be communicated unto them, so as that his honor and glory might be advanced thereby, without the consideration of this mediator, and what he undertook to do. Nor could mankind have yielded any of that obedience unto God which he would require of them, without the interposition of this mediator on their behalf. It was therefore with him that God firstly made this covenant. How it was needful that this mediator should be God and man in one person; how he became so to undertake for us, and in our stead; what was the especial covenant between God and him as unto the work which he undertook personally to perform; have, according unto our poor weak measure and dark apprehension of these heavenly things, been declared at large in our Exercitations on this epistle, and yet more fully in our discourse of the mystery and glory of the person of Christ.[11] Wherefore, as unto this new covenant, it was firstly made with Jesus Christ, the surety of it and undertaker in it. For, — [11] See Exerc. xxv.-xxxiv.; and vol. 1 of the author’s miscellaneous works. (1.) God neither would nor, “salva justitia, sapientia, et honore,” could, treat immediately with sinful, rebellious men on terms of grace for the future, until satisfaction was undertaken to be made for sins past, or such as should afterwards fall out. This was done by Christ alone; who was therefore the πρῶτονδεκτικόν of this covenant and all the grace of it. 2 Corinthians 5:19-20; Galatians 3:13-14; Romans 3:25.(2.) No restipulation of obedience unto God could be made by man, that might be a ground of entering into a covenant intended to be firm and stable. For whereas we had broken our first covenant engagement with God in our best condition, we were not likely of ourselves to make good a new engagement of a higher nature than the former. Who will take the word or the security of a bankrupt for thousands, who is known not to be worth one farthing; especially if he have wasted a former estate in luxury and riot, continuing an open slave to the same lusts? Wherefore it was absolutely necessary that in this covenant there should be a surety, to undertake for our answering and firm standing unto the terms of it. Without this, the event of this new covenant, which God would make as a singular effect of his wisdom and grace, would neither have been glory to him nor advantage unto us.(3.) That grace which was to be the spring of all the blessings of this covenant, unto the glory of God and salvation of the church, was to be deposited in some safe hand, for the accomplishment of these ends. In the first covenant, God at once committed unto man that whole stock of grace which was necessary to enable him unto the obedience of it. And the grace of reward which he was to receive upon the performance of it, God reserved absolutely in his own hand; yea, so as that perhaps man did not fully understand what it was. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ ᾿Εντῷλέγειν, Καινήν, πεπαλαίωκετὴνπρώτην·τὸδὲπαλαιούμενονκαὶγηράσκονἐγγὺςἀφανισμοῦ.Having in the foregoing verses proved in general the insufficiency of the old covenant, the necessity of the. new, the difference between the one and the other, with the preference of the latter above the former, — in all confirming the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of Aaron, — in this last verse of the chapter he maketh an especial inference from one word in the prophetical testimony, wherein the main truth which he endeavored to confirm with respect unto the Hebrews was asserted. It was their persuasion, that of what sort soever this promised covenant should be, yet the former was still to continue in force, obliging the church unto all the institutions of worship thereunto appertaining. Hereon depended the main controversy that the apostle had with them; for he knew that this persuasion was destructive to the faith of the gospel, and would, if pertinaciously adhered unto, prove ruinous to their own souls Wherefore the contrary hereunto, or the total cessation of the first covenant, he presseth on them with all sorts of arguments; — as from the nature, use, and end of it; from its insufficiency to consecrate or make perfect the state of the church; from the various prefigurations and certain predictions of the introduction of another covenant, priesthood, and ordinances of worship, which were better than those that belonged unto it, and inconsistent with them; with many other cogent evidences to the same purpose. Here he fixeth on a new argument in particular, to prove the necessity and certainty of its abolition; and hereby, according unto his wonted manner, he makes a transition unto his following discourse, wherein he proves the same truth from the distinct consideration of the use and end of the institutions, ordinances, and sacrifices belonging unto that covenant. This he pursues unto the 19th verse of the 10th chapter; and so returns unto the parenetical part of the epistle, making due applications of what he had now fully evinced. Hebrews 8:13. — In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.A double argument the apostle here maketh use of: 1. From a special word or testimony. 2. From a general maxim of truth in all kinds: —1. In the former we may consider,(1.) The testimony he makes use of;(2.) The inference unto his own purpose which he makes from it: — (1.) The first consisteth in the adjunct of this other promised covenant. It is called by God himself new: ᾿Εντῷλέγειν, Καινήν, — “In that,” or “Whereas it is said, A new;” or, ‘In that he calleth it, nameth it, A new.’So it is expressly in the prophet, “Behold, I will make a new covenant.” Thus every word of the Holy Ghost, though but occasional unto the principal subject spoken of, is sufficient evidence of what may be deduced from it. And by this kind of arguing we are taught, that the word of God is full of holy mysteries, if with humility, and under the conduct of his Holy Spirit, we do, as we ought, diligently inquire into them. This, therefore, he layeth down as the foundation of his present argument, That God himself doth not call this promised covenant another covenant, or a second, nor only declare the excellency of it; but signally calls it “a new covenant.” (2.) That which he infers from hence is, that πεπαλαίωκετὴνπρώτην, — “he hath made the first old.” The force of the argument doth not lie in this, that he calleth the second new; but that he would not have done so had not he made the first old. For πεπαλαίωκε is of an active signification, and denotes an authoritative act of God upon the old covenant, whereof the calling the other new was a sign and evidence. He would not have done so, but that he made the other old; for with respect thereunto this is called new. But yet it was the designation of the new covenant that was the foundation of making the other old.The word respecting the time past, we must inquire what time it doth refer unto. And this must be either the time of the prediction and promise of the new covenant, or the time of its introduction and establishment. And it is the first season that is intended. For the introduction of the new covenant did actually take away and abolish the old, making it to disappear; but the act of God here intended, is only his making it old in order thereunto. And he did this upon and by the giving of this promise, and afterwards by various acts, and in various degrees. [1. He did it by calling the faith of the church from resting in it, through the expectation of the bringing in of a better in the room of it. This brought it under a decay in their minds, and gave it an undervaluation unto what it had before. They were now assured that something much better would in due time be introduced. Hence, although they abode in the observation of the duties and worship it required, it being the will of God that so they should do, yet this expectation of and longing after the better covenant now promised, made it decay in their minds and affections. So did God make it old. [2. He did it by a plain declaration of its infirmity, weakness, and insufficiency for the great ends of a perfect covenant between God and the church. Many things unto this purpose might have been collected out of the nature of its institutions and promises, from the first giving of it, as is done by our apostle in his present discourses. But these things were not clearly understood by any in those days; and as to the most, the veil was on them, so that they could not see at all unto the end of the things that were to be done away. But now, when God himself comes positively to declare by that prophet that it was weak and insufficient, and therefore he would make another, a better, with them; this made it old, or declared it to be in a tendency unto a dissolution. [3. From the giving of this promise, God did variously by his providence break in upon and weaken its administration; which by its decaying age was more and more manifested. For, — 1st. Immediately after the giving of this promise, the Babylonian captivity gave a total intercision and interruption unto the whole administration of it for seventy years. This, having never before fallen out from the making of it on mount Sinai, was an evident token of its approaching period, and that God would have the church to live without it. 2dly. Upon the return of the people from their captivity, neither the temple, nor the worship of it, nor any of the administrations of the covenant, nor the priesthood, were ever restored unto their pristine beauty and glory. And whereas the people in general were much distressed at the apprehension of its decay, God comforts them, not with any intimation that things under that covenant should ever be brought into a better condition, but only with an expectation of His coming amongst them who would put an utter end unto all the administrations of it, Haggai 2:6-9. And from that time forward it were easy to trace the whole process of it, and to manifest how it continually declined towards its end. Thus did God make it old, by variously disposing of it unto its end; and to give an evidence thereof, called the other covenant which he would make, a new one. And it did not decay of itself. For no institution of God will ever wax old of itself; will ever decay, grow infirm, or perish, unless it be disannulled by God himself. Length of time will not consume divine institutions; nor can the sins of men abate their force. He only that sets them up can take them down. And this is the first argument of the apostle, taken from this testimony, to prove that the first covenant was to be abolished. 2. But whereas it may be questioned whether it directly follows or no, that it must be taken away because it is made old, he confirms the truth of his inference from a general maxim, which hath the nature of a new argument also. “Now,” saith he, “that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away.”“Old” is significative of that which is to have an end, and which draws towards its end. Every thing that can wax old hath an end; and that which doth so, draws towards that end. So the psalmist affirming that the heavens themselves shall perish, adds, as a proof thereof, “They shall wax old as a garment;” and then none can doubt but they must have an end, as unto their substance or their use. There are in the words, (1.) The notation of the subject, τὸδέ, — “but that,” or ‘that, whatever it be.’The general rule gives evidence unto the former inference, ‘Whatever it be that waxeth old.’(2.) The description of it in a double expression, παλαιούμενον and γηράσκον. The words are generally supposed to be synonymous, and to be used for emphasis only. We express the first by decay, “that which decayeth,” to avoid the repetition of the same word, we having no other to express “waxing old,” or “made old,” by. But παλαιούμενον is not properly “that which decayeth;” it is that which hath the effect passively of πεπαλαίωκε, “that which is made old;” and it properly respecteth things. Things are so said to be made old, not persons. But the other word, γηράσκον, respects persons, not things. Men, and not inanimate things, are said γηράσκειν. Wherefore although the apostle might have used a pleonasm to give emphasis unto his assertion, and to aver the certainty of the end of the old covenant, yet nothing hinders but that we may think that he had respect unto the things and persons that belonged unto its administration.That which is affirmed of this subject of the proposition, is, that it is ἐγγὺςἀφανισμοῦ, “near unto a disappearance;” that is, an abolition and taking out of the way. The proposition is universal, and holds absolutely in all things, as is evident in the light of nature. Whatever brings things unto a decay and age will bring them unto an end; for decay and age are the expressions of a tendency unto an end. Let an angel live never so long, he waxeth not old, because he cannot die. Waxing old is absolutely opposed unto an eternal duration, Psalms 102:26-27.It being the removal of the old covenant and all its administrations that is respected, it may be inquired why the apostle expresseth it by ἀφανισμός, “a disappearance,” or “vanishing out of sight.” And respect may be had herein,(1.) To the glorious outward appearance of the administrations of it. This was that which greatly captivated the minds and affections of those Hebrews unto it. They were carnal themselves, and these things, the fabric of the temple, the ornaments of the priests, the order of their worship, had a glory in them which they could behold with their carnal eyes, and cleave unto with their carnal affections. The ministration of the letter was glorious. ‘All this glory,’saith the apostle, ‘shall shortly disappear, shall vanish out of your sight,’according to the prediction of our Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 24.(2.) To the gradual removal of it. It departed as a thing will by its removal out of our sight. We by little and little lose the prospect of it, until it utterly disappears. How it was made so to disappear, at what time, in what degrees, by what acts of divine authority, must be spoken unto distinctly elsewhere. All the glorious institutions of the law were at best but as stars in the firmament of the church, and therefore were all to disappear at the rising of the Sun of Righteousness.ΤῷΘεῷδόξα. THE general design of the apostle in these discourses is to manifest and prove that the old covenant made with the church at Sinai, with all the ordinances of worship and privileges thereunto belonging, was taken away, or ceased to be of any force in the church. Hereon did a total alteration of the whole present Church-state of the Hebrews depend; which it is easy to think how difficult it was with them to forego. For they both looked on it to be of God’s own appointment, as it was, and expected all their happiness by a strict adherence unto it. Wherefore, that they might with the more readiness embrace the truth, he not only declares that “de facto” that covenant was ceased, but evinceth by all sorts of reasons that it was necessary that so it should do, and that unspeakable advantages did accrue unto the church thereby. In the pursuit of this design, he unfolds unto them the greatest mysteries of the wisdom and counsel of God that ever were revealed unto the church, before he spake unto us by the Son. For, — 1. On this occasion he takes off the veil from the face of Moses, declaring the nature and end of the old covenant; and the use, signification, and efficacy of all the institutions and ordinances of worship thereunto belonging. They were all prescribed unto the diligent observation of the church of the old testament; and their adherence unto them was the great trial of their obedience unto God, whilst that church-state continued, Malachi 4:4. Howbeit the best among them were much in the dark as unto their proper use and signification. For the veil was so on the face of Moses, that“the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which was to be abolished,” 2 Corinthians 3:13.This he now doctrinally removes. And the sole reason why the Hebrews did not hereon “behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” nor yet do unto this day, is because there was and is a veil of blindness on their minds, as well as there was a veil of darkness on the face of Moses; and it is only converting grace that can remove it. “When they shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away,” verse 16. 2. He takes occasion from hence to declare the great mystery of the redemption of the church by Christ; of the office that he bare, and the work that he performed therein. This was that which he principally designed, as being indeed the sole foundation of Christian religion. Wherefore, we have in this epistle, as a clear exposition of the first promise, with all those which were given in the explication or confirmation of it, so also of the law and its worship, which were afterwards introduced; that is, in general, of the whole old testament, or God’s instruction of the church under it. Hence that blessed light, which now shines forth in the promises and legal institutions of the old testament, is derived unto us through the exposition of them given unto us by the Holy Ghost in this epistle. We are therefore to remember, that in our inquiries into these things, we are conversant in the deepest mysteries of the wisdom and counsel of God, — those which animated the faith and obedience of both churches: which calls not only for our utmost diligence, but for continual reverence and godly fear. Unto the general end mentioned, the apostle makes use of all sorts of arguments, taken from the constitution, nature, use, efficacy, officers, and ordinances, of the one covenant and the other; comparing them together. And in all his arguings he openly designs the demonstration of these two things: 1. That the old covenant, with all its administrations, was to cease. 2. That it was not only unto the advantage of the church that they should so do, but absolutely necessary, that it might be brought unto that perfect state which it was designed unto.In order unto the first of these, he hath done two things in the preceding chapters: 1. He hath declared that there were prefigurations and predictions of the cessation of the first covenant and all its administrations; as also, that God had so ordered all things in and under that covenant, as that they must necessarily expire and cease at a certain appointed time.2. He hath evinced the necessity hereof, because that covenant could not consummate the state of the church, nor give assured rest and peace unto the consciences of them that approached unto God in and by its services. And both these he confirms by the consideration of the typical nature of all its ordinances and institutions; for whereas there was in and by them a representation made of heavenly things, those heavenly things themselves could not be introduced without their removal. It is the second thing mentioned, or the advantage of the church by the taking away of the first covenant, and all its sacred administrations, that he principally insists upon. For herein he designed (as was before observed) to declare the glorious mystery of the counsel of God concerning the redemption and salvation of the church by Jesus Christ. But whereas this in general is the substance of the gospel, and the subject of all his other epistles, he doth not here consider and declare it absolutely, but as it was prefigured and typed out by those institutions of worship, whereby God both instructed the church and exercised their faith and obedience, under the old testament. Three things there were which were the glory of those administrations, and which the Hebrews so rested in as that they refused the gospel out of an adherence unto them: 1. The priestly office. 2. The tabernacle with all its furniture, wherein that office was exercised. 3. The duties and worship of the priests in that tabernacle by sacrifices; especially those wherein there was a solemn expiation of the sins of the whole congregation.In reference unto these, the apostle proves three things: 1. That neither any nor all of them could consummate or make perfect the state of the church, nor yet really effect assured peace and confidence between God and the worshippers. 2. That they were all typical and figurative, ordained to represent things that were far more sublime, glorious, and excellent than themselves. 3. That indeed the Lord Christ, in his person and mediation, was all those things really and substantially which they did but obumbrate and prefigure; that he was and did what they could only direct unto an expectation of.1. These things he declareth and evinceth fully with respect unto the priestly office, in the seventh chapter; in our exposition whereof we have endeavored to declare the sense and force of his arguings unto that purpose. 2. He doth the same as unto the tabernacle in general, in the eighth chapter, confirming his discourse with that great collateral argument taken from the nature and excellency of that covenant whereof the Lord Christ was the surety and mediator. Wherefore,3. There remains only the consideration of the services and sacrifices which belonged unto the priestly office in that tabernacle. Herein the Hebrews placed their greatest confidence for reconciliation with God; and with respect unto them, boasted of the excellency of their church-state and worship. This the apostle knew to be the great point in difference between him and them, and that whereon the whole doctrine of the justification of sinners before God did depend. This, therefore, was exactly to be discussed, from the nature of the things themselves, and the testimonies of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture; on which principles alone he deals with these Hebrews. This is that which he now in particular engageth into, handling it at large in this and the next chapter, unto verse 19, where he returns unto his first exhortation, in a use of the truth which he had evinced. Two things unto this purpose he designs in general: 1. To declare the nature, use, and efficacy, of the rites, services, and sacrifices of the law.2. To manifest the nature, glory, and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, whereby those other had an end put unto them, and so were taken away. And in comparing these things together, he wonderfully sets out the wisdom and grace of God in dealing with the church, so as to manifest that all his counsels, from the beginning, did aim at and center in the person and mediation of Christ. And these things are duly to be considered by all who desire to understand the mind of the Holy Ghost in this epistle.This chapter hath two general parts: 1. A proposition and declaration of the fabric of the tabernacle, its furniture, and the services performed therein; from the beginning unto Hebrews 9:10. 2. A declaration of the nature of the tabernacle and sacrifice of the Lord Christ, with the end and efficacy thereof; from Hebrews 9:11 unto the end. Of the first general, there are four parts: (1.) A proposition of the constitution of the tabernacle of old, with all its utensils and furniture, as it was prepared for the service of the priests, Hebrews 9:1-5.(2.) The use of that tabernacle and the things in it, in and unto the sacred duties and services of the priests, Hebrews 9:6-7.(3.) The judgment of the apostle upon the whole both of the fabric and its use, Hebrews 9:8.(4.) The reasons of that judgment, Hebrews 9:9-10. In the first part there is,[1. A general proposition of the whole, Hebrews 9:1. [2. A particular explanation of it, Hebrews 9:2-5. Ει῏χεμὲνου῏νκαὶἡπρώτηδικαιώματαλατρείαςτότεἅγιονκοσμικόν.Some things must be premised unto the reading of these words. ῾Ηπρώτη, “the first,” doth in the original answer in gender unto all things which the apostle treats of, — namely, the priesthood, the tabernacle, and the covenant. But many Greek copies do expressly read σκηνή, “the tabernacle.” So is the text expressed in Stephen’s edition, wherein he followed sixteen ancient manuscripts, adhering generally unto the concurrent agreement of the greatest number; and the word is retained in the most common edition. But there are ancient copies also where it is omitted: and they are attested unto by all ancient translations, as the Syriac and Vulgar Latin; the Arabic supplying “covenant,” in the room of it. Wherefore Beza left it out, and is followed by the generality of expositors, as he is by our translators. Cameron contends for retaining it. But the reasons for its rejection are cogent and undeniable; as, —1. In the last verse of the preceding chapter, whereunto this immediately succeeds, the apostle mentioning the old covenant, calleth it absolutely τήνπρώτην, “the first,” without the addition of διαθήκην; and immediately repeating ἡπρώτην, — that is, “that first,” — it is irrational to think that he refers it to another subject.2. His design requires that the first covenant he intended; for he is not engaged in a comparison between the tabernacle and the new testament, but between the old covenant and the new. And the words of the text, with those that follow, contain a concession of what belonged unto the old covenant, particularly in the administration of divine worship; as is observed by Photius and OEcumenius. 3. The expression in the close of the verse, “A worldly sanctuary,” is no more nor less but the tabernacle; for it is that which the apostle immediately describes in its parts and furniture, which are the parts of the tabernacle, and no other. And if the word σκηνή, “the tabernacle,” be here retained, the sense must be, “And verily the first tabernacle had ordinances of worship and a tabernacle.” 4. In the next verse, adding an account of what he had affirmed, he saith, “For there was a tabernacle prepared; the first:” which would render this sense to the context, ‘For the first tabernacle had a tabernacle; for there was a tabernacle prepared.’Wherefore I shall adhere unto the supplement made by our translators, “the first covenant.”Δικαιώματαλατρείας. Some read these words by an ἀσύνδετον, and not in construction, from the ambiguity of the case and number of λατρείας, which may be either of the genitive singular or accusative plural,” ordinances, services.” This it is supposed the following phrase of speech doth intimate, Τότεἅγιονκοσμικόν, “And also a worldly sanctuary:” which requires that the preceding words should be construed by apposition. And a difference there is between δικαίωμα and λατρεία; but whereas it is evident that the apostle intends no λατρεία or “service” here but what was performed ἐνδικαιώμασιν, “by virtue of ordinances or institutions,” the word ought to be read in construction, “ordinances of worship.”Ει῏χεμὲνου῏νκαί. Syr., “but in the first there were in it;” as the Arab.,” in the first covenant there was contained.” Vulg. Lat., “habuit quidem et prius,” the comparative for the positive, unto the sense of the apostle: “and the first truly had also.” Beza,” habuit igitur prius foedus et;” transferring καί unto the words following: “wherefore the first covenant had also;” as we after him. Others, “habuit igitur etiam prius.” Most, in rendering the particles μὲνοὗν, have principal respect unto the note of inference ου῏ν, and include the assertory particle μέν in it. I think the principal respect is to be had thereunto, as it is in the Vulgar Latin, “and verily that first also had.” Δικαιώματαλατρείας. Syr., “commands of ministry,” or “precepts;” which gives us the plain sense and true meaning of the apostle, as we shall see afterwards. “Ordinances concerning the administration of divine worship.” Vulg. Lat., “justificationes culturae;” Rhem., “justifications of service,” most obscurely, and in words leading from the sense of the Holy Ghost. Others, “ritus cultus;” “constitutos ritus cultuum,” “appointed rites of worship” or “service.” All agree what it is the apostle intends, namely, the ordinances of Levitical worship; which are expressed in the Vulgar by “justificationes culturae,” both barbarously and beside the mind of the apostle. ῞Αγιονκοσμικόν. Syr., “a worldly holy house.” The tabernacle was frequently called” the house of God,” and “the house of the sanctuary.” Vulg., “sanctum seculare;” Rhem., “a secular sanctuary:” which the Interlinear changeth into “mundanum.” “Seculare” denotes duration; but it is not the design of the apostle to speak of the duration of that which he is proving to be ceased. Beza, “sanctuarium mundanum.” Some respect the particles τότε, and render them “illudque.”[1] [1] VARIOUS READING. — An absurd jealousy against the critical amendment of the sacred text has sometimes been imputed to our author, from his controversy with Walton. The extent to which Owen’s views have been misapprehended has been indicated in vol. 16 of his miscellaneous works, p. 345. In this verse we have proof that his mind was under no servile thraldom to the textus receptus. That text inserts σκηνή after πρώτη. Our author omits it, and argues strongly for the omission of it. Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, agree in rejecting it. In Wright’s edition of this work the word was inserted in the text of the verse, although Owen himself in the original edition had omitted it. — ED. Hebrews 9:1. — Then verily even that first [covenant] had ordinances of worship, and also a worldly sanctuary.Proceeding unto the comparison designed between the old covenant and the new, as unto the services and sacrifices wherewith the one and the other were established and confirmed, he introduceth the πρότασις of the first by way of concession, as unto what really belonged thereunto. And this is the constant method of the apostle in all the comparisons he makes. He still allows full weight and measure unto that comparate which he prefers the other above. And as this, on the one hand, taketh away all cause of complaint, as though the worth and value of what he determineth against were concealed, so it tends unto the real exaltation of that which he gives the preference unto. It is an honor unto the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, that they are so much more glorious and excellent than those of the old covenant, which yet were excellent and glorious also. There is in this verse, — 1. An introduction of the concession intended, Μὲνου῏νκαί. The contexture of these particles is somewhat unusual Hence some would have καί to be redundant: some join it in construction with δικαιώματα that follows. This was the judgment of Beza, whom our translators follow; for the word “also” (“had also ordinances”) renders καί in the original: and thereon they omit it in the first place, not saying, “and then verily,” but “then verily,” — that is, μὲνοὗν. If this be so, the assertion of the apostle seems to be built on a tacit supposition that the latter covenant hath ordinances of worship. Hence he grants the first had so also: ‘Even that had also ordinances of worship, as the new hath.’But I see not at all that any such supposition is here made by the apostle; yea, he doth rather oppose those ordinances of divine worship unto the privileges of the new covenant, than allow the same things to be under both. And this is evident in the worldly sanctuary which he ascribes unto the first covenant, for he had expressly denied that there was any such under the new, Hebrews 8:2. Wherefore although καί, “and,” seems to be redundant, yet it is emphatical, and increaseth the signification of the other particles, as it is often used in the Scripture. And the introduction of the concession, intimated by this contexture of the notes of it, “then verily even that,” shows both the reality of it and the weight that he lays upon it. Οι῏ν we render “then;” most do it by “igitur,” “therefore.” But the connection unto the foregoing discourse is rather real than verbal. It is not an inference made from what was before declared, but a continuation of the same design. ‘And yet moreover it is granted;’or, ‘therefore it is granted;’ ‘verily so it was.’And so μέν serves unto the protasis of the comparison, whereunto δέ answereth, verse 11, “but Christ being come.”2. The subject spoken of is ἡπρώτη, “the first,” — that is, διαθήκη; ‘that first covenant whereof we treat,’— the covenant made with the fathers at Sinai, which, as unto the administrations of it, the Hebrews as yet adhered unto. The nature of this covenant we have spoken unto at large on the foregoing chapter, and thither refer the reader.3. Of this covenant it is affirmed in general, that it had two things:(1.) “Ordinances of worship;”(2.) “A worldly sanctuary;” and the relation of them unto it is, that it had them: —(1.) It had them, ει῏χε. It refers unto the time past. The apostle saith not “it hath them,” but “it had them.” ‘That is,’say some, ‘it had so whilst that tabernacle was standing, and whilst these things were in force; but now the covenant is abolished, and it hath none of them.’But this answers not the apostle’s intention. For he acknowledgeth that covenant and all its ordinances “de facto” to have been yet in being, in the patience and forbearance of God; only he affirms that it was ἐγγὺςἀφανισμοῦ, Hebrews 8:13, — “ready to disappear.” Nor was he to take for granted what was the principal χρινόμενον between him and the Hebrews, but to prove it; which he doth accordingly. Hence he grants that there were “priests that offered gifts according to the law,” Hebrews 8:4; and some “served at the tabernacle,” Hebrews 13:10. But the apostle hath respect unto the time wherein that covenant was first made. Then it had these things annexed unto it, which were the privileges and glory of it; for the apostle hath, in the whole discourse, continual respect unto the first making of the covenant, and the first institution of its administrations. It had them; that is, they belonged unto it, as those wherein its administration did consist. Obs. 1. Every covenant of God had its proper privileges and advantages. — Even the first covenant had so, and those such as were excellent in themselves, though not comparable with them of the new. For to make any covenant with men, is an eminent fruit of goodness, grace, and condescension in God; whereon he will annex such privileges thereunto as may evince it so to be. (2.) This first covenant had two things in general: —[1. Δικαιώματαλατρείας. Both translations and interpreters have cast some difficulty on the meaning of these words, in themselves plain and evident. Δικαιώματα are ηֻ ?χִּ ?ιν. And the word is generally rendered by δικαίωμα in the Greek versions, and next unto that by νομικόν; that which is “legal” and “right.” The Vulgar Latin renders it by “justificationes;” from the inclusion of “jus,” “justum” in the signification of it. In the New Testament it is used, Luke 1:6; Romans 1:32; Romans 2:26; Romans 5:16; Romans 8:4; Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:10; Revelation 15:4; Revelation 19:8. And in no one place doth it signify “institution;” but it may be better rendered “righteousness” When alone we so translate it, Romans 5:16. In the context and construction wherein it is here placed, it can have no signification but that of “ordinances,” “rites,” “institutions, “statutes;” — the constant sense of ηֻ ?χִּ ?ιν, determined both by its derivation and invariable use. Wherefore all inquiries on these words, in what sense the rites of the law may be called “justifications,” or whether “because the observation of them did justify before men,” or were signs of our justification before God, are all useless and needless. What there is of just and right in the signification of the word, respects the right of God in the constitution and imposition of these ordinances. They were appointments of God, which he had right to prescribe; whence their observation on the part of the church was just and equal.These ordinances or statutes were so λατρείας, “of service;” that is, as we render it, “divine service.” Λατρεία is originally of as large a signification as δουλεία, and denotes any service whatever. But it is here, and constantly in the New Testament, as is also the verb λατρεύω, restrained unto “divine service,” John 16:2; Romans 9:4; Romans 12:1; “cultus,” “of worship:” and so were it better rendered than by “divine service.” In one place it signifies by itself as much as δικαιώματαλατρείας doth here, Romans 9:4, “Unto whom belongeth the giving of the law, καὶἡλατρεία, — “and the worship;” that is, δικαιώματαλατρείΑς, “the ordinances of worship,” — the ordinances of the ceremonial law. For although God was served in and according to the commands of the moral law, or the unchangeable prescriptions, “the ten words;” and also in the duties required in the due observance of the judicial law; yet this λατρεία, or ςֲ ?αֹ ?γָ ?δ, was the immediate worship of the tabernacle, and the services of the priests that belonged thereunto. Hence the Jews call all idolatry and superstition ςֲ ?αֹ ?γָ ?δζָ ?ψָ ?δ, — “strange worship.”And this was that part of divine worship about which God had so many controversies with the people of Israel under the old testament; for they were always apt to run into noxious extremes about it. For the most part they were prone to neglect it, and to run into all manner of superstition and idolatry. For the law of this worship was a hedge that God had set about them, to keep them from those abominations; and if at any time they brake over it, or neglected it, and let it fall, they failed not to rush into the most abominable idolatry. On the other hand, ofttimes they placed all their trust and confidence, for their acceptance with God and blessing from him, on the external observance of the ordinances and institutions of it. And hereby they countenanced themselves not only in a neglect of moral duties and spiritual obedience, but in a course of flagitious sins and wickednesses. To repress these exorbitancies with respect unto both these extremes, the ministry of the prophets was in an especial manner directed. And we may observe some things here in our passage, as included in the apostle’s assertion, though not any part of his present design: — Obs. 2. There was never any covenant between God and man but it had some ordinances or arbitrary institutions of external divine worship annexed unto it. — The original covenant of works had the ordinances of the tree of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil; the laws whereof belonged not unto that of natural light and reason. The covenant of Sinai, whereof the apostle speaks, had a multiplication of them. Nor is the new covenant destitute of them or their necessary observance. All public worship, and the sacraments of the church are of this nature. For whereas it is ingrafted in natural light that some external worship is to be given unto God, he would have it of his own prescription, and not, as unto the modes of it, left unto the inventions of men. And because God hath always, in every covenant, prescribed the external worship and all the duties of it which he will accept, it cannot but be dangerous for us to make any additions thereunto. Had he prescribed none at any time, seeing some are necessary in the light of nature, it would follow by just consequence that they were left unto the finding out and appointment of men; but he having done this himself, “let not us add unto his words, lest he reprove us, and we be found liars.” And in his institution of these ordinances of external worship there is both a demonstration of his sovereignty and an especial trial of our obedience, in things whereof we have no reason but his mere will and pleasure. Obs. 3. It is a hard and rare thing to have the minds of men kept upright with God in the observation of the institutions of divine worship. — Adam lost himself and us all by his failure therein. The old church seldom attained unto it, but continually wandered into one of the extremes mentioned before. And at this day there are very few in the world who judge a diligent observation of divine institutions to be a thing of any great importance. By some they are neglected, by some corrupted with additions of their own, and by some they are exalted above their proper place and use, and turned into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. And the reason of this difficulty is, because faith hath not that assistance and encouragement from innate principles of reason, and that sensible experience of this kind of obedience, as it hath in that which is moral, internal, and spiritual. [2. That these ordinances of divine worship might be duly observed and rightly performed under the first covenant, there was a place appointed of God for their solemnization. It had τότεἅγιονκοσμικόν, — “also a worldly sanctuary.” He renders ξִ ?χְ ?γָּ ?ωׁ by ἅγιον properly a” holy place,” a “sanctuary” And why he calls it κοσμικόν, or “worldly,” we must inquire. And some things must be premised unto the exposition of these words: —1st. The apostle, treating of the services, sacrifices, and place of worship, under the old testament, doth not instance in nor insist upon the temple, with its fabric and the order of its services, but in the tabernacle set up by Moses in the wilderness And this he doth for the ensuing reasons: — (1st.) Because his principal design is to confirm the pre-eminence of the new covenant above the old. To this end he compares them together in their first introduction and establishment, with what did belong unto them therein. And as this in the new covenant was the priesthood, mediation, and sacrifice of Christ; so in the old it was the tabernacle with the services and sacrifices that belonged unto it. These the first covenant was accompanied with and established by; and therefore were they peculiarly to be compared with the tabernacle of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered therein. This is the principal reason why in this disputation he hath all along respect unto the tabernacle, and not unto the temple.(2dly.) Although the temple, with its glorious fabric and excellent order, added much unto the outward beauty and splendor of the sacred worship, yet was it no more but a large exemplification of what was virtually contained in the tabernacle and the institutions of it, from whence it derived all its glory; and therefore these Hebrews principally rested in and boasted of the revelation made unto Moses, and his institutions. And the excellency of the worship of the new covenant being manifested above that of the tabernacle, there is no plea left for the additional outward glory of the temple.2dly. Designing to treat of this holy tent or tabernacle, he confines himself unto the first general distribution of it, Exodus 26:33, “And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony: and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy and the most holy;” the holy utensils of which two parts he afterwards distinctly describes. The whole was called ξִ ?χְ ?γָּ ?ωׁ; which he renders by τὸἅγιον, “the holy place,” or “sanctuary.” The tabernacle of witness erected in the wilderness in two parts, the holy and the most holy, with the utensils of them, is that whose description he undertakes.It is observed by the apostle, that the first covenant had this sanctuary; 1st. Because so soon as God had made that covenant with the people, he prescribed unto them the erection and making of this sanctuary, containing all the solemn means of the administration of the covenant itself.2dly. Because it was the principal mercy, privilege, and advantage, that the people were made partakers of by virtue of that covenant. And it belongs unto the exposition of the text, as to the design of the apostle in it, that we consider what that privilege was, or wherein it did consist. And, — (1st.) This tabernacle, with what belonged thereunto, was a visible pledge of the presence of God among the people, owning, blessing, and protecting of them; and it was a pledge of God’s own institution. In imitation whereof, the superstitious heathens invented ways of obliging their idol gods to be present among them for the same ends. Hence was that prayer at the removal of the tabernacle and the ark therein, Numbers 10:35-36,“Rise up, LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.”And when it rested he said, “Return, O LORD, unto the many thousands of Israel.” And thence the ark was called “the ark of God’s strength” (see Psalms 68:1-2; Psalms 132:8; 2 Chronicles 6:41), because it was a pledge of God’s putting forth his strength and power in the behalf of the people. And according unto this institution, it was a most effectual means to strengthen their faith and confidence in God; for what could they desire more, in reference thereunto, than to enjoy such a gracious earnest of his powerful presence among them? But when they ceased to trust in God, and put their confidence in the things themselves, — which were no otherwise useful but as they were pledges of his presence, — they proved their ruin. Hereof we have a fatal instance in their bringing the ark into the field, in their battle against the Philistines, 1 Samuel 4:3-11. And it will fare no better with others who shall rest satisfied with outward institutions of divine worship, neglecting the end of them all, which is faith and trust in God, Jeremiah 7:4. But men of corrupt minds had rather place their trust in any thing but God: for they find that they can do so and yet continue in their sins; as those did in the prophet, verses 8-10. But none can trust in God unless he relinquish all sin whatever; all other pretended trust in him is but the entitling of him unto our own wickedness.(2dly.) It was the pledge and means of God’s residence or dwelling among them, which expresseth the peculiar manner of his presence, mentioned in general before. The tabernacle was God’s house; nor did he promise at any time to dwell among them but with respect thereunto, Exodus 15:17; Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:44-46; Numbers 5:3. And the consideration hereof was a powerful motive unto holiness, fear, and reverence; unto which ends it is everywhere pressed in the Scripture.(3dly.) It was a fixed seat of all divine worship, wherein the truth and purity of it were to be preserved. Had the observation of the ordinances of divine service been left unto the memories of private persons, it would quickly have issued in all manner of foolish practices, or have been utterly neglected; but God appointed this sanctuary for the preservation of the purity of his worship, as well as for the solemnity thereof. See Deuteronomy 12:8-11. Here was the book of the law laid up; according unto the prescript whereof the priests were obliged in all generations to take care of the public worship of God. (4thly.) It was principally the privilege and glory of the church of Israel, in that it was a continual representation of the incarnation of the Son of God; a type of his coming in the flesh to dwell among us, and, by the one sacrifice of himself, to make reconciliation with God and atonement for sins. It was such an expression of the idea of the mind of God concerning the person and mediation of Christ, as in his wisdom and grace he thought meet to intrust the church withal. Hence was that severe injunction, that all things concerning it should be made “according unto the pattern showed in the mount;” for what could the wisdom of men do in the prefiguration of that mystery, which they had no comprehension of? But yet this sanctuary the apostle calls κοσμικόν, “worldly.” Expositors both ancient and modern do even weary themselves in their inquiries why the apostle calls this sanctuary “worldly.” But I think they do so without cause, the reason of the appellation being evident in his design and the context. And there is a difficulty added unto it by the Latin translation, which renders the word “seculare,” which denotes “continuance” or duration. This expresseth the Hebrew ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν; but that the apostle renders by αἰών, and not by κόσμος, and therefore here hath no respect unto it. The sense that many fix upon is, that he intends the outward court of the temple, whereinto the Gentiles or men of the world were admitted, whence it was called “worldly,” and not sacred. But this exposition, though countenanced by many of the ancients, is contrary unto the whole design of the apostle. For, 1st. He speaks of the tabernacle, wherein was no such outward court; nor indeed was there any such belonging to the temple, whatever some pretend. 2dly. The whole sanctuary whereof he speaks he immediately distributes into two parts, as they were divided by the veil, namely, the holy and the most holy place; which were the two parts of the tabernacle itself. 3dly. He treats of the sanctuary only with respect unto the divine service to be performed in it by the priests, which they did not in any outward court whereinto the Gentiles might be admitted.Wherefore the apostle terms this sanctuary “worldly,” because it was every way in and of this world. For, 1st. The place of it was on the earth, in this world; in opposition whereunto the sanctuary of the new covenant is in heaven, Hebrews 8:2.2dly. Although the materials of it were as durable as any thing in that kind that could be procured, as gold and shittim-wood, because they were to be of a long continuance, yet were they “worldly;” that is, “caduca,” fading and perishing things, as are all things of the world; God intimating thereby that they were not to have an everlasting continuance. Gold, and wood, and silk, and hair, however curiously wrought and carefully preserved, are but for a time.3dly. All the services of it, all its sacrifices, in themselves, separated from their typical, representative use, were all worldly; and their efficacy extended only unto worldly things, as the apostle proves in this chapter.4thly. On these accounts the apostle calls it worldly; yet not absolutely so, but in opposition unto that which is heavenly. All things in the ministration of the new covenant are heavenly. So is the priest, his sacrifice, tabernacle, and altar, as we shall see in the process of the apostle’s discourse. And we may observe from the whole, —Obs. 4. That divine institution alone is that which renders any thing acceptable unto God. — Although the things that belonged unto the sanctuary, and the sanctuary itself, were in themselves but worldly, yet being divine ordinances, they had a glory in them, and were in their season accepted with God. Obs. 5. God can animate outward, carnal things with a hidden, invisible spring of glory and efficacy. — So he did this sanctuary with its relation unto Christ; which was an object of faith, which no eye of flesh could behold.Obs. 6. All divine service or worship must be resolved into divine ordination or institution. — A worship not ordained of God is not accepted of God. “It had ordinances of worship.”Obs. 7. A worldly sanctuary is enough for them whose service is worldly; and these things the men of the world are satisfied with. Two things were ascribed unto the first covenant in the verse foregoing: 1. Ordinances of worship; 2. A worldly sanctuary. In this verse the apostle enters upon a description of them both, inverting the order of their proposal, beginning with the latter, or the sanctuary itself.Hebrews 9:2. — Σκηνὴγὰρκατεσκευάσθηἡπρώτη, ἐνἧἥτελυχνία, καὶἡτρὰπεζα, καὶἡπρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτων, ἥτιςλέγεταιἁγία.Vulg. Lat., “tabernaculum enim factum est primum;” “the first tabernacle was made;” ambiguously, as we shall see. Syr., αְּ ?ξַ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?πָ ?ΰχַ ?γְ ?ξָ ?ιָ ?ΰγֶּ ?ΰϊְ ?ςַ ?αַ ?ψ“in tabernaculo primo quod factum erat;” “in the first tabernacle that was made.” Λυχνία. Vulg. Lat., “candelabra,” “candlesticks.” Syr., δָ ?εָ ?ΰαֵ ?δּ ξְ ?πָ ?ψְ ?ϊָ ?ΰ,”in it was the candlestick.” Πρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτων. Vulg., “propositio panum,” “the proposition of loaves.” Others, “propositi panes.” Syr. εַ ?μְ ?ηֵ ?νΰτַ ?ΰ, “and the bread of faces.” ῞Ητιςλέγεταιἁγία. Vulg. “quae dicitur sancta;” dicitur sanctum;” “quod sancta vocant:” for some read ἁγία, some ἅγια. Syr., εּ ?ξֶ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?ιָ ?ΰδֲ ?ιϊχεּ ?γָ ?ωֵׁ ?ΰ“and it was called the holy house.”Hebrews 9:2. — For there was a tabernacle made [prepared]; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread; which is called the sanctuary.Our translation thus rendering the words, avoids the ambiguity mentioned in the Vulgar Latin. “First of all there was a tabernacle made.” But whereas our rendering is also obscure, “the first” being mentioned, where only one thing went before, — which yet includes a distribution supposed, — I would supply it with two parts, — ’There was a tabernacle made, consisting of two parts;’ “tabernaculum bipartite exstructum;” for the following words are a distinct description of these two parts. 1. The subject spoken of is the “tabernacle.”2. That which in general is affirmed of it is, that it was “made.” 3. There is a distribution of it into two parts in this and the following verse.4. These parts are described and distinguished by,(1.) Their names;(2.) Their situation with respect unto one another;(3.) Their contents or sacred utensils. The one is so described in this verse:(1.) By its situation, it was “the first,” that which was first entered into;(2.) By its utensils, which were three;[1. The candlestick; [2. The table; [3. The shew-bread; (3.) By its name, it was called “The sanctuary:” —1. The subject treated of is σκηνή, that is ξִ ?χְ ?γָּ ?ωׁ, — “the tabernacle;” the common name for the whole fabric, as “the temple” was afterwards of the house built by Solomon. An eminent type this was of the incarnation of Christ, whereby the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, Colossians 2:9; substantially in the human nature, as it dwelt typically and by representation in this tabernacle. Hence is it so expressed, “He was made flesh,” John 1:14, — “and pitched his tabernacle amongst” or “with us.” The consideration hereof the apostle on set purpose fixed on, as the great concomitant, privilege, or glory of the first covenant, whereof he treats, and whose consideration was excellently suited unto his design. Immediately on the giving of the law, and making that covenant in Horeb which was accepted of by the people and solemnly ratified, Exodus 24:3-8, the whole of their remaining station in that place, for some months, was taken up in Moses’receiving revelations, and the people’s making provision about and for this tabernacle, with what belonged thereunto. Forty days was Moses in the mount with God, whilst he instructed him in all things that belonged unto it; so great and glorious was the design of divine wisdom in this tabernacle and its appurtenances. For it was the house wherein his glory was to dwell; and not only so, but a type and representation of the depth of his counsel in the incarnation of his Son, whereby the divine nature would personally dwell in the human for ever. 2. It is affirmed of this tabernacle that it was “made;” — “tabernaculum exstructum,” “constructum,” “praeparatum, “ornatum,” “adornatum;” “built,” “prepared,” “adorned.” There is more included in the word than the mere building of the fabric. For the apostle, in this one word, reflects on and compriseth,(1.) The provision of materials made by the people;(2.) The workings of those materials by Bezaleel;(3.) The erection of the whole by the direction of Moses;(4.) The adorning of it unto its use: that is the substance of the book of Exodus from Exodus 25 to the end.First, preparation was made for it; then the materials were wrought, and that with such curious workmanship, accompanied with such rich devoted ornaments, that it was adorned in its making. It was prepared in its materials, it was wrought into its form, it was beautified in its ornaments; unto all which respect is had in this word. That which principally gave unto it its order, beauty, glory, and use, was, that it was entirely, and in all the parts and appurtenances of it, made according to the pattern which God showed Moses in the mount. And therefore, when it was finished and erected, all the parts belonging unto it, and all that was in it, were distinctly recounted, and it is added concerning them all, separately and in conjunction, they were all made “as the LORD commanded Moses,” Exodus 40:19-32. For it is the authority and wisdom of God alone that give beauty, use, and order, unto all that belongs unto his worship.3. The first part of this tabernacle being so prepared, it had its furniture, that was to abide and be used in it: —(1.) There was in it ἡλυχνία, — “the candlestick.” The Vulgar Latin reads “candelabra,” in the plural number. Hence many disputes arise among the expositors who adhere unto that translation. Some of them contend that the apostle hath respect unto the temple of Solomon, wherein were ten candlesticks, five on the one side, and five on the other, 1 Kings 7:49; which is directly contrary to his scope and the words of the text. Some suppose that the one candlestick which was in the tabernacle was intended, but is spoken of in the plural number because of the six branches that came out of it, three on each side, and that which went directly upwards made seven, having lamps in them all, Exodus 25:31-32. But whereas it is constantly called “the candlestick,” and spoken of as one utensil only, the apostle could not call it “the candlesticks,” for that was but one. Wherefore the most sober of them depart from their common translation, and adhere unto the original; and make use of the expression to prove that it was the tabernacle of Moses, and not the temple of Solomon, wherein were ten candlesticks, that the apostle refers unto. The making of this candlestick is particularly described, Exodus 25:31, to the end of the chapter. Its frame, measures, and use, are not of our present consideration; they may be found in expositors on that place. It was placed on the south side of the tabernacle, near the veils that covered the most holy place; and over against it on the north side was the table with the shew-bread; and in the midst, at the very entrance of the most holy place, was the altar of incense. See Exodus 27:20-21. And this candlestick was made all of beaten gold, of one piece, with its lamps and appurtenances, without either joints or screws; which is not without its mystery. To fit it for its service, pure oil olive was to be provided by the way of offering from the people, Exodus 27:20. And it was the office of the high priest to “order it;” that is, to dress its lamps, every evening and every morning, supplying them with fresh oil, and removing whatsoever might be offensive, Exodus 27:21. And this is called “a statute for ever” unto the generations of the priests, on the behalf of the children of Israel; which manifests the great concernment of the church in this holy utensil. (2.) On the other side of the sanctuary, over against the candlestick, were “the table and the shew-bread;” which the apostle reckons as the second part of the furniture of this first part of the tabernacle, distinguishing them from each other: “the table, and the shew-bread.” The making of this table, with its measures and use, its form and fashion, is recorded, Exodus 25:23-28; Exodus 37:10, etc. ωֻׁ ?μְ ?ηַ ?ο, “table.” The manner of its covering, when it was to be carried whilst the tabernacle was movable, is described, Numbers 4:7-8. And it was a utensil fashioned for beauty and glory.(3.) Upon this table, which the apostle adds, was “the shew-bread.” It is here rendered by the apostle πρόθεσιςτῶνἄρτων, — the “proposition of the bread or “loaves; by an hypallage for ἄρτοιτῆςπροθέσεως, — the “bread of proposition,” as it is rendered, Matthew 12:4; the bread that was proposed or set forth. In the Hebrew it is μֶ ?ηֶ ?ν, “bread,” in the singular number; which the apostle renders by ἅρτοι, in the plural, as also doth the evangelist. For that bread consisted of many loaves; as ἄρτος properly signifies “a loaf.” So the LXX. render it by ἄρτους, Exodus 25:30. The number of these loaves, or cakes, as we call them, was twelve; and they were set on the table in two rows, six in a row, being laid one upon the other. The Jews say that every loaf was ten hand-breadths long, and five hand-breadths broad, and seven fingers thick. But this cannot well be reconciled unto the proportion of the table. For the table itself was but two cubits long, and one cubit broad; and whereas it had a border of an hand- breadth round about, nothing could lie on the table but what was placed within that border. And seeing a cubit was but five hand-breadths, it cannot be conceived how two rows of loaves, that were ten handbreadths long, and five hand-breadths broad, could be placed within that border. Wherefore they suppose that there were props of gold coming up from the ground, that bore the ends of the cakes. But if so, it could not be said that they were placed on the table, which is expressly affirmed. Wherefore it is certain that they were of such shape, proportion, and measures, as might fitly be placed on the table within the border; and more we know not of them. These cakes were renewed every Sabbath, in the morning; the renovation of them being part of the peculiar worship of the day. The manner of it, as also of the making of them, is described, Leviticus 24:5-9. And because the new bread was to be brought in and immediately placed in the room of that which was taken away, it is called absolutely μֶ ?ηֶ ?νδַ ?ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ, — “the continual bread,” Numbers 4:7. For God says it was to be before him ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ, “jugiter,” Exodus 25:30, — “always,” or “continually.” Why it is called μֶ ?ηֶ ?νδַ ?τָ ?πִ ?ιν, “the bread of faces,” there is great inquiry. One of the Targums renders it “inward bread;” for the word is used sometimes for that which looks inward: the LXX., ἄρτουςἐνωπίους, “present bread, or “bread presented.” Many think they were so called because they were set forth before the faces of the priests, and stood in their view when they first entered the tabernacle. But the reason of it is plain in the text: τָ ?πִ ?ινμְ ?τָ ?πַ ?ιμֶ ?ηֶ ?ν, — “the shew-bread before my face,” saith God. They were presented before the Lord as a memorial, twelve of them, in answer to the twelve tribes of Israel. The Jews think they were called “bread of faces,” because being made in an oblong square, they appeared with many faces; that is, as many as they had sides. But they cannot evince this to have been the fashion of them, and it is absurd to imagine that they had such a name given unto them from their outward form. This is all that the apostle observes to have been in the first part of the tabernacle. There was in it, moreover, the altar of incense. But this was not placed in the midst of it at any equal distances from the sides, but just at the west end, where the veil opened to give an entrance into the most holy place; wherefore by our apostle it is reckoned unto that part of the sanctuary, as we shall see on the next verse. 4. Concerning this part of the tabernacle, the apostle affirms that it was called ἁγία, “holy.” This name of it was given and stated, Exodus 26:33, “The veil shall divide εּ ?αֵ ?ιοχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ δֲ ?χָּ ?γָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν, — “between the holy” (that is, that part of the sanctuary,) “and the most holy,” which our apostle describes in the next place. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 1. Every part of God’s house, and the place wherein he will dwell, is filled and adorned with pledges of his presence, and means of communicating his grace. Such were all the parts of the furniture of this part of the tabernacle. And so doth God dwell in his church, which in some sense is his tabernacle with men.But the principal inquiry about these things, is concerning their mystical signification and use. For by the apostle they are only proposed in general, under this notion, that they were all typical representations of things spiritual and evangelical. Without this he had no concernment in them. This, therefore, we shall inquire into. We may in this matter be supplied by expositors with variety of conjectures. But none of them, so far as I have observed, have at all endeavored to fix any certain rule for the trial and measure of such conjectures, nor to guide us in the interpretation of this mystery. Some say, the candlestick, with its branches, represented the seven planets, the sun in the midst, as the scapus of the candlestick was in the midst of the six branches, three on the one side, and three on the other. And the loaves of bread, say they, did represent the fruits of the earth as influenced by the heavenly bodies. This is the interpretation of Philo, a Jew and Platonical philosopher; and it doth not unbecome his principles. But that any Christian writer should approve of it I somewhat wonder, nor doth it deserve a confutation. Some say that the altar of incense signified those that are of a contemplative life; the table of shew-bread, those that follow the active life; and the candlestick, those that follow both of them. The pretended reasons of this application of these things may be seen in the commentaries of Ribera and Tena on this place. Some, with more sobriety and probability, affirm the candlestick to represent the ministry of the church, appointed for the illumination of it; and the table with the shew-bread, the ordinances as administered by them: which things are declared succinctly by Gomarus on this place; and unto them they may have safely a secondary application. But, as was said, a rule is to be fixed to guide us in the interpretation of the mystical signification of these things, and the application of them; without which we shall wander in uncertain and unapprovable conjectures. And it is plainly given us in the context. For therein are two things manifest: 1. That the tabernacle and all contained in it were typical of Christ. This is directly affirmed, Hebrews 8:2, as hath been evinced in the exposition of that place. And it is the design of the apostle further to declare and confirm it in what remains of this chapter.2. That the Lord Christ, in this representation of him by the tabernacle, its utensils and services, is not considered absolutely, but as the church is in mystical union with him; for he is proposed, set forth, and described, in the discharge of his mediatory office. And these things give us an evident rule in the investigation of the original significancy of the tabernacle, with all the parts, furniture, and services of it, and the design of God therein. They were all representative of Christ in the discharge of his office, and by them did God instruct the church as unto their faith in him and expectation of him. This is excellently observed by Cyril. in Johan. lib. 4:cap. xxviii.: “Christus licet unus sit, multifariam tamen a nobis intelligitur. Ipse est tabernaculum propter carnis tegumentum; ipse est mensa, quia noster cibus est et vita; ipse est arca habens legem Dei reconditam, quia est verbum patris; ipse est candelabrum, quia est lux spiritualis; ipse est altare incensi, quia est odor suavitatis in sanctificationem; ipse est altare holocausti, quia est hostia pro totius mundi vita in cruce oblata.” And other instances he gives unto the same purpose. And although I cannot comply with all his particular applications, yet the ground he builds upon and the rule he proceeds by are firm and stable. And by this rule we shall inquire into the signification of the things mentioned by the apostle in the first part of the tabernacle: — The candlestick, with its seven branches, and its perpetual light with pure oil, giving light unto all holy administrations, did represent the fullness of spiritual light that is in Christ Jesus, and which by him is communicated unto the whole church. “In him was life; and the life was the light of men,” John 1:5. God gave unto him the Spirit not by measure, John 3:35. And the Holy Spirit rested on him in all variety of his gifts and operations, especially those of spiritual light, wisdom, and understanding, Isaiah 11:2-3; and in allusion unto this candlestick with its seven lamps, is called “the seven Spirits that are before the throne of God,” Revelation 1:4; as he in and by whom the Lord Christ gives out the fullness and perfection of spiritual light and gifts, unto the illumination of the church, even as the light of the tabernacle depended on the seven lamps of the candlestick. Wherefore, by the communication of the fullness of the Spirit in all his gifts and graces unto Christ, he became the fountain of all spiritual light unto the church. For he subjectively enlightens their minds by his Spirit, Ephesians 1:17-19; and objectively and doctrinally conveys the means of light unto them by his word.Again; there was one candlestick which contained the holy oil, (a type of the Spirit) in itself. Thence was it communicated unto the branches on each side of it, that they also should give light unto the tabernacle; yet had they originally no oil in themselves, but only what was continually communicated unto them from the body of the candlestick. And so the communications from Christ of spiritual gifts unto the ministers of the gospel, whereby they are instrumental in the illumination of the church, was signified thereby. For “unto every one of us is given grace according unto the measure of the gift of Christ,” even as he pleaseth, Ephesians 4:7. But hereon we must also remember, that this candlestick was all one beaten work of pure gold, both the scapus, the body, and all the branches of it. There were neither joints, nor screws, nor pins in or about it, Exodus 25:36. Wherefore, unless ministers are made partakers of the divine nature of Christ, by that faith which is more precious than gold, and are intimately united unto him, so as mystically to become one with him, no pretended conjunction unto him by joints and screws of outward order will enable them to derive that pure oil from him with whose burning light they may illuminate the church. But this I submit unto the judgment of others. This is of faith herein: That which God instructed the church in by this holy utensil and its use, was, that the promised Messiah, whom all these things typed and represented, was to be, by the fullness of the Spirit in himself, and the communication of all spiritual graces and gifts unto others, the only cause of all true saving light unto the church. “He is the true light, which lighteth every man coming into the world;” namely, that is savingly enlightened. Upon the entrance of sin, all things fell into darkness; spiritual darkness covered mankind, not unlike that which was on the face of the deep before God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” 2 Corinthians 4:6. And this darkness had two parts; first, that which was external, with respect unto the will of God concerning sinners, and their acceptance with him; secondly, on the minds of men, in their incapacity to receive such divine revelations unto that end as were or should be made. This was the double veil, the veil veiled and the covering covered over the face of all nations, which was to be destroyed, Isaiah 25:7. And they are both removed by Christ alone; the former by his doctrine, the latter by his Spirit. Moreover, there was no light at all in the sanctuary, for the performance of any holy administrations, but what was given unto it by the lamps of this candlestick; and therefore was it to be carefully dressed every morning and evening, by a perpetual statute. And if the communication of spiritual gifts and graces do cease, the very church itself, notwithstanding its outward order, will be a place of darkness. Obs. 2. The communication of sacred light from Christ, in the gifts of the Spirit, is absolutely necessary unto the due and acceptable performance of all holy offices and duties of worship in the church. And, —Obs. 3. No man, by his utmost endeavors in the use of outward means, can obtain the least beam of saving light, unless it be communicated unto him by Christ, who is the only fountain and cause of it.The table and the shew-bread, mentioned in the next place, respected him also, under another consideration. The use of the table, which was all overlaid with gold, was only to bear the bread which was laid upon it. What resemblance there might be therein unto the divine person of Christ, which sustained the human nature in its duties, that bread of life which was provided for the church, it may be is not easy to declare. Howbeit, the head of Christ is said to be “as the most fine gold,” Son 5:11. Wherefore the matter of it being most precious, and the form of it beautiful and glorious, it might as far represent it as any thing could do which is of this creation, as all these things were, verse 11. But that the Lord Christ is the only bread of life unto the church, the only spiritual food of our souls, he himself doth fully testify, John 6:32-35. He, therefore, he alone, was represented by this “continual bread” of the sanctuary. Μετὰδὲτὸδεύτερονκαταπέτασμασκηνὴἡλεγομένηἅγιαἁγίων·χρυσοῦνἔχουσαθυμιατήριον, καὶτὴνκιβωτὸντῆςδιαθήκηςπερικεκαλυμμένηνπάντοθενχρυσίῳ, ἐνᾗστάμνοςχρυσῆἔχουσατὸμάννα, καὶἡῥάβδος᾿Ααρὼνἡβλαστήσασα, καὶαἱπλάκεςτῆςδιαθήκης·῾Ψπεράνωδὲαὐτῆςχερουβὶμδόξηςκατυσκιάζοντατὸἱλαστήριον·περὶὧνοὐκἔστινῦνλέγεινκατὰμέρος.Μετὰδὲτοδεύτερονκαταπέτασμασκηνή, “but after the second veil,” or “covering.” Our Latin translation reads, “post medium velum;” that is, “after the veil that was in the midst:” but there were not three veils, whereof this should be in the midst, but two only. The Syriac somewhat changeth the words, “the inner tabernacle, which was within the face of the second gate.” The same thing is intended; but “the inner” is added; and “after the second veil” is expressed by an Hebraism. What καταπέτασμα is, which is rendered “velum,” and “velamentum,” a “veil,” a “covering,” and by the Syriac, a “gate of entrance,” we shall see afterwards.῾Ηλεγομένη, “quod dicitur,” “quod vocatur.” Syr., “it was called.” Χρσοῦνἔχουσαθυμιατήριον, “aureum habens thuribulum;” “having the golden censer.” Syr., “and there were in it the house of incense of gold;” whereby either the altar or the censer may be understood. ᾿Ενᾗστάμνος. Syr., “and there was in it;” referring plainly to the ark.Περὶὧνοὐκἔστινῦνλέγεινκατὰμέρος, “non est tempus,” “non est propositum;” “it is not a time or place,” “it is not my purpose to speak;” “non est modo dicendum.” Κατὰμέρος,” singulatim;” Vulg. Lat., “per singula;” Arias, “per partes;” Syr., “by one and one,” “apart,” “particularly,” according to the parts laid down distinctly. The Syriac adds the following words unto these, “It is not time to speak of these things by one and one, which were thus disposed.” But the original refers that expression unto what follows.[2] [2] . — Four solutions have been offered of the difficulty arising from the statement in the fourth verse, that the most holy place had the θυμιατήριον; which is generally understood to signify, not the censer, but the altar of incense, whereas it belonged only to the holy place. 1. Some, among whom Bleck must be numbered, suppose the author of the epistle to have been mistaken, — a notion, of course, inconsistent with the inspiration of the apostle, and an easy method of escaping from all difficulties in exegesis. 2. Others, such as Tholuck, suppose the altar of incense may in reality have stood in the most holy place, and refer to 1 Kings 6:22, Exodus 26:35. But see Exodus 30:6; Exodus 7:3. Others, G. Michaelis, Kuinoel, Stuart, and Turner, translate the word by censer, as sometimes in the classics, the LXX., and Josephus. This view is exposed to two objections: — the high priest would have had to enter the holy of holies, not once in the year, but every day; and why should an object so important as the altar be omitted? 4. Olshausen, Ebrard, and Conybeare and Howson, Substantially adopt Owen’s explanation. “The altar of incense,” says Ebrard, “stood in the holy place, but referred to the holy of holies.” — ED. Hebrews 9:3-5. — And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid [covered] round about [on every side] with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the churubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which [things] we cannot [shall not] now speak particularly. The apostle in these verses proceedeth unto the description of the second part of the tabernacle, with the things contained in it, or the holy furniture thereof. His design is not to give us an exact description of these things, as he declares in the close of the fifth verse, but only to declare their use and signification. Wherefore he doth not propose an accurate account of their station and relation one to another, but makes such mention of them in general as was sufficient unto his end, namely, to manifest their use and signification. Wherefore they deal injuriously both with him and the text, who rigidly examine every word and passage, as though he had designed an exact account of the frame, positure, fashion, and measure, of this part of the tabernacle, and every thing contained in it; whereas the use and signification of the whole is all that he intends. A due consideration hereof renders the anxious inquiry that hath been made about the assignation of holy utensils unto this part of the sanctuary, and the placing of them with respect unto one another, — which was no part of his design, — altogether needless. For with respect unto the end he aimed at, the words he useth are exactly the truth. He describes this part of the tabernacle, 1. From its situation; it was “after the second veil.”2. From its name, given unto it by God himself; it was called “The holiest of all,” or” The holy of holies.”3. From its utensils or vessels; which were,(1.) The golden censer;(2.) The ark, — what was in it or with it:[1. The golden pot that had manna; [2. Aaron’s rod; [3. The tables of the covenant. 4. The cherubim; which he describes,5. The mercy-seat itself, but this is mentioned as it were only occasionally with respect unto the use of the cherubim. (1.) From their quality, “cherubim of glory;”(2.) Their use, they “shadowed the mercy-seat.”And this sufficiently manifests, that in the rehearsal of these things the apostle designeth not accuracy of order; for the mercy-seat was, for glory and signification, far above the cherubim wherewith it was overshadowed. With respect unto these things among others, in another place, he affirms that the ministration of divine worship under the law was glorious; but withal he adds that it had no glory in comparison of that which doth excel, — namely, the spiritual ministration of divine worship under the gospel, 2 Corinthians 3:9-10. And this is that which we should always mind in the consideration of these things; for if we yet look after and value such an outward glory as they did exhibit, we are carnal, and cannot behold the beauty of spiritual things.The verbal difficulties which occur in this context have occasioned critical expositors to labor greatly about them. That is the field wherein they choose to exercise their skill and diligence. But as unto the things themselves, and the difficulties that are in the real interpretation of them, little light is contributed by most of their endeavors. Wherefore some of these words have been so belabored with all sorts of conjectures, that there is no room left for any addition in the same kind; and it were but lost labor to repeat what must be confuted if it were mentioned. I shall therefore take no further notice of any difficulty in the words, but as the explication of it is necessary unto the interpretation of the context; and so far nothing shall be omitted. 1. The first thing mentioned by the apostle is the situation of this part of the tabernacle; it was “after the second veil.” It was so unto them that entered into the tabernacle; they had to pass through the whole length of the first part before they came unto this; nor was there any other way of entrance into it. And by calling this partition of the two parts of the sanctuary the “second veil,” the apostle intimates that there was a former. Howbeit that former was not a separating veil of any part of the tabernacle, as this was. It was only the hanging of the door of the tent. This the apostle here reckons as a veil, because as by this veil the priests were hindered from entering into, or looking into the most holy place, so by that other the people were forbidden to enter or look into the first part of the sanctuary, whereinto the priests entered daily. The making of the first veil is declared, Exodus 26:36-37, and it is called ξָ ?ρָ ?κְ μְ ?τֶ ?ϊַ ?η “the hanging,” or “covering for the door.’) The making of this second veil is declared, Exodus 26:31-33, and it is called “the veil” or “covering.” The apostle renders it by καταπέτασμα; as also it is Matthew 27:51, where it is spoken of as in the temple. And so it is rendered by the LXX., Exodus 26:31; as the former is called κάλυμμα, a covering. From πετάζω, which is “to extend,” “to stretch out” so as to cover with what is so extended, is καταπέτασμα, “a veil” to be a covering unto any thing, dividing one thing from another; as περιπέτασμα is that which covereth any thing round about: such was this veil.The end, use, and signification of it, the apostle expressly declares verse 8, where they must be spoken unto. 2. He describes this part of the tabernacle by its name; it is called “The most holy,” “The holy of holies,” — δַ ?χֲּ ?γָ ?ωִׁ ?ινχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ. So it is called by God himself, Exodus 26:33-34, “The holy of holies;” that is, most holy, — the superlative degree expressed by the repetition of the substantive, as is usual in the Hebrew. Some give instances of this kind of phraseology in Greek writers, remote enough from Hebraisms; as Sophocles, Elect. 849: Δειλαίαδειλαίωνκυρεῖς, — “misera miserarum es;” that is, “miserrima.” But however the phrase of ἅγιαἁγίων may be Greek, the apostle intends to express the Hebraism itself. And “holy” in the Hebrew is of the singular number; “holies,” of the plural: but in the Greek both are of the plural number. And what is thus called was most eminently typical of Christ, who is called by this name, Daniel 9:24, “To anoint the Most Holy.” The place in the tabernacle which was most sacred and most secret, which had the most eminent pledges or symbols of the divine presence, and the clearest representations of God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself is so called.Obs. 1. The more of Christ, by the way of representation or exhibition, any institutions of divine worship do contain or express, the more sacred and holy are they in their use and exercise. But, —Obs. 2. It is Christ alone who in himself is really the Most Holy, the spring and fountain of all holiness unto the church.3. The first utensil reckoned unto this second part of the tabernacle is χρυσο'νθυμιατήριον; and the relation of it thereunto is, that it had it, — ἔχουσα. He doth not say, it was in it, but “it had it.” If any one would see the various conjectures of learned men about this assertion of the apostle, as also about that following, concerning what was contained in the ark, he may consult the collections of Mr. Pool on the place, where he will find them represented in one view. My design being only to declare what I conceive consonant unto the truth, I shall not spend time in repeating or refuting the conjectures of other men. Θυμιατήριον, we translate a “censer;” but it may as well be rendered the “altar of incense;” as it is by the Syriac the “house of spices,” — the place for the spices whereof the incense was compounded. The altar of incense was all overlaid with beaten gold; hence it is here said to be χρυσοῦν, of “gold.” And whereas it was one of the most glorious vessels of the tabernacle, and most significant, if the apostle intended it not in this word, he takes no notice of it at all; which is very unlikely.And of this altar he says not that it was in the second tabernacle, but that it had it. And in that expression he respects not its situation, but its use. And the most holy place may well be said to have had the altar of incense, because the high priest could never enter into that place, nor perform any service in it, but he was to bring incense with him taken in a censer from this altar. Whereas, therefore, there was a twofold use of the altar of incense; the one of the ordinary priests, to burn incense in the sanctuary every day; and the other of the high priest, to take incense from it when he entered into the most holy place, to fill it with a cloud of its smoke; the apostle intending a comparison peculiarly between the Lord Christ and the high priest only in this place, and not the other priests in the daily discharge of their office, he takes no notice of the use of the altar of incense in the sanctuary, but only of that which respected the most holy place, and the entrance of the high priest thereinto: for so he expressly applies it, verse 12. And therefore he affirms this place to have had this golden altar, its principal use and end being designed unto the service thereof. This I judge to be the true meaning of the apostle and sense of his words, and shall not therefore trouble myself nor the reader with the repetition or confutation of other conjectures. And that this was the principal use of this altar is plainly declared in the order for the making and disposal of it, Exodus 30:6, “Thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee.” Although it was placed without the veil, and that for this end, that the high priest might not enter one step into the most holy place until the smoke of the incense went before him, yet had it peculiar respect unto the ark and mercy-seat, and is therefore reckoned in the same place and service with them by the apostle. And this is yet made further evident, in that when the high priest entered into the most holy place, and had no service to perform but with respect unto the things pertaining thereunto, he was to make atonement on this altar with the blood of the sin-offering, as he did on the ark and mercy- seat, Exodus 30:10. This is an undeniable demonstration that, as unto the use of it, it belonged principally unto the most holy place, and is here so declared by the apostle. Wherefore, the assignation hereof unto ‘that place by the author is so far from an objection against the authority of the epistle, — unto which end it hath by some been made use of, — as that it is an argument of his divine wisdom and skill in the nature and use of these institutions. The manner of the service of this altar intended by the apostle was briefly thus: The high priest, on the solemn day of expiation, — that is, once a- year, — took a golden censer from this altar; after which, going out of the sanctuary, he put fire into it, taken from the altar of burnt-offerings without the tabernacle, in the court where the perpetual fire was preserved. Then returning into the holy place, he filled his hands with incense taken from this altar, the place of the residence of the spices. And this altar being placed just at the entrance of the most holy place, over against the ark and mercy-seat, upon his entrance he put the incense on the fire in the censer, and entered the holy place with a cloud of the smoke thereof. See Leviticus 16:12-13. The composition and making of this incense is declared, Exodus 30:34-35, etc. And being compounded, it was beaten small, that it might immediately take fire, and so placed on this altar before the ark, verse 36. And the placing of this incense “before the testimony,” as is there affirmed, is the same with what our apostle affirms, that the most holy place had it.That in general by incense, prayer is signified, the Scripture expressly testifieth: “Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense,” Psalms 141:2. And there is a fourfold resemblance between them: (1.) In that it was beaten and pounded before it was used. So doth acceptable prayer proceed from “a broken and contrite heart,” Isaiah 51:17. (2.) It was of no use until fire was put under it, and that taken from the altar. Nor is that prayer of any virtue or efficacy which is not kindled by the fire from above, the Holy Spirit of God; which we have from our altar, Christ Jesus.(3.) It naturally ascended upwards towards heaven, as all offerings in the Hebrew are called ςֹ ?μεֹ ?ϊ, “ascensions,” risings up. And this is the design of prayer, to ascend unto the throne of God: “I will direct unto thee, and will look up;” that is, pray, Psalms 5:3.(4.) It yielded a sweet savor: which was one end of it in temple services, wherein there was so much burning of flesh and blood. So doth prayer yield a sweet savor unto God; a savor of rest, wherein he is well pleased.In this general sense, even the prayers of the saints might be typified and represented in that daily burning of incense which was used in the sanctuary. But it must be granted that this incense is distinguished from the prayers of the saints, as that which is in the hand of Christ alone, to give virtue and efficacy unto them, Revelation 8:4. Wherefore thisgolden altar of incense, as placed in the sanctuary, and whereon incense was burned continually every morning and evening, was a type of Christ, by his mediation and intercession giving efficacy unto the continual prayers of all believers.But that which the apostle in this place hath alone respect unto, was the burning of the incense in the golden censer on the day of expiation, when the high priest entered into the most holy place. And this represented only the personal mediatory prayer of Christ himself. Concerning it we may observe: (1.)That the time of it was after the sacrifice of the sin-offering; for the high priest was to take along with him the blood of that sacrifice, to carry with him into the holy place, Leviticus 16 :(2.) That the incense was kindled with fire taken from the altar, when the blood of the sacrifices was newly offered.And two things in the mediatory prayer of Christ are hereby intimated unto us: (1.) That the efficacy of them ariseth from and dependeth on the sacrifice of himself. Hence his intercession is best apprehended as the representation of himself and the efficacy of his sacrifice in heaven, before the throne of God. (2.) That this prayer is quickened and enlivened by the same fire wherewith the sacrifice of himself was kindled, — that is, by the eternal Spirit; whereof we shall treat on verse 14. Yet we must not so oblige ourselves unto the times, seasons, and order of these things, as to exclude the prayers which he offered unto God before the oblation of himself. Yea, that solemn prayer of his, recorded John 17., wherein he sanctified himself to be an oblation, was principally prefigured by the cloud of incense which filled the most holy place, covering the ark and mercy-seat. For by reason of the imperfection of these types, and their accommodation unto the present service of the church so far as it was carnal, they could not represent the order of things as they were to be accomplished in the person of Christ, who was both priest and sacrifice, altar, tabernacle, and incense. For the law had only a shadow of these things, and not the perfect image of them. Some obscure lines of them were drawn therein, but their beautiful order was not represented in them. Although, therefore, the offering of incense from the golden altar in the most holy place was after the offering of sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offerings, yet was the mediatory prayer of Christ for the church of the elect, wherein he also prepared and sanctified himself to be a sacrifice, thereby typified. So also the beating or bruising of the incense before its firing did represent the agony of his soul, with the strong cries and supplications that he offered unto God therein. And we may observe, — Obs. 3. The mediatory intercession of Jesus Christ is a sweet savor unto God, and efficacious for the salvation of the church. — The smoke of this perfume was that which covered the ark and mercy- seat. Hereby the law itself, which was contained in the ark, became compliant unto our salvation; for herein Christ was declared to be the end of the law for righteousness unto them that do believe.Obs. 4. The efficacy of Christ’s intercession dependeth on his oblation. — It was fire from the altar of burnt-offerings wherewith the incense was kindled.Obs. 5. The glory of these types did no way answer the glory of the antitype, or that which was represented by them. — It is acknowledged that the service of the high priest at and from this golden altar, and his entrance with a cloud of incense into the most holy place, had great glory in it, and was suited to ingenerate a great veneration in the minds of the people; howbeit they were all but carnal things, and had no glory in comparison of the spiritual glory of Christ in the discharge of his office. We are apt in our minds to admire these things, and almost to wish that God had ordained such a service in the gospel, so outwardly glorious. For there is that in it which is suited unto those images of things which men create and are delighted withal in their minds. And besides, they love in divine service to be taken up with such a bodily exercise as carries glory with it, — an appearance of solemn veneration. Wherefore many things are found out by men unto these ends. But the reason of all is, because we are carnal. We see not the glory of spiritual things, nor do know how to be exercised in our minds about them with pure acts of faith and love. Obs. 6. We are always to reckon that the efficacy and prevalency of all our prayers depends on the incense which is in the hand of our merciful high priest. — It is offered with the prayers of the saints, Revelation 8:4. In themselves our prayers are weak and imperfect; it is hard toconceive how they should find acceptance with God. But the invaluable incense of the intercession of Christ gives them acceptance and prevalency.The second thing in this part of the tabernacle mentioned by the apostle is the ark. This he describes, (1.) From its appellation; “the ark of the covenant:”(2.) From one particular in its fabric; it was “overlaid round about with gold:”(3.) From the things that accompanied it, and had no other use but to be laid up by it; “the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded:” (4.) From what was placed in it, which to preserve was its principal use; “the tables of the covenant.”This vessel in the Hebrew is called ΰָ ?ψεֹ ?ο; as the ark in the flood was called ϊֵּ ?αָ ?δ. But the Greeks render both by χιβωτός as the Latins by arca. This, with the mercy-seat wherewith it was covered, was the most glorious and mysterious utensil of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple; the most eminent pledge of the divine presence, the most mysterious representation of the holy properties of his nature in Christ. This, as the heart of all divine service, was first formed; all other things had a relation unto it, Exodus 25:10-11. To treat of the fabric, that is, the materials, dimensions, and fashion of this ark, is not unto our present purpose. For these things the apostle himself here declines, as being no season to treat of them particularly. This he intends in these words, “Which we shall not now speak of.” And their mystical signification he gives afterwards. (1.) The name of it is “the ark of the covenant.” Sometimes it is called “the ark of the testimony,” Exodus 26:33; Exodus 40:3; Exodus 40:5; most commonly “the ark of the covenant,” Numbers 10:33; Numbers 14:44, Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.; sometimes “the ark of God,” 1 Samuel 3:3; 1 Samuel 6:2, etc. “The ark of the testimony” it was called, because God called the tables of the covenant by the name of his “testimony,” or that which testified his will unto the people, and, by the people’s acceptance of the terms of it, was to be a perpetual witness between God and them, Exodus 25:16; Exodus 31:18, etc. On the same account is it called “the ark of the covenant,” namely, because of what was contained in it, or the tables of the covenant; which, as I have showed elsewhere, were usually called “the covenant” itself. And so they are called “the tables of testimony,” Exodus 31:18; that is, the covenant which was the testimony of God. And lastly it was called “the ark of God,” because it was the most eminent pledge of the especial presence of God among the people. (2.) As to the fabric of it, the apostle observes in particular, that it was on every side “overlaid” or “covered with gold,” — πάντοθεν, “every way, within and without,” — with plates of beaten gold. This, as I said before, was the most sacred and glorious instrument of the sanctuary; yea, the whole sanctuary, as unto its use in the church of Israel, was built for no other end but to be as it were a house and habitation for this ark, Exodus 40:21. Hence sanctification proceeded unto all the other parts of it; for, as Solomon observed, the places were holy whereunto the ark of God came, 2 Chronicles 8:11. And of such sacred veneration was it among the people, so severe was the exclusion of all flesh from the sight of it, — the high priest only excepted, who entered that holy place once a year, and that not without blood, — as that the nations about took it to be the God that the Israelites worshipped, 1 Samuel 4:8. And it were not difficult to evidence that many of the pretended mysterious ceremonies of worship that prevailed among the nations of the world afterwards, were invented in compliance with what they had heard concerning the ark and worship of God thereby. This was the most signal token, pledge, or symbol, of the presence of God among the people. And thence metonymically it hath sometimes the name of God ascribed unto it, as some think; and of “the glory of God,” Psalms 78:61. And all neglects about it or contempt of it were most severely punished. From the tabernacle it was carried into the temple built by Solomon, where it continued until the Babylonian captivity; and what became of it afterwards is altogether uncertain.God gave this ark that it might be a representation of Christ, as we shall show; and he took it away to increase the desire and expectation of the church after him and for him. And as it was the glory of God to hide and cover the mysterious counsels of his will under the old testament, — whence this ark was so hidden from the eyes of all men, — so under the new testament it is his glory to reveal and make them open in Jesus Christ, 2 Corinthians 3:18.(3.) In this ark, as it was placed in the tabernacle, the apostle affirmeth that there were three things: —[1. “The golden pot that had manna,” When the manna first fell, every one was commanded to gather an omer, for his own eating, Exodus 16:16. Hereon God appointed that a pot should be provided which should hold an omer, to be filled with manna, to be laid up before the Lord for their generations, verse 33. There was it miraculously preserved from putrefaction, whereas of itself it would not keep two days unto an end. And it is added, “As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron laid it up before the testimony, to be kept,” verse 34. But there is a prolepsis in the words; Aaron is said to do what he did afterwards. For the testimony was not yet given, nor Aaron yet consecrated unto his office. It is not said in this place, where the making of it is appointed, that it was of gold, nor is there any mention of what matter it was made. That it was of gold the apostle here declares, who wrote by inspiration. And the thing is evident itself; for it was to be placed in that part of the sanctuary wherein all the vessels were either of pure gold, or at least overlaid with it, and a pot of another nature would have been unsuitable thereunto. And it was to be made of that which was most durable, as being to be kept for a memorial throughout all generations. The reason of the sacred preservation of this manna in the most holy place was, because it was a type of Christ; as himself declares, John 6:48-51.[2. The next thing mentioned is “Aaron’s rod that budded.” This rod originally was that wherewith Moses fed the sheep of his father-in-law, Jethro, in the wilderness, which he had in his hand when God called unto him out of the bush. And thereon God ordained it to be the token of the putting forth of his power in the working of miracles, having by a trial confirmed the faith of Moses concerning it, Exodus 4:17. Hereby it became sacred; and when Aaron was called unto the office of the priesthood, it was delivered into his keeping. For on the budding of it, on the trial about the priesthood, it was laid up before the testimony; that is, the ark, Numbers 17:10. That same rod did Moses take from before the testimony when he was to smite the rock with it, and work a miracle; whereof this was consecrated to be the outward sign, Numbers 20:8-11. Hereof the apostle affirms only that it “budded;” but in the story it is, that it “brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds; “being originally cut from an almond tree, Numbers 17:8. But the apostle mentions what was sufficient unto his purpose.This rod of Moses belonged unto the holy furniture of the tabernacle; because the spiritual Rock that followed them was to be smitten with the rod of the law, that it might give out the waters of life unto the church. [3. The last thing mentioned is “the tables of the covenant;” the two tables of stone, cut out by Moses, and written on with the finger of God, containing the ten commandments; which were the substance of God’s covenant with the people. This testimony, this covenant, these tables of stone, with the moral law engraven in them, were, by the express command of God, put into the ark, Exodus 25:16; Exodus 25:21; Exodus 40:20; Deuteronomy 10:5. And “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone” with the law written in them, as is expressly affirmed, 1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10. Wherefore, whereas it is said of Aaron’s rod and the pot of manna, that they were placed before the testimony, Numbers 17:10, Exodus 16:34, — that is, the ark; and that the book of the law was also put into the side of it, — that is, laid beside it, Deuteronomy 31:26; and not only are the tables of stone appointed expressly to be put into the ark, but also it is likewise affirmed that “there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone;” this place of the apostle hath been exceedingly tortured and perplexed by critics, and all sorts of expositors, with multiplied conjectures, objections, and solutions. I know not that the repetition of them in this place would be of any use. Those who have a mind to exercise themselves about them, do know where to find them. I shall therefore give only that interpretation of the words which, for the substance of it at least, all sober expositors do betake themselves unto. The true, real posture of these things was after this manner: In the closed ark there was nothing at all but the two tables of stone. Before it, or at the ends of it, adjoining unto it, were the pot of manna and the miracle- working rod. Neither of these was of any actual use in the service of God, but only were kept as sacred memorials. Unto this end being placed by it, they were joined unto and reckoned with the ark. This appurtenance of them unto the ark the apostle expresseth by the preposition ἐν, from the Hebrew αְּ. Now this preposition is so frequentlyused in the Scripture to signify adhesion, conjunction, approximation, appurtenance of one thing unto another, that it is mere cavilling to assign it any other signification in this place, or to restrain it unto inclusion only, the things themselves requiring that sense. See Job 19:20; Deuteronomy 6:7; 1 Samuel 1:24; Hosea 4:3; Joshua 10:10; Matthew 21:12; Luke 1:17. And a multitude of instances are gathered by othersHeb_9:5. — “And over it the cherubim of glory, shadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak particularly.”The apostle proceedeth in his description of the immediate appurtenances of the ark. He hath declared what was disposed with reference unto it, as the golden censer; what was before it, as the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod; what was within it, namely, the tables of the covenant; now he showeth what was over it: so giving an account of its whole furniture, and all that any way belonged unto it. Two things he adds, namely, 1. The cherubim; 2. The mercy-seat.And first he describes the cherubim, (1.) By their posture; they were “over the ark:”(2.) By their title; “cherubim of glory:”(3.) Their use; they “shadowed the mercy-seat.” 1. The making, form, fashion, and use of these cherubim, are declared, Exodus 25. The signification of the name, and their original shape or form, any further than that they were “alata animata,” “winged creatures,” are not certainly known. Most, as unto the derivation of the name, follow Kimchi; who affirms the letter caph to be servile, and a note of similitude, and the word to signify “a youth or a child.” Such these images are thought to represent; only they had wings instead of arms, as we now usually paint angels; for their bodies, sides, and feet are mentioned in other places, Isaiah 6:2. See Ezekiel 1:5-7, where they are expressly said to have “the shape of a man.” Wherefore, both as they were first framed for the tabernacle, and afterwards for the temple, when their dimensions were exceedingly enlarged, they were of human shape; only with wings, to denote the angelical nature.There were two of them, one at each end of the ark or mercy-seat. Their faces were turned inwards, one towards another, so as that their wings touched one another. This posture gave unto the whole work of the ark, mercy-seat, and cherubim, the form of a seat, which represented the throne of God. From thence he spake; whence the whole was called γְּ ?αִ ?ιε, “the oracle.”As unto their place and posture, they were over the ark. For these cherubim had feet whereon they stood, 2 Chronicles 3:13. And thesefeet were joined in one continued beaten work unto the ends of the mercy-seat which was upon the ark; wherefore they were wholly over it, or above it, as the apostle here speaks. As unto the appellation whereby he describes them, it is “cherubim of glory;” that is, say expositors generally, χερουβὶμἔνδοξα, — “glorious cherubim.” If so, this term is not given them from the matter whereof they were made. Those, indeed, in the tabernacle were of beaten gold, being but of a small measure or proportion, Exodus 25:18. Those in the temple of Solomon were made of the wood of the olive tree, only overlaid with gold; for they were very large, extending their wings unto the whole breadth of the oracle, which was twenty cubits, 1 Kings 6:23-28; 2 Chronicles 3:10-13. But such was the matter of other utensils also, as the candlestick, which yet is not called the candlestick of glory. Nor are they so called from their shape and fashion; for this, as I have showed, most probably was human shape with wings, wherein there was nothing peculiarly glorious. But they are so called from their posture and use; for, stretching out their wings on high, and looking inwards with an appearance of veneration, and so compassing the mercy-seat with their wings, all but the fore part of it, they made a representation of a glorious seat or throne, wherein the majestatical presence of God did sit and reside. And from between these cherubim, above the mercy-seat, it was that God spake unto Moses, and gave out his oracles, Exodus 25:22; as a man on a throne speaks above the place where he sits and rests. Hence may they be called the “glorious cherubim.”But I must add, that by “glory” here, the majestatical presence of God himself is intended. The cherubim represented the glorious presence of God himself, as he dwelt among the people. So the apostle, reckoning up the privileges of the Hebrews, Romans 9:4, affirms that unto them appertained “the adoption and the glory.” And therein not the ark is intended, although it may be that is sometimes called “the glory;” or signified under that name, as 1 Samuel 4:21-22, Psalms 26:8; but it is God himself in his peculiar residence among the people, — that is, in the representation of his presence which is in Christ, who is Immanuel, and therefore called “the glory of Israel,” Luke 2:32. The cherubim being designed to make a representation hereof, as we shall immediately declare, are called the “cherubim of glory.” As unto their use, it is expressed by κατασκιάζοντα. The Hebrew word in that language is of the masculine gender, but the apostle here useth it in the neuter, as appears by this participle; and so do the LXX. where they make mention of them. This, as some suppose, is done because for the most part they had the form of brute creatures; for so they say they had four faces, of a man, of a lion, of an ox, and of an eagle. But although there was this form in the appearance of them made unto Ezekiel, Ezekiel 1:10; yet was it not so of those images in the tabernacle, nor of them afterwards in the temple. But the only reason of this construction is, that Hebrew word not being translated as unto its signification, but literally transferred into the Greek language, is looked on as indeclinable, as all words foreign unto a language are, and belonging unto the neuter gender. “Shadowing,” “covering,” “protecting,” ρֹ ?λְ ?λִ ?ιν, Exodus 25:20, “They shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering over the mercy-seat with their wings;” or, “their wings covering over the mercy-seat.” But this office of the cherubim we cannot understand, until we have declared what was that mercy-seat which they so covered over, and which the apostle makes mention of in the last place. 2. The making and frame of it is declared, Exodus 25:17. In the Hebrew it is called capporeth, or cipporeth, from caphar. The verb in Kal signifies “to cover,” “to pitch over,” and thereby to cover, Genesis 6:14. Thence is capporeth, “a covering.” But this cipporeth is rendered by our apostle ἱλαστήριον, a “propitiatory,” a “mercy-seat;” as it is also by the LXX. sometimes, and sometimes by ἐπίθημα, an “imposed covering.” But whereas, in allusion hereunto, the Lord Christ is said to be ἱλαστήριον, Romans 3:25; and ἱλασμός, 1 John 2:2; that sense must be taken in, and so it is constantly rendered by our translation “the mercy-seat.” And in that sense it is derived from cipper in Pihel, which signifies “to remove or take away,” and consequently “to be propitious and merciful in taking away of sin;” as also “to appease,” “atone,” “reconcile,” and “purge,” whereby sin is taken away. See Genesis 32:20, “to appease;” Proverbs 16:14, “to pacify;” Psalms 65:3, “to purge away,” applied to sin, Psalms 78:38, “to forgive iniquities;” Deuteronomy 21:8, “to be merciful;” Psalms 79:9, “to expiate.” Thence is “the day of expiation,” the great day of fast unto the Jews. This is the fast which was said to be over, in the storm that Paul and his companions were in; for it was on the tenth day of the seventh month, about which season navigation is dangerous, Hence cipporeth is rendered ἱλαστήριον, “a mercy-seat.” Yet if we will have respect also unto the first sense of the verb, and its use in Exodus, we may render it “a covering mercy-seat.” The matter of this mercy-seat was of “pure beaten gold;” the measures of it exactly commensurate and answering unto that of the ark; “two cubits and an half the length of it, and a cubit and an half the breadth of it,” Exodus 25:10-16. As unto the use of it, it was put ξִ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ςְ ?μָ ?δςַ ?μΰּ ?δָ ?ΰָ ?ψֹ ?ο, verse 21, — “above upon the ark.” What was the thickness of it, there is no mention. The Jews say it was an hand-breadth; which is not likely. However, it was of considerable substance; for the cherubim were beaten out of it, at its ends, verses 18, 19. For the situation and posture of it, some suppose that it was held in the hands of the cherubim, at a good distance from the ark. And the reason they give for this conjecture is, that so it did best represent a throne. The mercy-seat was as the seat of it, and the ark as the footstool; for so they say it is called when the church is invited to “worship at his footstool,” Psalms 99:5. But this reason indeed everts the supposition which it was produced to confirm. For the ark and mercy-seat being exactly commensurate, and the one placed directly over the other, it could have no appearance of a footstool, which must be placed before the seat itself. Nor is there any mention of the hands of the cherubim, as there is directly of their feet, in those made by Solomon. Nor is it probable they had any, but only wings instead of them; although those in Ezekiel’s vision, as they served the providence of God, had “the hands of a man under their wings,” Ezekiel 1:8. Nor could it be called a covering unto the ark, if it were at that distance from it, as this conceit will make it to be.It was therefore laid immediately on the ark, so as the cherubim were represented to be above the throne; as the seraphim were in Isaiah’s vision, Isaiah 6:2. It had, as we observed, the just dimension of the ark. But the ark had “a crown of gold round about” it; that is, on its sides and its ends, Exodus 25:11; Exodus 37:2. But this crown or fringe of gold was so placed on the outsides of it, that it diminished nothing of its proportion of two cubits and a half in length and a cubit and a half in breadth. Wherefore the mercy-seat being exactly of the same measure, it fell in upon it, on the inside of the border or crown of gold.It remains only that we inquire whether it was itself the covering of the ark, or whether the ark had a covering of its own, which it was placed upon. It is certain that the ark was open when the testimony, or tables of stone with the law written in them, was put into it. And there is no mention of the opening or shutting of it, how it should be closed and fastened when the tables were put into it. These things, I suppose, would not have been omitted, had it had a covering of its own. Besides, it is certain that this propitiatory, and the cherubim belonging thereunto, were never to be separated from the ark; and when the ark was removed and carried by the staves, they were carried upon it. This is evident from hence, because, whereas all the other golden utensils had rings and staves wherewith they were borne, these had none, but must be carried in the hands of men, if they were not inseparable from the ark. And when the men of Beth- shemesh looked into the ark, it doth not appear that they first took off the mercy-seat with the cherubim, and then brake up the covering of the ark; but only lifted up the mercy-seat by the cherubim, which opened the ark, and discovered what was therein, 1 Samuel 6:19.I do judge, therefore, that this mercy-seat was the only covering of the ark above, falling in close within the crown of gold, exactly answering it in its dimensions. Out of this mercy-seat, of the same substance with it, and contiguous unto it, the cherubim being formed, their wings which were above, some distance from it, being turned towards it, did overshadow it, giving a representation of a glorious throne. This is a brief description of the utensils of the most holy place. The ark, which was as the heart and center of the whole, was placed at the west end of it, with its ends towards the sides of the place, the face as unto the entrance, and the back part unto the west end. Before it was placed the pot of manna, and the rod that budded, as afterwards; at one end of it was placed the book of the law. In the ark was the testimony, or the two tables of stone with the law written in them by the finger of God, and nothing else. When they were put into it, it was covered with the mercy-seat, and that shadowed with the wings of the cherubim. At the entrance into it was the golden altar of incense, with the golden censer; which although, as our apostle shows, it did in its use principally respect the service of this part of the tabernacle, yet could not be placed within the veil, because the high priest was not to enter himself until he had raised a cloud of incense, through which he entered. The apostle having given this account of the sanctuary in both parts of it, and what was contained in them, adds, “Of which we now cannot speak particularly;” or rather, “Concerning which things it is not now a season to speak particularly,” or of the several parts of it, one by one. And the reason hereof was, because he had an especial design to manage, from the consideration of the whole fabric, — the service of the high priest in it; which the particular consideration of each part by itself would have too much diverted him from. Howbeit he plainly intimates that all, and every one of them in particular, were of singular consideration, as typical of the Lord Christ and his ministry. For unto this end doth he reckon them up in order. Only it seemed good unto the Holy Ghost not to give unto the church a particular application of them in this place, but he hath left it unto our humble diligence to seek after it out of the Scripture, according unto the analogy of faith, and such rules of the interpretation of those mysteries as himself giveth, in the ensuing declaration of their nature, use, and end in general. This, therefore, I shall briefly endeavor; yet so as, according unto the example of the apostle, not to divert from the especial design of the place. As was said before so must I say again, expositors either pass by these things without any notice, or indulge unto various conjectures, without any certain rule of what they assert. Those of the Roman church are generally so taken up with their fourfold sense of the Scripture, literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical, — wherein for the most part they know not how to distinguish one from another, — that they wrest this and the like passages unto what sense they please. I shall keep myself unto a certain rule, and where that will not guide me, I shall not venture on any conjectures. When Ezekiel had his vision of God in the administration of his providence, he says of it, “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord,” Ezekiel 1:28.And we may say of this holy place with its furniture, ‘This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD in the administration of grace.’ Why God would in this manner, by these means, represent himself and the glory of his grace absolutely, we can give no reason but his own holy will and infinite wisdom. But this we find he did, and that with great solemnity. For first he made a glorious representation of it immediately by his own power in the mount. He showed a pattern of it in the mount; which was not only an exemplar of what he would have framed here below, but expressive of the idea in his own mind of good things to come. And thereon he gave command that it should in all things be made exactly according unto that pattern, enabling certain persons with wisdom, skill, and understanding so to do. And some things we may observe concerning the whole in general. 1. The nature of the things themselves, or the materials of the whole, being earthly, and the state of the church unto whose service it was allotted being imperfect, and designed so to be, two things did necessarily follow thereon: — (1.) That sundry concernments of it, as the outward shape, form, and dimensions both of the tabernacle and all its utensils, were accommodated unto the present state of the church. Hence were they made outwardly glorious and venerable; for the people being comparatively carnal, were affected with such things. Hence were they all portable also, at their first institution, to comply with the state of the people in the wilderness; whence alterations were made in all of them, excepting the ark and mercy-seat, on the building of the temple. In these things, therefore, we are not to seek for any mystical signification, for they were only in compliance with present use. They served, as the apostle immediately declares, unto the use of “carnal ordinances,” which were to continue unto the time of reformation only. (2.) That the resemblance of heavenly things in them was but dark and obscure, as the apostle expressly affirms, Hebrews 10:1. This both the nature of the things themselves, being earthly and carnal, with that state wherein the church was to be kept unto the fulness of time, did require.2. This yet is certain and indubitable, — which gives us our stable rule of the interpretation of their significancy, — that God chose this way and these means to represent his glorious presence in and with the LORD Christ, unto all the ends of his mediation. For with respect unto them it is said that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9; namely, as it dwelt typically in the tabernacle by the outward pledges of his especial presence. Whence he concludes that they were all “a shadow,” whereof “the body was Christ,” verse 17. But we need seek for no further testimony hereunto than the express design of the apostle in this place. For his whole discourse, in this and the ensuing chapter, is to manifest the representation of Christ in them all. And those who would have only an application to be made of something unto Christ by way of accommodation or allusion, as the Socinians contend, do reject the wisdom of God in their institution, and expressly contradict the whole scope of the apostle. We have, therefore, nothing else to do but to find out the resemblance which, as an effect of divine wisdom, and by virtue of divine institution, was in them unto God’s being in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. And to this end the things ensuing may be observed: — (1.) The spring, the life and soul of all this service, was the decalogue, “the ten words,” written in tables of stone, called “the tables of the covenant.” This is the eternal, unalterable rule of our relation unto God as rational creatures, capable of moral obedience and eternal rewards. Hereunto all this service related, as prefiguring the way whereby the church might be freed from the guilt of its transgression, and obtain the accomplishment of it in them and for them. For, —[1. It was given and prescribed unto the people, and by them accepted, as the terms of God’s covenant, before any of these things were revealed or appointed, Deuteronomy 5:2-27. Wherefore all these following institutions did only manifest how that covenant should be complied withal and fulfilled. [2. It was written in tables of stone, and those renewed after they were broken, before any of these things were prepared or erected, Exodus 34:1. God, by the occasional breaking of the first tables, on the sin of the people, declared that there was no keeping, no fulfilling of that covenant, before the provision made in these ordinances was granted unto the people. [3. The ark was made and appointed for no other end but to preserve and keep these tables of the covenant, or testimony of God, Exodus 25:16. And it was hereon the great token and pledge of the presence of God among the people, wherein his glory dwelt among them. So the wife of Phinehas the priest made the dying confession of her faith: she said,” The glory is departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken,” 1 Samuel 4:22. Wherefore, — [4. All other things, the whole tabernacle, with all the furniture, utensils, and services of it, were made and appointed to minister unto the ark; and when the ark was removed from them they were of no use nor signification. Wherefore, when it was absent from the tabernacle, “all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD,” 1 Samuel 7:2; for the remaining tabernacle was no longer unto them a pledge of his presence. And therefore, when Solomon afterwards had finished all the glorious work of the temple, with all that belonged unto it, “he assembled all the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant into its place” in the temple, 1 Kings 8:1-4. Before this was done, all that glorious and costly structure was of no sacred use. This order of things doth sufficiently evidence that the spring of all these services lay in the tables of the covenant. (2.) This law, as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works; for it contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image, and nothing else. It was the whole of what God designed in our creation unto his own glory and our everlasting blessedness. What was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3. (3.) Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Romans 8:3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 3:31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant. (4.) This law was given unto the people with great dread and terror. Hereby were they taught, and did learn, that they were no way able of themselves to answer or stand before the holiness of God therein. Hereon they desired that, on the account thereof, they might not appear immediately in the presence of God, but that they might have a mediator to transact all things between God and them, Deuteronomy 5:22-27.(5.) God himself by all ways declared, that if he should deal with the people according unto the tenor and rigor of this law, they could not stand before him. Wherefore on all occasions he calls them to place their confidence, not in their own obedience thereunto, but in his mercy and grace. And that this was their faith, themselves professed on all occasions. See Psalms 130:3-4; Psalms 143:2. (6.) All this God instructed them in, by those mystical vessels of the most holy place. For after the tables were put into the ark, as under his eye and in his presence, he ordained that it should be covered with the mercy-seat. For hereby he did declare both that the law was to be kept and fulfilled, and yet that mercy should be extended unto them.(7.) This great mystery he instructed them in three ways:[1. In that the covering of the ark was a propitiatory, a mercy-seat; and that its use was to cover the law in the presence of God. This was a great instruction; for if God should mark iniquities according unto the law, who should stand? [2. In that the blood of the atonement for sin was brought into the holy place and sprinkled on the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:14. And this was done seven times, to denote the perfection of the reconciliation that was made. And herein were they also taught, that the covering of the law by the mercy-seat, so as that mercy and pardon might be granted notwithstanding the sentence and curse of the law, was from the atonement made for sin by the expiatory sacrifice.[3. By the cloud of incense that covered both ark and mercy-seat, testifying that God received from thence a savor of rest, Leviticus 16:13. (8.) The cherubim, or angels under that denomination, were the ministers of God in executing the curse and punishment on man when, after his sin, he was driven out of the garden of God, Genesis 3:24. Hence ensued a fear and dread of angels on all mankind, which they abused unto manifold superstitions. But now, to testify that all things in heaven and earth should be reconciled and brought under one head, Ephesians 1:10, there was a representation of their ministry in this great mystery of the law and the mercy-seat. Wherefore they are ready unto the ministry of the church of mankind, all things being now reconciled, Hebrews 1:14, purely with respect unto the mercy-seat which their faces were turned towards, and which they shadowed with their wings.(9.) Yet was this mystery so great, — namely, that which was represented by these types, — that the angels themselves were to bow down to look into it, 1 Peter 1:12. So are they here represented in a posture of admiration and adoration. And in their overshadowing of the mercy-seat with their wings, they declared how this mystery in the fullness of it was hid from the eyes of all men. See Ephesians 3:8-12.(10.) The ground was originally blessed of God, to bring forth food for man, for the preservation of his life in that state and condition wherein he was to live unto God according unto the covenant of works, Genesis 1:29; but upon the entrance of sin it was cursed, neither are the fruits of it any more a token or pledge of the favor of God, nor are they sufficient to maintain a life unto God, Genesis 3:17-18. Wherefore God declared that there must be bread given the church from heaven, which might maintain a spiritual life in them. This God did by giving them manna in the wilderness. And that all instructions in grace and mercy might be reduced into a head in this holy place, because of that whereof it was a type, a pot filled with it was placed for a memorial in this holy place, before the ark and mercy-seat. See Psalms 78:24-25; John 6:31. Hereby were they taught to look for the bread of life from heaven, which should maintain them in their spiritual, and nourish them unto eternal life.(11.) When the whole church was ready to perish for want of water, a rock was smitten with the rod of Moses, which brought water out of it unto their refreshment. God taught them thereby that the Rock of Ages was to be smitten with the rod of the law, that the waters of life might be brought forth thereby, 1 Corinthians 10:4. Wherefore this rod also was laid up for an instructive memorial before the ark.In all these things did God instruct the church by the tabernacle, especially by this most holy place, the utensils, furniture, and services of it. And the end of them all was, to give them such a representation of the mystery of his grace in Christ Jesus as was meet for the state of the church before his actual exhibition in the flesh. Hence he is declared in the gospel to be the body and substance of them all. And I shall endeavor, with all humble reverence, to make that application of them unto him which Scripture light guides us unto. 1. In his obedience unto God according unto the law he is the true ark, wherein the law was kept inviolate; that is, was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished, Matthew 5:17; Romans 8:3; Romans 10:4. Hence by God’s gracious dealing with sinners, pardoning and justifying them freely, the law is not disannulled, but established, Romans 3:31. That this was to be done, that without it no covenant between God and man could be firm and stable, was the principal design of God to declare in all this service; without the consideration whereof it was wholly insignificant. This was the original mystery of all these institutions, that in and by the obedience of the promised seed, the everlasting, unalterable law should be fulfilled. In him, as the Jews speak, was the “law restored unto its pristine crown,” signified by that crown of gold which was round about the ark wherein the law was kept. Then had the law its crown and glory, when it was fulfilled in Christ. This the church of Israel ought to have learned and believed, and did so whilst they continued to pray for mercy “for the Lord’s sake,” as Daniel 9:17. But afterwards, when they rejected the knowledge hereof, and adhered unto the law absolutely as written in tables of stone, they utterly perished, Romans 9:31-33; Romans 10:2-3. And they do all yet, what lieth in them, return unto the material ark and tables of stone, who reject the accomplishment of the law in and by Jesus Christ. 2. He was the mercy-seat; that is, he was represented by it. So the apostle speaks expressly, “God set him forth to be ἱλαστήριον,” Romans 3:25, — “a propitiation;” that is, to answer the mercy-seat and what was signified thereby. And this was to cover the law under the eye of God. He interposeth between God and his throne and the law, that he may not enter into judgment with us in pursuit of the curse of it. The law required obedience, and threatened the curse in case of disobedience. With respect unto the obedience which it required, Christ was the ark in whom it was fulfilled; and with respect unto the curse of the law, he was the mercy-seat or propitiation whereby atonement was made, that the curse should not be inflicted, Galatians 3:13.3. It was his blood in figure that was carded into the holy place to make atonement, as the apostle declares at large in this chapter. The efficacy of his blood, when he offered himself an expiatory sacrifice for sin unto God, prevailed for an atonement in the holy place not made with hands. See Hebrews 10:11-14.4. It is his intercession that is the cloud of incense which covers the ark and mercy-seat. This gives a continual sweet savor unto God from his oblation, and renders acceptable all the worship of the church in their approaches unto him, Revelation 8:3. These things did God instruct the church in by types and figures, to prepare their faith for the receiving of him at his actual oblation. And on the representation so made of him, all that truly believed lived in the expectation of him and longing after him, with the departure of these shadows of good things to come, Son 2:17; Son 8:14; Luke 10:24; 1 Peter 1:10-11. And the refusal of this instruction was that which ruined this church of the Hebrews.5. It was He who took off the original curse of the law, whose first execution was committed unto the cherubim, when man was driven out of the garden, and kept from all approaches unto the tree of life. Hereby he made reconciliation between them and the elect church of God, Ephesians 1:10. Hence have they now a ministry with respect unto the mercy-seat, for the good of “the heirs of salvation,” Hebrews 1:14.6. He was the bread of life, typed by the manna kept in the golden pot before the mercy-seat; for he alone is the nourishment of the spiritual life of men. The mystery hereof himself at large declares, John 6:31-35. This were they taught to expect in the memorial of that heavenly food which was preserved in the sanctuary.7. He was that spiritual rock which was smitten with the rod of Moses, the curse and stroke of the law. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Having given an account of the structure or fabric of the tabernacle in the two parts of it, and the furniture of those several parts distinctly, to complete his argument the apostle adds in these verses the consideration of the uses they were designed unto in the service of God. For in the application of these things unto his purpose and the argument he designeth from them, both of these in conjunction, namely, the structure of the tabernacle with its furniture, and the services performed therein, were to be made use of. Hebrews 9:6-7. — Τούτωνδὲοὕτωκατεσκευασμένων, εἰςμὲντὴνπρώτηνσκηνὴνδιαπαντὸςεἰσίασινοἱἱερεῖςτὰςλατρείαςἐπιτελοῦντες·εἰςδὲτὴνδευτέρανἅπαξτοῦἐνιαυτοῦμόνοςὁἀρχιερεὺς, οὐχωρὶςαἵματος, ὅπροσφέρειὑπὲρἑαυτοῦκαὶτῶντοῦλαοῦἀγνοημάτων.[3] [3] . — Instead of the past tense, “went,” it seems agreed that “enter,” and “entereth” should be substituted; as also, verse 9, “can” instead of “could;” and Hebrews 10:1, “offer” instead of” offered.” The tense sheds light on the date of the epistle, as written before the destruction of the temple. — ED. Τούτωνδὲοὕτωκατεσκευασμένων. Vulg. Lat., “his vero ita compositis;” “so composed,” “so framed and put together.” Syr., δֲ ?ιַ ?ιγְּ ?δָ ?λַ ?πָּ ?ΰξְ ?ϊַ ?χְ ?πֵ ?ο, “quae ira disposita erant,” “which things were so disposed;” altering the absolute construction of the words, and carrying on the sense of the former [verse] thus far. Others, “his vero ita ordinatis,” “ita praeparatis;” “thus ordered,” “thus prepared,” “thus ordained.” “Ornatis,” “adorned.” Beza, “constructis.” Κατασκευὰζω is the ordering, placing, or fixing of vessels, or any materials prepared for use.Εἰςτὴνπροώτηνσκηνὴν. Vulg. Lat., “in priori tabernaculo;” for “in prius tabernaculum.” Syr., μְ ?ξַ ?ωְׁ ?λְ ?πָ ?ΰαַּ ?ιְ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “into the outward tabernacle;” that is, of those parts mentioned by the apostle.Διαπαντός. Vulg. Lat., “semper,” “always.” Syr., αְּ ?λֻ ?μΰּ ?ζְ ?λַ ?ο, “in omni ternpore;” others generally, “quovis tempore;” “at every season,” at any time, as occasion required.Τὰςλατρείαςἐπιτελοῦντες. Vulg. Lat., “sacrificiorum officia consummantes,” “perfecting to this part” or “offices of the sacrifices;” but the sacrifices belonged not at all unto the duties of the tabernacle. Syr., εַ ?ξַ ?ωַׁ ?μְ ?ξִ ?ιοδֲ ?εַ ?εϊֶּ ?ωְׁ ?ξֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊְּ ?δεּ ?ο, “and they were perfecting their ministry.” “Ritus obeuntes,” “cultus obeuntes;” Beza, “ritus cultus obeuntes;” — “performing the rites of sacred worship.” Εἰςδὲτὴνδευτέραν. Vulg. Lat., “in secundo autem.” Syr., γַּ ?μְ ?βַ ?εξֶ ?πֵ ?δּ μְ ?ξַ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?πָ ?ΰγֵּ ?ιο, “and into the tabernacle that was within it,” or “within the other.” “In secundum autem,” “sed in alterum;” “but into the second,” or “the other.”῞Απαξ. Syr., ηֲ ?γָ ?ΰδεּ; which Boderus renders substantively, “unum est,” “that inward tabernacle was one.” But the reference is unto what follows, and is better rendered adverbially, “semel,” “once.”Οὐχωρὶςαἵματος, “non sine sanguine.” Syr., “cum sanguine illo,” “with that blood.”῞Οπροσφέρει. Vulg. Lat., Eras., “quem offert;” Syr., “which he was offering,” “which he offereth.” ῾Υπὲρἑαυτοῦκαὶτῶνλαοῦἀγνοημάτων. Vulg. Lat., pro sua et populi ignorantia;” very corruptly. Syr., ηֲ ?μָ ?σπַ ?τְ ?ωֵׁ ?δεַ ?ηֲ ?μָ ?σρַ ?λְ ?μεּ ?ϊֵ ?δּ γְּ ?ςַ ?ξָּ ?ΰ “for his own soul, and the errors of the people;” rightly.Hebrews 9:6-7. — Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God.] But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people.I follow the common translation, but shall take notice of what it seems defective in. And there is in the words, — First, A supposition of what was before declared, as the foundation of what he was now further to assert: “Now when these things were thus ordained.” And there is therein,1. The manner of the inference; 2. The subject spoken of; 3. What is spoken of it: —1. The manner of the inference is the particle δέ, which we ponder “now when;” “vero,” “but.” “Now when” is included in the tense of the participle, 2. The subject spoken of, τούτων, “these things;” that is, the things spoken of in the precedent verses, — namely, the two parts of the tabernacle, and the sacred furniture of them.3. That which is affirmed of them is, that they were “ordained.” And the manner thereof is also added, that they were “thus ordained,” — κατεσκευασμένων. Beza once rendered it by “ordinatis;” whom I suppose ours follow, rendering it by “ordained.” But “ordinatis” is rather“ordered’than “ordained.” “To be ordained,” signifies the appointment and designation of them; and so they were ordained of God: but that which is here expressed is their building, framing, finishing, and disposition into their actual order. So the word is used for the making of the tabernacle, verse 2: “A tabernacle was made.” ‘These things being prepared, made, and finished.’The preparation, structure, and finishing of the tabernacle, and all its utensils, with their disposition into their sacred order, are respected in this word. They were “disposed” οὕτω, “thus;” that is, in the manner declared, — that the tabernacle should consist of two parts, that the one should contain such and such holy utensils, and the other those of another sort. Secondly, When these things were thus prepared and ordered, they stood not for a magnificent show, but were designed unto constant use in the service of God. This the apostle declares, in the same order wherein he had described the parts of the tabernacle in their distribution into the first and the second, the outward and inward tabernacle.As to the first tabernacle, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread, he declares the use of it, 1. With respect unto the persons for whose ministry it was ordained; 2. Of that ministry itself; 3. Of the time and season of its performance.1. The persons who administered therein were the priests. They, and they alone, entered into the sanctuary. All others were forbidden to approach unto it, on pain of excision. These priests, who had this privilege, were all the posterity of Aaron, unless they fell under exception by some legal incapacitating blemish. For a long time, — that is, from the preparing of the tabernacle unto the building of the temple, — they administered in this sanctuary promiscuously, under the care of God and directions of the high priest. For the inspection of the whole was committed in an especial manner unto the high priest, Numbers 4:16; Zechariah 3:7; yea, the actual performance of the daily service of this part of the sanctuary was in the first place charged on him, Exodus 27:21. But the other priests being designed to help and assist him on all occasions, this service in process of time was wholly devolved on them. And if the high priest did at any time minister in this part of the sanctuary, he did it not as the high priest, but as a priest only, for all his peculiar service belonged unto the most holy place.In process of time, when the priests of the posterity of Aaron were multiplied, and the services of the sanctuary were to be increased by the building of the temple, wherein instead of one candlestick there were ten, David, by God’s direction, cast all the priests into twenty-four courses or orders, that should serve in their turns, two courses in a month; which rule continued unto the destruction of the second temple, 1 Chronicles 24; Luke 1:5. And he did it for sundry ends:(1.) That none of the priests of the posterity of Aaron might be utterly excluded from this privilege of approaching unto God in the sanctuary; and if they had been, it is likely they would have disposed of themselves into other ways and callings, and so have both neglected and defiled the priesthood.(2.) That there might be no neglect at any time in the solemn ministry, seeing that which lies on all promiscuously is too often neglected by all. For although the high priest was to “keep the charge, to judge the house, and to keep the courts,” Zechariah 3:7, and so take care for the due attendance unto the daily ministration; yet was the provision more certain, when, being ordained by law, or by divine institution, all persons concerned herein knew the times and seasons wherein they might and wherein they ought to attend on the altar. These were the officers that belonged unto the sanctuary, the persons who alone might enter into it on a sacred account. And when the structure of the whole was to be taken down, that it might be removed from one place to another, as it was frequently in the wilderness, the whole was to be done by the priests, and all the holy utensils covered, before the Levites were admitted to draw nigh to carry them, so as they might not touch them at all, Numbers 4:15. Yet must it be observed, that although this was the peculiar service of the priests, yet was it not their only service. Their whole sacred employment was not confined unto this their entrance into the sanctuary. There was a work committed unto them, whereon their whole service in the sanctuary did depend. This was the offering of sacrifices; which was accomplished in the court without, on the brazen altar before the door of the tabernacle: which belonged not unto the purpose of the apostle in this place. This was the great privilege of the priests under the old testament, that they alone might and did enter into the sanctuary, and make an approach unto God. And this privilege they had as they were types of Christ, and no otherwise. But withal it was a great part and a great means of that state of servitude and fear wherein the people or the body of the church was kept. They might not so much as come nigh the pledges of God’s presence; it was forbidden them under the penalty of death and being cut off; whereof they sadly complained, Numbers 17:12-13.This state of things is now changed under the gospel. It is one of the principal privileges of believers, that, being made kings and priests unto God by Jesus Christ, this distinction as unto especial gracious access unto God is taken away, Revelation 1:5-6; Ephesians 2:18; Romans 5:2. Neither doth this hinder but that yet there are and ought to be officers and ministers in the house of God, to dispense the holy things of it, and to minister in the name of Christ, For in their so doing they do not hinder, but promote, the approach of the church into the presence of God; which is the principal end of their office. And as this is their peculiar honor, for which they must be accountable, Hebrews 13:17; so the church of believers itself ought always to consider how they may duly improve and walk worthy of this privilege, purchased for them by the blood of Christ. 2. The general foundation of the service of these priests in the sanctuary was, that they went or entered into it, — εἰσίασιν. This also itself was a divine ordinance. For this entrance both asserted their privilege, all others being excluded on pain of death, and gave hounds unto it. Hereinto they were to enter; but they were to go ‘no farther: they were not to go into or look into the most holy place, nor to abide in the sanctuary when the high priest entered into it; which the apostle here hath an especial regard unto. They entered into the first tabernacle, but they went no farther. Hereinto they entered through the first veil, or the covering of the door of the tabernacle, Exodus 26:36-37. Through that veil, by turning it aside, so as that it closed immediately on their entrance, the priests entered into the sanctuary. And this they were to do with an especial reverence of the presence of God; which is the principal design of that command, “Ye shall reverence my sanctuary,” Leviticus 19:30 : which is now supplied by the holy reverence of the presence of God in Christ which is in all believers. But moreover, the equity of the command extends itself unto that especial reverence of God which we ought to have in all holy services. And although this be not confined unto any postures or gestures of the body, yet those that naturally express a reverential frame of spirit are necessary unto this duty. 3. The time of this their entrance into the sanctuary to discharge their service is expressed. They entered it διαπαντός: that is, χρόνου, “quovis tempore;” “always,” say we; “jugiter,” that is, “every day.” There was no divine prohibition as unto any days or times wherein they might not enter into the sanctuary, as there was with respect unto the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, which was allowed only once a year. And the services that were required of them made it necessary that they should enter into it every day. But the word doth not absolutely signify “every day,” seeing there was a special service for which they entered only once a- week; but “always,” is “at all times,” as occasion did require. There was also an especial service, when the high priest entered into the sanctuary, which was neither daily nor weekly, but occasional; which is mentioned, Leviticus 4:6-7. For when the anointed priest was to offer a sacrifice for his own sins, he was to carry some of the blood of it into the sanctuary, and sprinkle it towards the veil that was before the most holy place. This he was to do seven times; which is a mystical number, denoting that perfect atonement and expiation of sin which was to be made by the blood of Christ. But this being an occasional service, the apostle seems to have had no respect unto it.4. The service itself performed by them is expressed: Τὰςλατρείαςἐπιτελοῦντες, — “Accomplishing the services.” The expression is sacred, respecting mystical rites and ceremonies, such as were the things here intended: ‘Officiating in the ministry of the sacred ceremonies.’For ἐπιτελοῦντες is not “perfecting” or “accomplishing” only, but “sacredly ministering:” ‘In discharge of the priestly office, accomplishing the sacred services committed unto them.’And these services were of two sorts: (1.) Daily. (2.) Weekly.(1.) Their daily services were two:[1. The dressing of the lamps of the candlestick, supplying them with the holy oil, and taking care of all things necessary unto the cleansing of them, that their light might be preserved. This was done morning and evening, a continual service in all generations, — the service of the candlestick, — λατρεία.[2. The service of the golden altar, the altar of incense in the midst of the sanctuary, at the entrance of the most holy place, before or over against the ark of the testimony. Hereon the priests burned incense every day, with fire taken from the altar of burnt-offerings, that was in the court before the door of the tabernacle. This service was performed evening and morning, immediately after the offering of the daily sacrifice on the altar of burnt- offerings. And whilst this service was performed the people gave themselves to prayer without, with respect unto the sacrifices offered, Luke 1:10. For this offering of incense on the sacrifice, and that fired with a coal from the altar whereon the sacrifice was burned, was a type, as we have declared, of the intercession of Christ. For although they understood it not clearly in the notion, yet were true believers guided to express it in their practice. The time of the priest’s offering incense they made the time of their own solemn prayers, as believing that the efficacy and acceptance of their prayers depended on what was typified by that incense, Psalms 141:2. These were the daily services. It is uncertain whether they were all performed at the same time or no; namely, those of the candlestick and the altar of incense. If they were, it should seem that they were done by no more but one priest at one time; that is, every morning and evening. For of Zacharias it is said, that” it was his lot to burn incense in the temple;” and no other was with him there when he saw the vision, Luke 1:8-9; Luke 1:21-22. Wherefore, whereas it is said in the institution of these things, “Aaron and his sons shall do this service,” it is intended that some one of them should do it at any one time.(2.) The weekly service of the sanctuary was the change of the bread on the table of shew-bread. This was performed every Sabbath-day in the morning, and not else. Now all this daily service was typical. And that which it did represent was the continual application of the benefits of the sacrifice and whole mediation of Christ unto the church here in this world. That the tabernacle itself with the inhabitation of God therein was a type of the incarnation of the Son of God, we have showed before; and have also declared that all the utensils of it were but representations of his grace in the discharge of his office. He is the light and life of the church, the lamp and the bread thereof. The incense of his intercession renders all their obedience acceptable unto God. And therefore there was a continual application made unto these things without intermission every day. And we may thence observe, that, — Obs. A continual application unto God by Christ, and a continual application of the benefits of the mediation of Christ by faith, are the springs of the light, life, and comfort of the church.Hebrews 9:7. — “But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people.”The use and service of the second part of the tabernacle, or the most holy place, which the apostle designeth principally to apply unto his present argument, are declared in this present verse. And he describes them, 1. By the person who alone might perform the service which belonged unto this part of the sanctuary; and this was the high priest.2. By that which in general was required unto the other part of it; he went into it. This is not here expressed, but the sense of it is traduced from the foregoing verse. The other priests entered into the sanctuary, and the high priest into this; that is, he entered or went into it.3. From the time and season of this his entrance, which was once a-year only; in opposition unto the entrance of the priests into the other part, which was at all times, every day.4. By the manner of his entrance, or what he carried with him to administer or perform the holy service of the place, expressed negatively; not without blood, — that is, with blood.5. From the use of the blood which he so carried in with him; it was that which he offered for himself and the errors of the people. That which the apostle here respects and describes was the great anniversary sacrifice of expiation, whose institution, rites, and solemnities are at large declared, Leviticus 16. And herein, — 1. The person designed unto this service was the “high priest alone,” and no other person, Leviticus 16:2; Leviticus 16:32. And he was to be so alone as that none were to attend, assist, or accompany him, in any part of the service. Yea, it was so far from it, that any person entered with him into the most holy place, that no one was allowed to be in the other part of the sanctuary, where he might so much as see the veil opened, or look in after him whilst he performed his service, verse 17. As all the people were kept out of the sanctuary and waited at the door whilst the priests entered daily into it; so all the priests were kept without the sanctuary whilst the high priest entered into the most holy place. Hence there was one always provided, who was next in succession unto that office, to perform this office in case of sickness or occasional pollutions of him who was actually high priest. And he was called “the second priest,” 2 Kings 25:18. From whence, in times of disorder and confusion, they had afterwards two high priests at once, John 18:13; John 18:24. Thus sacredly was the presence of God in the holy place made inaccessible, not only to all the people, but even unto all the priests themselves.Some say that indeed the high priest went alone into the most holy place once a-year only, but with other priests and on other occasions he might enter oftener. But this is weak beneath consideration; for the express institution was, that he should go alone, and go but once. And this was that great truth which in this ordinance God stated unto the church, namely, that there is no entrance into the gracious presence of God but by the high priest. That the true high priest should take along all believers with him, and give them admission with boldness unto the throne of grace, was, as the apostle declares in the next verse, not as yet made known. 2. The way whereby he engaged into this service was, that he went into this holy place. This, as we observed before, is not here expressed, but is necessarily traduced from the foregoing verse. And it is his entrance through the veil that is intended; which also was a part of his service. For it was a type both of the entrance of Christ into heaven, and of our entrance by him unto the throne of grace, Hebrews 9:24, Hebrews 10:19-20. This was that veil which in the temple was rent from the top to the bottom upon the death of our Savior, Matthew 27:51. For hereby the way was laid open into the holy place, and the gracious presence of God discovered unto all that come unto him by Christ. 3. The time of this service is expressed, that it was only “once every year.” The first order unto this purpose was a prohibition or negative precept, that the high priest “should not come at all times into the holy place,” Leviticus 16:2; that is, not every day, as he did into the sanctuary, — not at any time of his own choice. He might not choose, he might not appoint a time for the service of this holy place, whatever occasion he apprehended of it or necessity for it. Times of sacred worship are the Lord’s, no less than the things of it. Our own stated times are no less disapproved by him than any other parts of sacred worship of our own finding out, 1 Kings 12:32-33. And as this time of the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place was limited unto “once every year,” which our apostle observes; so the precise day of the year was determined by the law. It was fixed unto “the tenth day of the seventh month,” or Tisri; which, reckoning from Nisan, the beginning of their ecclesiastical year, answers unto our September. This was the great day of atonement, which with the fast of it ensued thereon, Leviticus 16:29.But whereas it is said that he entered “once every year,” the meaning is, that upon one day in the year only he did so, and had liberty so to do: for it is evident that on that day he went twice into it; yea, it is most probable that he did so four times. He had three offerings or sacrifices to offer on the day of expiation. The First was of a bullock and a ram, for himself and his household, Leviticus 16:3. This the apostle notes distinctly, “which he offered for himself.”Secondly, a goat, for a sin-offering, which he offered for the people, for “the errors of the people,” Leviticus 16:9. Thirdly, the service of the scape-goat, which also had the nature of a sacrifice, Leviticus 16:10. Of the first two, whose blood was offered on the altar, it is said distinctly that he carried of the blood into the most holy place. He did so, first that of the bullock and the ram, before he offered the goat for the sins of the people. He killed not the goat until he came out of the holy place, after he had carried in the blood of the sacrifice for himself, Leviticus 16:11-14. After this he carried in the blood of the goat that was offered for the sins of the people, Leviticus 16:15. So that of necessity he must enter twice distinctly on that one day into the most holy place. Yea, it is most probable and almost very certain, that he entered into it four times on that day. For before he carried in the blood, he was to go in with the incense to make a cloud over the mercy-seat. And it is evident that he could not carry in the incense and the blood at the same time: for when he went in with the incense, he had in one hand a censer full of burning coals from the altar, and he so carried it, that besides both his hands were filled with incense, Leviticus 16:12; so that he could carry no blood with him at that time. And when he carried in the blood also, both his hands were in like manner employed. For with the finger of one he was to sprinkle the blood upon and before the mercy-seat: whence it is of necessity that he must have had the blood which he sprinkled in his other hand; for he was to sprinkle it seven times, which could not be done with the blood that was at once upon the finger wherewith he sprinkled it. Wherefore this” once every year” is on one day only; for that day he entered four times into the holy place within the veil, as is plain in the order of the service according unto its institution. When all this was done, that there might be a full representation of the atonement to be made by the Lord Christ, and of the plenary remission of sins by his blood, the high priest laid all the sins of the people on the head of the scape-goat, which carried them away into the wilderness of everlasting oblivion, Leviticus 16:20-22. As these institutions were multiplied to typify the one single sacrifice and oblation of the body of Christ, because of the imperfection inseparable from the nature of earthly things, whereby no one of them could absolutely represent it; so in this distinction and distribution of them, the condescension, love, and grace of God, were adorable and glorious. For in the shedding of the blood of the sacrifice, and offering it by fire on the altar, he plainly declared the imputation of the guilt of their sins unto the sacrifice, its bearing of them, and the expiation of their guilt thereby. By carrying of the blood into the holy place, he testified his acceptance of the atonement made, and his reconciliation unto the people. And hereon the full remission and pardon of all their sins, no more to be had in remembrance, was manifested, in the sending away of the scape-goat into the wilderness. Hence the Jews have a saying, that on the day of expiation all Israel were made as innocent as in the day of creation. How all this was accomplished in and by the sacrifice of Christ must be afterwards declared. 4. As to the nature of this service, the apostle tells us that it was “not without blood.” tie so expresseth it to show the impossibility of entering into the holy place any otherwise. And from hence he takes his ensuing argument of the necessity of the death and blood-shedding of the mediator or high priest of the new testament. “Not without blood;” as he might not do it otherwise, so he did it by blood. And this was the manner of the service: After the high priest had filled the most holy place with a cloud of incense, he returned to the altar of burnt-offerings without the tabernacle, where the sacrifice had been newly slain; and whilst the blood of the beast was fresh, and as it were living, Hebrews 10:20, he took of it in his hand, and entering again into the holy place, he sprinkled it seven times with his finger towards the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:11-14. And there is, as was said, an emphasis in the expression, “Not without blood,” to manifest how impossible it was that there should be an entrance into the gracious presence of God without the blood of the sacrifice of Christ. The only propitiation for sins is made by the blood of Christ; and it is by faith alone that we are made partakers thereof, Romans 3:25-26.5. This blood is further described by the use of it; “which he offered.” Where or when he offered it, is not expressed. In the most holy place there was no use of this blood, but only the sprinkling of it; but the sprinkling of blood was always consequential unto the offering or oblation properly so called. For the oblation consisted principally in the atonement made by the blood at the altar of burnt-offerings. It was given and appointed for that end, to make atonement with it at that altar, as is expressly affirmed, Leviticus 17:11. After this, it was sprinkled for purification. Wherefore, by προσφέρει, the apostle here renders the Hebrew δֵ ?αִ ?ιΰ, used in the institution, Leviticus 16:15; which is only to bring, and not to offer properly. Or he hath respect unto the offering of it that was made at the altar without the sanctuary. The blood which was there offered he brought a part of it with him into the most holy place, to sprinkle it, according unto the institution. 6. The apostle declares for whom this blood was offered. And this was “for himself and the people;” first for himself, and then for the people. For he hath respect unto the distinct sacrifices that were to be offered on that day. The first was of a bullock and a ram; which was for himself. And this argued, as the apostle observes, the great imperfection of that church-state. They could have no priest to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people, but he must first offer for himself, and that the blood of other creatures. But the true high priest was to offer his own blood; and that not for himself at all, but for others only. (1.) He offered “for himself;” that is, for his own sins, Leviticus 16:6. Wherefore the Vulg. Lat. reads the words, “pro sua et populi ignorantia,” very corruptly, changing the number of the substantive; but very truly applying ἀγνοημάτων to the priest as well as unto the people. Others would supply the words by adding τῶν before ἑαυτοῦ, and so repeat ἀγνοημάτων. But the apostle expresseth the words of the institution, ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰּ ?μεֹ, “which for himself,” leaving the application unto the series of the context and the nature of the service: “For himself;” — that is, his own sins.(2.) The blood was offered also “for the people;” that is, the people of Israel, the people of God, the church, the whole congregation. And as the high priest herein bore the person of Christ, so did this people of all the elect of God, who were represented in them and by them. It was that people, and not the whole world, that the high priest offered for; and it is the elect people alone for whom our great high priest did offer and doth intercede.7. That which he offered for. It was their “errors,” or their sins. The Socinians, some of them, — not for want of under standing, but out of hatred unto the true sacrifice of Christ, — contend from hence that the anniversary sacrifice on the great day of expiation, the principal representation of it, was only for sins of ignorance, of imbecility and weakness. But it is a fond imagination; at least the argument from these words for it is so. For besides that the Scripture calls all sins by the name of “errors,” Psalms 19:12; Psalms 25:7; and the worst, the most provoking of all sins, is expressed by “erring in heart,” Psalms 95:10; and the LXX. frequently render “to sin” by ἀγνοεῖν, 2 Chronicles 16:9; 1 Samuel 26:21; Hosea 4:16, etc; — besides, I say, this application of the word elsewhere unto all sorts of sins, in the enumeration of those errors of the people which the high priest offered for they are said to be “all their iniquities,” and “all their transgressions in all their sins,” Leviticus 16:21. Wherefore to offer for the “errors” of the people, is to offer for “all their sins,” of what nature soever they were. And they are thus called, because indeed there is no such predominancy of malice in any sin in this world as wherein there is not a mixture of error, either notional or practical, of the mind or of the heart, which is the cause or a great occasion of it. See 1 Timothy 1:13; Matthew 12:31-32. Here, indeed, lies the original of all sin. The mind being filled with darkness and ignorance, alienates the whole soul from the life of God. And as it hath superadded prejudices, which it receives from corrupt affections, it yet neither directs nor judgeth aright, as unto particular acts and duties, under all present circumstances. And what notions of good and evil it cannot but retain, it gives up in particular instances unto the occasions of sin. Wherefore, —Obs. 1. Spiritual illumination of the mind is indispensably necessary unto our walking with God.Obs. 2. Those who would be preserved from sin, must take care that spiritual light do always bear sway in their minds. And therefore, —Obs. 3. Constantly to watch against the prevalency of corrupt prejudices and affections in their mind. And, —Obs. 4. When the light of the mind is solicited by temptations to suspend its conduct and determination on present circumstances, to know that sin lies at the door; this is its last address for admission. And, —Obs. 5. If error grow strong in the heart through the love of sin, truth will grow weak in the mind as to the preservation of the soul from it. And, —Obs. 6. Nothing ought to influence the soul more unto repentance, sorrow, and humiliation for sin, than a due apprehension of the shameful error and mistake that is in it. ΤοῦτοδηλοῦντοςτοῦΠνεύματοςτοῦἁγίουμήπωπεφανερῶσθαιτὴντῶνἁγίωνὁδὸν, ἔτιτῆςπρώτηςσκηνῆςἐχούσηςστάσιν.Τοῦτοδηλοῦντος. Vulg. Lat., “hoe significante,” “hoc declarante,” “hoc innuente.” Syr., αְּ ?δָ ?γָ ?ΰξַ ?εְ ?γְ ?ςָ ?ΰ“by this manifesting.” “Manifestans,” “patefaciens,” “notum faciens;” “making known.” Δῆλος, is “openly manifest.” Καὶτυφλῷδῆλον, “which a blind man may see.” And δηλόω, is “manifestly, plainly, perspicuously to declare.”Μήπωπεφανερῶσθαι. Vulg. Lat., nondum propalatam esse, made palam, “open,” “manifest.” Syr., μָ ?ΰΰֶ ?ϊְ ?βַ ?μְ ?ιַ ?ϊςַ ?γλִ ?ιμ, “not yet revealed.”“Manifestata,” “facta manifests;” “not made evidently to appear.” Τὴντῶνἁγίωνὁδόν. Vulg. Lat., “viam sanctorum,” “the way of the holies.” Beza, “viam ad sacrarium,” “the way into the sanctuary.” “Viam in sancta sanctorum,” “the way into the most holy place.” None suspect ἁγίων to be of the masculine gender.᾿Εχούσηςστάσιν. Vulg. Lat., “habente statum,” “having” or “continuing its state or condition.” And στάσις is sometimes so used; “having its station;” “adhuc consistente,” as yet abiding, continuing its state, standing, consisting.Hebrews 9:8. — The Holy Ghost this signifying, [Syr., signifying hereby, evidently declaring,] that the way into the holiest of all [the way of the most holy place, of the holies] was not as yet made manifest, whilst yet the first tabernacle was standing, [kept its station].The apostle in this verse enters on a declaration of the use which he designed to make of the description of the tabernacle, its furniture and its utensils, which he had before laid down. Now, this was not to give a particular account of the nature, use, and signification of every thing in it, — which he declined in his close of the recounting of them, affirming that it belonged not to his purpose to treat of them particularly on this occasion, — but from the consideration of the whole, in its structure, order, and services, he would prove the dignity, pre-eminence, and efficacy of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, above those which belonged thereunto. And hence would he manifest the unspeakable advantage of the church in the removal of the one and introduction of the other. The first inference which he makes unto this purpose is laid down in this verse. And it is taken from what he had observed immediately before concerning the time and manner of the high priest’s entrance into the most holy place. It was done by him alone, and that only once a-year, and that not without the blood of the sacrifices which he offered. None of the people were ever suffered to draw nigh thereunto; nor might the rest of the priests themselves come into the sanctuary, the place of their daily ministration, whilst the high priest went in, and was in the most holy place. ‘In this order, this disposal of the institutions of divine service,’saith he, ‘there was that instruction provided for the use of the church which I shall now declare.’And three things he expresseth with respect hereunto: 1. Who gave that instruction; it was the Holy Ghost.2. The way whereby he gave it; it was by the manifest signification of his mind, in and by what he did, appointed, ordered, or prescribed.3. What was the instruction he gave; namely, “that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, whilst the first tabernacle was standing.”And concerning this we must inquire, 1. What is here intended by “the holiest of all.”2. What is the “way into this holiest of all,” or “the way of the holies.”3. How this way was “manifest,” and how it was “not manifest.”4. What was the duration of that state wherein this way was not manifest; namely, “whilst the first tabernacle was standing.”First, The author of this instruction was the Holy Ghost: “The Holy Ghost this signifying;” that is, saith Grotius, “Deo per affiatum suum Mosi haec prsecipiente.” So they speak by whom the divine personality of the Holy Ghost is denied. But it is not only here supposed, but it may be hence undeniably proved. For he that by his word and works teacheth and instructeth the church, is a person. For acts of understanding, will, power, and authority, such as these are, are the acts of a person. We intend no more by a person, but one that hath an understanding, will, and power of his own, which he is able to act and exert. Moreover, he is a divine person. For he who by his authority and wisdom disposed of the worship of God under the old testament, so as it might typify and represent things afterwards to come to pass and be revealed, is so, and none other. He who doth these things, and can do them, is he in whom we believe, the Holy Spirit. And as he is the immediate author and appointer of all divine worship, so there are characters of his wisdom and holiness on all the parts of it. Secondly, The way whereby he gave this instruction was by the signification of the things intended, — “signifying, declaring manifestly, evidently, openly.” He did it not by any especial revelation made unto Moses about it, he did not in words declare it, or express it as a doctrinal truth; but this signification was made in the nature and order of the things appointed by him. The framing of the tabernacle and the constitution of the services belonging thereunto, made this declaration. For things in his wisdom were thus disposed, that there should be the first tabernacle, whereinto the priests did enter every day, accomplishing the divine services that God required. Howbeit in that tabernacle there were not the pledges of the gracious presence of God, — it was not the especial residence of his glory: but the peculiar habitation of God was separated from it by a veil; and no person living might so much as look into it, on pain of death. But yet, lest the church should apprehend that indeed there was no approach, here or hereafter, for any person into the gracious presence of God, he ordained that once a-year the high priest, and he alone, should enter into that holy place with blood. Hereby he plainly signified that an entrance there was to be, and that with boldness, thereinto. For unto what end else did he allow and appoint that once a-year there should be an entrance into it by the high priest, in the name of and for the service of the church? But this entrance being only once a-year, by the high priest only, and that with the blood of atonement, — which was always to be observed whilst that tabernacle continued, — he did manifest that the access represented was not to be obtained during that season. For all believers in their own persons were utterly excluded from it. And we may hence observe, — Obs. 1. That the divine ordinances and institutions of worship are filled with wisdom sufficient for the instruction of the church in all the mysteries of faith and obedience. — How eminent was the divine wisdom of the Holy Ghost in the structure and order of this tabernacle! What provision of instruction for the present and future use of the church was laid up and stored in them! What but infinite wisdom and prescience could order things so in their typical signification? He that considers only the outward frame and state of these things, may see a curious and beautiful structure, a beautiful order of external worship; yet can he find nothing therein but what the wisdom and contrivance of men might attain unto; at least, they might find out things that should have as glorious an outward appearance. But take them in their proper state, as unto their signification and representation of spiritual and heavenly things in Christ Jesus, and there is not the least concernment of them but it infinitely transcends all human wisdom and projection. He alone in whose divine understanding the whole mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God and his mediation did eternally reside, could institute and appoint these things. And to instruct us unto a humble adoration of that wisdom, is the framing of the whole fabric, and the institution of all its ordinances, contained in the sacred record for the use of the church. Obs. 2. It is our duty with all humble diligence to inquire into the mind of the Holy Ghost in all ordinances and institutions of divine worship. — Want hereof lost the church of Israel. They contented themselves with the consideration of outward things, and the external observance of the services enjoined unto them. Unto this day the Jews perplex themselves in numberless curious inquiries into the outward frame and fashion of these things, the way, manner, and circumstances of the external observation of the services of it. And they have multiplied determinations about them all, and every minute circumstance of them, so as it is utterly impossible that either themselves or any living creature should observe them according to their traditions and prescriptions. But in the meantime, as unto the mind of the Holy Ghost in them, their true use and signification, they are stark blind and utterly ignorant. Yea, hardness and blindness are so come upon them unto the utmost, that they will not believe or apprehend that there is either spiritual wisdom, instruction, or signification of heavenly things in them. And herein, whilst they profess to know God, are they abominable and disobedient. For no creatures can fall into higher contempt of God than there is in this imagination, namely, that the old institutions had nothing in them but so much gold and silver, and the like, framed into such shapes, and applied to such outward uses, without regard unto things spiritual and eternal. And it is a great evidence of the apostate condition of any church, when they rest in and lay weight upon the external parts of worship, especially such as consist in corporeal observances, with a neglect of spiritual things contained in them, wherein are the effects of divine wisdom in all sacred institutions. And whereas the apostle affirms that this frame of things did plainly signify (as the word imports) the spiritual mysteries which he declares, it is evident with what great diligence we ought to search into the nature and use of divine institutions Unless we are found in the exercise of our duty herein, the things which in themselves are plainly declared will be obscure unto us, yea, utterly hidden from us. For what is here said to be clearly signified, could not be apprehended but by a very diligent search into and consideration of the way and means of it. It was to be collected out of the things he ordained, with the order of them, and their respect unto one another. Most men think it not worth while to inquire with any diligence into sacred institutions of divine worship. If any thing seem to be wanting or defective therein, if any thing be obscure and not determined, as they suppose, in the express words, without more ado they supply it with somewhat of their own. But there are many things useful and necessary in the worship of God which are to be gathered from such intimations of the mind of the Holy Ghost as he hath in any place given of them; and those who with humility and diligence do exercise themselves therein, shall find plain, satisfactory significations of his mind and will in such things as others are utterly ignorant of. Thirdly, That which the Holy Ghost did thus signify and instruct the church in, (the τοῦτο, “this,” in the words,) was, “that the way into the most holy place” (“the way of the holies”) “was not yet made manifest.” And for the explication hereof we must consider the things before proposed: —1. What the apostle intends by “the holies.” It is generally supposed by expositors that it is heaven itself which is hereby intended. Hence some of the ancients, the schoolmen, and sundry expositors of the Roman church, have concluded that no believers under the old testament, none of the ancient patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, or David, were admitted into heaven whilst the first tabernacle stood; that is, until the ascension of Christ. Hereon they framed a limbus for them in some subterranean receptacle, — whither they suppose the soul of Christ went, when it is said that he “descended into hell,” — where they were detained, and whence by him they were delivered. But whatever becomes of that imagination, the most learned expositors of that church of late, such as Ribera, Estius, Tena, Maldonate, A Lapide, do not fix it on this text; for the supposition whereon it is founded is wholly alien from the scope of the apostle, and no way useful in his present argument. For he discourseth about the privileges of the church by the gospel and priesthood of Christ in this world, and not about its future state and condition. Besides, he says not that there was no entrance into the holies during that season, but only that “the way of it was not yet manifest.” Wherefore they might enter into it, although the way whereby they did so was not yet openly declared; for they had but a shadow, or dark, obscure representation of good things to come. And this is the interpretation that most sober expositors do give of the words: Heaven with eternal blessedness was proposed unto the faith, hope, and expectation of the saints under the old testament. This they believed, and in the hope of it walked with God, as our apostle proves at large, Hebrews 11. Howbeit the way, that is, the means and cause of communicating the heavenly inheritance unto them, namely, by the mediation and sacrifice of Christ, was but obscurely represented; not illustriously manifested, as it is now, life and immortality being brought to light by the gospel. And as these things are true, so this interpretation of the words being consonant unto the analogy of faith, is safe, only we may inquire whether it be that which is peculiarly intended by the apostle in this place or no. The comment of Grotius on these words is, that the apostle signifies “superaetherias sedes. Via eo ducens est evangelium, praecepta habens vere coelestia Eam viam Christus primus patefecit; aditumque fecit omnibus ad summum coelum. Pervenient quidem, eo, Abrahamus, Isaacus, Jacobus, ut videre est, Matthew 8:11, et alii viri eximii, ut videbimus infra, cap. 11:40. Sed hi eo pervenient quasi per machinam, non per viam; extraordinaria quadam et rara Dei dispensatione.” But these things are most remote from the mind of the Holy Ghost, not only in this place, but in the whole Scripture also. For, — (1.) How far the gospel is this “way into the holiest” shall be declared immediately. That it is so because of the heavenly precepts which it gives, that is, which were not given under the old testament, is most untrue. For the gospel gives no precepts of holiness and obedience that were not for the substance of them contained in the law. There is no precept in the gospel exceeding that in the law, “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” Only the gospel adds new motives unto obedience, new encouragements and enforcements of it, with directions for its due performance. (2.) That Christ should be no otherwise the way but only as he revealed and declared the gospel and the precepts of it, is not only untrue and injurious unto the honor of Christ, but directly contrary unto the design of the apostle in this place. For he is treating of the sacerdotal office of Christ only, and the benefit which the church doth receive thereby; but the revelation of the doctrine or precepts of the gospel was no duty of that office, nor did it belong thereunto. That he did as the prophet of the church; but all his sacerdotal actings are towards God in the behalf of the church, as hath been proved.(3.) That the ancient patriarchs went to heaven by a secret engine, and that some of them only in an extraordinary way, is plainly to deny that they were saved by faith in the promised Seed, — that is, to affirm that they were not saved by the mediation of Christ; which is contrary unto the whole economy of God in the salvation of the church, and to many express testimonies of the Scripture. These Socinian fictions do not cure but corrupt the word of God, and turn away the minds of men from the truth unto fables. We shall therefore yet further inquire into the true meaning of the Holy Ghost in these words. The apostle by ἁγίων here, ὁδὸντῶνἁγίων, intends the same with what, verse 3, he called ἅγιατῶνἁγίων, “the holy of holies,” the second part of the sanctuary; whereinto the high priest alone could enter once a-year, as he declares in the foregoing verse: only whereas he there spake of the material fabric of the tabernacle, and the things contained in it, here he designs what was signified thereby; for he declares not what these things were, but what the Holy Ghost did signify in and by them. Now, in that most holy place were all the signs and pledges of the gracious presence of God, — the testimonies of our reconciliation by the blood of the atonement, and our peace with him thereby. Wherefore, to enter into these holies, is nothing but an access with liberty, freedom, and boldness, into the gracious presence of God, on the account of reconciliation and peace made with him. This the apostle doth so plainly and positively declare, Hebrews 10:19-22, that I somewhat admire so many worthy and learned expositors should utterly miss of his meaning in this place. The “holies,” then, is the gracious presence of God, whereunto believers draw nigh in the confidence of the atonement made for them, and of acceptance thereon. See Romans 5:1-2; Ephesians 2:14-18; Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 10:19. The atonement being made, and received by faith, conscience being purged, bondage and fear being removed, believers do now under the gospel enter with boldness into this gracious presence of God. 2. We must consider what is the “way” into these holies, which was “not yet made manifest.” And here also expositors indulge unto many conjectures, very needlessly, as I suppose; for the apostle doth elsewhere expressly declare himself, and interpret his own meaning, namely, Hebrews 10:19-20. This way is no other but the sacrifice of Christ, the true high priest of the church. For by the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place with blood the Holy Ghost did signify that the way into it, namely, for believers to enter by, was only the one true sacrifice which he was to offer and to be. And accordingly, to give an indication of the accomplishment of this type, when he expired on the cross, having offered himself unto God for the expiation of our sins, the veil of the temple, which enclosed and secured this holy place from any entrance into it, was rent from the top to the bottom, whereby it was laid open unto all, Matthew 27:51. And an evidence this is that the Lord Christ offered his great expiatory sacrifice in his death here on earth, a true and real sacrifice; and that it was not an act of power after his ascension, metaphorically called a sacrifice, as the Socinians dream. For until that sacrifice was offered the way could not be opened into the holies; which it was immediately after his death, and signified by the rending of the veil. This is ὁδὸςτῶνἁγίων, the only way whereby we enter into the most holy place, the gracious presence of God, and that with boldness. 3. Of this way it is affirmed that it was “not yet made manifest, whilst the first tabernacle was standing.” And a word is peculiarly chosen by the apostle to signify his intention. He doth not say that there was no way then into the most holy place, none made, none provided, none made use of; but, there was not a φανέρωσις, an “open manifestation” of it. There was an entrance under the old testament into the presence of God, as unto grace and glory, namely, the virtue of the oblation of Christ; but this was “not as yet made manifest.” Three things were wanting thereunto: — (1.) It was not yet actually existent, but only was virtually so. The Lord Christ had not yet actually offered himself unto God, nor made atonement for sin. Howbeit by virtue of the eternal agreement that was between the Father and him, concerning what he should accomplish in the fullness of time, the benefit of what he was so to do was applied unto them that did believe; they were saved by faith, even as we are. Hence is he called, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” that is, in and from the giving of the first promise.(2.) Although the coming of his person was promised, and his sacrifice variously shadowed out or represented unto the church, yet their perception and understanding thereof was weak and dark, — proportionate unto the means of its revelation. Hence, whatever were its virtue and efficacy, yet was it not in itself and its own nature made manifest.(3.) There were many blessed privileges that attended the opening of this way, or the actual existence of it, in the oblation of Christ, which the church of the old testament was not acquainted with, nor made partaker of. And although these things belonged not unto the essence of the way, yet they did so as unto our entrance into it. We could not without them, — that is, the administration of the Spirit in gospel ordinances, — make use of this way, though prepared and set open, unto the glory of God and our own spiritual advantage. Wherefore the plain, open manifestation of the way into the holiest, which the apostle denies unto the church under the old testament, consists in these three things: — (1.) In the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh, and his sacrifice of himself, making atonement for sin; for hereby alone was the way laid open unto an access with boldness into the gracious presence of God. Without this, the law and its curse were like the cherubim and flaming sword, that turned every way to keep sinners from drawing nigh unto God. Hereby were they removed, a new and living way being consecrated for our access unto him.(2.) In the full, plain declaration of the nature of his person and of his mediation. And therefore, although the gospel be not this way in the precepts of obedience which it gives unto us, yet is it the declaration and manifestation of this way, and our sole direction how to make use of it, or how to enter by it into the most holy place. This they enjoyed not under the old testament, but were limited unto typical institutions directing the priests how to enter into the sanctuary made with hands; which were but an obscure representation of these things. (3.) In the introduction or revelation and establishment of those privileges of gospel-worship whereby believers are led comfortably into the presence of God, as our apostle declares, Hebrews 10:19-22. For they are full of light and grace, and a guide unto all the steps of faith and obedience in this way. Hereunto may be added all those things which we have declared to belong unto that perfection or consummation of the church-state, which the law could not bring it unto, on Hebrews 7:11.In these things consisteth that manifestation of the way into the most holy place which is here denied unto the old testament. 4. The continuance of this state is added: “Whilst the first tabernacle was standing.”(1.) By “the first tabernacle,” the apostle understands not that first part of the tabernacle into which the priests entered continually, accomplishing the divine services, which before he had so called; but he intends the whole tabernacle, with respect unto the true tabernacle of the body of Christ, which succeeded into its room. Neither yet doth he understand precisely that tent or tabernacle which was erected in the wilderness, — which was not in itself of any long continuance, nor designed thereunto, for it was only suited unto the service of the church whilst it was in an unsettled condition, — but he intends the whole worship instituted together with it and belonging unto it, celebrated afterwards in the temple according unto the laws of that tabernacle. For there was the same worship and the same order of things in the one and the other; and so the same signification made at first by the Holy Ghost in the constitution of the tabernacle was still continued under the temple also. (2.) It was continued whilst this first tabernacle, or the tabernacle in this sense, was “standing.” “Having its station;” that is, according unto the mind of God, it had its state and use in the church. This it had absolutely until the death of Christ, and no longer. For until then both the Lord Christ himself and all his disciples continued the observation of all its services, according to the mind of God; for he was made under the law of it, whilst it was in force, Declaratively it continued until the day of Pentecost; for then, in the coming of the Holy Ghost, was the foundation of the gospel church-state, order, and worship, solemnly laid, whereon, a new way of worship being established, the abrogation of the old was declared. And this was yet further made known by the determination put unto the observation of it among the Gentile converts by the Holy Ghost, in the council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Actually it continued until the destruction of the temple, city, and people, some years after. Its first station it had in God’s appointment, the second in his connivance, and the third in his patience. It is the first of these that is here intended. The tabernacle, — that is, the laws and service of it, — preserved its station and use in the church, by God’s ordinance and appointment, unto the death of Christ. Then did he pronounce concerning it and all things belonging unto it, “It is finished.” Then was the veil rent, and the way into the holiest laid open. Then was peace with God publicly confirmed by the blood of the cross, Ephesians 2:14-16; and the nature of the way of our access unto him made known. And some things we may hence observe, which also tend unto the further explication of the mind of the Holy Ghost in the text: — Obs. 3. Although the Lord Christ was not actually exhibited in the flesh under the old testament, nor had actually offered himself unto God for us, yet had believers then an access into the grace and favor of God, though the way, the cause and means of it, was not manifestly declared unto them. The apostle doth not exclude them all from the grace and favor of God, but only shows their disadvantage in comparison of believers under the gospel, in that this way was not manifested unto them.Obs. 4. The design of the Holy Ghost in all the tabernacle ordinances and institutions of worship, was to direct the faith of believers unto what was signified by them.Obs. 5. Typical institutions, attended diligently unto, were sufficient to direct the faith of the church unto the expectation of the real expiation of sin, and acceptance with God thereon. God was never wanting unto the church in what was necessary unto it in its present condition, so as that it might be guided in its faith and encouraged unto obedience. Obs. 6. Though the standing of the first tabernacle was a great mercy and privilege, yet the removal of it was a greater; for it made way for the bringing in of that which was better.Obs. 7. The divine wisdom in the economy and disposal of the revelation of the way into the holiest, or of grace and acceptance with himself, is a blessed object of our contemplation. The several degrees of it we have considered on Hebrews 1:1-2.Obs. 8. The clear manifestation of the way of redemption, of the expiation of sin, and peace with God thereon, is the great privilege of the gospel.Obs. 9. There is no access into the gracious presence of God but by the sacrifice of Christ alone. ῝Ητιςπαραβολὴεἰςτὸνκαιρὸντὸνἐνεστηκότα, καθ᾿ὅνδῶράτεκαὶθυσίαιπροσφέρονται, μὴδυνάμεναικατὰσυνείδησιντελειῶσαιτὸνλατρεύοντα, μόνονἐπὶβρώμασικαὶπόμασικαὶδιαφόροιςβαπτισμοῖς, καὶδικαιώμασισαρκὸς, μέχρικαιροῦδιορθώσεωςἐπικείμενα.῞Ητιςπαραβολὴ. Vulg. Lat., “quae parabola est.” Syr., ξַ ?ϊְ ?μָ ?ΰ, “an exemplar,” or “example.” So all render it, though it answers the Hebrew ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ, “a parable” or “proverb.” “quod erat exemplar;” so Beza and others.Εἰςτὸνκαιρόντὸνἐνεστηκότα. Vulg. Lat., “temporis instantis,” “of the instant time” or “season;” which Arias rectifies into “in tempus praesens,” “for the time present;” Beza, “pro tempore illo praesente,” “for that present time;” “pro tempore tum praesente,” “for the time that was then present;” Syr., μְ ?ζַ ?αְ ?πָ ?ΰδָ ?ε, “for that time,” omitting ἐνεστηκότα.Καθ᾿ὅν. Vulg. Lat., “juxta quam.” It being uncertain what he refers “quam” unto, Arias rectifieth it, “juxta quod;” for ὅν answereth unto καιρόν, and not unto παραβολή. “Quo,” “wherein;” Syr., “in quo,” “wherein.”Δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι. Vulg. Lat., “munera et hostiae,” “dona et sacrificia.” Syr., “gifts (that is, meat and drink offerings) and sacrifices by blood.” Syr., χεּ ?ψαָ ?πֵ ?ΰεְ ?γֶ ?αְ ?ηֵ ?ΰ, “oblations and victims,” or “bloody sacrifices.”Κατὰσυνείδησιντελειῶσαιτονλατρεύοντα. Vulg. Lat, “juxta conscientiam perfectum facere servientem,” “make him that did the service perfect according to conscience;” others, “in conscientia sanctificare cultorem;” others, “consummare:” of the sense of the word we have spoken before. Syr., “perfect the conscience of him that offered them.”Μόνονἐπὶβρώμασι. Syr., “in meat and drink,” in the singular number.Καὶδιαφόροιςβαπτισμοῖς. Syr., εַ ?αְּ ?ξַ ?ςֲ ?ξεּ ?γִ ?ιϊָ ?ΰγַּ ?ζְ ?πֵ ?ιοζְ ?πֵ ?ιο“And in the washing of kinds kinds,” that is, various kinds; with respect not unto the various rites of washing, but the various kinds of things that were washed. Δικαιώμασισαρκός. Vulg. Lat., “justitiis carnis;” so it renders δικαίωμα by “justitia,” or “justificatio,” constantly, but very improperly. Syr τεּ ?χָ ?ψֵ ?ΰγְּ ?αֶ ?ρְ ?ψָ ?ΰ“precepts of the flesh.” “Ritibus carnalibus,” “ordinances, institutions, rites of the flesh, concerning fleshly things.”᾿Επικείμενα. Vulg. Lat., “impositis;” others, “imposita;” “incumbent on, lying on them.” [4] [4] VARIOUS READING. — Scholz, Lachmann, Tholuck, and Theile, prefer δικαιώματα to δικαιώμασι. “According to the dative reading, the translation and punctuation will run thus — ‘Being only — along with meats, and drinks, and various washings, fleshly ordinances — things imposed until the time of reformation.’With the nominative it will be thus: ‘Being only — along with meats, and drinks, and various washings — fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.’” Turner. — ED. Hebrews 9:9-10. — Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect, as per-raining to the conscience; [which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.I shall not alter the translation, but show what might be more properly expressed, as unto some instances, in our exposition. Expositors have made use of various conjectures in their commentaries on this place. What is material in the most eminent of them, the reader may see in Mr. Poole’s Collections. But I must needs say, that in my judgment they have brought more difficulty unto the text than they have freed it from. Wherefore I shall not detain the reader in the examination of them; but I shall give that interpretation of the text which I hope will evidence its truth unto such as impartially seek after it, and are in any measure acquainted with the things treated of. The apostle, in these two verses, gives a summary account and reason of the imperfection of the tabernacle and all its services, wherein the administration of the old covenant did consist. This was direct and proper unto his present argument. For his design is to prove the pre-eminence of the new covenant above the old, from the excellency of the high priest thereof, with his tabernacle and sacrifice. Unto this end a discovery of the imperfection and weakness of the first tabernacle and services was indispensably necessary. And if, notwithstanding its outward excellency and glory, it was no other but what it is here declared to be, as evidently it was not, then was it not only an unreasonable thing, and a plain rejection of the wisdom and grace of God, to adhere unto it in opposition unto the gospel, — which was done by the most of the Hebrews, — but it was altogether unmeet and useless to be retained with the profession of the gospel, which the residue of them earnestly contended for. This was that which the apostle designed ultimately to convince them of. And a work herein both great and difficult was committed unto him. For there is nothing more difficult than to dispossess the minds of men of such persuasions in religion as they have been bred up in, and received by a long tract of tradition from their fathers. So we find it to be in such persuasions and observances as are evidently false and impious, unto the understandings of all that are not under the power of such prejudices: so is it at present with them of the Roman church, and others. But these Hebrews had a pretense or plea for their obstinacy herein which none other ever had in the like case but themselves; for the things which they adhered unto were confessedly of divine institution. Wherefore the apostle labors principally to prove, that in the will and wisdom of God they were to continue only for a season, and also that the season of their expiration was now come. And this he doth in this place, by a declaration of their nature and use whilst they did continue; whence it is evident that God never designed them a perpetual station in the church, and that because they could not effect what he purposed and had promised to do for it. This is the substance of his present argument. 1. The subject spoken of, ἥτις, “which.”2. The proper use and end of it; it was “a figure.”3. The limitation of that use as unto time; “for the time then present.”4. The especial nature of it; the “offering of gifts and sacrifices.”5. The imperfection of it therein; “they could not consummate the worshippers in conscience.”6. The reason of that imperfection; it “stood only in meats and drinks,” etc. 7. The manner of its establishment; it was “imposed.”8. The time allotted for its continuance; “until the time of reformation.”1. The subject spoken of is expressed by ἥτις, “which.” Some would refer it unto παραβολή following, and so read the words, “Which figure was for the time present.” But there is no cause for this traduction of the words. The verb substantive, ἧν, is deficient, as usually, and is to be supplied as in our translation, “which was.” “Which,” that is, σκηνή, “the tabernacle;” — not only the fabric and structure of it, but the tabernacle in both parts of it, with all its furniture, vessels, utensils, and services, as before described. 2. As unto its proper use and end, the apostle affirms that it was παραβολή, — figura, exemplar,” exemplum,” “comparatio,” “similitudo,” “typus,” “representatio:” so variously is this word rendered by interpreters. Most fix on “exemplar” or “exemplum;” but they are τύπος and ὑπόδειγμα, not παραβολή. And in all these versions the proper sense of the word as used in the Scripture is missed. It is not ϊַּ ?αְ ?πִ ?ιϊthat the apostle intends, but ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ, as it is rendered by the Syriac.And this many have observed, namely, that it answers unto ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ, but yet have missed in the interpretation of it. ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ is the same with ηִ ?ιγָ ?δwherewith it is joined, as of the same signification and importance, Psalms 49:5; Psalms 78:2. And whereas it is said that the queen of Sheba tried the wisdom of Solomon αְּ ?ηִ ?ιγεֹ ?ϊ, 1 Kings 10:1; the Targum renders it by αξϊμιο, the Chaldee ξϊμ, and the Syriac ξϊμΰ, being the same with the Hebrew ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ. Now ηִ ?ιγָ ?δis enigma, problema, γρῖφος, “a riddle,” “a hard question;” and ηεּ ?γ is to speak enigmatically, obscurely, so as that one thing is to be gathered out of another. So is ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ used also, Ezekiel 20:49, “Is he not ξְ ?ξַ ?ωֵּׁ ?μξְ ?ωָׁ ?μִ ?ιν, “proverbiator proverbiorum?” — “one that speaks darkly and obscurely;” that expresseth one thing and intends another, using similitudes and metaphors; an obscure, mystical instruction, by figures, signs, symbols, metaphors, and the like. Thus is παραβολή almost constantly used in the New Testament. So our Lord Jesus Christ expressly opposeth speaking in parables unto a clear, plain, open teaching, so as to be understood of all. See Matthew 13:10, John 16:28-29, “Now speakest thou openly, and no parable.” Wherefore παραβολή, in this place, is an obscure, mystical, metaphorical instruction. God taught the church of old the mysteries of our redemption by Christ, by the tabernacle, its fabric, parts, utensils, and services; but it was but an obscure, parabolical, figurative instruction. So should the word here be rendered, “a figurative instruction,” or the word “parable” be here retained, as it is in other places. This was God’s way of teaching the mysteries of his wisdom and grace; which, as it was sufficient for the state of the church which was then present, so it instructs us in what he requires, what he expects from us, unto whom all these things are unfolded, made plain and evident. 3. The third thing in the text is the time or season wherein the tabernacle was so parabolically or mystically instructive. It was εἰςτὸνκαιρόντὸνἐνεστηκότα. Some few copies for τόν read τοῦτον, as doth that now before me, — “unto this present time.” This reading is generally rejected by expositors, as not suited unto the mind of the apostle in this place. For he intends not the time that was then present when he wrote the epistle, not the times of the gospel, not the time after the resurrection of Christ until the destruction of the temple, which the addition of that word would denote; for God had prepared another kind of instruction for that season, and not by parables, or mystical metaphors. But yet the word may be retained, and a sense given of the words both sound and proper. For εἰς may well signify as much as “until;” or be taken τελικῶς, as it is often.Εἰςτοῦτονκαιρόν, — “unto this season;” ‘until the time that God would grant another kind of teaching, which now he hath done. It served until this present season, wherein the gospel is preached, and all the things signified by it are accomplished.’But I shall rather follow the reading of the most copies, though the Vulgar Latin reading “temporis instantis” seems to favor the first. And Arias rectifying it into “in tempus praesens,” gives the same sense also. But the word ἐνεστηκότα being of the preterimperfect tense, signifies a time that was then present, but is now past. And it is therefore well rendered by our translators, “the time then present;” as if τότε had been in the text; — the time then present when the tabernacle was made and erected, ὁκαιρὸςὁἐνεστηκώς, the season of the church which was then present. For the apostle in this whole discourse not only respects the tabernacle, and not the temple, but he considers the first erection of the tabernacle in a peculiar manner; for then was it proposed as the means of the administration of the first covenant and the worship thereunto belonging. It is the covenants which he principally designeth a comparison between. And he doth in that way of the disposition and administration of them, which was given and appointed at their first establishment. As this in the new covenant was the person, office, sacrifice, and ministry of Christ; so as unto the first, it was the tabernacle and all the services of it. Wherefore “the time then present,” was the state and condition of the church at the first setting up of the tabernacle. Not as though this time were confined unto that or those ages wherein the tabernacle was in use, before the building of the temple; but this instruction, which was then signally given, was the whole of what God granted unto the church during that state wherein it was obliged unto the ordinances and services which were then instituted. The instructions which God thought meet to grant unto the church at that season were obscure, mystical, and figuratively representative; yet was it sufficient for the faith and obedience of the church, had it been diligently attended unto, and what the Holy Ghost signified thereby. So are all God’s ways of instruction in all seasons. We cannot err but either by a neglect of inquiry into them, or by looking for more than God in his wisdom hath committed unto them. And this sense those who render παραβολή by a “figure,” “type,” or “example,” must come unto: for the use of it is confined unto the time of the erection of the tabernacle, and the institution of the ordinances thereunto belonging; but a type or figure was unto them of no use but so far as it was instructive, which was obscurely and mystically. And that this is the sense of the word the apostle declares, verse 8, where he shows the substance of what the Holy Ghost signified by the building, disposal, and services of the tabernacle; that is, what he taught the church thereby parabolically and figuratively.This kind of instruction, whatever now it seem to us, was meet and fit for them unto whom it was given. And by the administration of grace in it, it was a blessed means to ingenerate faith, love, and obedience, in the hearts and lives of many unto an eminent degree. And we may consider from hence what is required of us, unto whom the clear revelation of the wisdom, grace, and love of God, is made known from the bosom of the Father, by the Son himself. 4. The especial nature and use of this tabernacle and its service is declared: “In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices.” Καθ᾿ὅν, the Vulgar Latin reads “juxta quam;” making the relative to answer unto ἥτις, or to παραβολή. But the gender will not allow it in the original. Καθ᾿ὅν is as much as ἐνᾧ, “in which time,” “during which season:” for immediately upon the setting up of the tabernacle God gave unto Moses laws and institutions for all the gifts and sacrifices of the people, which were to be offered therein. This was the first direction which God gave after the setting up of the tabernacle, namely, the way and manner of offering all sorts of gifts and sacrifices unto him. And the apostle here distributes all the χָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?πִ ?ιν, all the “sacred offerings,” into δῶρα and θυσίας, — that is, unbloody and bloody sacrifices; as he did before, Hebrews 5:1, where the distinction hath been explained.Of them all he affirms, Προσφέρονται, — “They are offered;” not that they were so: for the apostle erects a scheme of the first tabernacle and all its services at its first institution, and presents it unto the consideration of the Hebrews as if it were then first erected. He doth, indeed, sometimes speak of the priests and sacrifices as then in being, with respect unto that continuance of the temple and its worship which it had in the patience of God, as we have showed on Hebrews 8:4; but here, treating only of the tabernacle and its worship, as that which was granted in the confirmation and for the administration of the old covenant, then entered into, — as the tabernacle, priesthood, and sacrifice of Christ were given in the confirmation of the new, — he represents that as present which was past long before. The tabernacle served aptly for the use whereunto it was designed, — it was meet for the offering of gifts and sacrifices; and so alone is the tabernacle of Christ for its proper end also.5. On these concessions, the apostle declares the imperfection of this whole order of things, and its impotency as unto the great end that might be expected from it; for these “gifts and sacrifices could not make perfect him that did the service, as pertaining unto the conscience.” This was the end aimed at, this was represented in them and by them. And if they could not really effect it, they were weak and imperfect, and so not always to be continued. The end represented in and by them, was to make atonement for sin, that the anger of God being pacified, they might have peace with him. The covenant was then newly established between God and the church, before any laws were given about these offerings and sacrifices, Exodus 24. God knew that there would be among the people, and even the priests themselves, many sins and transgressions against the rules and laws of that covenant. This of itself it could not dispense withal; for its sanction was the curse against every one that continued not in all things written in the book of it: wherefore if this curse on all just and righteous occasions should rigidly have been put in execution, the covenant would only have proved the means and cause of the utter destruction and excision of the whole people; for “there is no man that liveth and sinneth not.” And on many occasions sin abounded in that state of the church, wherein light and grace were but sparingly dispensed, in comparison of the times of the new covenant. Wherefore God, in his mercy and patience, provided that by sacred gifts and offerings atonement should be made for sin, so as that the curse of the covenant should not be put in immediate execution against the sinner, Leviticus 17:11. But there were two things to be considered in those sins which God had appointed that atonement should be made for. The first was, the external, temporal punishment which was due unto them, according unto the place which the law or covenant had in the polity or commonwealth of Israel. The other, that eternal punishment which was due unto every sin by the law, as the rule of all moral obedience; for “the wages of sin is death.” In the first of these, the person of the sinner, in all his outward circumstances, his life, his goods, his liberty, and the like, was concerned. In the latter, his conscience, or the inward man alone was so. And as unto the first of them, the gifts and sacrifices mentioned, being rightly offered, were able in themselves, “ex opere operato,” to free the sinner from all temporal, political inconvenience or detriment, so as that his life and inheritance should be continued in the land of Canaan, or his state preserved entire in the commonwealth of Israel This the apostle here tacitly acknowledgeth, namely, that the gifts and sacrifices were able to free the sinner from temporal punishment, and give him outward peace in his possessions. But as unto the latter, wherein conscience was concerned, he denies that they had any such efficacy. They were not able, — μήδυνάμεναι. It agrees in gender with θυσίαι, only, and not with δῶρα, which being of the neuter gender, usually regulates the construction in such conjunctions: but most think it equally respects both the antecedent substantives; and instances may be given where a participle respecting more antecedent substantives than one may agree in gender with either of them, as, “Leges et plebiscita coactae.” But I rather think that the apostle confines the impotency he mentions unto “sacrifices” only; that is, θυσίαι, “slain and bloody sacrifices.” For those things which were δῶρα, “gifts,” and no more, were not designed to make atonement for sin; that was to be done by blood, and no otherwise: so the words should be read, “offered gifts and sacrifices that could not perfect.”These sacrifices were impotent and ineffectual unto this end, τελειῶσαι. What the τελείωσις is which the apostle so frequently mentions in this epistle, I have before declared, and so what it is τελειῶσαι. It is indeed to “perfect,” to “consummate,” to “sanctify,” to “dedicate,” to “consecrate;” but whereas those sacrifices did all these things outwardly, and as unto the flesh, as the apostle grants, Hebrews 9:13, he doth not here absolutely deny it unto them, but in a certain respect only. They could not do it κατὰσυνείδησιν— as unto the conscience of the sinner before God. What he intends hereby he doth more fully declare, Hebrews 10:2. There is a conscience condemning for sin. This could not be taken away by those sacrifices. They were not able to do it; for if they could have done so, the sinner would have had complete peace with God, and would not have had need to have offered those sacrifices any more. But they were multiplied and often repeated, because of their disability unto this end. Wherefore τελειῶσαικατὰσυνείδησιν, is to give peace of conscience unto men, through a sense of perfect atonement made for sin, in the sight of God, with an interest in his love and favor thereon. This, it is to be “perfect” or “consummated, as pertaining to conscience” in the sight of God, namely, to have a conscience condemning for sin taken away. This those sacrifices of the law could not effect. It will be said, then, ‘Unto what end did they serve? Were they of no use but only to free men from the penalties of the law or covenant, as it was a rule of the polity or commonwealth of Israel, and the tenure of their possessions in Canaan?’ Yes, they were moreover part of the παραβολή or “mystical instruction” which God granted the church in those days, directing them unto the one sacrifice and offering of Christ, typically representing it, and through faith applying the virtue and efficacy of it unto their consciences every day.6. The person is described towards whom this effect of purifying the conscience is denied. They could not thus perfect τονλατρεύοντα, — “him that did the service,” saith our translation, I think not so properly. He that did the service was the priest only; but respect is had unto every one that brought his gift or offering unto the altar. ᾿Επιτελεῖντὰςλατρείας, “sacredly to accomplish the services,” was the work of the priest alone, Hebrews 9:6. But ὁλατρεύων, is the same with ὁπροσερχόμενος, Hebrews 10:1; that is, every one who brought his sacrifice to be offered, that atonement might be made for him. And λατρεύων comprehends the whole of divine worship in all individuals: ΤῷΘεῷλατρεύσεις, Matthew 4:10. But he also may be said to do the service, on whose account and in whose stead it was performed.But the defect charged doth not in the first place reflect on the persons, as though it was by their default. They worshipped God according unto his own institutions; but it was in the sacrifices themselves. And if they could not make the worshippers, those who did the service, perfect, they could make none so, for it was they alone who had the benefit of them. The note of Grotius on this place is, “Isti cultus non possunt sectatorum suorum animos purgare a vitiis quemadmodum evan-gelium;” — most remote from the mind of the Holy Ghost: for he speaks not of purging our minds from vices, but of purifying conscience by atonement made for the guilt of sin; and opposeth not those sacrifices unto the doctrine of the gospel, but unto the sacrifice of Christ. And we may hence observe, — Obs. 1. There is a state of perfect peace with God to be attained under imperfect obedience. For it is charged as a weakness in the legal administrations, that they could not give such a peace where any sin remained; it is therefore to be found in the sacrifice of Christ, as is proved at large in the next chapter. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.”Obs. 2. Nothing can give perfect peace of conscience with God but what can make atonement for sin. And whoever attempt it any other way but by virtue of that atonement, will never attain it, in this world nor hereafter. Hebrews 9:10. — “Only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.”It is acknowledged that there is no small difficulty in the connection of these words, or their relation unto what doth immediately precede; and therefore expositors have multiplied conjectures about it, in whose examination we are not concerned. I shall therefore no further consider any of them, but as they relate unto what I judge to be their true coherence. Two things are plain and evident unto this purpose: — 1. That the design of the apostle in the words themselves, is to manifest and declare the weakness of the services of the tabernacle, and their insufficiency for attaining the end proposed in them. This end in general was the perfecting of the church-state in religious worship; and in particular, to make the worshippers perfect as unto their consciences before God. And he gives such a description of them as of itself will sufficiently evince their weakness and insufficiency. For what is it possible that things of that kind and nature which is here described can contribute unto these ends 2. That the things instanced in do comprise a great part of the Levitical institutions; and his assertion concerning them may, by a parity of reason, be extended unto them all. For to render his description of them comprehensive, the apostle(1.) Expresseth them in a particular enumeration of the heads whereunto they might be reduced, “Meats and drinks, and divers washings.” And then,(2.) To show that he intends all things of an alike nature with them, he adds the general nature of them all, — they were “carnal ordinances:” —(1.) A great part of the Levitical religious observances may be reduced unto these heads of “meats and drinks, and divers washings.” Laws and institutions were multiplied about these things; what they might eat, and what they might not; what was clean, and what was unclean unto that end; what they might drink, and what vessels defiled all liquors; what were to be, their eatings and drinkings, and when upon their peace-offering, and at their solemn feasts; their great variety of washings, of the priests, of the people, of their garments, and their flesh, stated and occasional, do take up a great part of the entire system of their ordinances. And as laws were multiplied concerning these things, so many of them were enforced with very severe penalties. Hence they were difficultly to be learned, and always impossible to be observed. The Mishna and Talmud — that is, the whole religion of the present Jews — consist almost wholly in scrupulous inquiries, and endless determinations, or rather conjectures, about these things and their circumstances. (2.) All the laws concerning these things were carnal, “carnal ordinances;” such as, for the matter, manner of performance, and end of them, were carnal. This being their nature, it evidently follows that they were instituted only for a time, and were so far from being able themselves to perfect the state of the church, as that they were not consistent with that perfect state of spiritual things which God would introduce, and had promised so to do.The scope and design of the apostle being thus fixed, the coherence and interpretation of the words will not be so difficult as at first view they may appear. Μόνονἐπὶβρώμασι, — “Only in meats and drinks,” etc, Our translators observing the sense elliptical, have supplied it with “which stood,” — which stood only in meats and drinks.” And that supplement may give a double sense: — 1. It may respect the substance of the things spoken of. “Which,” relates to “gifts and sacrifices.” And so the sense intended is, that they consisted “in meats and drinks, and divers washings.” And this was the natural substance of them. They consisted in such things as might be eaten and drunk, being duly prepared, as flesh, flour, salt, oil, and wine. Hence were they called meat and drink-offerings. And they had washings also that belonged unto them, as the washing of the inwards, Exodus 29:17; and of the burnt- offerings peculiarly, Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 1:13; of the hands and feet of the priests, Exodus 30:18-19; and of the leper, Leviticus 14:9. Howbeit it cannot be said that the gifts and sacrifices, as they were such, did consist in these things, though in them things of this nature were offered unto God. Wherefore the supplement of, “which stood,” cannot be admitted in that sense.] 2. It may respect the consummation of these gifts and sacrifices, or the celebration of the whole service that belonged unto them, and all their necessary circumstances or consequents: ‘which stood in these things;’that is, which were accompanied with them. and not perfected without them.The argument in the words is to prove the insufficiency of the gifts and sacrifices of the law unto the end mentioned, of perfecting conscience before God. And this is evidenced by the consideration of their necessary adjuncts, or what belonged unto them, and were inseparable from them. It is not said that these “gifts and sacrifices” were only meats and drinks, and so things of no value: for neither doth the apostle treat of the old institutions with such contempt, nor would the truth of his assertion have been evident unto the Hebrews; but he argues unto a discovery of their use and end from the things that did always accompany them, and were inseparable from them. For those by whom they were offered were obliged, by the same divine institution, at the same time unto sundry “meats and drinks, and divers washings;” which proves both the gifts and sacrifices to have been of the same kind, and to have had respect unto carnal things, as they had. For if those gifts and sacrifices had an immediate effect on the consciences of men unto their purification before God, by any virtue inherent in them, whence is it that the observances which by the same law accompanied them were only about “meats and drinks, and divers washings?” And this sense is not to be refused. But whereas there is an ellipsis in the connection of the words, it may be otherwise supplied. For having mentioned the “gifts and sacrifices” of the law, the apostle makes an addition unto them of the remaining institutions and ceremonies of it, whose very nature and use declared their insufficiency unto the end inquired after; — “[And other laws] only concerning meats and drinks, and divers washings;” which in general he calls “carnal rites.” Hereby is the argument in hand carried on and completed. There are four things in the words: 1. An account of the legal institutions, under several heads. 2. Their nature in general, with that of others of the same kind; they were “carnal ordinances,” or fleshly rites. 3. The way of the relation of the people unto them; they were “imposed” on them. 4. The time for which they were imposed, or the measure of their duration; which was, “until the time of reformation.”First, For the nature of them, they consisted,1. In “meats and drinks.” Take the words in their full extent, and they may be comprehensive of four sorts of institutions: —(1.) Of all those which concerned meats, or things to be eaten or not eaten, as being clean or unclean; an account whereof is given, Leviticus 11 throughout. With reference thereunto doth the apostle reflect on the Levitical institutions in these words, “Touch not, taste not, handle not; which all are to perish with the using,” Colossians 2:21-22, — are all carnal things.(2.) The portion of the priests out of the sacrifices; especially what they were to eat in the holy place, as the portion of the sin-offering, Exodus 29:31-33; Leviticus 10:12-13; Leviticus 10:17; and what they were to eat of the peace-offerings in any clean place, verses 14, 15. And the prohibition of drinking wine or strong drink in the holy place, verses 8, 9, may be here respected in “drinks,” about which these institutions were. And these were such, as without which the service of the sacrifices could not be acceptably performed, verses 17, 18. And therefore are they intended in this place in an especial manner, if it be the design of the apostle to prove the insufficiency of the sacrifices from the nature of their inseparable adjuncts, which were carnal and perishing things. (3.) The eating of the remainder of the peace-offering, whether of a vow or of thanksgiving; the law whereof is given as a holy ordinance, Leviticus 7:14-17.(4.) The laws concerning the feasts of the whole people, with their eating and drinking before the Lord, Leviticus 23. All these divine ordinances were ἐπὶβρώμασικαὶπόμασι, — “concerning meats and drinks,” that were necessary to be observed with their offering of “gifts and sacrifices,” declaring of what nature they were. And the observation of them all was at the same time imposed on them.2. They consisted in, or were concerning “divers washings” Βαπτισμός is any kind of washing, whether by, dipping or sprinkling, — putting the thing to be washed into the water, or applying the water unto the thing itself to be washed. Of these washings there were various sorts or kinds under the law: for the priests were washed, Exodus 29:4; and the Levites, Numbers 8:7; and the people, after they had contracted any impurity, Leviticus 15:8; Leviticus 15:16. But the apostle seems to have particular respect unto the washings of the priests and of the offerings in the court of the tabernacle, before the altar; for these were such, as without which the gifts and sacrifices could not be rightly offered unto God.Secondly, It is added in the description of these things, καὶδικαιώμασισαρκός, — “institutis carnalibus,” “ritibus,” “ceremoniis,” “justitiis, justificationibus carnis.” “Carnal ordinances,” say we. The signification of δικαίωμα in this place hath been spoken unto before. Rites of worship arbitrarily imposed, whose “jus” or “right” depended on the will or pleasure of God. And they are said to be of the flesh for the reason given, Hebrews 9:13, — “they sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh,” and no more.The words may be an expression of the nature in general of the law about meats, drinks, and washings; they were “carnal ordinances.” But the distinctive copulative, καί, “and,” will not admit of that sense. It seems, therefore, to contain an addition of all those other legal ordinances which any way belonged unto the purifications of the law. The force of the reasonings in these words is evident. For the design of the apostle is to prove, that, in the perfect church-state which God would bring in under the new covenant, the worshippers were to enjoy peace of conscience, with joy and boldness in the presence of God, from a perfect atonement and purification of sin. Holy this is effected by the one sacrifice of Christ, he afterwards declares. But the ordinances of the law, and the Levitical sacrifices, were weak and imperfect as unto this end; for in them and by them men were conversant wholly in carnal things, in meats, drinks, washings, and such like carnal observances, which could reach no farther than the sanctification of the flesh, as he evidenceth in the application of all these things unto his present argument, Hebrews 9:13. And the faith of believers is rather weakened than confirmed by all things of the like nature, that divert their minds from an immediate respect unto and total dependence on the one sacrifice of Christ. Thirdly, Concerning all these things it is affirmed, that they were “imposed” on the people, — ἐπικείμενα. There is a difficulty in the syntax of this word, which all interpreters take notice of. If it refers unto the substantives immediately foregoing, βρώμασικαὶπόμασι, etc., it agrees not with them in case; if unto θυσίας in the other verse, it agrees not with it in gender. And the apostle had before adjoined unto it a participle of the feminine gender, — δυνάμεναι. Some think that the letter iota is added unto the first word, or taken from the latter, so that originally they were both of the same gender. But whereas the apostle had put together δῶρακαὶζυσίας, the one of the neuter, the other of the feminine gender, he might apply his adjectives either to one or both, without offense to grammar. Yet I rather judge that in this word he had respect unto all the things whereof he had discoursed from the very beginning of the chapter. Concerning them all he declares that they were thus “imposed;” and so the use of the word in the neuter gender is proper.Many judge that there is an objection anticipated in these words. For upon the description of the nature and use of the tabernacle, with all its furniture and services, he declares that they could not all of them, nor any of them, perfect the worshippers that attended unto them. Hereon it might be well inquired, ‘To what purpose, then, were they appointed? unto what end did they serve?’Hereunto he replies, ‘That they were never designed unto perpetual use, but only imposed on the people unto the time of reformation.’But whether there be a respect unto any such objection or no, he plainly declares their use and duration according unto the mind of God; which were such as their nature did require. And hereby also he confirms his argument of their insufficiency unto the great end of perfecting, sanctifying, or consecrating the state of the church. And hereof there are two evidences in these words: — 1. They were things imposed; that is, on the people under the law. They were laid on them as a burden. The word is properly “incumbentia,” lying on them; that is, as a burden. There was a weight in all these legal rites and ceremonies, which is called a “yoke,” and too heavy for the people to bear, Acts 15:10. And if the imposition of them be principally intended, as we render the word, “imposed,” it respects the bondage they were brought into by them. Men may have a weight lying on them, and yet not be brought into bondage thereby. But these things were so imposed on them as that they might feel their weight, and groan under the burden of it. Of this bondage the apostle treats at large in the epistle unto the Galatians. And it was impossible that those things should perfect a church-state, which’in themselves were such a burden, and effective of such a bondage. 2. As unto the duration assigned unto them, they were thus imposed μεχρὶκαιροῦ, — for a determined limited, season. They were never designed to continue for ever. And this is the great controversy which we have at this day with the Jews. The principal foundation of their present unbelief is, that the law of Moses is eternal, and that the observation of its rites and institutions is to be continued unto the end of the world. The contrary hereunto the apostle had evidently proved in the foregoing chapters. Whereas, therefore, he had undeniably demonstrated that they were not to be of perpetual use in the church, nor could ever effect that state of perfection which God designed unto it, he now declares that there was a certain determinate season fixed in the purpose and counsel of God for their cessation and removal. And this he describes in the last word. This was the season διορθώσεως: “correction,” say some; “direction,” others; we, “of reformation,” restraining the word unto the things spoken of, and retaining its usual signification, most improperly. For “reformation” is the amendment and reduction of any thing in the church unto its primitive institution, by abolishing and taking away the abuses that have crept into it, or corrupt additions that have been made unto it; but nothing of that nature is here intended. Many such seasons there were under the old testament, wherein the things belonging unto the worship of God were so reformed; but now not the reduction of the tabernacle and its services unto its first institution is intended, but its utter removal and taking away out of the service of God in the church. But if respect be had unto the whole state of the church in general, and what God designed unto it, taking the word “reformation” in a universal sense, for the introduction of a new animating form and life, with new means and ways of their expression and exercise in new ordinances of worship, the word may be of use in this place. Those who render it, “of correction,” are no less out of the way. For “correction” might be applied unto the abuses that had crept into the worship of God; — so it was by our Savior with respect unto pharasaical traditions: but the apostle treats here of the worship itself as it was first instituted by God, without respect unto any such abuses. This was not the object of any just correction. The time intended is sufficiently known and agreed upon. It is the great time or season of the coming of the Messiah, as the king, priest, and prophet of the church, to order and alter all things, so as it might attain its perfect state. This was the season that was to put an end unto all legal observances, wherein they were to expire. Unto the bringing in of this season God had ordered and disposed all things from the foundation of the world. See Luke 1:68-75. And it is called καιρὸςδιορθώσεως, because therein God finally disposed and directed all things in the church unto his own glory and the eternal salvation thereof. See Ephesians 1:10. And we may observe from the whole verse, —Obs. 1. That there is nothing in its own nature so mean and abject, but the will and authority of God can render it of sacred use and sacred efficacy, when he is pleased to ordain and appoint it. — Such were the “meats and drinks, and divers washings,” under the law; which, however contemptible in themselves, had a religious use from the appointment of God. For others to attempt the like, as they do with their salt, and oil, and the like, in the Papacy, is foolishly to imitate his sovereignty, and proudly to usurp his authority. Obs. 2. The fixing of times and seasons, for the state of things in the church, is solely in the hand of God. and at his sovereign disposal. — He alone appointed this “time of reformation;” the church could neither hasten it nor was to refuse it. Wherefore quiet waiting alone is our duty, as unto the accomplishment of all promises concerning the state of the church in this world. Obs. 3. It is a great part of the blessed liberty which the Lord Christ brought into the church, namely, its freedom and liberty from legal impositions, and every thing of the like nature in the worship of God Obs. 4. The time of the coming of Christ was the time of the general final reformation of the worship of God, wherein all things were unchangeably directed unto their proper use. Unto this verse the account of the Levitical priesthood, its sanctuary and services, is continued. Amongst them, the service of the high priest in the most holy place on the day of expiation was principally designed; for this was looked on and trusted unto by the Hebrews, as the principal glory of their worship, and as of the greatest efficacy as unto atonement and reconciliation with God. And so it was, in its proper place. Hence they have a saying yet common amongst them, “That on the day of expiation, when the high priest entered into the most holy place, all Israel were made as innocent as in the day of creation.” In what sense it neither was nor could be so shall be declared on Hebrews 10:1-3. But in these things the glory of the administration of the old covenant did consist; which the apostle allows unto it in his demonstration of the excellency of the new above it. Wherefore this ministry of the high priest on that day he hath an especial respect unto, in the account he gives of the priesthood of Christ and its administration.But yet, although he hath a principal regard hereunto, he doth not respect it only and singly. The whole description of the sanctuary and its services he also regards, in the comparison he intends between the Lord Christ in his office and these things. In him, his office, sanctuary, and sacrifice, do the excellency and efficacy of the new covenant consist, in opposition unto all those of the like kind under the law. The want of a due observation hereof hath led some expositors into mistakes: for they would confine all that he says unto a correspondency with what was done on that solemn day by the high priest, whereas he doth also expressly declare that the truth, reality, and substance of the tabernacle, all its utensils, its services and sacrifices, were to be found in him alone; for unto this end doth he give us such a description of them all in particular. But, as was said, that which he principally respects in the comparison he makes between the type and the antitype, is the high priest and his especial service in the most holy place, which he makes an entrance into in this verse. Hebrews 9:11. — Χριστὸςδὲπαραγενόμενος, ἀρχιερεὺςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν, διὰτῆςμείζονοςκαὶτελειοτέραςσκηνῆς, οὐχειροποιήτου, τουτ᾿ἔστιν, οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως. [5] [5] VARIOUS READING. — Instead of μελλόντων, Lachmann reads γενομένων. The latter has the support of BB*, the Italic, and the Peschito. Ebrard decides in its favor, understanding the word in reference to the good things of grace as already secured and existing, in contrast with the old testament high priest, who had to deal with the types of good things still future. . — Τῆςμείθ. καὶτελειοτ. σκηνῆς. Zuingle, Bucer, Tholuck, Bleek, and Turner, understand by the phrase the literal canopy of heaven; Calov and Vriemont, the new testament church; Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and others, the body of Christ. Ebrard thus explains it: “Through that time in which the old covenant with its ordinances still subsisted Christ has passed, inasmuch as he was made under the law; his act of passing through this state, his act of living in a state of humiliation, i.e. therefore, his perfect inward fulfillment of the law in his holy life, was the τελειοτέρασκηνή through which he passed into his state of exaltation. The real fact of holiness (in the life of Jesus upon earth) stands opposed to the symbolical representation of holiness in the Mosaic πρώτησκηνή.” — ED. Παραγενόμενος. Vulg., “assistens,” “assisting.” Syr., γֵּ ?ΰϊָ ?ΰ, “who cometh.” “Adveniens,” “coming.” ᾿Αρχιερεύς. Syr., δֲ ?εָ ?ΰεַ ?αλּ ?εּ ?ξָ ?ψֶ ?ΰ, “was an high priest,” or “was made an high priest;” whereunto it adds, instead of “good things to come,” “of the good things which he hath wrought.”Διὰμείζονοςκαὶτελειοτέραςσκηνῆς. Vulg. Lat., “per amplius et perfectius tabernaculum;” barbarously for “mains et praestantius.” Syr. εַ ?ξְ ?ωַׁ ?μְ ?ξָ ?πָ ?ΰεְ ?ςַ ?μμְ ?ξֶ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?πָ ?ΰψַ ?αָּ ?ΰ, “and he entered into that great and perfect tabernacle.”Οὐταύτηςτῆςκτίσεως. Vulg. Lat., “non hujus creationis.” Syr., ξֵ ?οδָ ?μֵ ?ιοαְּ ?ψַ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “of” or “from among these creatures.” Most, “hujus structurae,” “of this building.”Hebrews 9:11. — But Christ being come, an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.The introduction of the comparison in the redditive conjunction δὲ, “but,” answers unto μέν in the first verse of the chapter; which are the common notes of comparison and opposition. Εἷχεμέν...... Χριστὸς, — “That had truly ...... but Christ,” etc. In this and the next verse the apostle lays down in general what he proves and confirms by instances in this, and unto the 20th verse of the following chapter. And there are two things which he declares in this and the verse ensuing: 1. Who is the high priest of the new covenant, and what is the tabernacle wherein he administered his office, Hebrews 9:11. 2. What are the especial services he performed, in answer unto those of the legal high priest, and their preference above them, Hebrews 9:12. In this verse he expresseth the subject whereof he treats, or the person of the high priest concerning whom he treats. And he describes him, 1. By his name; it is “Christ.”2. By his entrance on his office; “being come.”3. His office itself; “an high priest.”4. The effects of his office, or the especial object of it; “good things to come.”5. The tabernacle wherein he administereth or dischargeth his office; which is described by a comparison with the old tabernacle, and that two ways:(1.) Positively; that it was “greater” and “more perfect” or “more excellent” than it.(2.) By a double negation, the latter exegetical of the former; “not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building” or “creation.” All these particulars must be distinctly opened, to give a right understanding of the sense of the; place and meaning of the words: — First, The person spoken of is “Christ.” I have observed before the variety of appellations or names whereby the apostle on various occasions expresseth him in this epistle, otherwise than he is wont to do in any other of his epistles. Sometimes he calls him Jesus only, sometimes Christ, sometimes Jesus Christ, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Son of God. And he had respect herein unto the various notions which the church of the Jews had concerning his person from the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament. And he useth none of them peculiarly but when there is a peculiar reason for it, as we have already observed on sundry occasions. And so there is in this place. He doth not say Jesus is come, or the Son, or the Son of God, but “Christ being come;” that is, “the Messiah being come.” Under that name and notion was he promised from the beginning, and the fundamental article of the faith of the church was, that the Messiah was to come; — all their desires and expectations were fixed on the coming of the Messiah. Hence ὁἐρχόμενος, “he that was to come,” was the name whereby they expressed their faith in him. Σὺει῏ὁἐρχόμενος; Matthew 11:3, — “Art thou he who is to come?” And the coming of Christ, or the Messiah, was the time and the cause wherein and whereby they expected the last revelation of the will of God, and the utmost perfection of the church. Wherefore the apostle on this occasion mentions him by his name, ‘He who was promised of old that he should come, upon whose coming the faith of the church was built, by whom and at whose coming they expected the last revelation of the will of God, and consequently a change in their present administrations, the promised Messiah being come.’The church was founded of old on the name Jehovah, as denoting the unchangeableness and faithfulness of God in the accomplishment of his promises, Exodus 6:2-3. And this name of Christ is declarative of the accomplishment of them. Wherefore by calling him by this name, as it was most proper when he was to speak of his coming, so in it he minds the Hebrews of what was the ancient faith of their church concerning him, and what in general they expected on his coming. He had now no more to offer unto them but what they had for many ages expected, desired, and earnestly prayed for.Secondly, As a general foundation of what is afterwards ascribed unto him, or as the way whereby he entered on his office, he affirms that he is “come:” “Christ being come,” — παραγενόμενος. The word is nowhere else used to express the advent or coming of Christ. Hence by the Vulgar it is rendered “assistens;” which as it doth not signify to “come,” so the sense is corrupted by it. The Rhemists render that translation, “but Christ assisting an high priest.” But this increaseth the ambiguity of the mistake of that translation, as not declaring that Christ himself was this high priest, which is the direct assertion of the apostle. That which is intended is the accomplishment of the promise of God, in the sending and exhibition of Christ in the flesh: ‘He being now come, according as was promised from the foundation of the world.’For although the word is inseparable in its construction with what followeth, “an high priest,” — “being come an high priest;” yet his coming itself in order unto the susception and discharge of that office is included in it. And upon this coming itself depended the demonstration of the faithfulness of God in his promises. And this is the great fundamental article of Christian religion, in opposition unto Judaism, as it is declared, 1 John 4:2-3. Wherefore, by his being “come,” in this place, no one single act is intended, as his advent or coming doth usually signify his incarnation only; but the sense of the word is comprehensive of the whole accomplishment of the promise of God in sending him, and his performance of the work whereunto he was designed thereon. In that sense is he frequently said to come, or to be come, 1 John 5:20.And, as was before observed, there is not only argument herein unto the apostle’s design, but that which, being duly weighed, would fully determine all the controversy he had with these Hebrews. For all their legal administrations were only subservient unto his coming, and representations thereof, — all given in confirmation of the truth of the promises of God that so he should come: wherefore upon his coming they must all necessarily cease and be removed out of the church. Thirdly, There is in the words a determination of the especial end of his coming, under present consideration, — “an high priest,” “being come an high priest;” that is, in answer unto and in the room of the high priest under the law. This states the subject of the apostle’s argument. He had before proved that he was to be a priest, that he was a priest, and how he came so to be. He now asserts it as the foundation of those actings which he was to ascribe unto him in answer unto those of the legal high priests, whose offices and services, with the effects of them, he had before declared:‘Those high priests did so, “but Christ being come an high priest,” etc.’ Fourthly, He adds the especial object of his office, or the things about which he is conversant in the discharge of it: “Of the good things to come.” As the assertion is positive, so there is a comparison and opposition included in it. The high priests of the law were not so. They were not priests of “good things;” that is, absolutely, or such as were necessary unto the purification, sanctification, and justification of the church. And so far as they were priests of good things, they were so of good things present, not of the good things promised, that were for to come. And this is the force of the article τῶν, “of the good things;” namely, that God had promised unto the church. A priest, or a high priest, may be said to be the priest of the things that he doth in the execution of his office, or of the things which he procureth thereby; he is the priest of his duties, and of the effects of them; — as a minister may be said to be a minister of the word and sacraments which he administereth, or of the grace of the gospel which is communicated thereby. Both are here included, both the duties which he performed and the effects which he wrought. The things whereof Christ is a high priest, are said to be “things to come;” — that is, they are yet so, absolutely so; or they were so called with respect unto the state of the church under the old testament. Most expositors embrace the first sense. ‘These good things to come,’they say, ‘are that future eternal salvation and glory which were procured for the church by the priesthood of Christ, and were not so by the Levitical priesthood. To the administration of the priesthood under the law he assigns only things present, temporal things, or what could be effected by them in their own virtue and power; but unto that of Christ he assigns eternal things, as he speaks immediately, he hath “obtained eternal redemption for us.” The eternal salvation and glory of the church were procured by the priesthood of Christ, or Christ himself in the discharge of that office, and were not so by the Levitical priests. These things are true, but not the meaning, at least not the whole meaning, of the apostle in this place. For, — 1. This confines the relation of the priesthood of Christ in this place unto the effects of it only, and excludes the consideration of his sacerdotal actings in the great sacrifice of himself; for this was not now to come, but was already past and accomplished. But this is so far from being excluded by the apostle, as that it is principally intended by him. This is evident from the words ensuing, wherein the tabernacle is described in which he was thus “an high priest of good things to come;” for this was his human nature, wherein he offered himself, as we shall see. 2. He doth not in this place compare together and oppose the future state of glory which we shall have by Christ with and unto the state of the church in this world under the old testament; which were not equal, nor would be cogent unto his purpose, seeing the saints of old were also made partakers of that glory. But he compares the present state of the church, the privileges, advantages, and grace which it enjoyed by the priesthood of Christ, with what it had by the Aaronical priesthood; for the fundamental principle which he confirms is, that the τελείωσις, or present “perfection” of the church, is the effect of the priesthood of Christ. Wherefore the apostle expresseth these things by that notion of them which was received under the old testament and in the church of the Hebrews, namely, the “good things to come;” — that is, they were so from the beginning of the world, or the giving of the first promise. Things which were fore-signified by all the ordinances of the law, and which thereon were the desire and expectation of the church in all preceding ages; the things which all the prophets foretold, and which God promised by them, directing the faith of the church unto them; in brief, all the good things in spiritual redemption and salvation which they looked for by the Messiah, are here called the “good things to come.” Of these things Christ was now come the high priest; the law having only the shadow, and not so much as the perfect image of them, Hebrews 10:1. And these things may be referred unto two heads: —(1.) Those wherein the actual administration of his office did consist, for, as we said, he was the high priest of the duties of his own office, he by whom they were performed. These in general were his oblation and intercession. For although his intercession be continued in heaven, yet was it begun on the earth; as his oblation was offered on the earth, but is continued in heaven, as unto the perpetual exercise of it. The whole preparation unto, and actual oblation of himself, was accompanied with most fervent and effectual intercessions, Hebrews 5:7. And such was his solemn prayer recorded John 17. These things themselves, in the first place, were the “good things to come.” For these were they which were designed in, and the substance of, the first promise; as also of all those which were afterwards given for the confirmation of the faith of the church therein. These did all the legal institutions direct unto and represent. And that they are here intended by the apostle, he plainly declares in the next verse; for with respect unto these good things to come, he opposeth his own blood and sacrifice, with the atonement he made thereby, unto the blood of bulls and of goats, with whatever could be effected thereby.(2.) The effects of these sacerdotal actings are also intended: for these also are reckoned hereunto in the close of the next verse, in the instance of one of them, namely, “eternal redemption,” which is comprehensive of them all. And these also were of two sorts: —[1. Such as immediately respected God himself. Of this nature was the atonement and reconciliation which he made by his blood, and peace with God for sinners thereon. See 2 Corinthians 5:19-20; Ephesians 2:14-16. [2. The benefits which hereon are actually collated on the church, whereby it is brought into its consummate state in this world. What they are we have discoursed at large on Hebrews 7:11.These, therefore, are the “good things to come,” consisting in the bringing forth and accomplishing of the glorious effects of the hidden wisdom of God, according unto his promises from the beginning of the world, in the sacrifice of Christ, with all the benefits and privileges of the church, in righteousness, peace, and spiritual worship, which ensued thereon. And we may observe, — Obs. 1. These things alone are the true and real good things that were intended for and promised unto the church from the beginning of the world. — The Jews had now utterly lost the true notion of them, which proved their ruin; and yet do they continue in the same fatal mistake unto this day. They found that great and glorious things were spoken of by all the prophets, to be brought in at the coming of the Messiah; and the hope of good things to come they lived upon, and continue yet so to do. But being carnal in their own minds, and obstinately fixed unto the desire of earthly things, they fancied them to consist in things quite of another nature; — honor, riches, power, a kingdom and dominion on the earth, with a possession of the wealth of all nations, were the good things which they hoped were to come. As to reconciliation and peace with God by a full and perfect atonement for sin, righteousness, deliverance from spiritual adversaries, with a holy worship acceptable unto God, they are things which they neither desired nor regarded. Wherefore, choosing the world and the things of it before those which are spiritual and heavenly, unto the world they are left, and the curse which it lieth under. And it is to be feared that some others also have deceived themselves with carnal apprehensions of the good things, if not of the priesthood, yet of the kingdom of Christ. Obs. 2. These things alone are absolutely good unto the church; all other things are good or evil as they are used or abused. — Outward peace and prosperity are good in themselves, but oftentimes they prove not so to the church. Many a time have they been abused unto its great disadvantage. They are not such things as are too earnestly to be desired, for who knows what will be the end of them? But these things are absolutely good in every state and condition. Obs. 3. So excellent are these good things, as that the performance and procuring of them were the cause of the coming of the Son of God, with his susception and discharge of his sacerdotal office. — They are excellent in their relation unto the wisdom, grace, and love of God, whereof they are the principal effects; and excellent in relation unto the church, as the only means of its eternal redemption and salvation. Had they been of a lower or meaner nature, so glorious a means had not been designed for the effecting of them. Woe unto them by whom they are despised! “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?” And, — Obs. 4. Such a price and value did God put on these things, so good are they in his eyes, as that he made them the subject of his promises unto the church from the foundation of the world. — And in all his promises concerning them, he still opposed them unto all the good things of this world, as those which were incomparably above them and better than them all. And therefore he chose out all things that are precious in the whole creation to represent their excellency; which makes an appearance of promises of earthly glories in the Old Testament, whereby the Jews deceived themselves. And because of their worth, he judged it meet to keep the church so long in the desire and expectation of them.Fifthly, That which the apostle hath immediate respect unto in the declaration of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, is what he had newly at large declared concerning the tabernacle and the service of the high priest therein. Wherefore he assigns a tabernacle unto this high priest, in answer unto that under the law, whereby he came, or wherein he administered the duties of his office. And concerning this he,1. Asserts that “he came by a tabernacle.”2. Describes this tabernacle in comparison with the former:(1.) Positively, that it was “greater and more perfect;”(2.) Negatively, in that being “not made with hands,” it was not of the same building with it.1. He came by a tabernacle. These words may have prospect unto what is afterwards declared in the next verse, and belong thereunto; — as if he bad said, ‘Being come an high priest, he entered into the holy place by a perfect tabernacle, with his own blood;’for so the high priest of the law entered into the holy place, by or through the tabernacle, with the blood of others But the words do rather declare the constitution of the tabernacle intended than the use of it, as unto that one solemn service; for so before he had described the frame and constitution of the old tabernacle, before he mentioned its use.“Being come an high priest, by such a tabernacle;” that is, wherein he administered that office. What is the tabernacle here intended, there is great variety in the judgment of expositors, Some say it is the church of the new testament, as Chrysostom, who is followed by many. Some say it is heaven itself. This is embraced and pleaded for by Schlichtingius, who labors much in the explanation of it. But whereas this is usually opposed, because the apostle in the next verse affirms that “Christ entered into the holies,” which he expounds of heaven itself, by this tabernacle, which therefore cannot be heaven also, he endeavors to remove it. For he says there is a double tabernacle in heaven. For as the apostle hath in one and the same place described a double tabernacle here on earth, a first and a second, with their utensils and services, distinguished the one from the other by a veil; so there are two places in heaven answering thereunto. The first of these he would have to be the dwelling-place of the angels; the other the place of the throne of God himself, represented by the most holy place in the tabernacle. Through the first of these he says the LORD Christ passed into the second, which is here called his tabernacle. And it is indeed said that the Lord Christ in his exaltation did “pass through the heavens,” and that he was “made higher than the heavens;” which would seem to favor that conceit, though not observed by him. But there is no ground to conceit or fancy such distinct places in heaven above; yea, it is contrary to the Scripture so to do, for the residence of the holy angels is before and about the throne of God. So are they always placed in the Scripture, Daniel 7:10; Matthew 18:10; Revelation 5:11. And these aspectable heavens, which Christ passed through, were not so much as the veil of the tabernacle in his holy service, which was his own flesh, Hebrews 10:20. The only reason of this ungrounded, curious imagination, is a design to avoid the acknowledgment of the sacrifice of Christ whilst he was on the earth. For this cause he refers this tabernacle unto his entrance into the most holy place, as the only means of offering himself. But the design of the apostle is to show, that as he was a high priest, so he had a tabernacle of his own wherein he was to minister unto God. 2. This tabernacle, whereby he came a high priest, was his own human nature. The bodies of men are often called their tabernacles, 2 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Peter 1:14. And Christ called his own body the temple, John 2:19. His flesh was the veil, Hebrews 10:20. And in his incarnation he is said to “pitch his tabernacle among us,” John 1:14. Herein dwelt “the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9, — that is, substantially; represented by all the pledges of God’s presence in the tabernacle of old. This was that tabernacle wherein the Son of God administered his sacerdotal office in this world, and wherein he continueth yet so to do in his intercession. For the full proof hereof I refer the reader unto our exposition on Hebrews 8:2. And this gives us an understanding of the description given of this tabernacle in the adjuncts of it, with reference unto that of old. This is given us, — [1. That it was “greater” than it; — greater in dignity and worth, not quantity and measures. The human nature of Christ, both in itself, its conception, framing, gracious qualifications and endowments, especially in its relation unto and subsistence in the divine person of the Son, was far more excellent and glorious than any material fabric could be. In this sense, for comparative excellency and dignity, is μείζων almost constantly used in the New Testament. So is it in this epistle, Hebrews 6:13; Hebrews 6:16. The human nature of Christ doth thus more excel the old tabernacle than the sun doth the meanest star. [2. “More perfect.” This respects its sacred use. It was more perfectly fitted and suited unto the end of a tabernacle, both for the inhabitation of the divine nature and the means of exercising the sacerdotal office in making atonement for sin, than the other was. So it is expressed, Hebrews 10:5, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not have, but a body hast thou prepared me.” This was that which God accepted, wherewith he was well pleased, when he rejected the other as insufficient unto that end. And we may hence observe, that, —Obs. 5. The human nature of Christ, wherein he discharged the duties of his sacerdotal office in making atonement for sin, is the greatest, the most perfect and excellent ordinance of God; far excelling those that were most excellent under the old testament. — An ordinance of God it was, in that it was what he designed, appointed, and produced unto his own glow; and it was that which answered all ordinances of worship under the old testament, as the substance of what was shadowed out in them and by them. And I have labored elsewhere to represent the glory of this ordinance as the principal effect of divine wisdom and goodness, the great means of the manifestation of his eternal glory. The wonderful provision of this tabernacle will be the object of holy admiration unto eternity. But the glory of it is a subject which I have elsewhere peculiarly labored in the demonstration of.[6] And unto the comparison with those of old, here principally intended, its excellency and glory may be considered in these as in other things: representation; that it had in truth, reality, and substance. [6] See vol. 1: p. 273, of his miscellaneous works. — ED. 2dly. What they only shadowed out as unto reconciliation and peace with God, that it did really effect. 3dly. Whereas they were capable only of a holiness by dedication and consecration, which is external, giving an outward denomination, not changing the nature of the things themselves; this was glorious in real internal holiness, wherein the image of God doth consist.4thly. The matter of them all was earthly, carnal, perishing; his human nature was heavenly as unto its original, — “the Lord from heaven;” and immortal or eternal in its constitution, — he was “made a priest after the power of an endless life;” for although he died once for sin, yet his whole nature had always its entire subsistence in the person of the Son of God.5thly. Their relation unto God was by virtue of an outward institution or word of command only that of his was by assumption into personal union with the Son of God.6thly. They had only outward, typical pledges of God’s presence; “in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”7thly. They were exposed unto the injuries of time, and all other outward occurrences, wherein there was nothing of the glory or worship of God; he never did nor could suffer any thing but what belonged unto his office, and is now exalted above all adversities and oppositions. And other considerations of the like nature might be added.Obs. 6. The Son of God undertaking to be the high priest of the church, it was of necessity that he should come by or have a tabernacle wherein to discharge that office, — He “came by a tabernacle.” So it is said unto the same purpose, that it “was of necessity that he should have somewhat to offer,” Hebrews 8:3. For being to save the church by virtue of and in the discharge of that office, it could not be otherwise done than by the sacrifice of himself in and by his own tabernacle. (2.) He describes this tabernacle by a double negation:[1. That it was “not made with hands.” [2. That it was “not of this building.” And this latter clause is because of its introduction by τουτ᾿ἔστιν, “that is to say.” I shall consider both: —[1. It was ἀχειροποίητος, — “not made with hands.” The old tabernacle whilst it stood was the temple of God. So it is constantly called by David in the Psalms. Temples were generally sumptuous and glorious fabrics, always answering the utmost ability of them that built them. Not to have done their best therein they esteemed irreligious; for they designed to express somewhat of the greatness of what they worshipped, and to beget a veneration of what was performed in them. And this men in the degenerate state of Christianity are returned unto, endeavoring to represent the greatness of God, and the holiness of his worship, in magnificent structures, and costly ornaments of them. Howbeit the best of them all are made by the hands of men; and so are no way meet habitations for God, in the way he had designed to dwell among us. This Solomon acknowledgeth concerning the temple which he had built, which yet was the most glorious that ever was erected, and built by God’s own appointment: 2 Chronicles 2:5-6, “The house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods. But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?” 1 Kings 8:27,“Will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?”Service was to be done unto God in that temple according unto his appointment, but a meet habitation for him it was not. And our apostle lays it down as a principle suited unto natural light, that “God, who made all things, could not dwell ἐνχειροποιήτοιςνασῖς,” — “in temples made with hands,” Acts 17:24. Such was the tabernacle of old; but such was not that wherein our Lord Jesus administereth his office.There seems to me to have been an apprehension among the Jews that there should be a temple wherein God would dwell, that should not be made with hands. Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the first year of his ministry, upon his purging of the temple, upon their requiring a sign for the justification of his authority in what he had done, says no more but only, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” John 2:19.He spake of the same temple, as to their destruction of it and his own raising it again. Thus he called his own body. “He spake,” saith the evangelist, “of the temple of his body.” That other fabric was a type thereof, and so partook of the same name with it; but yet was no further a temple, or a habitation of God, but as it was typical of that body of his, wherein the fullness of the Godhead did dwell. This testimony of his seemeth to have provoked the Jews above every other; — unless it was that, when he plainly declared his divine nature unto them, affirming that he was before Abraham; for this cast them into so much madness, as that immediately “they took up stones to cast at him,” John 8:58-59. But their malice was more inveterate against him for what he thus spake concerning the temple; for, three years after, when they conspired to take away his life, they made these words the ground of their accusation. But as is usual in such cases, when they could not pretend that his own words, as he spake them, were criminal, they variously wrested them to make an appearance of a crime, though they knew not of what nature. So the psalmist prophesied that they should do, Psalms 56:5-6. Some of them affirmed him to have said,“I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days,” Matthew 26:61.Which was apparently false, as is evident in comparing his words with theirs. Wherefore others of them observing that the witness was not yet home unto their purpose, and the design of the priests, they sware positively that he said, “I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands,” Mark 14:58.For they are not the words of the same persons, variously reported by the evangelists; for these in Mark are other witnesses, which agreed not with what was sworn before, as he observes, verse 59, “But neither so did their witness agree together.” However, they fix on a notion that was passant among them, of a temple to be built without hands. And sundry things there are in the prophets which led them into an apprehension that God would dwell among men in a temple or tabernacle that should not be made with hands. And all their predictions were accomplished when the eternal Word, by the assumption of our nature, fixed his tabernacle among us, John 1:14.This is that which the apostle intimates: Whereas Solomon openly affirms that the habitation of God could not be in the temple that he had built, because it was made with hands, and it is a principle of natural light, that he who made the world and all things contained therein could not dwell in such a temple; and whereas it seems to have belonged unto the faith of the church of old that there should be a temple wherein God would dwell that was to be ἀχειροποίητος; in comparing the human nature of Christ with the old tabernacle, he affirms in the first place that it was not made with hands.Respect also is had herein unto the framing of the fabric of the old tabernacle by Bezaleel. For although the pattern of it was shown unto Moses in the mount from heaven, yet the actual framing and erection of it was by the hands of workmen skillful to work in all kinds of earthly materials, Exodus 31:1-6; Exodus 36:1. And although by reason of the wisdom, cunning, and skill which they had received in an extraordinary way, they framed, made, and reared a tabernacle most artificial and beautiful; yet when all was done, it was but the work of men’s hands. But the constitution and production of the human nature of Christ was an immediate effect of the wisdom and power of God himself, Luke 1:35. Nothing of human wisdom or contrivance, nothing of the skill or power of man, had the least influence into or concurrence in the provision of this glorious tabernacle, wherein the work of the redemption of the church was effected. The body of Christ, indeed, was “made of a woman,” of the substance of the blessed Virgin; but she was purely passive therein, and concurrent in no efficiency either moral or physical thereunto. It was the contrivance of divine wisdom and the effect of divine power alone.[2. The apostle adds, as a further dissimilitude unto the other tabernacle, “That is, not of this building.” Expositors generally take these words to be merely exegetical of the former: “Not made with hands; that is, not of this building.” To me there seems to be an αὔξησις in them. ‘It is so not made with hands like unto that tabernacle, as that it is not of the order of any other created thing; not of the same make and constitution with any thing else in the whole creation here below.’For although the substance of his human nature was of the same kind with ours, yet the production of it in the world was such an act of divine power as excels all other divine operations whatever. Wherefore God speaking of it saith, “The LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man,” Jeremiah 31:22; or conceive him without natural generation.Κτίσις is the word whereby the creation of all things is constantly expressed in the New Testament; and sometimes it signifies the things that are created. Neither is it ever used, nor κτίζω, whence it is derived, to signify the constitution of the ordinances of the old testament, the tabernacle, the temple, or any thing belonging thereunto. Wherefore ταύτης here doth not limit it unto that constitution, so as that “not of this building” should be, “not made with hands as that tabernacle was.” It is therefore not of the order of created things here below, either such as were immediately created at the beginning, or educed out of them by a creating act of power. For although it was so as unto its substance, yet in its constitution and production it was an effect of the divine power above the whole order of this creation, or things created. Obs. 7. God is so far from being obliged unto any means for the effecting of the holy counsels of his will, as that he can when he pleaseth exceed the whole order and course of the first creation of all things, and his providence in the rule thereof. From the comparison between the tabernacle of old and that of the high priest of the new covenant, there is a procedure in this verse unto another, between his sacerdotal actings and those of the high priest under the ,law. And whereas, in the description of the tabernacle and its especial services, the apostle had insisted in a peculiar manner on the entrance of the high priest every year into the most holy place, — which was the most solemn and most mystical part of the tabernacle service, — in the first place he gives an account of what answered thereunto in the sacerdotal administrations of Christ; and how much on all accounts, both of the sacrifice in the virtue whereof he entered into the most holy place, and of the place itself whereinto he entered, and of the time when, it did in glory and efficacy excel that service of the high priest under the law. Hebrews 9:12. — Οὐδὲδι᾿αἵματοςτράγωνκαὶμόσχων, διὰδὲτοῦἰδίουαἵματοςεἰσῆλθενἐφάπαξεἰςτὰἅγια, αἰωνίανλύτρωσινεὐράμενος.Διὰδὲτοῦἰδίουαἵματος. Syr., αַּ ?γְ ?ξָ ?ΰγְּ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωֵׁ ?δּ, “by the blood of his own soul” or “life.” He made his soul an offering for sin, Isaiah 53:10. Blood is the life of the sacrifice. ᾿Εφάπαξ. Syr., ηֲ ?γָ ?ΰζְ ?αַ ?ο, “one time;” not many times, not once every year, as they did under the law. Εἰςτὰἅγια.Syr., .μְ ?αֵ ?ιϊξַ ?χְ ?γְ ?ωָׁ ?δ, “into the house of the sanctuary;” less properly, for by that expression’the old tabernacle is intended, but the apostle respects heaven itself. “In sancta,” “sancta sanctorum,’ “sacrarium;” — that which answers unto the most holy place in the tabernacle, where was the throne of God, the ark and mercy-seat. Αἰωνίαν. Vulg., “aeterna redemptione inventa;” “aeternam redemptionem nactus;” “aeterna redemptione acquisita;” most properly, and according unto the use of the word in all good authors.Hebrews 9:12. — Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the [most] holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.In this verse there is a direct entrance into the great mystery of the sacerdotal actings of Christ, especially as unto the sacrifice he offered to make atonement tot sin. But the method which the apostle proceedeth in is what he was led unto by the proposal he had made of the types of it under the law; wherefore he begins with the complement or consequent of it, in answer unto that act or duty of the high priest wherein the glory of his office was most conspicuous, which he had newly mentioned. And here, because part of our design in the exposition of this whole epistle is to free and vindicate the sense of it from the corrupt glosses which the Socinians, and some that follow them, have cast upon it, I shall on this great head of the sacrifice of Christ particularly insist on the removal of them. And indeed the substance of all that is scattered up and down their writings against the proper sacrifice of Christ, and the true nature of his sacerdotal office, is comprised in the comment on this epistle composed by Crellius and Schlichtingius I shall therefore first examine their corrupt wrestings of the words and false interpretations of them, before. I proceed unto their exposition. They begin, “Nunc etiam opponit sacrificium ipsius Christi, sacrificio pontificis antiqui.” This is the πρῶτονψεῦδος, of their interpretation of this and the following verses. If this be not so, all that they afterwards assert, or infer from it, falls of itself. But this is most false. There is not any thing directly either of the sacrifice of Christ or of the high priest, but only what was consequent unto the one and the other; yea, there is that which excludes them from being intended. The entrance of the high priest into the holy place was not his sacrifice. For it supposed his sacrifice to be offered before, in the virtue whereof, and with the memorial of it, he so entered; that is, with “the blood of goats and calves.” For all sacrifices were offered at the brazen altar; and that of the high priest on the day of expiation is expressly declared so to have been, Leviticus 16. And the entrance of Christ into heaven was not his sacrifice, nor the oblation of himself. For he offered himself unto God with strong cries and supplications; but his entrance into heaven was triumphant. So he entered into heaven by virtue of his sacrifice, as we shall see; but his entrance into heaven was not the sacrifice of himself. They add in explication hereof: “Pontifex antiquus per sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum ingrediebatur in sancta, Christus vero non per sanguinem tam vilem, seal pretiosissimum; quod alius esse non potuit quam ipsius proprius. Nam sanguis quidem humanus sanguine brutorum, sed sanguis Christi, sanguine caeterorum omnium hominum longe est pretiosior; cum ipse quoque caeteris hominibus omnibus imo omnibus creaturis longe sit praestantior, Deoque charior et proprior, utpote unigenitus eius Filius.” What they say of the “preciousness of the blood of Christ” above that of brute creatures, is true; but they give two reasons for it, which comprise not the true reason of its excellency as unto the ends of his sacrifice: 1. They say, it was “the blood of a man.”2. That “this man was more dear to God than all other creatures, as his only-begotten Son.” Take these last words in the sense of the Scripture, and the true reason of the preciousness and efficacy of the blood of Christ in his sacrifice is assigned; take them in their sense, and it is excluded. The Scripture by them intends his eternal generation, as the Son of the Father; they, only his nativity of the blessed Virgin, with his exaltation after his resurrection. But the true excellency and efficacy of the blood of Christ in his sacrifice was from his divine person, whereby “God purchased his church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28.Nor do I know of what consideration the “preciousness” of the blood of Christ can be with them in this matter; for it belonged not unto his sacrifice, or the oblation of himself, as they pretend. For they would have the offering of himself to consist only in his entrance into heaven, and appearing in the presence of God, when, as they also imagine, he had neither flesh nor blood. They proceed unto a speculation about the use and signification of the preposition per, by, or διά:“Notandum est auctorem, ut ele-gantiae istius comparationis consuleret, usum esse in priori membro voce, ‘per;’licet pontifex legalis non tantum per sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum, hoc est, fuso prius sanguine istorum animalium, seu interveniente sanguinis eorum fusione, sed etism cum ipsorum sanguine in sancta fuerit ingressus, Hebrews 9:7. Verum quia in Christi sacrificio similitudo eousque extendi non potuit, cum Christus non alienum sed suum sanguinem fuderit, nec sanguinem suum post mortem, sed seipsum, et quidem jam immortalem, depositis carnis et sanguinis exuviis, quippe quae regnum Dei possidere nequeant, in coelesti illo tabernaculo obtulerit; proindeque non cum sanguine, sed tantum fuso prius sanguine, seu interveniente sanguinis sui fusione in sancta fuerit ingressus; idcirco auctor minus de legali pontifice dixit quam res erat; vel potius ambiguitate particulae, ‘per,’quae etiam idem quod ‘cum,’in sacris literis significare solet, comparationis concinnitati consulere voluit.” The design of this whole discourse is to overthrow the nature of the sacrifice of Christ, and to destroy all the real similitude between it and the sacrifice of the high priest; the whole of its sophistry being animated by a fancied signification of the preposition “per,” or falsely-pretended reason of the use of it by the apostle. For, 1. The high priest did indeed carry of the blood of the sacrifice into the holy place, and so may be said to enter into it with blood; as it is said he did it “not without blood,” Hebrews 9:7 : yet is it not that which the apostle hath here respect unto; but it is the sacrifice at the altar, where the blood of it was shed and offered, which he intends, as we shall see immediately.2. There is therefore nothing less ascribed unto the high priest herein than belonged unto him; for all that is intended is, that he entered into the holy place by virtue of the blood of goats and calves which was offered at the altar. Less than his due is not ascribed unto him, to make the comparison fit and meet, as is boldly pretended. Yea,3. The nature of the comparison used by the apostle is destroyed by this artifice; especially if it be considered as a mere comparison, and not as the relation that was between the type and the antitype; for that is the nature of the comparison that the apostle makes between the entrance of the high priest into the holy place and the entrance of Christ into heaven. That there may be such a comparison, that there may be such a relation between these things, it is needful that they should really agree in that wherein they are compared, and not by force or artifice be fitted to make some kind of resemblance the one of the other. For it is to no purpose to compare things together which disagree in all things; much less can such things be the types one of another. Wherefore the apostle declares and allows a treble dissimilitude in the comparates, or between the type and the antitype: for Christ entered by his own blood, the high priest by the blood of goats and calves; Christ only once, the high priest every year; Christ into heaven, the high priest into the tabernacle made with hands. But in other things he confirms a similitude between them; namely, in the entrance of the high priest into the holy place by the blood of his sacrifice, or with it. But by these men this is taken away, and so no ground of any comparison left; — only the apostle makes use of an ambiguous word, to frame an appearance of some similitude in the things compared, whereas indeed there is none at all! For unto these ends he says, “by the blood,” whereas he ought to have said, “with the blood.” But if he had said so, there would have been no appearance of any similitude between the things compared. For they allow not Christ to enter into the holy place by or with his own blood in any sense; not by virtue of it as offered in sacrifice for us, nor to make application of it unto us in the fruits of his oblation for us. And what similitude is there between the high priest entering into the holy place by the blood of the sacrifice that he had offered, and the Lord Christ entering into heaven without his own blood, or any respect unto the virtue of it as offered in sacrifice? 4. This notion of the sacrifice or oblation of Christ to consist only in his appearance in heaven without flesh or blood, as they speak, overthrows all the relation of types or representations between it and the sacrifices of old. Nay, on that supposition, they were suited rather to deceive the church than instruct it in the nature of the great expiatory sacrifice that was to be made by Christ. For the universal testimony of them all was, that atonement and expiation of sin was to be made by blood, and no otherwise; but according unto these men, Christ offered not himself unto God for the expiation of our sins until he had neither flesh nor blood. 5. They say, it is true, he offered himself in heaven, “fuse prius sanguine.” But it is an order of time, and not of causality, which they intend. His blood was shed before, but therein, they say, was no part of his offering or sacrifice. But herein they expressly contradict the Scripture and themselves. It is by the offering of Christ that our sins are expiated, and redemption obtained. This the Scripture doth so expressly declare as that they cannot directly deny it. But these things are constantly ascribed unto the blood of Christ, and the shedding of it; and yet they would have it that Christ offered himself then only, when he had neither flesh nor blood.They increase this confusion in their ensuing discourse: “Aliter enim ex parte Christi res sese habuit, quam in illo antique. In antique illo, ut in aliis quae pro peccato lege divina constituta erant, non offerebatur ipsum animal mactatum, hoc est, nec in odorem suavitatis, ut Scriptura loquitur, adolebatur, sod renes ejus et adeps tantum; nec inferebatur in sancta, sed illius sanguis tantum. In Christi autem sacrificio, non sanguis ipsius quem mactatus effudit, sod ipse offerri, et in illa sancta coelestia ingredi debuit. Idcirco infra Hebrews 9:14, dicitur, seipsum, non vero sanguinem suum Deo obtulisse; licet alias comparatio cum sacrificiis expiatoriis postulare videretur, ut hoc posterius potius doceretur.” 1. Here they fully declare, that, according to their notion, there was indeed no manner of similitude between the things compared, but that, as to what they are compared in, they were opposite, and had no agreement at all. The ground of the comparison in the apostle is, that they were both by blood, and this alone. For herein he allows a dissimilitude, in that Christ’s was “by his own blood,” that of the high priest “by the blood of goats and calves.” But according unto the sense of these men, herein consists the difference between them, that the one was with blood, and the other without it; which is expressly contradictory to the apostle.2. What they observe of the sacrifices of old, that not the bodies of them, but only the kidneys and fat were burned, and the blood only carried into the holy place, is neither true nor any thing to their purpose. For,(1.) The whole bodies of the expiatory sacrifices were burnt and consumed with fire; and this was done without the camp, Leviticus 16:27, to signify the suffering of Christ, and therein the offering of his body without the city, as the apostle observes, Hebrews 13:11-12(2.) They allow of no use of the blood in sacrifices, but only as to the carrying of it into the holy place: which is expressly contradictory unto the main end of the institution of expiatory sacrifices; for it was that by their blood atonement should he made on the altar, Leviticus 17:11. Wherefore there is no relation of type and antitype, no similitude for a ground of comparison between the sacrifice of Christ and that of the high priest, if it was not made by his blood.(3.) Their observation, that in verse 14 the Lord Christ is said to offer himself, and not to offer his blood, is of no value. For in the offering of his blood Christ offered himself, or he offered himself by the offering of his blood; his person giving the efficacy of a sacrifice unto what he offered. And this is undeniably asserted in that very verse. For the “purging of our consciences from dead works,” is the expiation of sin; but Christ, even according to the Socinians, procured the expiation of sin by the offering of himself; yet is this here expressly assigned unto his blood, “How much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works?” Wherefore in the offering of himself he offered his blood. They add, as the exposition of these words, “He entered into the holiest;” — “Ingressus in sancta, necessario ad sacrificium istud requiritur. Nec anteoblatio, in qua sacrificii ratio potissimum consistit, peragi potuit, cum ea in sanctis ipsis fieri debuerit. Hinc manifestum est pontificis nostri oblationem et sacrificium non in truce, sed in coelis peractam esse, et adhuc peragi.” Ans. 1. What they say at first is true; but what they intend and infer from thence is false. It is true that the entrance into the holy place, and carrying of the blood in thither, did belong unto the anniversary sacrifice intended; for God had prescribed that order unto its consummation and complement. But that the sacrifice or oblation did consist therein is false; for it is directly affirmed that both the bullock and goat for the sin-offering were offered before it, at the altar, Leviticus 16:6; Leviticus 16:9.2. It doth not therefore hence follow, as is pretended, that the Lord Christ offered not himself a sacrifice unto God on the earth, but did so in heaven only; but the direct contrary doth follow. For the blood of the sin-offering was offered on the altar, before it was carried into the holy place; which was the type of Christ’s entrance into heaven.3. What they say, that the sacrifice of Christ was performed or offered in heaven, and is yet so offered, utterly overthrows the whole nature of his sacrifice. For the apostle everywhere represents that to consist absolutely in one offering, once offered, not repeated or continued. Herein lies the foundation of all his arguments for its excellency and efficacy. Hereof the making of it to be nothing but a continued act of power in heaven, as is done by them, is utterly destructive.What they add in the same place about the nature of redemption, will be removed in the consideration of it immediately. In the close of the whole they affirm, that the obtaining of everlasting salvation by Christ was not an act antecedent unto his entering into heaven, as the word seems to import, — εὐράμενος, “having obtained;” but it was done by his entrance itself into that holy place; whence they would rather read the word εὐράμενος in the present tense, “obtaining.” But whereas our redemption is everywhere constantly in the Scripture assigned unto the blood of Christ, and that alone, — Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 5:9, “Hast redeemed us unto God by thy blood,” — it is too great a confidence, to confine this work unto his entrance into heaven, without any offering of his blood, and when he had no blood to offer. And in this place, the “redemption obtained” is the same upon the matter with the “purging of our consciences from dead works,” Hebrews 9:14, which is ascribed directly unto his blood.These glosses being removed, I shall proceed unto the exposition of the words. The apostle hath a double design in this verse and those two that follow: 1. To declare the dignity of the person of Christ in the discharge of his priestly office above the high priest of old. And this he doth,(1.) From the excellency of his sacrifice, which was his own blood; (2.) The holy place whereinto he entered by virtue of it, which was heaven itself; and,(3.) The effect of it, in that by it be procured eternal redemption:which he doth in this verse. 2. To prefer the efficacy of this sacrifice of Christ for the purging of sin, or the purification of sinners, above all the sacrifices and ordinances of the law, Hebrews 9:13-14.In this verse, with respect unto the end mentioned, the entrance of Christ into the holy place, in answer unto that of the legal high priest, described Hebrews 9:7, is declared. And it is so, 1. As unto the way or means of it; 2. As unto its season 3. As unto its effect: in all which respects Christ was manifested in and by it to be fax more excellent than the legal high priest.1. The manner and way of it is expressed,(1.) Negatively; it was “not by the blood of goats and calves.”(2.) Positively; it was “by his own blood.”2. For the time of it, it was “once,” and but once. 3. The effect of that blood of his, as offered in sacrifice, was, that he “obtained” thereby “eternal redemption.” The thing asserted is the entrance of Christ, the high priest, into the holy place. That he should do so was necessary, both to answer the type and for the rendering his sacrifice effectual in the application of the benefits of it unto the church, as it is afterwards declared at large. And I shall open the words, not in the order wherein they lie in the text, but in the natural order of the things themselves. And we must show, 1. What is the holy place whereinto Christ entered. 2. What was that entrance. 3. How he did it once; whereon will follow, 4. The consideration of the means whereby he did it, 5. With the effect of that means: —1. For the place whereinto he entered, it is said he did so εἰςτὰἅγια, — “into the holies.” It is the same word whereby he expresseth the “sanctuary,” the second part of the tabernacle, whereinto the high priest entered once a-year. But in the application of it unto Christ, the signification of it is changed. He had nothing to do with, he had no right to enter into that holy place, as the apostle affirms, Hebrews 8:4. That, therefore, he intends which was signified thereby; that is, heaven itself, as he explains it in Hebrews 9:24. The heaven of heavens, the place of the glorious residence of the presence or majesty of God, is that whereinto he entered.2. His entrance itself into this place is asserted: “He entered.” This entrance of Christ into heaven upon his ascension may be considered two ways:(1.) As it was regal, glorious and triumphant; so it belonged properly unto his kingly office, as that wherein he triumphed over all the enemies of the church. See it described, Ephesians 4:8-10, from Psalms 68:18. Satan, the world, death, and hell, being conquered, and all power committed unto him, he entered triumphantly into heaven. So it was regal(2.) As it was sacerdotal. Peace and reconciliation being made by the blood of the cross, the covenant being confirmed, eternal redemption obtained, he entered as our high priest into the holy place, the temple of God above, to make his sacrifice effectual unto the church, and to apply the benefits of it thereunto. 3. This he did “once” only, “once for all.” In the foregoing description of the service of the high priest, he shows how he went into the holy place “once every year;” that is, on one day, wherein he went to offer. And the repetition of this service every year proved its imperfection, seeing it could never accomplish perfectly that whereunto it was designed, as he argues in the next chapter. In opposition hereunto, our high priest entered once only into the holy place; a full demonstration that his one sacrifice had fully expiated the sins of the church.4. Of this entrance of Christ it is said, —(1.) Negatively, that he did not do it “by the blood of goats and calves.” And this is introduced with the disjunctive negative, οὐδέ, “neither;” which refers unto what was before denied of him, as unto his entrance into the tabernacle made with hands. ‘He did not do so, neither did he make his entrance by the blood of goats and calves’A difference from and opposition unto the entrance of the high priest annually into the holy place is intended. It must therefore be considered how he so entered. This entrance is at large described, Leviticus 16. And, [1. It was by the blood of a bullock and a goat, which the apostle here renders in the plural number, “goats and calves,” because of the annual repetition of the same sacrifice. [2. The order of the institution was, that first the bullock or calf was offered, then the goat; the one for the priest, the other for the people. This order belonging not at all unto the purpose of the apostle, he expresseth it otherwise, “goats and calves.” Τράγος is a “goat;” a word that expresseth “totum genus caprinum,” — that whole kind of creature, be it young or old. So the goats of his offering were ωְׂ ?ςִ ?ιψֵ ?ι, “kids,” Hebrews 9:5; that is, young he-goats, for the precise time of their age is not determined. So the bullock the priest offered for himself was τַ ?ψ, “juvencus ex genere bovino;” which is μόσχος, for it expresseth “genus vitulinum,” all young cattle. Concerning these it is intimated, in this negative as unto Christ, that the high priest entered into the holy place δι᾿αἵματος, “by their blood;” which we must inquire into.Two things belonged unto the office of the high priest, with respect unto this blood. For, [1. He was to offer the blood both of the bullock and the goat at the altar for a sin-offering, Leviticus 16:9; Leviticus 16:11. For it was the blood wherewith alone atonement was to be made for sin, and that at the altar, Leviticus 17:11; so far is it from truth that expiation for sin was made only in the holy place, and that it is so by Christ without blood, as the Socinians imagine. [2. He was to carry some of the blood of the sacrifice into the sanctuary, to sprinkle it there, to make atonement for the holy place, in the sense before declared. And the inquiry is, which of these the apostle hath respect unto. Some say it is the latter; and that δυά here is put for σύν, — “by” for “with.” He entered with the blood of goats and calves; namely, that which he carried with him into the holy place. So plead the Socinians and those that follow them, with design to overthrow the sacrifice which Christ offered in his death and bloodshedding, confining the whole expiation of sin, in their sense of it, unto what is done in heaven. But I have before disproved this surmise. And the apostle is so far from using the particleδιά improperly for σὺν, so to frame a comparison between things wherein indeed there was no similitude, as they dream, that he useth it on purpose to exclude the sense which σὺν, “with,” would intimate: for he doth not declare with what the high priest entered into the holy place, for he entered with incense as well as with blood; but what it was by virtue whereof he so entered as to be accepted with God. So it is expressly directed, Leviticus 16:2-3,“Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place.... With a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, shall he come.”Aaron was not to bring the bullock into the holy place, but he had right to enter into it by the sacrifice of it at the altar. Thus, therefore, the high priest entered into the holy place by the blood of goats and calves; namely, by virtue of the sacrifice of their blood which he had offered without at the altar. And so all things do exactly correspond between the type and the antitype. For, — (2.) It is affirmed positively of him that “he entered by his own blood,” and that in opposition unto the other way; διὰδὲτοῦἰδίουαἵματος (δέ for ἀλλά), — “but by his own blood.”It is a vain speculation, contrary to the analogy of faith, and destructive or the true nature of the oblation of Christ, and inconsistent with the dignity of his person, that he should carry with him into heaven a part of that material blood which was shed for us on the earth. This some have invented, to maintain a comparison in that wherein is none intended. The design of the apostle is only to declare by virtue of what he entered as a priest into the holy place. And this was by virtue of his own blood when it was shed, when he offered himself unto God. This was that which laid the foundation of, and gave him right unto the administration of his priestly office in heaven. And hereby were all those good things procured which he effectually communicates unto us in and by that administration. This exposition is the center of all gospel mysteries, the object of the admiration of angels and men unto all eternity. What heart can conceive, what tongue can express, the wisdom, grace, and love, that are contained therein? This alone is the stable foundation of faith in our access unto God. Two things present themselves unto us: — [1. The unspeakable love of Christ in offering himself and his own blood for us. See Galatians 2:20; Revelation 1:5; 1 John 3:16; Ephesians 5:25-27. There being no other way whereby our sins might be purged and expiated, Hebrews 10:5-7, out of his infinite love and grace he condescended unto this way, whereby God might be glorified, and his church sanctified and saved. It were well if we did always consider aright what love, what thankfulness, what obedience, are due unto him on the account hereof.[2. The excellency and efficacy of his sacrifice is hereby demonstrated, that through him our faith and hope may be in God. He who offered this sacrifice was “the only-begotten of the Father,” the eternal Son of God. That which he offered was “his own blood.” “God purchased his church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28. How unquestionable, how perfect must the atonement be that was thus made! how glorious the redemption that was procured thereby 5. This is that which the apostle mentions in the close of this verse as the effect of his blood-shedding, “Having obtained eternal redemption.” The word εὐράμενος is variously rendered, as we have seen. The Vulgar Latin reads, “redemptione aeterna inventa.” And those that follow it do say that things rare, and so sought after, are said to be found. And Chrysostom inclines unto that notion of the word. But εὐρίσκω is used in all good authors, for not only “to find,” but “to obtain” by our endeavors. So do we render it, and so we ought to do, Romans 4:1; Hebrews 4:16. He obtained effectually eternal redemption by the price of his blood. And it is mentioned in a tense denoting the time past, to signify that he had thus obtained eternal redemption before he entered into the holy place. How he obtained it we shall see in the consideration of the nature of the thing itself that was obtained.Three things must be inquired into, with what brevity we can, for the explication of these words: (1.) What is “redemption;”(2.) Why is this redemption called “eternal;”(3.) How Christ” obtained” it.(1.) All redemption respects a state of bondage and captivity, with all the events that do attend it. The object of it, or those to be redeemed, are only persons in that estate. There is mention, verse 15, of “the redemption of transgressions,” but it is by a metonymy of the cause for the effect. It is transgression which cast men into that state from whence they are to be redeemed. But both in the Scripture and in the common notion of the word, “redemption” is the deliverance of persons from a state of bondage. And this may be done two ways:[1. By power; [2. By payment of a price. That which is in the former way is only improperly and metaphorically so called. For it is in its own nature a bare deliverance, and is termed “redemption” only with respect to the state of captivity from whence it is a deliverance. It is a vindication into liberty by any means. So the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt, though wrought merely by acts of power, is called their redemption. And Moses, from his ministry in that work, is called λυτρωτής, a “redeemer,” Acts 7:35. But this redemption is only metaphorically so called, with respect unto the state of bondage wherein the people were. That which is properly so is by a price paid, as a valuable consideration. Λύτρον is a “ransom,” a price of redemption. Thence are λύτρωσις, ἀπολύτρωσις, λυτρωτής, “redemption” and a “redeemer.” So the redemption that is by Christ is everywhere said to be a “price,” a “ransom.” See Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Peter 1:18-19. It is the deliverance of persons out of a state of captivity and bondage, by the payment of a valuable price or ransom. And the Socinians offer violence not only to the Scripture, but to common sense itself, when they contend that the redemption which is constantly affirmed to be by a price is metaphorical, and that only proper which is by power.The price or ransom in this redemption is two ways expressed: [1. By that which gave it its worth and value, that it might be a sufficient ransom for all; [2. By its especial nature. The first is the person of Christ himself: “He gave himself for us,” Galatians 2:20; “He gave himself a ransom for all,” 1 Timothy 2:6; “He offered himself to God,” Hebrews 9:14; Ephesians 5:2. This was that which made the ransom of an infinite value, meet to redeem the whole church. “God purchased the church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28. The especial nature of it is, that it was by blood, “by his own blood.” See Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19. And this blood of Christ was a ransom, or price of redemption, partly from the invaluableness of that obedience which he yielded unto God in the shedding of it; and partly because this ransom was also to be an atonement, as it was offered unto God in sacrifice. For it is by blood, and no otherwise, that atonement is made, Leviticus 17:11. Wherefore he is “set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” Romans 3:24-25.That the Lord Jesus Christ did give himself a ransom for sin; that he did it in the shedding of his blood for us, wherein he made his soul an offering for sin; that herein and hereby he made atonement, and expiated our sins; and that all these things belong unto our redemption, is the substance of the gospel. That this redemption is nothing but the expiation of sin, and that expiation of sin nothing but an act of power and authority in Christ now in heaven, as the Socinians dream, is to reject the whole gospel Though the nature of this redemption be usually spoken unto, yet we must not here wholly put it by. And the nature of it will appear in the consideration of the state from whence we are redeemed, with the causes of it: [1. The meritorious cause of it was sin, or our original apostasy from God. Hereby we lost our primitive liberty, with all the rights and privileges thereunto belonging. [2. The supreme efficient cause is God himself. As the ruler and judge of all, he cast all apostates into a state of captivity and bondage; for liberty is nothing but peace with him. But he did it with this difference: sinning angels he designed to leave irrecoverably under this condition; for mankind he would find a ransom. [3. The instrumental cause of it was the curse of the law. This falling on men brings them into a state of bondage. For it separates as to all relation of love and peace between God and them, and gives life unto all the actings of sin and death; wherein the misery of that state consists. To be separate from God, to be under the power of sin and death, is to be in bondage. [4. The external cause, by the application of all other causes unto the souls and consciences of men, is Satan. His was the power of darkness, his the power of death over men in that state and condition; that is, to make application of the terror of it unto their souls, as threatened in the curse, Hebrews 2:14-15. Hence he appears as the head of this state of bondage, and men are in captivity unto him. He is not so in himself, but as the external application of the causes of bondage is committed unto him.From hence it is evident that four things are required unto that redemption which is a deliverance by price or ransom from this state. For, [1. It must be by such a ransom as whereby the guilt of sin is expiated; which was the meritorious cause of our captivity. Hence it is called “the redemption of transgressions,” verse 15; that is, of persons from that state and condition whereinto they were cast by sin or transgression. [2. Such as wherewith in respect of God atonement must be made, and satisfaction unto his justice, as the supreme ruler and judge of all. [3. Such as whereby the curse of the law might be removed; which could not be without undergoing of it. [4. Such as whereby the power of Satan might be destroyed. How all this was done by the blood of Christ, I have at large declared elsewhere. (2.) This redemption is said to be “eternal.” And it is so on many accounts:[1. Of the subject-matter of it, which are things eternal; none of them are carnal or temporal. The state of bondage from which we are delivered by it in all its causes was spiritual, not temporal; and the effects of it, in liberty, grace, and glory, are eternal. [2. Of its duration. It was not for a season, like that of the people out of Egypt, or the deliverances which they had afterwards under the judges, and on other occasions. They endured in their effects only for a season, and afterwards new troubles of the same kind overtook them. But this was eternal in all the effects of it; none that are partakers of it do ever return into a state of bondage. So, [3. It endures in those effects unto all eternity in heaven itself.(3.) This redemption Christ obtained by “his blood.” Having done all in the sacrifice of himself that was, in the justice, holiness, and wisdom of God, required thereunto, it was wholly in his power to confer all the benefits and effects of it on the church, on them that do believe. And sundry things we may observe from this verse.Obs. 1. The entrance of our Lord Jesus Christ as our high priest into heaven, to appear in the presence of God for us, and to save us thereby unto the uttermost, was a thing so great and glorious as could not be accomplished but by his own blood. — No other sacrifice was sufficient unto this end: “Not by the blood of bulls and goats.” The reason hereof the apostle declares at large, Hebrews 10:4-10. Men seldom rise in their thoughts unto the greatness of this mystery; yea, with the most, this “blood of the covenant,” wherewith he was sanctified unto the remainder of his work, is a common thing. The rain of Christian religion lies in the slight thoughts of men about the blood of Christ; and pernicious errors do abound in opposition unto the true nature of the sacrifice which he made thereby. Even the faith of the best is weak and imperfect as to the comprehension of the glory of it. Our relief is, that the uninterrupted contemplation of it will be a part of our blessedness unto eternity. But yet whilst we are here, we can neither understand how great is the salvation which is tendered unto us thereby, nor be thankful for it, without a due consideration of the way whereby the Lord Christ entered into the holy place. And he will be the most humble and most fruitful Christian whose faith is most exercised, most conversant about it. Obs. 2. Whatever difficulties lay in the way of Christ, as unto the accomplishment and perfection of the work of our redemption, he would not decline them, nor desist from his undertaking, whatever it cost him. — “Sacrifice and burnt-offering thou wouldest not have; then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” He made his way into the holy place by his own blood. What was required of him for us, that we might be saved, he would not decline, though never so great and dreadful; and surely we ought not to decline what he requires of us, that he may be honored.Obs. 3. There was a holy place meet to receive the Lord Christ after the sacrifice of himself, and a suitable reception for such a person, after so glorious a performance. — It was a place of great glory and beauty whereinto the high priest of old entered by the blood of calves and goats; the visible pledges of the presence of God were in it, whereunto no other person might approach. But our high priest was not to enter into any holy place made with hands, unto outward, visible pledges of the presence of God, but into the heaven of heavens, the place of the glorious residence of the majesty of God itself.Obs. 4. If the Lord Christ entered not into the holy place until he had finished his work, we may not expect an entrance thereinto until we have finished ours. — He fainted not, nor waxed weary, until all was finished; and it is our duty to arm ourselves with the same mind.Obs. 5. It must be a glorious effect which had so glorious a cause; and so it was, even “eternal redemption.” Obs. 6. The nature of our redemption, the way of its procurement, with the duties required of us with respect thereunto, are greatly to be considered by us. There is in these verses an argument and comparison. But the comparison is such, as that the ground of it is laid in the relation of the comparates the one unto the other; namely, that the one was the type and the other the antitype, otherwise the argument will not hold. For although it follows, that he who can do the greater can do the less, whereon an argument will hold “a majori ad minus;” yet it doth not absolutely do so, that if that which is less can do that which is less, then that which is greater can do that which is greater; which would be the force of the argument if there were nothing but a naked comparison in it: but it necessarily follows hereon, if that which is less, in that less thing which it doth or did, was therein a type of that which was greater, in that greater thing which it was to effect. And this was the case in the thing here proposed by the apostle. The words are, — Hebrews 9:13-14. — Εἰγὰρτὸαἷματαύρωνκαὶπράγων, καὶσποδὸςδαμάλεωςῥαντίζουσατοὺςκεκοινωμένους, ἁγιάζειπρὸςτὴντῆςσαρκὸςκαθαρότηατα·πόσῳμᾶλλοντὸαἷματοῦΧριστοῦ, ὅςδιὰΠνεύματοςαἰωνίουἑαυτὸνπροσήνεγκενἄμωμοντῷΘεῷ, καθαριεῖτὴνσυνείδησινἡμῶν (ὑμῶν) ἀπὸνεκρῶνἔργων, εἰςτὸλατρεύεινΘεῷζῶντι.The words have no difficulty in them as to their grammatical sense; nor is there any considerable variation in the rendering of them in the old translations. Only the Syriac retains γְ ?ςֶ ?βְ ?μֵ ?ΰ, that is, μόσχων, from Hebrews 9:12, instead of ταὑρων, here used. And both that and the Vulgar place τράγων here before ταύρων, as in the foregoing verse, contrary unto all copies of the original, as to the order of the words.For Πνεύματοςαἰωνίου the Vulgar reads Πνεύματοςἁγίου, “per Spiritum sanctum.” The Syriac follows the original, γַּ ?αְּ ?ψεּ ?ηָ ?ΰγַּ ?μְ ?ςָ ?μַ ?ν, “by the eternal Spirit.”Τὴνσυνείδησινἡμῶν. The original copies vary, some reading ἡμῶν, “our,” but most ὑμῶν, “your;” which our translators follow.[7] [7] VARIOUS READING. — It seems now agreed that the reading Πνεύματοςαἰωνίου is to be preferred to the reading Πνεύματοςἁγίου; the authority for the latter being D, Copt., Basm., Vulg., Slav., and Lat. D, E., and Chrysostom; that for the former being A, B, Peschito, Philoxen., Armen., Ambrose, Theodoret, and Theophylact. . — Different views have been taken of the import of πνεύματος; — Beza, Ernesti, Cappell, Outrein, Wolf, Cramer, Carpzoff, Morus, Schulz, and others, referring it to the divine nature of Christ; Grotius, Limborch, Heinrichs, Schleusner, Rosenmuller, Koppe, Jaspis, and others, referring it to endless or immortal life; Doederlein, Storr, and others, to the exalted and, glorified,person or condition of Christ; Winzer, Kuinoel, Moses Stuart (see his “Excursus”), under- standng by the phrase, divine influence; Bleek, Tholuck, and others, the Holy Spirit; Ebrard, the disposition of mind, rendering the act not mechanical compliance with a ritual but moral in its character, and eternal as done in the eternal spirit of absolute love. — ED. Hebrews 9:13-14. — For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth unto the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God!” The words are argumentative, in the form of a hypothetical syllogism; wherein the assumption of the proposition is supposed, as proved before. That which is to be confirmed is what was asserted in the words foregoing; namely, “That the Lord Jesus Christ by his blood hath obtained for us eternal redemption.” This the causal redditive conjunction; “for,” doth manifest; whereunto the note of a supposition, “if,” is premised as a note of a hypothetical argumentation. There are two parts of this confirmation: 1. A most full declaration of the way and means whereby he obtained that redemption; it was by the “offering himself through the eternal Spirit without spot unto God.”2. By comparing this way of it with the typical sacrifices and ordinances of God. For arguing “ad homines,” — that is, unto the satisfaction and conviction of the Hebrews, — the apostle makes use of their concessions to confirm his own assertions.And his argument consists of two parts: 1. A concession of their efficacy unto their proper end.2. An inference from thence unto the greater and more noble efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, taken partly from the relation of type and antitype that was between them, but principally from the different nature of the things themselves.To make evident the force of his argument in general, we must observe, 1. That what he had proved before he takes here for granted, on the one side and the other. And this was, that all the Levitical services and ordinances were in themselves carnal, and had carnal ends assigned unto them, and had only an obscure representation of things spiritual and eternal; and on the other side, that the tabernacle, office, and sacrifice of Christ were spiritual, and had their effects in eternal things, 2. That those other carnal, earthly things were types and resemblances, in God’s appointment of them, of those which are spiritual and eternal. From these suppositions the argument is firm and stable; and there are two parts of it: 1. That as the ordinances of old, being carnal, had an efficacy unto their proper end, to purify the unclean as to the flesh; so the sacrifice of Christ hath a certain efficacy unto its proper end, namely, the “purging of our conscience from dead works.” The force of this inference depends on the relation that was between them in the appointment of God.2. That there was a greater efficacy, and that which gave a greater evidence of itself, in the sacrifice of Christ, with respect unto its proper end, than there was in those sacrifices and ordinances, with respect unto their proper end: “How much more!” And the reason hereof is, because all their efficacy depended on a mere arbitrary institution. In themselves, that is, in their own nature, they had neither worth, value, nor efficacy, — no, not even as unto those ends whereunto they were by divine institution designed: but in the sacrifice of Christ, who is therefore here said to “offer himself unto God through the eternal Spirit,” there is an innate glorious worth and efficacy, which, suitably unto the rules of eternal reason-and righteousness, will accomplish and procure its effects. Hebrews 9:13. — There are two things in this verse, which are the ground from whence the apostle argueth and maketh his inference in that which follows:1. A proposition of the sacrifices and services of the law which he had respect unto. 2. An assignation of a certain efficacy unto them. The sacrifices of the law he refers unto two heads:1. “The blood of bulls and of goats.”2. “The ashes of an heifer.” And the distinction is, 1. From the matter of them; 2. The manner of their performance. For the manner of their performance, the blood of bulls and goats was “offered,” which is supposed and included; — the ashes of the heifer were “sprinkled,” as it is expressed. 1. The matter of the first is “the blood of bulls and of goats.” The same, say some, with the “goats and calves” mentioned in the verse foregoing. So generally do the expositors of the Roman church; and that because their translation reads “hircorum et vitulorum,” contrary unto the original text. And some instances they give of the same signification of μόσχων and ταύρων. But the apostle had just reason for the alteration of his expression. For in the foregoing verse he had respect only unto the anniversary sacrifice of the high priest, but here he enlargeth the subject unto the consideration of all other expiatory sacrifices under the law; for he joins unto the “blood of bulls and of goats” the “ashes of an heifer,” which were of no use, in the anniversary sacrifice. Wherefore he designed in these words summarily to express all sacrifices of expiation and all ordinances of purification that were appointed under the law. And therefore the words in the close of the verse, expressing the end and effect of these ordinances, “sanctifieth the unclean unto the purifying of the flesh,” are not to be restrained unto them immediately foregoing, “the ashes of an heifer sprinkled;” but an equal respect is to be had unto the other sort, or “the blood of bulls and of goats.” The Socinian expositor, in his entrance into that wresting of this text wherein he labors in a peculiar manner, denies that the water of sprinkling is here to be considered as typical of Christ, and that because it is the anniversary sacrifice alone which is intended, wherein it was of no use. Yet he adds immediately, that in itself it was a type of Christ; so wresting the truth against his own convictions, to force his design. But the conclusion is strong on the other hand; because it was a type of Christ, and is so here considered, whereas it was not used in the great anniversary sacrifice, it is not that sacrifice alone which the apostle hath respect unto. Wherefore by “bulls and goats,” by a usual synecdoche, all the several kinds of clean beasts, whose blood was given unto the people to make atonement withal, are intended. So is the matter of all sacrifices expressed, Psalms 50:13, “Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” Sheep are contained under goats, being all beasts of the flock.And it is the “blood” of these bulls and goats which is proposed as the first way or means of the expiation of sin, and purification under the law. For it was by their blood, and that as offered at the altar, that atonement was made, Leviticus 17:11. Purification was also made thereby, even by the sprinkling of it.2. The second thing mentioned unto the same end, is “the ashes of an heifer,” and the use of them; which was by “sprinkling.” The institution, use, and end of this ordinance, are described at large, Numbers 19. And an eminent type of Christ there was therein, both as unto his suffering and the continual efficacy of the cleansing virtue of his blood in the church. It would too much divert us from the present argument, to consider all the particulars wherein there was a representation of the sacrifice of Christ and the purging virtue of it in this ordinance; yet the mention of some of them is of use unto the explication of the apostle’s general design: as, — (1.) It was to be a red heifer, and that without spot or blemish, whereon no yoke had come, verse 2. Red is the color of guilt, Isaiah 1:18, yet was there no spot or blemish in the heifer: so was the guilt of sin upon Christ, who in himself was absolutely pure and holy. No yoke had been on her; nor was there any constraint on Christ, but he offered himself willingly, through the eternal Spirit. (2.) She was to be led forth without the camp, Numbers 19:3; which the apostle alludes unto, Hebrews 13:11, representing Christ going out of the city unto his suffering and oblation.(3.) One did slay her before the face of the priest, and not the priest himself: so the hands of others, Jews and Gentiles, were used in the slaying of our sacrifice.(4.) The blood of the heifer being slain, was sprinkled by the priest seven times directly before the tabernacle of the congregation, Numbers 19:4 : so is the whole church purified by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ.(5.) The whole heifer was to be burned in the sight of the priest, Numbers 19:5 : so was whole Christ, soul and body, offered up to God in the fire of love, kindled in him by the eternal Spirit.(6.) Cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet, were to be cast into the midst of the burning of the heifer, Numbers 19:6; which were all used by God’s institution in the purification of the unclean, or the sanctification and dedication of any thing unto sacred use, to teach us that all spiritual virtue unto these ends, really and eternally, was contained in the one offering of Christ. (7.) Both the priest who sprinkled the blood, the men that slew the heifer, and he that burned her, and he that gathered her ashes, were all unclean, until they were washed, verses 7-10: so when Christ was made a sin- offering, all the legal uncleannesses, that is, the guilt of the church, were on him, and he took them away.But it is the use of this ordinance which is principally intended. The ashes of this heifer, being burned, were preserved, that, being mixed with pure water, they might be sprinkled on persons who on any occasion were legally unclean. Whoever was so, was excluded from all the solemn worship of the church. Wherefore, without this ordinance, the worship of God and the holy state of the church could not have been continued. For the means, causes, and ways of legal defilements among them, were very many, and some of them unavoidable. In particular, every tent and house, and all persons in [hem, were defiled, if any one died among them; which could not but continually fall out in their families. Hereon they were excluded from the tabernacle and congregation, and all duties of the solemn worship of God, until they were purified. Had not therefore these ashes, which were to be mingled with living water, been always preserved and in a readiness, the whole worship of God must quickly have ceased amongst them. It is so in the church of Christ. The spiritual defilements which befall believers are many, and some of them unavoidable unto them whilst they are in this world; yea, their duties, the best of them, have defilements adhering unto them. Were it not that the blood of Christ, in its purifying virtue, is in a continual readiness unto faith, that God therein hath opened a fountain for sin and uncleanness, the worship of the church would not be acceptable unto him. In a constant application thereunto doth the exercise of faith much consist. 3. The nature and use of this ordinance are further described by its object, “the unclean,” — κεκοινωμένους that is, those that were made common. All those who had a liberty of approach unto God in his solemn worship were so far sanctified; that is, separated and dedicated. And such as were deprived of this privilege were made common, and so unclean.The unclean especially intended in this institution were those who were defiled by the dead. Every one that by any means touched a dead body, whether dying naturally or slain, whether in the house or field, or did bear it, or assist in the bearing of it, or were in the tent or house where it was, were all defiled; no such person was to come into the congregation, or near the tabernacle. But it is certain that many offices about the dead are works of humanity and mercy, which morally defile not. Wherefore there was a peculiar reason of the constitution of this defilement, and this severe interdiction of them that were so defiled from divine worship. And this was to represent unto the people the curse of the law, whereof death was the great visible effect. The present Jews have this notion, that defilement by the dead arises from the poison that is dropped into them that die by the angel of death; whereof see our exposition on Hebrews 2:14. The meaning of it is, that death came in by sin, from the poisonous temptation of the old serpent, and befell men by the curse which took hold of them thereon. But they have lost the understanding of their own tradition. This belonged unto the bondage under which it was the will of God to keep that people, that they should dread death as an effect of the curse of the law, and the fruit of sin; which is taken away in Christ, Hebrews 2:14; 1 Corinthians 15:56-57. And these works, which were unto them so full of defilement, are now unto us accepted duties of piety and mercy. These and many others were excluded from an interest in the solemn worship of God, upon ceremonial defilements. And some vehemently contend that none were so excluded for moral defilements; and it may be it is true, for the matter is dubious. But that it should thence follow that none under the gospel should be so excluded, for moral and spiritual evils, is a fond imagination; yea, the argument is firm, that if God did so severely shut out from a participation in his solemn worship all those who were legally or ceremonially defiled, much more is it his will that those who live in spiritual or moral defilements should not approach unto him by the holy ordinances of the gospel. 4. The manner of the application of this purifying water was by sprinkling, being sprinkled; or rather, transitively, “sprinkling the unclean.” Not only the act, but the efficacy of it is intended. The manner of it is declared, Numbers 19:17-18. The ashes were kept by themselves. When use was to be made of them, they were to be mingled with clean living water, water from the spring. The virtue was from the ashes, as they were the ashes of the heifer slain and burnt as a sin-offering. The water was used as the means of their application. Being so mingled, any clean person might dip a bunch of hyssop (see Psalms 51:7) into it, and sprinkle any thing or person that was defiled. For it was not confined unto the office of the priest, but was left unto every private person; as is the continual application of the blood of Christ. And this rite of sprinkling was that alone in all sacrifices whereby their continued efficacy unto sanctification and purification was expressed. Thence is the blood of Christ called “the blood of sprinkling,” because of its efficacy unto our sanctification, as applied by faith unto our souls and consciences. The effect of the things mentioned is, that they “sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh;” namely, that those unto whom they were applied might be made Levitically clean, — be so freed from the carnal defilements as to have an admission unto the solemn worship of God and society of the church. “Sanctifieth.” ἁγιάζω in the New Testament doth signify for the most part, “to purify and sanctify internally and spiritually.” Sometimes it is used in the sense of χָ ?γַ ?ωׁ in the Old Testament, “to separate, dedicate, consecrate.” So is it by our Savior, John 17:19, Καὶὑπὲραὐτῶνἐγὼἀγιάζωἐμαυτόν, — “And for them I sanctify myself;” that is, ‘separate and dedicate myself to be a sacrifice.’So is it here used. Every defiled person was made common, excluded from the privilege of a right to draw nigh unto God in his solemn worship: but in his purification he was again separated to him, and restored unto his sacred right.The word is of the singular number, and seems only to respect the next antecedent, σποδὸςδαμάλεως, — “the ashes of an heifer.” But if so, the apostle mentions “the blood of bulls and goats” without the ascription of any effect or efficacy thereunto. This, therefore, is not likely, as being the more solemn ordinance. Wherefore the word is distinctly to be referred, by a zeugma, unto the one and the other. The whole effect of all the sacrifices and institutions of the law is comprised in this word. All the sacrifices of expiation and ordinances of purification had this effect, and no more.They “sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh.” That is, those who were legally defiled, and were therefore excluded from an interest in the worship of God, and were made obnoxious unto the curse of the law thereon, were so legally purified, justified, and cleansed by them, as that they had free admission into the society of the church, and the solemn worship thereof. This they did, this they were able to effect, by virtue of divine institution. This was the state of things under the law, when there was a church purity, holiness, and sanctification, to be obtained by the due observance of external rites and ordinances, without internal purity or holiness. Wherefore these things were in themselves of no worth or value. And as God himself doth often in the prophets declare, that, merely on their own account, he had no regard unto them; so by the apostle they are called “worldly, carnal, and beggarly rudiments.” Why then, it will be said, did God appoint and ordain them? why did he oblige the people unto their observance? I answer, It was not at all on the account of their outward use and efficacy, as unto the purifying of the flesh, which, as it was alone, God always despised; but it was because of the representation of good things to come which the wisdom of God had inlaid them withal. With respect hereunto they were glorious, and of exceeding advantage unto the faith and obedience of the church. This state of things is changed under the new testament. For now “neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” The thing signified, namely, internal purity and holiness, is no less necessary unto a right unto the privileges of the gospel, than the observance of these external rites was unto the privileges of the law. Yet is there no countenance given hereby unto the impious opinion of some, that God by the law required only external obedience, without respect unto the inward, spiritual part of it; for although the rites and sacrifices of the law, by their own virtue, purified externally, and delivered only from temporary punishments, yet the precepts and the promises of the law required the same holiness and obedience unto God as doth the gospel. Hebrews 9:14. — “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God!”This verse contains the inference or argument of the apostle from the preceding propositions and concessions. The nature of the argument is “a minori,” and “a proportione.” From the first, the inference follows as unto its truth, and formally; from the latter, as to its greater evidence, and materially.There are in the words considerable, 1. The subject treated of, in opposition unto that before spoken unto; and that is, “the blood of Christ.”2. The means whereby this blood of Christ was effectual unto the end designed, in opposition unto the way and means of the efficacy of legal ordinances; he “offered himself” (that is, in the shedding of it) “unto God without spot, through the eternal Spirit.” 3. The end assigned unto this blood of Christ in that offering of himself, or the effect wrought thereby, in opposition unto the end and effect of legal ordinances; which is, to “purge our consciences from dead works.”4. The benefit and advantage which we receive thereby, in opposition unto the benefit which was obtained by those legal administrations; that we may “serve the living God.” All which must be considered and explained.First, The nature of the inference is expressed by, “How much more.” This is usual with the apostle, when he draws any inference or conclusion from a comparison between Christ and the high priest, the gospel and the law, to use an αὔξησις in expression, to manifest their absolute pre- eminence above them: See Hebrews 2:2-3; Hebrews 3:3; Hebrews 10:28-29; Hebrews 12:25. Although these things agreed in their general nature, whence a comparison is founded, yet were the one incomparably more glorious than the ether. Hence elsewhere, although he alloweth the administration of the law to be glorious, yet he affirms that it had no glory in comparison of what doth excel, 2 Corinthians 3:10. The person of Christ is the spring of all the glory in the church; and the more nearly any thing relates thereunto, the more glorious it is.There are two things included in this way of the introduction of the present inference, “How much more:” — 1. An equal certainty of the event and effect ascribed unto the blood of Christ, with the effect of the legal sacrifices, is included in it. So the argument is “a minori.” And the inference of such an argument is expressed by, “much more,” though an equal certainty be all that is evinced by it. ‘If those sacrifices and ordinances of the law were effectual unto the ends of legal expiation and purification, then is the blood of Christ assuredly so unto the spiritual and eternal effects whereunto it is designed.’And the force of the argument is not merely, as was observed before, “a comparatis,” and “a minori,” but from the nature of the things themselves, as the one was appointed to be typical of the other. 2. The argument is taken from a proportion between the things themselves that are compared, as to their efficacy. This gives greater evidence and validity unto the argument than if it were taken merely “a minori.” For there is a greater reason, in the nature of things, that “the blood of Christ should purge our consciences from dead works,” than there is that “the blood of bulls and of goats should sanctify unto the purifying of the flesh.” For that had all its efficacy unto this end from the sovereign pleasure of God in its institution; in itself it had neither worth nor dignity, whence, in any proportion of justice or reason, men should be legally sanctified by it. The sacrifice of Christ also, as unto its original, depended on the sovereign pleasure, wisdom, and grace of God; but being so appointed, upon the account of the infinite dignity of his person, and the nature of his oblation, it had a real efficacy, in the justice and wisdom of God, to procure the effect mentioned in the way of purchase and merit. This the apostle refers unto in these words, “Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unto God.” That the offering was “himself,” that “he offered himself through the eternal Spirit,” or his divine person, is that which gives assurance of the accomplishing of the effect assigned unto it by his blood, above any grounds we have to believe that “the blood of bulls and goats should sanctify unto the purifying of the flesh.” And we may observe from this, “How much more,” that, — Obs. 1. There is such an evidence of wisdom and righteousness, unto a spiritual eye, in the whole mystery of our redemption, sanctification, and salvation by Christ, as gives an immovable foundation unto faith to rest upon in its receiving of it. — The faith of the church of old was resolved into the mere sovereign pleasure of God, as to the efficacy of their ordinances; nothing in the nature of the things themselves did tend unto their establishment. But in the dispensation of God by Christ, in the work of our redemption by him, there is such an evidence of the wisdom and righteousness of God in the things themselves, as gives the highest security unto faith. It is unbelief alone, made obstinate by prejudices insinuated by the devil, that hides these things from any, as the apostle declares, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. And hence will arise the great aggravation of the sin, and condemnation of them that perish.Secondly, We must consider the things themselves.FIRST, The subject spoken of, and whereunto the effect mentioned is ascribed, is “the blood of Christ.” The person unto whom these things relate is Christ. I have given an account before, on sundry occasions, of the great variety used by the apostle in this epistle in the naming of him. And a peculiar reason of every one of them is to be taken from the place where it is used. Here he calls him Christ; for on his being Christ, the Messiah, depends the principal force of his present argument. It is the blood of him who was promised of old to be the high priest of the church, and the sacrifice for their sins; in whom was the faith of all the saints of old, that by him their sins should be expiated, that in him they should be justified and glorified; Christ, who is the Son of the living God, in whose person God purchased his church with his own blood. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 2. The efficacy of all the offices of Christ towards the church depends on the dignity of his person. — The offering of his blood was prevalent for the expiation of sin, because it was his blood, and for no other reason. But this is a subject which I have handled at large elsewhere.A late learned commentator on this epistle takes occasion in this place to reflect on Dr. Gouge, for affirming that Christ was a priest in both natures; which, as he says, cannot be true. I have not Dr. Gouge’s Exposition by me, and so know not in what sense it is affirmed by him; but that Christ is a priest in his entire person, and so in both natures, is true, and the constant opinion of all protestant divines. And the following words of this learned author, being well explained, will clear the difficulty. For he saith, “That he that is a priest is God; yet as God he is not, he cannot be a priest. For that Christ is a priest in both natures, is no more but that in the discharge of his priestly office he acts as God and man in one person; from whence the dignity and efficacy of his sacerdotal actings do proceed. It is not hence required, that whatever he doth in the discharge of his office must be an immediate act of the divine as well as of the human nature. No more is required unto it, but that the person whose acts they are is God and man, and acts as God and man, in each nature suitably unto its essential properties. Hence, although God cannot die, — that is, the divine nature cannot do so, — yet ‘God purchased his church with his own blood;’and so also ‘the Lord of glory was crucified’for us. The sum is, that the person of Christ is the principle of all his mediatory acts; although those acts be immediately performed in and by virtue of his distinct natures, some of one, some of another, according unto their distinct properties and powers. Hence are they all theandrical; which could not be if he were not a priest in both natures.” Nor is this impeached by what ensues in the same author, namely, “That a priest is an officer; and all officers, as officers, are made such by commission from the sovereign power, and are servants under them.” For, — 1. It may be this doth not hold among the divine persons; it may be no more is required, in the dispensation of God towards the church, unto an office in any o£ them, but their own infinite condescension, with respect unto the order of their subsistence. So the Holy Ghost is in particular the comforter of the church by the way of office, and is sent thereon by the Father and Son; yet is there no more required hereunto, but that the order of the operation of the persons in the blessed Trinity should answer the order of their subsistence: and so he who in his person proceedeth from the Father and the Son is sent unto his work by the Father and the Son; no new act of authority being required thereunto, but only the determination of the divine will to act suitably unto the order of their subsistence. 2. The divine nature considered in the abstract cannot serve in an office; yet he who was “in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, took upon him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death.” It was in the human nature that he was a servant; nevertheless it was the Son of God, he who in his divine nature was in the form of God, who so served in office and yielded that obedience. Wherefore he was so far a mediator and priest in both his natures, as that whatever he did in the discharge of those offices was the act of his entire person; whereon the dignity and efficacy of all that he did depend. That which the effect intended is ascribed unto, is the blood of Christ. And two things are to be inquired hereon. 1. What is meant by “the blood of Christ.”2. How this effect was wrought by it.First, It is not only that material blood which he shed, absolutely considered, that is here and elsewhere called “the blood of Christ,” when the work of our redemption is ascribed unto it, that is intended; but there is a double consideration of it, with respect unto its efficacy unto this end:1. That it was the pledge and the sign of all the internal obedience and sufferings of the soul of Christ, of his person. “He became obedient unto death, the death of the cross,” whereon his blood was shed. This was the great instance of his obedience and of his sufferings, whereby he made reconciliation and atonement for sin. Hence the effects of all his sufferings, and of all obedience in his sufferings, are ascribed unto his blood. 2. Respect is had unto the sacrifice and offering of blood under the law. The reason why God gave the people the blood to make atonement on the altar, was because “the life of the flesh was in it,” Leviticus 17:11; Leviticus 17:14. So was the life of Christ in his blood, by the shedding whereof he laid it down. And by his death it is, as he was the Son of God, that we are redeemed. Herein he made his soul an offering for sin, Isaiah 53:10. Wherefore this expression, “the blood of Christ,” in order unto our redemption, or the expiation of sin, is comprehensive of all that he did and suffered for those ends, inasmuch as the shedding of it was the way and means whereby he offered it, or himself (in and by it), unto God.Secondly, The second inquiry is, how the effect here mentioned was wrought by the blood of Christ. And this we cannot determine without a general consideration of the effect itself; and this is, the “purging of our conscience from dead works.” Καθαριεῖ, — “shall purge.” That is, say some, shall purify and sanctify, by internal, inherent sanctification. But neither the sense of the word, nor the context, nor the exposition given by the apostle of this very expression, Hebrews 10:1-2, will admit of this restrained sense. I grant it is included herein, but there is somewhat else principally intended, namely, the expiation of sin, with our justification and peace with God thereon.1. For the proper sense of the word here used, see our exposition on Hebrews 1:3. Expiation, lustration, carrying away punishment by making atonement, are expressed by it in all good authors.2. The context requires this sense in the first place; for, —(1.) The argument here used is immediately applied to prove that Christ hath “obtained for us eternal redemption;” but redemption consists not in internal sanctification only, although that be a necessary consequent of it, but it is the pardon of sin through the atonement made, or a price paid: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,” Ephesians 1:7.(2.) In the comparison insisted on there is distinct mention made of “the blood of bulls and goats,” as well as of “the ashes of an heifer sprinkled;” but the first and principal use of blood in sacrifice was to make atonement for sin, Leviticus 17:11.(3.) The end of this purging is to give boldness in the service of God, and peace with him therein, — that we may “serve the living God;” but this is done by the expiation and pardon of sin, with justification thereon.(4.) It is “conscience” that is said to be purged. Now conscience is the proper seat of the guilt of sin; it is that which chargeth it on the soul, and which hinders all approach unto God in his service with liberty and boldness, unless it be removed: which, —(5.) Gives us the best consideration of the apostle’s exposition of this expression, Hebrews 10:1-2; for he there declares, that to have the conscience purged, is to have its condemning power for sin taken away and cease.There is therefore, under the same name, a twofold effect here ascribed unto the blood of Christ; the one in answer and opposition unto the effect of the blood of bulls and goats being offered; the other in answer unto the effect of the ashes of an heifer being sprinkled: the first consisting in making atonement for our sins; the other in the sanctification of our persons. And there are two ways whereby these things are procured by the blood of Christ: 1. By its offering, whereby sin is expiated. 2. By its sprinkling, whereby our persons are sanctified.The first ariseth from the satisfaction he made unto the justice of God, by undergoing in his death the punishment due to us, being made therein a curse for us, that the blessing might come upon us; therein, as his death was a sacrifice, as he offered himself unto God in the shedding of his blood, he made atonement: the other from the virtue of his sacrifice applied unto us by the Holy Spirit, which is the sprinkling of it; so doth the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cleanse us from all our sins. The Socinian expositor on this place endeavors, by a long perplexed discourse, to evade the force of this testimony, wherein the expiation of sin is directly assigned unto the blood of Christ. His pretense is to show how many ways it may be so; but his design is to prove that really it can be so by none at all; for the assertion, as it lies in terms, is destructive of their heresy. Wherefore he proceeds on these suppositions: — 1. “That the expiation for sin is our deliverance from the punishment due unto sin, by the power of Christ in heaven.” But as this is diametrically opposite unto the true nature of it, so is it unto its representation in the sacrifices of old, whereunto it is compared by the apostle, and from whence he argueth. Neither is this a tolerable exposition of the words: ‘The “blood of Christ,” in answer unto what was represented by the blood of the sacrifices of the law, doth “purge our consciences from dead works;” that is, Christ, by his power in heaven, doth free us from the punishment due to sin.’ 2. “That Christ was not a priest until after his ascension into heaven.” That this supposition destroys the whole nature of that office, hath been sufficiently before declared.3. “That his offering himself unto God was the presenting of himself in heaven before God, as having done the will of God on the earth.” But as this hath nothing in it of the nature of a sacrifice, so what is asserted to be done by it can, according to these men, be no way said to be done by his blood, seeing they affirm that when Christ doth this he hath neither flesh nor blood.4. “That the resurrection of Christ gave all efficacy unto his death.” But the truth is, it was his death, and what he effected therein, that was the ground of his resurrection. He was “brought again from the dead through the blood of the covenant.” And the efficacy of his death depends on his resurrection only as the evidence of his acceptance with God therein. 5. “That Christ confirmed his doctrine by his blood;” that is, because he rose again.All these principles I have at large refuted in the exercitations about the priesthood of Christ, and shall not here again insist on their examination. This is plain and evident in the words, unless violence be offered unto them, namely, that “the blood of Christ,” — that is, his suffering in soul and body, and his obedience therein, testified and expressed in the shedding of his blood, — was the procuring cause of the expiation of our sins, “the purging of our consciences from dead works,” our justification, sanctification, and acceptance with God thereon. And, — Obs. 3. There is nothing more destructive unto the whole faith of the gospel, than by any means to evacuate the immediate efficacy of the blood of Christ. — Every opinion of that tendency breaks in upon the whole mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in him. It renders all the institutions and sacrifices of the law, whereby God instructed the church of old in the mystery of his grace, useless and unintelligible, and overthrows the foundation of the gospel. The second thing in the words, is the means whereby the blood of Christ came to be of this efficacy, or to produce this effect. And that is, because in the shedding of it “he offered himself unto God, through the eternal Spirit, without spot.” Every word is of great importance, and the whole assertion filled with the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God, and must therefore be distinctly considered. There is declared what Christ did unto the end mentioned, and that is expressed in the matter and manner of it: 1. He “offered himself.”2. To whom; that is, “to God.”3. How, or from what principle, by what means; “through the eternal Spirit.”4. With what qualifications; “without spot.”1. “He offered himself.” To prove that his blood purgeth away our-sins, he affirms that he “offered himself.” His whole human nature was the offering; the way of its offering was by the shedding of his blood. So the beast was the sacrifice, when the blood alone or principally was offered on the altar; for it was the blood that made atonement. So it was by his blood that Christ made atonement, but it was his person that gave it efficacy unto that end. Wherefore by “himself,” the whole human nature of Christ is intended. And that, — (1.) Not in distinction or separation from the divine. For although the human nature of Christ, his soul and body, only was offered, yet he offered himself through his own eternal Spirit. This offering of himself, therefore, was the act of his whole person, both natures concurred in the offering, though one alone was offered.(2.) All that he did or suffered in his soul and body when his blood was shed, is comprised in this offering of himself. His obedience in suffering was that which rendered this offering of himself “a sacrifice unto God of a sweet-smelling savor.” And he is said thus to offer “himself,” in opposition unto the sacrifices of the high priests under the law. They offered goats and bulls, or their blood; but he offered himself. This, therefore, was the nature of the offering of Christ: — It was a sacred act of the Lord Christ, as the high priest of the church, wherein, according unto the will of God, and what was required of him by virtue of the eternal compact between the Father and him concerning the redemption of the church, he gave up himself, in the way of most profound obedience, to do and suffer whatever the justice and law of God required unto the expiation of sin; expressing the whole by the shedding of his blood, in answer unto all the typical representations of this his sacrifice in all the institutions of the law. And this offering of Christ was proper sacrifice, — (1.) From the office whereof it was an act. It was an act of his sacerdotal office; he was made a priest of God for this end, that he might thus offer himself, and that this offering of himself should be a sacrifice.(2.) From the nature of it. For it consisted in the sacred giving up unto God the thing that was offered, in the present destruction or consumption of it. This was the nature of a sacrifice; it was the destruction and consumption by death and fire, by a sacred action, of what was dedicated and offered unto God. So was it in this sacrifice of Christ. As he suffered in it, so in the giving himself up unto God in it there was an effusion of his blood and the destruction of his life. (3.) From the end of it, which was assigned unto it in the wisdom and sovereignty of God, and in his own intention; which was to make atonement for sin: which gives an offering the formal nature of an expiatory sacrifice.(4.) From the way and manner of it. For therein, —[1. He sanctified or dedicated himself unto God to be an offering, John 17:19.[2. He accompanied it with prayers and supplications, Hebrews 5:7.[3. There was an altar which sanctified the offering, which bore it up in its oblation; which was his own divine nature, as we shall see immediately. [4. He kindled the sacrifice with the fire of divine love, acting itself by zeal unto God’s glory and compassion unto the souls of men. [5. He tendered all this unto God as an atonement for sin, as we shall see in the next words. This was the free, real, proper sacrifice of Christ, whereof those of old were only types and obscure representations; the prefiguration hereof was the sole cause of their institution. And what the Socinians pretend, namely, that the Lord Christ offered no real sacrifice, but only what he did was called so metaphorically, by the way of allusion unto the sacrifices of the law, is so far from truth, as that there never had been any such sacrifices of divine appointment but only to prefigure this, which alone was really and substantially so. The Holy Ghost doth not make a forced accommodation of what Christ did unto those sacrifices of old, by way of allusion, and by reason of some resemblances; but shows the uselessness and weakness of those sacrifices in themselves, any further but as they represented this of Christ. The nature of this oblation and sacrifice of Christ is utterly overthrown by the Socinians. They deny that in all this there was any offering at all; they deny that his shedding of his blood, or any thing which he did or suffered therein, either actually or passively, his obedience, or giving himself up unto God therein, was his sacrifice, or any part of it, but only somewhat required previously thereunto, and that without any necessary cause or reason- But ‘his sacrifice, his offering of himself, they say, is nothing but his appearance in heaven, and the presentation of himself before the throne of God, whereon he receiveth power to deliver them that believe in him from the punishment due to sin. But, — (1.) This appearance of Christ in heaven is nowhere called his oblation, his sacrifice, or his offering of himself. The places wherein some grant it may be so, do assert no such thing; as we shall see in the explanation of them, for they occur unto us in this chapter.(2.) It no way answers the atonement that was made by the blood of the sacrifices at the altar, which was never carried into the holy place; yea, it overthrows all analogy, all resemblance and typical representation between those sacrifices and this of Christ, there being no similitude, nothing alike between them. And this renders all the reasoning of the apostle not only invalid, but altogether impertinent.(3.) The supposition of it utterly overthrows the true nature of a proper and real sacrifice, substituting that in the room of it which is only metaphorical, and improperly so called. Nor can it be evidenced wherein the metaphor doth consist, or that there is any ground why it should be called an offering or a sacrifice; for all things belonging to it are distinct from, yea, contrary unto a true, real sacrifice. (4.) It overthrows the nature of the priesthood of Christ, making it to consist in his actings from God towards us in a way of power; whereas the nature of the priesthood is to act with God for and on the behalf of the church.(5.) It offers violence unto the text. For herein Christ’s offering of himself is expressive of the way whereby his blood purgeth our consciences; which in their sense is excluded. But we may observe, unto our purpose, —Obs. 4. This was the greatest expression of the inexpressible love of Christ; “he offered himself.” — What was required thereunto, what he underwent therein, have on various occasions been spoken unto. His condescension and love in the undertaking and discharge of this work, we may, we ought to admire, but we cannot comprehend. And they do what lies in them to weaken the faith of the church in him, and its love towards him, who would change the nature of his sacrifice in the offering of himself; who would make less of difficulty or suffering in it, or ascribe less efficacy unto it. This is the foundation of our faith and boldness in approaching unto God, that Christ hath “offered himself” for us. Whatsoever might be effected by the glorious dignity of his divine person, by his profound obedience, by his unspeakable sufferings, all offered as a sacrifice unto God in our behalf, is really accomplished. Obs. 5. It is hence evident how vain and insufficient are all other ways of the expiation of sin, with the purging of our consciences before God. — The sum of all false religion consisteth always in contrivances for the expiation of sin; what is false in any religion hath respect principally thereunto. And as superstition is restless, so the inventions of men have been endless, in finding out means unto this end. But if any thing within the power or ability of men, any thing they could invent or accomplish, had been useful unto this end, there would have been no need that the Son of God should have offered himself. To this purpose, see Hebrews 10:5-8; Micah 6:6-7. 2. The next thing in the words, is unto whom he offered himself; that is, “to God.” He gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God. A sacrifice is the highest and chiefest act of sacred worship; especially it must be so when one offereth himself, according unto the will of God. God as God, or the divine nature, is the proper object of all religious worship, unto whom as such alone any sacrifice may be offered. To offer sacrifice unto any, under any other notion but as he is God, is the highest idolatry. But an offering, an expiatory sacrifice for sin, is made to God as God, under a peculiar notion or consideration. For God is therein considered as the author of the law against which sin is committed, as the supreme ruler and governor of all, unto whom it belongs to inflict the punishment which is due unto sin. For the end of such sacrifices is “averruncare malum,” — to avert displeasure and punishment, by making atonement for sin. With respect hereunto, the divine nature is considered as peculiarly subsisting in the person of the Father. For so is he constantly represented unto our faith, as “the judge of all,” Hebrews 12:23. With him, as such, the Lord Christ had to do in the offering of himself; concerning which, see our exposition on Hebrews 5:7. It is said, ‘If Christ were God himself, how could he offer himself unto God? That one and the same person should be the offerer, the oblation, and he unto whom it is offered, seems not so much a mystery as a weak imagination.’Ans. (1.) If there were one nature only in the person of Christ, it may be this might seem impertinent. Howbeit there may be cases wherein the same individual person, under several capacities, — as of a good man on the one hand, and a ruler or judge on the other, — may, for the benefit of the public, and the preservation of the laws of the community, both give and take satisfaction himself. But whereas in the one person of Christ there are two natures so infinitely distinct as they are, both acting under such distinct capacities as they did, there is nothing unbecoming this mystery of God, that the one of them might be offered unto the other. But, — (2.) It is not the same person that offereth the sacrifice and unto whom it is offered. For it was the person of the Father, or the divine nature considered as acting itself in the person of the Father, unto whom the offering was made. And although the person of the Son is partaker of the same nature with the Father, yet that nature is not the object of this divine worship as in him, but as in the person of the Father. Wherefore the Son did not formally offer himself unto himself, but unto God, as acting supreme rule, government, and judgment, in the person of the Father. As these things are plainly and fully testified unto in the Scripture, so the way to come unto a blessed satisfaction in them, unto the due use and comfort of them, is not to consult the cavils of carnal wisdom, but to pray “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give unto us the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, that the eyes of our understandings being enlightened,” we may come unto “the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.” 3. How he offered himself is also expressed; it was “by the eternal Spirit.” “By,” διά. It denotes a concurrent operation, when one works with another. Nor doth it always denote a subservient, instrumental cause, but sometimes that which is principally efficient, John 1:3; Romans 11:36; Hebrews 1:2. So it doth here; the eternal Spirit was not an interior instrument whereby Christ offered himself, but he was the principal efficient cause in the work.The variety that is in the reading of this place is taken notice of by all. Some copies read, “by the eternal Spirit;” some, “by the Holy Spirit;” the latter is the reading of the Vulgar translation, and countenanced by sundry ancient copies of the original. The Syriac retains “the eternal Spirit;” which also is the reading of most ancient copies of the Greek. Hence follows a double interpretation of the words. Some say that the Lord Christ offered himself unto God in and by the acting of the Holy Ghost in his human nature; for by him were wrought in him that fervent zeal unto the glory of God, that love and compassion unto the souls of men, which both carried him through his sufferings and rendered his obedience therein acceptable unto God as a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savor: which work of the Holy Spirit in the human nature of Christ I have elsewhere declared.[8] Others say that his own eternal Deity, which supported him in his sufferings and rendered the sacrifice of himself effectual, is intended. But this will not absolutely follow to be the sense of the place upon the common reading, “by the eternal Spirit;” for the Holy Spirit is no less an eternal Spirit than is the Deity of Christ himself. [8] See vol. 3, p. 168, of the author’s miscellaneous works. — Ed. The truth is, both these concurred in, and were absolutely necessary unto the offering of Christ. The acting of his own eternal Spirit was so, as unto the efficacy and effect; and the acting of the Holy Ghost in him was so, as unto the manner of it. Without the first, his offering of himself could not have “purged our consciences from dead works.” No sacrifice of any mere creature could have produced that effect. It would not have had in itself a worth and dignity whereby we might have been discharged of sin unto the glory of God. Nor without the subsistence of the human nature in the divine person of the Son of God, could it have undergone and passed through unto victory what it was to suffer in this offering of it. Wherefore this sense of the words is true: Christ offered himself unto God, through or by his own eternal Spirit, the divine nature acting in the person of the Son. For, — (1.) It was an act of his entire person, wherein he discharged the office of a priest. And as his human nature was the sacrifice, so his person was the priest that offered it; which is the only distinction that was between the priest and sacrifice herein. As in all other acts of his mediation, the taking our nature upon him, and what he did therein, the divine person of the Son, the eternal Spirit in him, acted in love and condescension, so did it in this also of his offering himself.(2.) As we observed before, hereby he gave dignity, worth, and efficacy unto the sacrifice of himself; for herein “God was to purchase his church with his own blood.” And this seems to be principally respected by the apostle; for he intends to declare herein the dignity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, in opposition unto those under the law. For it was in the will of man, and by material fire, that they were all offered; but he offered himself by the eternal Spirit, voluntarily giving up his human nature to be a sacrifice, in an act of his divine power.(3.) The eternal Spirit is here opposed unto the material altar, as well as unto the fire. The altar was that whereon the sacrifice was laid, which bore it up in its oblation and ascension. But the eternal Spirit of Christ was the altar whereon he offered himself. This supported and bore it up under its sufferings, whereon it was presented unto God as an acceptable sacrifice. Wherefore this reading of the words gives a sense that is true and proper unto the matter treated of.But on the other side, it is no less certain that he offered himself in his human nature by the Holy Ghost. All the gracious actings of his mind and will were required hereunto. The “man Christ Jesus,” in the gracious, voluntary acting of all the faculties of his soul, offered himself unto God. His human nature was not only the matter of the sacrifice, but therein and thereby, in the gracious actings of the faculties and powers of it, he offered himself unto God. Now all these things were wrought in him by the Holy Spirit, wherewith he was filled, which he received not by measure. By him was he filled with that love and compassion unto the church which acted him in his whole mediation, and which the Scripture so frequently proposeth unto our faith herein: “He loved me, and gave himself for me.” “He loved the church, and gave himself for it.” “He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” By him there was wrought in him that zeal unto the glory of God the fire whereof kindled his sacrifice in an eminent manner. For he designed, with ardency of love to God above his own life and present state of his soul, to declare his righteousness, to repair the diminution of his glory, and to make such way for the communication of his love and grace to sinners, as that he might be eternally glorified. He gave him such holy submission unto the will of God, under a prospect of the bitterness of that cup which he was to drink, as enabled him to say in the height of his conflict, “Not my will, but thine be done.” He filled him with that faith and trust in God, as unto his supportment, deliverance, and success, which carried him steadily and safely unto the issue of his trial, Isaiah 50:7-9. Through the actings of these graces of the Holy Spirit in the human nature, his offering of himself was a free, voluntary oblation and sacrifice.I shall not positively determine on either of these senses unto the exclusion of the other. The latter hath much of spiritual light and comfort in it on many accounts; but yet I must acknowledge that there are two considerations that peculiarly urge the former interpretation: — (1.) The most, and most ancient copies of the original, read, “by the eternal Spirit;” and are followed by the Syriac, with all the Greek scholiasts. Now, although the Holy Spirit be also an eternal Spirit, in the unity of the same divine nature with the Father and the Son, yet where he is spoken of with respect unto his own personal actings, he is constantly called “the Holy Spirit,” and not as here, “the eternal Spirit.”(2.) The design of the apostle is to prove the efficacy of the offering of Christ above those of the priests under the law. Now this arose from hence, partly that he offered himself, whereas they offered only the blood of bulls and goats; but principally from the dignity of his person in his offering, in that he offered himself by his own eternal Spirit, or divine nature. But I shall leave the reader to choose whether sense he judgeth suitable unto the scope of the place, either of them being so unto the analogy of faith. The Socinians, understanding that both these interpretations are equally destructive to their opinions, the one concerning the person of Christ, the other about the nature of the Holy Ghost, have invented a sense of these words never before heard of among Christians. For they say that by “the eternal Spirit,” “a certain divine power” is intended, “whereby the Lord Christ was freed from mortality, and made eternal;” that is, no more obnoxious unto death. “By virtue of this power,” they say, “he offered himself unto God when he entered into heaven;” — than which nothing can be spoken more fond or impious, or contrary unto the design of the apostle. For, — (1.) Such a power as they pretend is nowhere called “the Spirit,” much less “the eternal Spirit;” and to feign significations of words, without any countenance from their use elsewhere, is to wrest them at our pleasure.(2.) The apostle is so far from requiring a divine power rendering him immortal antecedently unto the offering of himself, as that he declares that he offered himself by the eternal Spirit in his death, when he shed his blood, whereby our consciences are purged from dead works.(3.) This divine power, rendering Christ immortal, is not peculiar unto him, but shall be communicated unto all that are raised unto glory at the last day. And there is no color of an opposition herein unto what was done by the high priests of old. (4.) It proceeds on their πρῶτονψεῦδος in this matter; which is, “that the Lord Christ offered not himself unto God before he was made immortal:” which is utterly to exclude his death and blood from any concernment therein; which is as contrary unto the truth and scope of the place as darkness is to light.(5.) Wherever there is mention made elsewhere in the Scripture of the Holy Spirit, or the eternal Spirit, or the Spirit absolutely, with reference unto any actings of the person of Christ, or on it, either the Holy Spirit or his own divine nature is intended. See Isaiah 61:1-2; Romans 1:4; 1 Peter 3:18. Wherefore Grotius forsakes this notion, and otherwise explains the words: “Spiritus Christi qui non tantum fuit vivus ut in vita terrena, sed in aeternum corpus sibi adjunctum vivificans.” If there be any sense in these words, it is the rational soul of Christ that is intended. And it is most true, that the Lord Christ offered himself in and by the actings of it; for there are no other in the human nature as to any duties of obedience unto God. But that this should be here called “the eternal Spirit,” is a vain conjecture; for the spirits of all men are equally eternal, and do not only live here below, but shall quicken their bodies after the resurrection for ever. This, therefore, cannot be the ground of the especial efficacy of the blood of Christ. This is the second thing wherein the apostle opposeth the offering of Christ unto the offerings of the priests under the law: — (1.) They offered bulls and goats; he offered himself.(2.) They offered by a material altar and fire; he by the eternal Spirit.That Christ should thus offer himself unto God, and that by the eternal Spirit, is the center of the mystery of the gospel. All attempts to corrupt, to pervert this glorious truth, are designs against the glory of God and faith of the church. The depth of this mystery we cannot dive into, the height we cannot comprehend. We cannot search out the greatness of it; of the wisdom, the love, the grace that is in it. And those who choose rather to reject it than to live by faith in a humble admiration of it, do it at the peril of their souls. Unto the reason of some men it may be folly, unto faith it is full of glory. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Καὶδιὰτοῦτοδιαθήκηςκαινῆςμεσίτηςἐστὶν, ὅπωςθανάτουγενομένου, εἰςἀπολύτρωσιντῶνἐπὶτῇπρώτηδιαθήκῃπαραβάσεων, τὴνἐπαγγελίανλάβωσινοἱκεκλημένοι, τῆςαἰωνίουκληρονομίας.Διὰτοῦτο. Vulg., “et ideo,” “and therefore.” Syr., ξֶ ?θεּ ?μδָ ?πָ ?ΰ, “propter hoe,” “for this;” or “propterea,” “itaque ob id,” “and for this cause.”Μεσίτηςἔστιν. Syr., δַ ?εδֲ ?εָ ?ΰξֶ ?φְ ?ςָ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “he himself was the mediator.” “He is the mediator.” Heb., ΰִ ?ιωׁ αֵּ ?ιπַ ?ιִ ?ν, “a man coming between.”῞Οπωςθανάτουγενομένον. Vulg., “ut morte intercedente,” “by the interposition of death.” The Syriae reads the passage, “Who by his death was a redeemer unto them who had transgressed against the first testament;” probably, to avoid the difficulty o£ that expression, “for the redemption of transgressions.” The Ethiopic corrupts the whole text.Εἰςἀπολύτρωσιντῶνπαραβάσεων, “in redemptionem eorum praevaricationum.” Vulg., “ad redemptionem eorum transgressionum;” properly, “for the redemption of transgressions,” or those transgressions which were.᾿Επαγγελίανλαβωσιν. Vulg., Syr., “that they may receive the promise who are called to the eternal inheritance.” But in the Original and in the Vulgar “eternal inheritance” is joined unto and regulated by “the promise;” — “the promise of an eternal inheritance.”[9] [9] See the note on the ensuing verse. — Ed Hebrews 9:15. — And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.The things which are to be considered in this verse are, 1. The note of connection in the conjunction, “and.”2. The ground of the ensuing assertion: “For this cause.”3. The assertion itself: “He is the mediator of the new testament.”4. The especial reason why he should be so: “For the redemption of transgressions under the first testament.” 5. The way whereby that was to be effected: “By means of death.”6. The end of the whole: “That they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”But before we proceed unto the exposition of the whole or any part of it, a difficulty must be removed from the words as they lie in our translation. For an inquiry may be justly moved, why we render the word διαθήκη by a “testament” in this place, whereas before we have constantly rendered it by a “covenant.” And the plain reason of it is, because from this verse unto the end of the chapter the apostle argues from the nature and use of a testament among men, as he directly affirms in the next verse. Hereby he confirms our faith in the expectation of the benefits of this διαθήκη, — that is, “covenant” or “testament.” We may answer, he doth it because it is the true and proper signification of the word. Διαθήκη is properly a “testamentary disposition of things;” as συνθήκη is a “covenant.” For in the composition of the word there is nothing to intimate a mutual compact or agreement, which is necessary unto a covenant, and is expressed in συνθήκη. However, there is a great affinity in the things themselves: for there are covenants which have in them free grants and donations, which are of the nature of a testament; and there are testaments whose force is resolved into some conventions, conditions, and agreements, which they borrow from the nature of covenants. So there is such an affinity between them as one name may be expressive of them both.But against this it will be replied, ‘That what the apostle speaks unto is in the Hebrew called αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, — that is, a “covenant,” and it nowhere signifies a testament; so that from thence the apostle could not argue from the nature of a testament what is required thereunto and what doth depend thereon.’Hereunto it is answered, That the LXX. constantly rendering αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, “berith,” by διαθήκη, and not by συνθήκη, the apostle made use of that translation and that signification of the word. But this will not solve the difficulty; for it would resolve all the apostle’s arguings in this great and important mystery into the authority of that translation, which is fallible throughout, and (at least as it is come to us) filled with actual mistakes. We must therefore give another answer unto this objection. Wherefore I say, — 1. The word αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ could not be more properly rendered by any one word than by διαθήκη. For it being mostly used to express the covenant between God and man, it is of such a nature as cannot properly be termed συνθήκη, which is a covenant or compact upon equal terms of distributive justice between distinct parties; but God’s covenant with man is only the way and the declaration of the terms whereby God will dispose and communicate good things unto us, which hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant in it.2. The word αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ is often used to express a free promise, with an effectual donation and communication of the thing promised, as hath been declared in the foregoing chapter; but this hath more of the nature of a testament than of a covenant.3. There is no word in the Hebrew language whereby to express a testament but αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ only. Nor is there so in the Syriac: their γιϊιχιis nothing but διαθήκη. The Hebrews express the thing by φִ ?εָּ ?δμְ ?αֵּ ?ιϊ, to “order, dispose, give command concerning the house or household of a dying man,” Isaiah 38:1; 2 Samuel 17:23. But they have no other word but berith to signify it; and therefore, where the nature of the thing spoken of requires it, it is properly rendered a “testament,” and ought so to be.Wherefore there is no force used unto the signification of the word in this place by the apostle. But that which makes the proper use of it by him evident in this place, is that he had respect unto its signification in the making of the covenant with the people at Sinai; for this he compares the new testament unto in all its causes and effects. And in that covenant there were three things: — 1. The prescription of obedience unto the people on the part of God; which was received by their consent in an express compliance with the law and terms of it, Deuteronomy 5:1-27. Herein the nature of it, so far as it was a covenant, did consist.2. There was a promise and conveyance of an inheritance unto them, namely, of the land of Canaan, with all the privileges of it. God declared that the land was his, and that he gave it unto them for an inheritance. And this promise or grant was made unto them without any consideration of their previous obedience, out of mere love and grace. The principal design of the book of Deuteronomy is to inlay this principle in the foundation of their obedience. Now the free grant and donation of an inheritance of the goods of him that makes the grant, is properly a testament. A free disposition it was of the goods of the testator. 3. There was in the confirmation of this grant the intervention of death. The grant of the inheritance of the land that God made was confirmed by death and the blood of the beasts offered in sacrifice; whereof we must treat on verses 18-20. And although covenants were confirmed by sacrifices, as this was, so far as it was a covenant, namely, with the blood of them; yet as in those sacrifices death was comprised, it was to confirm the testamentary grant of the inheritance. For death is necessary unto the confirmation of a testament; which then could only be in type and representation; the testator himself was not to die for the establishment era typical inheritance.Wherefore the apostle having discoursed before concerning the covenant as it prescribed and required obedience, with promises and penalties annexed unto it, he now treats of it as unto the donation and communication of good things by it, with the confirmation of the grant of them by death; in which sense it was a testament, and not a covenant properly so called. And the arguing of the apostle from this word is not only just and reasonable, but without it we could never have rightly understood the typical representation that was made of the death, blood, and sacrifice of Christ, in the confirmation of the new testament, as we shall see immediately. This difficulty being removed, we may proceed in the exposition of the words. First. That which first occurs is the note of connection, in the conjunction “and.” But it doth not here, as sometimes, infer a reason of what was spoken before, but is emphatically expletive, and denotes a progress in the present argument; as much as “also,” “moreover.”Secondly. There is the ground of the ensuing assertion, or the manner of its introduction: “For this cause.” Some say that it looks backward, and intimates a reason of what was spoken before, or why it was necessary that our consciences should be purged from dead works by the blood of Christ, namely, because “he was the mediator of the new covenant;” others say it looks forward, and gives a reason why he was to be the mediator of the new testament, namely, “that by means of death for the transgressions,” etc. It is evident that there is a reason rendered in these words of the necessity of the death and sacrifice of Christ, by which alone our consciences may be purged from dead works. And this reason is intended in these words, Διὰτοῦτο, — “For this cause.” And this necessity of the death of Christ the apostle proves, both from the nature of his office, namely, that he was to be “the mediator of the new covenant,” which, being also a testament, required the death of the testator; and from what was to be effected thereby, namely, the “redemption of transgressions” and the purchase of an “eternal inheritance.” Wherefore these are the things which he hath respect unto in these words, “For this cause.” But withal the apostle in this verse enlargeth his discourse, as designing to comprehend in it the whole dispensation of the will and grace of God unto the church in Christ, with the ground and reason of it. This reason he layeth down in this verse, giving an account of the effects of it in those that follow. Hereunto respect is had in this expression. For the exposition of the words themselves, — that is, the declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost, and nature of the things contained in them, — we must leave the order of the words and take that of the things themselves. And the things ensuing are declared in them: — 1. That God designed an eternal inheritance unto some persons.2. The way and manner of conveying a right and title thereunto was by promise.3. That the persons unto whom this inheritance is designed are those that are called.4. That there was an obstacle unto the enjoyment of this inheritance, which was transgression against the first covenant.5. That this obstacle might be removed, and the inheritance enjoyed, God made a new covenant; because none of the rites, ordinances, or sacrifices of the first covenant, could remove that obstacle, or expiate those sins.6. The ground of the efficacy of the new covenant unto this end was, that it had a mediator, a high priest, such as had been already described.7. The way and means whereby the mediator of the new covenant did expiate sins under the old was by death; nor could it otherwise be done, seeing this new covenant, being a testament also, required the death of the testator. 8. This death of the mediator of the new testament did take away sins by the redemption of them: “For the redemption of transgressions.”All which must be opened, for the due exposition of these words. 1. God designed unto some an “eternal inheritance.” And both the reason of this grant with the nature of it must be inquired into: —(1.) As unto the reason of it: God in our first creation gave unto man, whom he made his son and heir, as unto things here below, a great inheritance, of mere grace and bounty. This inheritance consisted in the use of all the creatures here below, in a just title unto them and dominion over them. Neither did it consist absolutely in these things, but as they were a pledge of the present favor of God, and of man’s future blessedness upon his obedience. This whole inheritance man forfeited by sin. God also took the forfeiture, and ejected him out of the possession of it, and utterly despoiled him of his title unto it. Nevertheless he designed unto some another inheritance, even one that should not be lost, that should be eternal. It is altogether vain and foolish to seek for any other cause or reason of the preparation of this inheritance, and the designation of it unto any person, but only his own grace and bounty, his sovereign will and pleasure. What merit of it, what means of attaining it, could be found in them who were considered under no other qualification but such as had wofully rejected that inheritance which before they were instated in? And therefore is it called an “inheritance,” to mind us that the way whereby we come unto it is gratuitous adoption, and not purchase or merit. (2.) As unto the nature of it, it is declared in the adjunct mentioned; it is “eternal.” And it is so called in opposition unto the inheritance which by virtue of the first testament God granted unto the Israelites in the land of Canaan. That was an inheritance, and was conveyed by a promise. And when God threatened to deprive them of that land, he said he would “disinherit them,” Numbers 14:12. And this inheritance consisted not only in the land itself, but principally in the privileges of holy worship and relation unto God which they enjoyed therein, Romans 9:4-5. But yet all things that belonged unto it were in themselves carnal and temporary, and only types of good things to come. In opposition hereunto God provided an “eternal inheritance.” And as the state of those who are to receive it is twofold, namely, that in this life, and that in the life to come, so there are two parts of their inheritance, namely, grace and glory; for although grace be bestowed and continued only in this life, yet the things we enjoy by virtue of it are eternal. The other part of their inheritance is glory; which is the way of the full, unchangeable possession and enjoyment of it. This, therefore, is not to be excluded from this inheritance, at least as the end and necessary consequent of it. But that which is principally and in the first place intended by it, is that state of things whereinto believers are admitted in this life. The whole inheritance of grace and glory was in the first place given and committed unto Jesus Christ. He was “appointed heir of all things,” Hebrews 1:2. By him is it communicated unto all believers; who thereby become “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,” Romans 8:15-17. For the Lord Christ, as the great testator, did in and by his death bequeath unto them all his goods, as an eternal legacy. All that grace, mercy, and glory, all the riches of them which are prepared in the covenant, are comprised herein. And a goodly inheritance it is; the lines are fallen unto believers in pleasant places. And the way whereby we become interested in this inheritance is by gratuitous adoption. “If sons, then heirs.”This is that which is the end of all, and regulates all that precedes in this verse. It declares the way whereby .God would communicate unto some persons the inheritance which in free grace and bounty he had provided. And, — Obs. 1. It is an act of mere sovereign grace in God to provide such a blessed inheritance for any of them who had sinfully cast away what they were before intrusted withal. — And into this are all God’s following dealings with the church to be resolved. If there was nothing in us to move God to provide this inheritance for us, no more is there of the communication of any part of it unto us; as we shall see further on the next words.2. The way whereby God did convey or would communicate this inheritance unto any, was by promise: “Might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance.” The Syriac translation refers the inheritance unto the “called:” “Those that are called to an eternal inheritance.” But in the original it respects the “promise:” “The promise of an eternal inheritance;” for by the promise is assurance given of it, and it is the means of the actual conveyance of it unto us. And the apostle hath respect unto what he had discoursed about the promise of God, and the confirmation of it by his oath, Hebrews 6:15-18. So he declares it also, Galatians 3:18. The promise made unto Abraham, and confirmed by the oath of God, was concerning the eternal inheritance by Christ. The inheritance of Canaan was by the law, or the first covenant; but this was by promise. And we may consider three things:(1.) What is the promise intended.(2.) How and why it was by promise.(3.) How we do receive the promise of it.(1.) The “promise” principally intended is that which was given unto Abraham, and confirmed by the oath of God: for the inheritance, that is, the eternal inheritance, was of the promise, Galatians 3:18, namely, that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed. It includes, indeed, the first promise, made unto our first parents, which was the spring and foundation of it, and respects all the following promises concerning the Lord Christ and the benefits of his mediation, with all the grace which is administered by them, which were further declarations and confirmations of it; but that great solemn promise is principally intended: for the apostle designs to convince the Hebrews that neither by the law nor by the sacrifices and ordinances of it they could come unto the inheritance promised unto Abraham and his seed. This was “the promise of eternal inheritance,” whereof that of the land of Canaan was a type only. (2.) We must inquire how and why this inheritance is conveyed by promise. And God made this settlement by promise for these ends; —[1. To evince the absolute freedom of the preparation and grant of it. The promise is everywhere opposed unto every thing of works or desert in ourselves. It hath no respect unto what we were or did deserve. The land of Canaan was given to the posterity of Abraham by promise. And therefore doth God so often mind them of the freedom of it, — that it was an act of mere love and sovereign grace, which in themselves they were so far from deserving, as that they were altogether unworthy of it, Deuteronomy 9:4-5; Deuteronomy 7:7-8. Much less hath the promise of the eternal inheritance respect unto any thing of works in ourselves.[2. To give security unto all the heirs of it unto whom it was designed. Hence in this promise and the confirmation of it, there was the highest engagement of the faithfulness and veracity of God. There was so, “to the end that the promise might be sure unto all the seed,” Romans 4:16. Wherefore God doth not only declare the relation of it unto his essential truth, — ‘God, who cannot lie, hath given this promise of eternal life,’ Titus 1:2, — but hath ‘confirmed it with his oath; that by two immutable things, wherein it was impossible that God should lie, it might be established.’The reasons of the use and necessity hereof have been declared on Hebrews 6:17-18.[3. It was thus conveyed, and is communicated by promise unto all the heirs of it in their successive generations, that the way of obtaining this inheritance on our part might be by faith, and no otherwise; for what God hath only promised doth necessarily require faith unto its reception, and faith only. There is nothing can contribute aught unto an interest in the promise, but the mixing of it with faith, Hebrews 4:2. And “it is of faith, that it may be by grace,” Romans 4:16; namely, that it may be evidenced to be of the mere grace of God, in opposition unto all worth, works and endeavors of our own. And if all grace and glory, all benefits of the mediation of Christ, our sanctification, justification, and glorification, be an inheritance prepared in grace, conveyed by promise, and received by faith, there is no place left for our own works, with reference unto the procurement of an interest in them. Freely it was provided, freely it is proposed, and freely it is received.(3.) We may inquire what it is to “receive” the promise. And it hath a double sense:[1. As the promise may be considered formally or materially. To receive the promise formally as a promise, is to have it declared unto us, and to mix it with faith, or to believe it. This it is to receive the promise, in opposition unto them by whom it is rejected through unbelief. So Abraham is said to “receive the promises,” Hebrews 11:17, in that when they were given unto him,“he staggered not through unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God,” Romans 4:20.[2. As the promise is materially considered, so to receive it is to receive the thing promised. So it is said of the saints under the old testament, that “they obtained a good report through faith,” but “received not the promise,” Hebrews 11:39. They received the promises by faith in them as proposed; but the principal thing promised, which was the coming of Christ in the flesh, they received not. The receiving of the promise here mentioned is of both kinds, according to the distinct parts of this inheritance. As unto the future state of glory, we receive the promise in the first way; that is, we believe it, rest upon it, trust unto the truth of God in it, and live in the expectation of it. And the benefit we receive hereby, as unto our spiritual life and consolation, is inexpressible. As unto the foundation of the whole inheritance, in the oblation and sacrifice of Christ, and all the grace, mercy, and love, with the fruits of them, whereof in this life we are made partakers, and all the privileges of the gospel, believers under the new testament receive the promise in the second sense; namely, the things promised. And so did they also under the old testament, according to the measure of the divine dispensation towards them. And we may observe, — Obs. 2. All our interest in the gospel inheritance depends on our receiving the promise by faith. — Though it be prepared in the counsel of God, though it be proposed unto us in the dispensation of the gospel, yet, unless we receive the promise of it by faith, we have no right or title unto it.Obs. 3. The conveyance and actual communication of the eternal inheritance by promise, to be received by faith alone, tends exceedingly unto the exaltation of the glory of God, and the security of the salvation of them that do believe. — For, as unto the latter, it depends absolutely on the veracity of God, confirmed by his oath. And faith, on the other hand, is the only way and means of ascribing unto God the glory of all the holy properties of his nature, which he designs to exalt in this dispensation of himself. 3. The persons unto whom this inheritance is designed, and who do receive the promise of it, are “those that are called.” It is to no purpose to discourse here about outward and inward calling, effectual and ineffectual, complied with or not: no others are intended but those that actually receive the promise. It was the design of God, in this whole dispensation, that all the called should receive the promise; and if they do not so, his counsel, and that in the greatest work of his wisdom, power, and grace, is frustrated. They are the “called according to his purpose,” Romans 8:28; — those who obtain the inheritance “being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will,” Ephesians 1:11. God here puts forth his almighty power, that his purpose, or the counsel of his will, may be established, in giving the inheritance unto all that are called: “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified,” or gave them the whole eternal inheritance, Romans 8:30. Hence Estius, an expositor of the Roman church, chargeth the contrary opinion in Catharinus as unorthodox. It is not a general call, wherein those who are so called may or may not receive the inheritance; but what God designs unto them that are intended, they are so called as that they shall assuredly be made partakers of it. This is the end that God designed in the dispensation of himself by Jesus Christ here declared, and therefore respect is had thereunto in the whole of it. Some think that by “the called” here, those only are intended who were so under the old testament: for mention is made only of the redemption of transgressions under that covenant; in what sense shall be immediately declared. But this is contrary both unto the design of the apostle and the use of the word. For on that supposition, he says no more but that Christ was the mediator of the new testament,’that those might be saved who lived and died under the old. But his principal design is to prove the advantage that we now have, even above the elect themselves under the old testament; yet so as not to exclude them from the same benefit with us by. the mediation of Christ, as unto the substance of it. And “the called,” in the language of this apostle, doth principally signify the “called in Christ Jesus.” Obs. 4. Effectual vocation is the only way of entrance into the eternal inheritance; for it is accompanied with adoption, which gives us right and title thereunto, John 1:12. In vain do they expect it who are not so called.4. Things being thus prepared in the counsel and grace of God, yet there was an obstacle in the way of actually receiving the promise; namely, the “transgressions that were under the first testament.” God designed unto the elect an eternal inheritance; yet can they not be made partakers of it, but in such a way as was suited unto his glory. It was unjust and unreasonable that it should be otherwise. Whereas, therefore, they were all of them guilty of sin, their sins must be expiated and taken out of the way, or they cannot receive the promise of the inheritance. Παραβάσεις, τְּ ?ωָׁ ?ςִ ?ινςֲ ?εֹ ?πִ ?ιν. Our word “transgressions” doth properly express the original word. And in the distribution of sins by their names into τְּ ?ωָׁ ?ςִ ?ινςֲ ?εֹ ?πִ ?ιν, and ηֲ ?θָ ?ΰִ ?ιν, Leviticus 16:21, we render τְּ ?ωָׁ ?ςִ ?ιν by it. But it compriseth all sorts of sins whereby the law is transgressed, be they great or small. Every thing that hath the nature of sin must be expiated, or the inheritance cannot be enjoyed.Obs. 5. Though God will give grace and glory unto his elect, yet he will do it in such a way as wherein and whereby he may be glorified also himself. — Satisfaction must be made for transgression, unto the honor of his righteousness, holiness, and law.There are yet sundry difficulties in this expression, which must be inquired into. For, — (1.) “The redemption” or expiation “of sins” is confined unto those under the old testament; whence it should seem that there is none made for those under the new.Ans. The emphasis of the expression, “sins under the old testament,” respects either the time when the sine intended were committed, or the testament against which they were committed. And the preposition ἐπί will admit of either sense. Take it in the first way, and the argument follows “a fortiori,” as unto the sins committed under the new testament; though there be no expiation of sins against it, which properly are only final unbelief and impenitency. For the expiation intended is made by the mediator of the new testament: and if he expiated the sins that were under the first testament, that is, of those who lived and died whilst that covenant was in force, much more doth he do so for them who live under the administration of that testament whereof he is the mediator; for sins are taken away by virtue of that testament whereunto they do belong. And it is with peculiar respect, unto them that the blood of Christ is called “the blood of the new testament, for the redemption of sins.” But yet more probably the meaning may be, the sins that were and are committed against that first covenant, or the law and rule of it. For whereas that covenant did in its administration comprise the moral law, which was the substance and foundation of it, all sins whatever have their form and nature with respect thereunto. So “sins under the first covenant,” are all sins whatever; for there is no sin committed under the gospel but it is a sin against that law which requires us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and all our strength. Either way, the sins of them who are called under the new testament are included. (2.) It is inquired whether it is the nature of the sins intended that is respected, or the persons guilty of them also under that testament. The Syriac translation avoids this difficulty, by rendering the words of the abstract, “the redemption of transgressions,” in the concrete, “a redeemer unto them who had transgressed.” That it is a certain sort of sins that is intended, Socinus was the first that invented. And his invention is the foundation of the exposition not only of Schlichtingius, but of Grotius also on this place. Such sins they say they are, as for which no expiation was to be made by the sacrifices of the law, — sins of a greater nature than could be expiated by them; for they only made expiation of some smaller sins, as sins of ignorance, or the like. But there is no respect unto the persons of them who lived under that testament; whom they will not grant to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. Wherefore, according unto them, the difference between the expiation of sin by the sacrifices of the law and that by the sacrifice of Christ, doth not consist in their nature, that the one did it only typically, and in an external representation, by the purifying of the flesh, the other really and effectually; but in this, that the one expiated lesser sins only, the other greater also. But there is nothing sound or consonant unto the truth in this interpretation of the words. For, — [1. It proceeds on a false supposition, — that there were sins of the people (not only presumptuous sins, and which had impenitency in them) for which no atonement was made, nor expiation of them allowed; which is expressly contrary unto Leviticus 16:16; Leviticus 16:21. And whereas some offenses were capital amongst them, for which no atonement was allowed to free the sinner from death, yet that belonged unto the political rule of the people, and hindered not but that typically all sorts of sins were to be expiated. [2. It is contrary unto the express design of the apostle. For he had proved before, by all sorts of arguments, that the sacrifices of the taw could not expiate any sin, could not purge the conscience from dead works; that they “made nothing perfect.” And this he speaks not of this or that sin, but of every sin wherein the conscience of a sinner is concerned, Hebrews 10:1-2. Hence two things follow: — 1st. That they did not, in and of themselves, really expiate any one sin, small or great. It was impossible, saith the apostle, that they should do so, Hebrews 10:4; only they “sanctified to the purifying of the flesh:” which overthrows the foundation of this exposition. 2dly. That they did typify and represent the expiation of all sorts of sins whatever, and made application of it unto their souls. For if it was so, that there was no atonement for their sins, that their consciences were not purged from dead works, nor themselves consummated, but only had some outward purification of the flesh, it cannot be but they must all eternally perish; but that this was not their condition the apostle proves from hence, because they were called of God unto an eternal inheritance, as he had proved at large concerning Abraham, Hebrews 6. Hence he infers the necessity of the mediation and death of Christ, as without the virtue whereof all the called under the first covenant must perish eternally, thero being no other way to come to the inheritance.(3.) Whereas the apostle mentions only the sins under the first covenant, as unto the time past before the exhibition of Christ in the flesh, or the death of the mediator of the new testament, what is to be thought of them who lived during that season who belonged not unto the covenant, but were strangers from it, such as are described Ephesians 2:12? I answer, The apostle takes no notice of them; and that because, taking them generally, Christ died not for them. Yea, that he did not so, is sufficiently proved from this place. Those who live and die strangers from God’s covenant have no interest in the mediation of Christ. Wherein the redemption of those transgressions did consist shall be declared in its proper place. And we may observe, — Obs. 6. Such is the malignant nature of sin, of all transgression of the law, that unless it be removed, unless it be taken out of the way, no person can enjoy the promise of the eternal inheritance.Obs. 7. It was the work of God alone to contrive, and it was the effect of, infinite wisdom and grace to provide, a way for the removal of sin, that it might not be an everlasting obstacle against the communication of an eternal inheritance unto them that are called. 5. We have declared the design of God here represented unto us, who are the persons towards whom it was to be accomplished, and what lay in the way as a hinderance of it. That which remains in the words, is the way that God took and the means that he used for the removal of that hinderance, and the effectual accomplishment of his design.This in general was, first, the making of a new testament. He had fully proved before that this could not be done by that covenant against which the sins were committed, neither by the priests, nor sacrifices, nor any other duties of it. Therefore had he promised the abolition of it, because of its weakness and insufficiency unto this end, as also the introduction of a new to supply its defects, as we have seen at large in the exposition of the foregoing chapter. For it became the wisdom, goodness, and grace of God, upon the removal of the one for its insufficiency, to establish another that should be every way effectual unto his purpose, namely, the communication of an eternal inheritance unto them that are called. But then the inquiry will be, how this covenant or testament shall effect this end; what is in it, what belongs unto it that should be so effectual, and by what means it might attain this end. All these are declared in the words. And, — 6. In general, all this arose from hence, that it had a mediator, and that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, was this mediator. The dignity of his person, and thereon both the excellency and efficacy of his priestly office, — whereunto alone respect is had in his being called here a mediator, — he had abundantly before demonstrated. Although the word in general be of a larger signification, as we have declared on Hebrews 8:6, yet here it is restrained unto his priestly office, and his acting therein. For whereas he had treated of that alone in the foregoing chapter, here, declaring the grounds and reasons of the necessity of it, he says, “For this cause is he the mediator.” And proceeding to show in what sense he considers him as a mediator, he doth it by his being a testator and dying; which belongs to his priestly office alone. And the sole end which in this place he assigns unto his mediatory office, is his death: “That by means of death.” Whereas, therefore, there were sins committed under the first covenant, and against it, and would have been so for ever, had it continued, which it was no way able so to take away as that the called might receive the inheritance, the Lord Christ undertook to be the mediator of that covenant, which was provided as a remedy against these evils. For herein he undertook to answer for and expiate all those sins. Whereas, therefore, expiation of sin is to be made by an act towards God, with whom alone atonement is to be made, so as that it may be pardoned, the mediation of Christ here intended is that whereby, suffering death in our stead, in the behalf of all that are called, he made atonement for sin. But moreover, God had a further design herein. He would not only free them that are called from that death which they deserved by their sins against the first covenant, but give them also a right and title unto an eternal inheritance, — that is, of grace and glory; wherefore the procurement hereof also depends on the mediation of Christ. For by his obedience unto God in the discharge thereof he purchased for them this inheritance, and bequeathed it unto them, as the mediator of the new testament. The provision of this mediator of the new testament is the greatest effect of the infinite wisdom, love, and grace of God. This is the center of his eternal counsels. In the womb of this one mercy all others are contained. Herein will he be glorified unto eternity. (1.) The first covenant of works was broken and disannulled, because it had no mediator.(2.) The covenant at Sinai had no such mediator as could expiate sin. Hence, —(3.) Both of them became means of death and condemnation.(4.) God saw that, in the making of the new covenant, it was necessary to put all things into the hand of a mediator, that it also might not be frustrated.(5.) This mediator was not in the first place to preserve us in the state of the new covenant, but to deliver us from the guilt of the breach of the former, and the curse thereon. To make provision for this end was the effect of infinite wisdom.7. The especial way and means whereby this effect was wrought by this mediator, was by death: “Morte obita,” “facta,” “interveniente,” “intercedente. “By means of death,” say we. Death was the means, that whereby the mediator procured the effect mentioned. That which in the foregoing verse is ascribed unto the blood of Christ, which he offered as a priest, is here ascribed unto his death as a mediator. For both these really are the same: only in the one, the thing itself is expressed, it was death; in the other, the manner of it, it was by blood: in the one, what he did and suffered, with respect unto the curse of the first covenant, it was death; in the other, the ground of his making expiation for sin by his death, or how it came so to do, name]y, not merely as it was death or penal, but as it was a voluntary sacrifice or oblation. It was therefore necessary unto the end mentioned that the mediator of the new testament should die: not as the high priests of old died, a natural death for themselves; but as the sacrifice died that was slain and offered for others. He was to die that death which was threatened unto transgressors against the first covenant; that is, death under the curse of the law. There must therefore be some great cause and end why this mediator, being the only begotten of the Father, should thus die. “This was,” say the Socinians, “that he might confirm the doctrine that he taught. He died as a martyr, not as a sacrifice.” But, — (1.) There was no need that he should die unto that end; for his doctrine was sufficiently confirmed by the scriptures of the Old Testament, the evidence of the presence of God in him, and the miracles which he wrought.(2.) Notwithstanding their pretense, they do not assign the confirmation of his doctrine unto his death, but unto his resurrection from the dead.Neither indeed do they allow any gracious effect unto his death, either towards God or men, but only make it something necessarily antecedent unto what he did of that kind. Nor do they allow that he acted any thing at all towards God on our behalf. Whereas the Scripture constantly assigns our redemption, sanctification, and salvation, to the death and blood of Christ, these persons [1. Deny that of itself it hath any influence into them: wherefore, [2. They say that Christ by his death confirmed the new covenant; but hereby they intend nothing but what they do also in the former, or the confirmation of his doctrine, with an addition of somewhat worse. For they would have him to confirm the promises of God as by him declared, and no more; as though he were God’s surety to us, and not a surety for us unto God. Neither do they assign this unto his death, but unto his resurrection from the dead. But suppose all this, and that the death of Christ were in some sense useful and profitable unto these ends, which is all they plead, yet what use and advantage was it of, with respect unto them, that he should die an accursed death, under the curse of the law and a sense of God’s displeasure? Hereof the Socinians, and those that follow them, can yield no reason at all. It would become these men, so highly pretending unto reason, to give an account upon their own principles of the death of the only-begotten Son of God, in the highest course and most intense acts of obedience, that may be compliant with the wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God, considering the kind of death that he died. But what they cannot do, the apostle doth in the next words. 8. The death of the mediator of the new testament was “for the redemption of transgressions;” and for this end it was necessary. Sin lay in the way of the enjoyment of the inheritance which grace had prepared. It did so in the righteousness and faithfulness of God. Unless it were removed, the inheritance could not be received. The way whereby this was to be done, was by redemption. The “redemption of transgressions,” is the deliverance of the transgressors from all the evils they were subject unto on their account, by the payment of a satisfactory price. The words used to express it, λύτρον, ἀντίλυτρον, λύτρωσις, ἀπολύτρωσις, λυτροῦσθαι, will admit of no other signification. Here it must answer “the purging of conscience by the blood of Christ.” And he calls his life “a ransom,” or price of redemption. And this utterly destroys the foundation of the Socinian redemption and expiation for sin; for they make it only a freedom from punishment by an act of power. Take off the covering of the words, which they use in a sense foreign to the Scripture and their proper signification, and their sense is expressly contradictory unto the sense and words of the apostle. He declares Christ to have been the high priest and mediator of the new testament in the same acts and duties; they teach that he ceased to be a mediator when he began to be a priest. He affirms that the blood of Christ doth expiate sin; they, that he doth it by an act of power in heaven, where there is no use of his blood. He says that his death was necessary unto, and was the means or cause of the redemption of transgressions, — that is, to be a price of redemption, or just compensation for them; they contend that no such thing is required thereunto. And whereas the Scriptures do plainly assign the expiation of sin, redemption, reconciliation and peace with God, sanctification and salvation, unto the death and blood-shedding of Christ; they deny them all and every one to be in any sense effects of it, only they say it was an antecedent sign of the truth of his doctrine in his resurrection, and an antecedent condition of his exaltation and power: which is to reject the whole mystery of the gospel. Besides the particular observations which we have made on the several passages of this verse, something may yet in general be observed from it; as, — Obs. 8. A new testament providing an eternal inheritance in sovereign grace; the constitution of a mediator, such a mediator, for that testament, in infinite wisdom and love; the death of that testator for the redemption of transgressions, to fulfill the law, and satisfy the justice of God; with the communication of that inheritance by promise, to be received by faith in all them that are called; are the substance of the mystery of the gospel. And all these are with wonderful wisdom comprised by the apostle in these words. Obs. 9. That the efficacy of the mediation and death of Christ extended itself unto all the called under the old testament, is an evident demonstration of his divine nature, his pre-existence unto all these things, and the eternal covenant between the Father and him about them.Obs. 10. The first covenant did only forbid and condemn transgressions; redemption from them is by the new testament alone.Obs. 11. The glory and efficacy of the new covenant, and the assurance of the communication of an eternal inheritance by virtue of it, depend hereon, that it was made a testament by the death of the mediator; which is further proved in the following verses. ῞Οπουγὰρδιαθήκη, θάνατονἀνάγκηθέρεσθαιτοῦδιαθεμένου·διαθήκηγὰρἐπὶνεκροῖςβεβαία, ἐπεὶμήποτεἰσχύειὅτεζῇὁδιαθέμενος.Θάνατονἀνάγκηφέρεσθαι. Syr., ξַ ?εְ ?ϊָ ?ΰδιּ ξְ ?ηַ ?ιְּ ?ιָ ?ΰ“the death of him is declared,” showed, argued, or proved. “Mors intercedat necesse est;” “necesse est mortem intercedere.” Ar., “Necesse est mortem ferri;” which is not proper in the Latin tongue: however, there is an emphasis in φέρεσθαι, more than is expressed by “intercedo.” Διαθεμένον. Syr., γְּ ?δָ ?εγְּ ?ςַ ?αְ ?γָ ?δּ, “of him that made it; “of the testator.” ᾿Επὶνεκροῖς. Syr., ςַ ?μξִ ?ιϊָ ?ΰδεּ, “in him that is dead;” “in mortuis,” “among them that are dead.” Βεβαία. Vulg., “confirmatum est;” and so the Syriac, “ratum est,” more proper. Μήποτειεσχύει. Syr., μַ ?ιϊαָּ ?δּ ηַ ?ωְׁ ?ηεּ, “there is no use, profit, or benefit in it.” Ar., “nunquam valet;” “quandoquidem nunquam valet;” “nondum valet;” “it is not yet of force.” [10] [10] . — Scholefield characterizes this passage “as perhaps the most perplexing in the whole New Testament.” The dispute relates to the import of διαθήκη, whether the translation “covenant” should be retained, as the word is commonly rendered; or whether the translation “testament” is not more suitable to the idea conveyed, particularly by verses 16, 17. Most of the Greek fathers, most of the Reformed theologians, Grotius, Pierce, Doddridge, Michaelis, .Macknight, Scholefield, Tholuck, Dr Henderson, Turner, and Ebrard, pronounce in favor of “covenant.” On the other hand, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Wolf, Campbell, Bengel, Schleusner, Wahl, Rosenmuller, Bretschneider, Kuinoel, Stuart, Robinson, Conybeare and Howson, decide in favor of “testament” as the proper translation. The central difficulty in the passage will probably be admitted to Ale in the meaning of διαθέμενος. Conybeare and Howson affirm that “the A.V. is unquestionably correct in translating διαθήκη “testament” in this passage. The attempts which have been made to avoid this meaning are irreconcilable with any natural explanation of ὁδιαθέμενος.” Macknight renders it “appointed sacrifice.” But this would involve a grammatical error: and to obviate this consideration, Scholefield proposes a rendering in an active sense, “mediating sacrifice;” but he candidly owns that there is no instance of the word being used elsewhere in this signification; and besides, there is great harshness in affixing to διαθέμενος a meaning so widely different from its congener, διαθήκη, occurring as they do in the same sentence. Whitby and Burton, accordingly, propose the phrase “covenanting party.” But from this translation results another difficulty; the death of a covenanting party dissolves rather than confirms a covenant. Ebrard’s solution of this difficulty is ingenious: “The man who will enter into a covenant with God is a sinner, and as such incapable of entering into fellowship with the holy God, nay, even of appearing before God’s presence, Deuteronomy 5:26. He must die on account of his guilt, if a substitutionary sacrifice be not offered for him. But he must also die to his former life, in order to begin a new life in covenant with God. In short, from a simple view of the symbolical import of the covenant burnt-offering, described in verses 18-22, the following may be stated as the result: When a sinful man will enter into covenant with the holy God, the man must first die, — must first atone for his guilt by a death, (or he must produce a substitutionary burnt-offering.)” — ED. Hebrews 9:16-17. — For where a testament [is,] there must also of necessity be brought in the death of the testator. For a testament [is] firm [or ratifed] after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force whilst the testator liveth.There is not much more to be considered in these verses, but only how the observation contained in them doth promote and confirm the argument which the apostle insists upon. Now this is to prove the necessity and use of the death of Christ, from the nature, ends, and use of the covenant whereof he was the mediator; for it being a testament also, it was to be confirmed with the death of the testator. This is proved in these verses from the notion of a testament, and the only use of it amongst men. For the apostle in this epistle doth argue several times from such usages amongst men as, proceeding from the principles of reason and equity, were generally prevalent among them. So he doth in his discourse concerning the assurance given by the oath of God, Hebrews 6. And here he doth the same from what was commonly agreed upon, and suitable unto the reason of things, about the nature and use of a testament. The things here mentioned were known to all, approved by all, and were the principal means of the preservation of peace and property in human societies. For although testaments, as unto their especial regulation, owe their original unto the Roman civil law, yet as unto the substance of them, they were in use amongst all mankind from the foundation of the world. For a testament is the just determination of a man’s will concerning what he will have done with his goods after his decease; or, it is the will of him that is dead. Take this power from men, and you root up the whole foundation of all industry and diligence in the world. For what man will labor to increase his substance, if when he dies he may not dispose of it unto those which by nature, affinity, or other obligations, he hath must respect unto? Wherefore the foundation of the apostle’s arguing from this usage amongst men is firm and stable. Of the like nature is his observation, that “a testament is of no force whilst the testator liveth.” The nature of the thing itself, expounded by constant practice, will admit no doubt of it. For by what way soever a man disposeth of his goods, so as that it shall take effect whilst he is alive, as by sale or gift, it is not a testament, nor hath any thing of the nature of a testament in it; for that is only the will of a man concerning his goods when he is dead.These things being unquestionable, we are only to consider whence the apostle takes his argument to prove the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the mediator of the new testament. Now this is not merely from the signification of the word διαθήκη, — which yet is of consideration also, as hath been declared, — but whereas he treats principally of the two covenants, it is the affinity that is between a solemn covenant and a testament that he hath respect unto. For he speaks not of the death of Christ merely as it was death, which is all that is required unto a testament properly so called, without any consideration of what nature it is; but he speaks of it also as it was a sacrifice, by the effusion of his blood, which belongs unto a covenant, and is no way required unto a testament. Whereas, therefore, the word may signify either a covenant or a testament precisely so called, the apostle hath respect unto both the significations of it. And having in these verses mentioned his death as the death of a testator, which is proper unto a testament, in the 4th verse, and those that follow, he insists on his blood as a sacrifice, which is proper unto a covenant. But these things must be more fully explained, whereby the difficulty which appears in the whole context will be removed. Unto the confirmation or ratification of a testament, that it may be βεβαία, “sure, stable, and of force,” there must be death, “the death of the testator.” But there is no need that this should be by blood, the blood of the testator, or any other. Unto the consideration of a covenant, blood was required, the blood of the sacrifice, and death only consequentially, as that which would ensue thereon; but there was no need that it should be the blood or death of him that made the covenant. Wherefore the apostle, declaring the necessity of the death of Christ, both as to the nature of it, that it was really death; and as to the manner of it, that it was by the effusion of his blood; and that from the consideration of the two covenants, the old and the new testament, and what was required unto them; he evinceth it by that which was essential unto them both, in a covenant as such, and in a testament precisely so called. That which is most eminent and essential unto a testament, is, that it is confirmed and made irrevocable by the death of the testator; and that which is the excellency of a solemn covenant, whereby it is made firm and stable, is, that it was confirmed with the blood of sacrifices, as he proves in the instance of the covenant made at Sinai, verses 18-20. Wherefore, whatever is excellent in either of these was to be found in the mediator of the new testament. Take it as a testament, which, upon the bequeathment made therein of the goods of the testator unto the heirs of promise, of grace and glory, it hath the nature of, and he died as the testator; whereby the grant of the inheritance was made irrevocable unto them. Hereunto no more is required but his death, without the consideration of the nature of it, in the way of a sacrifice. Take it as a covenant, as, upon the consideration of the promises contained in it, and the prescription of obedience, it hath the nature of a covenant, though not of a covenant strictly so called, and so it was to be confirmed with the blood of the sacrifice of himself; which is the eminency of the solemn confirmation of this covenant. And as his death had an eminency above the death required unto a testament, in that it was by blood, and in the sacrifice of himself, which it is no way necessary that the death of a testator should be, yet it fully answered the death of a testator, in that he truly died; so had it an eminency above all the ways of the confirmation of the old covenant, or any other solemn covenant whatever, in that whereas such a covenant was to be confirmed with the blood of sacrifices, yet was it not required that it should be the blood of him that made the covenant, as here it was. The consideration hereof solves all the appearing difficulties in the nature and manner of the apostle’s argument. The word αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, whereunto respect is here had, is, as we have showed, of a large signification and various use. And frequently it is taken for a “free grant and disposition” of things by promise, which hath the nature of a testament. And in the old covenant there was a free grant and donation of the inheritance of the land of Canaan unto the people; which belongs unto the nature of a testament also. Moreover, both of them, a covenant and a testament, do agree in the general nature of their confirmation, the one by blood, the other by death. Hereon the apostle, in the use of the word διαθήκη, doth diversely argue both unto the nature, necessity, and use of the death of the mediator of the new testament. He was to die in the confirmation of it as it was a testament, he being the testator of it; and he was to offer himself as a sacrifice in his blood, for the establishment of it, as it had the nature of a covenant. Wherefore the apostle doth not argue, as some imagine, merely from the signification of the word, whereby, as they say, that in the original is not exactly rendered. And those who have from hence troubled themselves and others about the authority of this epistle, have nothing to thank for it but their own ignorance of the design of the apostle, and the nature of his argument. And it were well if we all were more sensible of our own ignorance, and more apt to acknowledge it, when we meet with difficulties in the Scripture, than for the most part we are. Alas! how short are our lines, when we come to fathom the depths of it! How inextricable difficulties do appear sometimes in passages of it, which when God is pleased to teach us, are all pleasant and easy! These things being premised, to clear the scope and nature of the apostle’s argument, we proceed unto a brief exposition of the words. Hebrews 9:16. — “For where a testament [is,] there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.”There are two things in the words: 1. A supposition of a testament. 2. What is required thereunto.1. In the first place there is,(1.) The note of inference;(2.) The supposition itself.(1.) The first is the particle “for.” This doth not infer a reason to ensue of what he had before affirmed, which is the common use of that illative; but only the introduction of an illustration of it, from what is the usage of mankind in such cases, on supposition that this covenant is also a testament. For then there must be the death of the testator, as it is in all testaments amongst men. (2.) The supposition itself is in these words, ῞Οπουδιαθήκη. The verb substantive is wanting. “Where a testament is;” so it is by us supplied, it may be, not necessarily. For the expression, “Where a testament is,” may suppose that the death of the testator is required unto the making of a testament; which, as the apostle showeth in the next verse, it is not, but only unto its execution. ‘In the case of a testament, namely, that it may be executed,’is the meaning of the word “where;” that is, ‘wherever.’ Amongst all sorts of men, living according unto the light of nature and the conduct of reason, the making of testaments is in use; for without it neither can private industry be encouraged nor public peace maintained. Wherefore, as was before observed the apostle argueth from the common usage of mankind, resolved into the principles of reason and equity.2. What is required unto the validity of a testament; and that is, the death of the testator. And the way of the introduction of this death unto the validity of a testament is, by “being brought in,” — φέρεσθαι; that it enter, namely, after the ratifying of the testament, to make it of force, or to give it operation. The testament is made by a living man; but whilst he lives it is dead, or of no use. That it may operate and be effectual, death must be brought into the account. This death must be the death of the testator, — τοῦδιαθεμένου. ῾Οδιαθέμενος is he who disposeth of things; who hath right so to do, and actually doth it. This in a testament is the testator. And διαθήκη and διαθέμενος have in the Greek the same respect unto one another as “testamentum” and “testator” in the Latin.Wherefore, if the new covenant hath the nature of a testament, it must have a testator, and that testator must die, before it can be of force and efficacy; which is what was to be proved. This is further confirmed, — Hebrews 9:17. — “For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all, while the testator liveth.” It is not of the making and constitution of a testament, but of the force and execution of it, that he speaks. And in these words he gives a reason of the necessity of the death of the testator thereunto. And this is because the validity and efficacy of the testament depend solely thereon. And this reason he introduceth by the conjunction γάρ, “for.”A testament ἐπὶνεκροῖςβεβαία, — “is of force,” say we; that is, firm, stable, not to be disannulled. For “if it be but a man’s testament, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereunto,” Galatians 3:15.It is ratified, made unalterable, so as that it must be executed according unto the mind of the testator. And it is so ἐπὶνεκροῖς, “among them that are dead,” “after men are dead;” that is, those who make the testament: for it is opposed unto ὅτεζῆὁδιαθέμενος, “whilst the testator liveth;” for testaments are the wills of dead men. Living men have no heirs. And this sense is declared in these words, ἐπεὶμὴποτεἰσχύει, “quandoquidem,” “quoniam,” “seeing that;” “otherwise,” say we, — without this accession unto the making of a testament, as yet it prevaileth not, it is not of force for the actual distribution of the inheritance or the goods of the testator.Two things must yet further be declared: 1. What are the grounds or general reasons of this assertion. 2. Where lies the force of the argument from it: —1. The force of a testament depends on the death of the testator, or the death of the testator is required to make it effectual, for these two reasons: — (1.) Because a testament is no act or deed of a man whereby he presently, and in the making of it, conveys, gives, or grants, any part of his possession unto another, or others, so as that it should immediately thereon cease to be his own, and become the property of those others: all such instruments of contract, bargain, sale, or deeds of gift, are of another nature, they are not testaments. A testament is only the signification of the will of a man as unto what he will have done with his goods after his death. Wherefore unto the force and execution of it his death is necessary. (2.) A testament, that is only so, is alterable at the pleasure of him that makes it whilst he is alive. Wherefore it can be of no force whilst he is so; for he may change it or disannul it when he pleaseth. The foundation, therefore, of the apostle’s argument from this usage amongst men is firm and stable. 2. Whereas the apostle argueth from the proportion and similitude that is between this new testament or covenant and the testaments of men, we may consider what are the things wherein that similitude doth consist, and show also wherein there is a dissimilitude, whereunto his reasonings are not to be extended. For so it is in all comparisons; the comparates are not alike in all things, especially where things spiritual and temporal are compared together. So was it also in all the types of old. Every person or every thing that was a type of Christ, was not so in all things, in all that they were. And therefore it requires both wisdom and diligence to distinguish in what they were so, and in what they were not, that no false inferences or conclusions be made from them. So is it in all comparisons; and therefore, in the present instance, we must consider wherein the things compared do agree, and wherein they differ. (1.) They agree principally in the death of the testator. This alone makes a testament among men effectual and irrevocable. So is it in this new testament. It was confirmed and ratified by the death of the testator, Jesus Christ; and otherwise could not have been of force. This is the fundamental agreement between them, which therefore alone the apostle expressly insisteth on, although there are other things which necessarily accompany it, as essential unto every testament; as, — (2.) In every testament amongst men there are goods disposed and bequeathed unto heirs or legatees, which were the property of the testator. Where a man hath nothing to give or bequeath, he can make no testament; for that is nothing but his will concerning the disposal of his own goods after his decease. So is it in this new testament. All the goods of grace and glory were the property, the inheritance of Christ, firmly instated in him alone; for he was “appointed heir of all things.” But in his death, as a testator, he made a bequeathment of them all unto the elect, appointing them to be heirs of God, co-heirs with himself. And this also is required unto the nature and essence of a testament.(3.) In a testament there is always an absolute grant made of the goods bequeathed, without condition or limitation. So is it here also; the goods and inheritance of the kingdom of heaven are bequeathed absolutely unto all the elect, so as that no intervenience can defeat them of it. And what there is in the gospel, which is the instrument of this testament, that prescribes conditions unto them, that exacts terms of obedience from them, it belongs unto it as it is a covenant, and not as a testament. Yet, — (4.) It is in the will and power of the testator, in and by his testament, to assign and determine both the time, season, and way, whereby those to whom he hath bequeathed his goods shall be admitted unto the actual possession of them. So it is in this case also. The Lord Christ, the great testator, hath determined the way whereby the elect shall come to be actually possessed of their legacies, namely, “by faith that is in him,” Acts 26:18. So also he hath reserved the time and season of their conversion in this world, and entrance into future glory, in his own hand and power.And these things belong unto the illustration of the comparison insisted on, although it be only one thing that the apostle argues from it, touching the necessity of the death of the testator. But notwithstanding these instances of agreement between the new testament and the testaments of men, whereby it appears to have in it, in sundry respects, the nature of a testament, yet in many things there is also a disagreement between them, evidencing that it is also a covenant, and abideth so, notwithstanding what it hath of the nature of a testament, from the death of the testator; as, — (1.) A testator amongst men ceaseth to have any right in or use of the goods bequeathed by him, when once his testament is of force. And this is by reason of death, which destroys all title and use of them. But our testator divests himself neither of right nor possession, nor of the use of any of his goods. And this follows on a twofold difference, the one in the persons, the other in the goods or things bequeathed: —[1. In the persons. For a testator amongst men dieth absolutely; he liveth not again in this world, but “lieth down, and riseth not, until the heavens be no more.” Hereon all right unto, and all use of the goods of this life, cease for ever. Our testator died actually and really, to confirm his testament: but, 1st. He died not in his whole person; 2dly. In that nature wherein he died he lived again, “and is alive for evermore.”Hence all his goods are still in his own power. [2. In the things themselves. For the goods bequeathed in the testaments of men are of that nature as that the propriety of them cannot be vested in many, so as that every one should have a right unto and the enjoyment of all, but in one only. But the spiritual good things of the new testament are such, as that in all the riches and fullness of them they may be in the possession of the testator, and of those also unto whom they are bequeathed. Christ parts with no grace from himself, he diminisheth not his own riches, nor exhausts any thing from his own fullness, by his communication of it unto others. Hence also, — (2.) In the wills of men, if there be a bequeathment of goods made unto many, no one can enjoy the whole inheritance, but every one is to have his own share and portion only. But in and by the new testament, every one is made heir to the whole inheritance. All have the same, and every one hath the whole; for God himself thence becomes their portion, who is all unto all, and all unto every one.(3.) In human testaments, the goods bequeathed are such only as either descended unto the testators from their progenitors, or were acquired during their lives by their own industry. By their death they obtained no new right or title unto any thing; only what they had before is now disposed of according unto their wills. But our testator, according unto an antecedent contract between God the Father and him, purchased the whole inheritance by his own blood, “obtaining for us eternal redemption.” (4.) They differ principally in this, that a testament amongst men is no more but merely so; it is not moreover a solemn covenant, that needs a confirmation suited thereunto. The bare signification of the will of the testator, witnessed unto, is sufficient unto its constitution and confirmation. But in this mystery the testament is not merely so, but a covenant also. Hence it was not sufficient, unto its force and establishment, that the testator should die only, but it was also required that he should offer himself in sacrifice by the shedding of his blood, unto its confirmation. These things I have observed, because, as we shall see, the apostle in the progress of his discourse doth not confine himself unto this notion of a testament, but treats of it principally as it had the nature of a covenant. And we may here observe, — Obs. 1. It is a great and gracious condescension in the Holy Spirit, to give encouragement and confirmation unto our faith by a representation of the truth and reality of spiritual things in those which are temporal and agreeing with them in their general nature, whereby they are presented unto the common understanding of men. — This way of proceeding the apostle calls a speaking κατ᾿ἄνθρωπον, Galatians 3:15, “after the manner of men.” Of the same kind were all the parables used by our Savior; for it is all one whether these representations be taken from things real or from those which, according unto the same rule of reason and right, are framed on purpose for that end.Obs. 2. There is an irrevocable grant of the whole inheritance of grace and glory made unto the elect in the new covenant. — Without this, it could not in any sense have the nature of a testament, nor that name given unto it. For a testament is such a free grant, and nothing else. And our best plea for them, for an interest in them, for a participation of them, before God, is from the free grant and donation of them in the testament of Jesus Christ. Obs. 3. As the grant of these things is free and absolute, so the enjoyment of them is secured from all interveniencies by the death of the testator. ῝Οθενοὐδ᾿ἡπρώτηχωρὶςαἵματοςἐγκεκαίνισται. Λαληθει.σηςγὰρπάσηςἐντολῆςκατὰνόμουὐπὸΜωϋσέωςπαντὶτῷλαῷ, λαβὼντὸαἷματῶνμόσχωνκαὶτράγω, μετὰὕδατοςκαὶἐρίουκοκκίνουκαὶὑσσώπου, αὐτότετὸβιβλίονκαὶπάντατὸνλαὸνἐῤῥάντισε, λέγων·Τοῦτοτὸαἵματῆςδιαθήκης, ἧςἐνετείλατοπρὸςὑμᾶςὁΘεός·Καὶτὴνσκηνὴνδὲκαὶπάντατὰσκεὺητῆςλειτουργίαςτῷαἵματιὁμοίωςἐῤῥάντισε. Καὶσχεδὸνἐναἵματιπάντακαθαρίζεταικατὰτὸννόμον, αὶχωρὶςαἵματεκχυσίαςοὐγίνεταιἄφεσις.῞Οθεν, “unde;” “hence,” “therefore.” Syr., ξֶ ?θεּ ?μηָ ?πָ ?δ, “propter hoc,” “quia,” “propter.” “For this cause.” “And hence it is,” Arab. ᾿Εγκεκαίνισται Syr., ΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ιְ ?ιַ ?ϊ, “was confirmed;” “dedicatum fuit,” “was dedicated,” “consecrated,” “separated unto sacred use.”Λαληθείσηςγὰρπάσηςἐντολῆςκατὰνόμον. Syr., “when the whole command was enjoined.” Vulg. Lat., “lecto omui mandato legis,” “the command of the law being read;” taking ἐντολὴ and νόμος for the same. Arias, “exposito secundum legem.” Most, “cum recitasset;” “having repeated,” “recited,” namely, out of the book.Μόσχωνκαὶτράηων. The Syriac reads only γַ ?ςְ ?βֶ ?μְ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “of an heifer;” as the Arabic omits τράγων also, “of goats;” it may be in compliance with the story in Moses, without cause, as we shall see. Σχεδόν is omitted in the Syriac.Hebrews 9:18-22. — Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry: and almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. What we have before observed is fully confirmed in this discourse, namely, that the apostle intended not to argue absolutely and precisely from the name and nature of a testament properly so called, and the use of it among men. For he makes use of these things no further but as unto what such a testament hath in common with a solemn covenant; which is, that they are both confirmed and ratified by death. Wherefore it was necessary that the new testament, as it was a testament, should be confirmed by death; and as it had the nature of a covenant, it was to be so by such a death as was accompanied by bloodshedding. The former was proved before, from the general nature and notion of a testament; the latter is here proved at large from the way and manner whereby the first covenant was confirmed or dedicated. But the apostle in this discourse doth not intend merely to prove that the first covenant was dedicated with blood, which might have been despatched in a very few words; but he declares moreover, in general, what was the use of blood in sacrifices on all occasions under the law; whereby he demonstrates the use and efficacy of the blood of Christ, as unto all the ends of the new covenant. And the ends of the use of blood under the old testament he declares to have been two, namely, purification and pardon; both which are comprised in that one of the expiation of sin. And these things are all of them applied unto the blood and sacrifice of Christ in the following verses. In the exposition of this context we must do three things: — 1. Consider the difficulties that are in it. 2. Declare the scope, design, and force of the argument contained in it. 3. Explain the particular passages of the whole.FIRST. Sundry difficulties there are in this context; which arise from hence, that the account which the apostle gives of the dedication of the first covenant and of the tabernacle seems to differ in sundry things from that given by Moses, when all things were actually done by him, as it is recorded, Exodus 24. And they are these that follow: —1. That the blood which Moses took was the blood of calves and goats, whereas there is no mention of any goats or their blood in the story of Moses. 2. That he took water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, to sprinkle it withal; whereas none of them are reported in that story. 3. That he sprinkled the book in particular; which Moses doth not affirm.4. That he sprinkled all the people; that is, the people indefinitely, for all the individuals of them could not be sprinkled.5. There are some differences in the words which Moses spake in the dedication of the covenant, as laid down verse 20.6. That he sprinkled the tabernacle with blood, and all the vessels of it; when at the time of the making and solemn confirmation of the covenant the tabernacle was not erected, nor the vessels of its ministry yet made.For the removal of these difficulties some things must be premised in general, and then they shall all of them be considered distinctly: — First, This is taken as fixed, that the apostle wrote this epistle by divine inspiration. Having evidence hereof abundantly satisfactory, it is the vainest thing imaginable, and that which discovers a frame of mind disposed to cavil at things divine, if from the difficulties of any one passage we should reflect on the authority of the whole, as some have done on this occasion. But I shall say with some confidence, he never understood any one chapter of the epistle, nay, nor any one verse of it aright, who did or doth question its divine original. There is nothing human in it, — that savors, I mean, of human infirmity, — but the whole and every part of it is animated by the wisdom and authority of its Author. And those who have pretended to be otherwise minded on such slight occasions as that before us, have but proclaimed their own want of experience in things divine. But, — Secondly, There is nothing, in all that is here affirmed by the apostle, which hath the least appearance of contradiction unto any thing that is recorded by Moses in the story of these things; yea, as I shall show, without the consideration and addition of the things here mentioned by the apostle, we cannot aright apprehend nor understand the account that is given by him. This will be made evident in the consideration of the particulars, wherein the difference between them is supposed to consist. Thirdly, The apostle doth not take his account of the things here put together by him from any one place in Moses, but gathers up what is declared in the Law, in several places unto various ends. For, as hath been declared, he doth not design only to prove the dedication of the covenant by blood, but to show also the whole use of blood under the law, as unto purification and remission of sin. And this he doth to declare the virtue and efficacy of the blood of Christ under the new testament, whereunto he makes an application of all these things in the verses ensuing. Wherefore he gathers into one head sundry things wherein the sprinkling of blood was of use under the law, as they are occasionally expressed in sundry places. And this one observation removes all the difficulties of the context; which all arise from this one supposition, that the apostle gives here an account only of what was done at the dedication of the first covenant. So, in particular, by the addition of those particles, καὶδέ, Hebrews 9:21, which we well render “moreover,” he plainly intimates that what he affirms of the tabernacle and the vessels of its ministry was that which was done afterwards, at another time, and not when the covenant was first confirmed.On these grounds we shall see that the account given of these things by the apostle is a necessary exposition of the record made of them by Moses, and no more. 1. He affirms that Moses took the blood μόσχωνκαὶτράγων, “of calves and goats,” And there is a double difficulty herein: for,(1.) The blood that Moses so used was the blood of oxen, Exodus 24:5; which seems not to be well rendered by μόσχων, “of calves.” But this hath no weight in it. For τָּ ?ψִ ?ιν, the word there used, signifies all cattle of the herd, great and small, every thing that is “generis bovini.” And there is no necessity from the words that we should render τָּ ?ψִ ?ιν there by “oxen,” nor μόσχων here by “calves;” we might have rendered both words by “bullocks.” But,(2.) There is no mention at all of goats in the story of Moses; and, as we observed, it is here omitted by the Syriac translator, but without cause.Ans. [1. There were two sorts of offerings that were made on this occasion; 1st, Burnt-offerings; 2dly, Peace-offerings: Exodus 24:5, “They offered burnt- offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings.” The distinct expression of them proves the offerings to have been distinct: εַ ?ιַּ ?ςֲ ?μεּ ςֹ ?μֹ ?ϊεַ ?ιִּ ?ζְ ?αְּ ?ηεּ ζְ ?αָ ?ηִ ?ινωְׁ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν, — “they offered burnt-offerings, and they sacrificed,” or “slew peace-offerings.” And as for the peace-offerings, it is said that they were of bullocks or oxen; but it is not said of what sort the burnt-offerings were. Yea, and it may be that although bullocks only are mentioned, yet that goats also were sacrificed in this peace-offering; for it is so far from being true what Ribera observes on the place, that a goat was never offered for a peace-offering, that the contrary unto it is directly expressed in the institution of the peace-offering, Leviticus 3:12. Wherefore the blood of goats might be used in the peace-offering, though it be not mentioned by Moses. But, — [2. The apostle observes, that one end of the sacrifice at the dedication of the first covenant was purging and making atonement, Hebrews 9:22-23; for in all solemn sacrifices blood was sprinkled on the holy things, to purify them and make atonement for them, Leviticus 16:14; Leviticus 16:19-20. Now this was not to be done but by the blood of an expiatory sacrifice; it was not to be done by the blood of peace-offerings. Wherefore the burnt-offerings mentioned by Moses were expiatory sacrifices, to purge and make atonement. And this sacrifice was principally of goats, Leviticus 16:9. Wherefore the text of Moses cannot be well understood without this exposition of the apostle. And we may add hereunto, also, that although the blood of the peace-offering was sprinkled on the altar, Leviticus 3:13, yet was it not sprinkled on the people, as this blood was; wherefore there was the use of the blood of goats also, as a sin-offering, in this great sacrifice. [3. In the dedication of the priests these two sorts of offerings were conjoined, namely, peace-offerings and sin-offerings, or burnt-offerings for sin, as here they were. And therein expressly the blood of goats was used, namely, in the sin-offering, as the blood of bullocks was in the peace- offering, Leviticus 9:3-4. Neither is there mention anywhere of burnt- offerings or sin-offerings and peace-offerings to be offered together, but that one of them was of goats; and therefore was so infallibly at this time, as the apostle declares.2. It is affirmed in the text, that he took the blood with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled it; but there is mention of none of these things in the story of Moses, but only that he sprinkled the blood. But the answer hereunto is plain and easy. Blood under the law was sprinkled either in less or greater quantities. Hereon there were two ways of sprinkling. The one was with the finger; when a small quantity of blood, it may be, some few drops of it, were to be sprinkled, it was done with the finger, Leviticus 8:15; Leviticus 16:14. The quantity being small, though the blood were unmixed, and almost congealed, it might be so sprinkled. But there was a sprinkling whereunto a greater proportion of blood was required; as namely, when a house was to be sprinkled, and thereby purified. This was done by mixing running water with the blood, and then sprinkling it with scarlet wool and hyssop, Leviticus 14:50-52. For these things were needful thereunto. The water prevented the blood from being so congealed as that it could not be sprinkled in any quantity; the scarlet wool took up a quantity of it out of the vessel wherein it was; and the bunch of hyssop was the sprinkler. Whereupon, when Moses sprinkled the altar, book, and people, he did it ,by one of these two ways, for other there was none. The first way he could not do it, namely, with his finger, because it was to be done in a great quantity; for Moses took that half of it that was to be sprinkled on the people and put it into basins, Exodus 24:6; Exodus 24:8. It was therefore infallibly done this latter way, according as our apostle declares.3. It is added by the apostle that he sprinkled the book; which is not expressed in the story. But the design of the apostle is to express at large the whole solemnity of the confirmation of the first covenant, especially not to omit any thing that blood was applied unto; because in the application he refers the purification and dedication of all things belonging unto the new covenant unto the blood of Christ. And this was the order of the things which concerned the book: Moses coming down from the mount, told the people by word of mouth all things which God had spoken unto him, or the sum and substance of the covenant which he would make with them: Exodus 24:3, “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD,” — that is, the words spoken on mount Sinai, the ten commandments; “and all the judgments,” — that is, all the laws contained in Exodus 21-23, with this title, ΰֵ ?μֶּ ?ΰδַ ?ξִּ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, “These are the judgments,” Exodus 21:1. Upon the oral rehearsal of these words and judgments, the people gave their consent unto the terms of the covenant:“All the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said, will we do,” Exodus 24:3. Hereon Moses made a record, or “wrote all the words of the LORD” in a book, Exodus 24:4. This being done, the altar and pillars were prepared, Exodus 24:4. And it is evident that the book which he had written was laid on the altar, though it be not expressed. When this was done, “he sprinkled the blood on the altar,” Exodus 24:6. After which, when the book had been sprinkled with blood as it lay on the altar, it is said, “He took the book,” that is, from off the altar, “and read in the audience of the people,” Exodus 24:7. The book being now sprinkled with blood, as the instrument and record of the covenant between God and the people, the very same words which were before spoken unto the people are now recited or read out of the book. And this could be done for no other reason, but that the book itself, being now sprinkled with the blood of the covenant, was dedicated to be the sacred record thereof. 4. In the text of Moses it is said that he sprinkled the people; in explanation whereof the apostle affirms that he sprinkled all the people. And it was necessary that so it should be, and that none of them should be excluded from this sprinkling; for they were all taken into covenant with God, men, women, and children. But it must be granted, that for the blood to be actually sprinkled on all individuals in such a numberless multitude is next unto what is naturally impossible: wherefore it was done in their representatives; and what is done towards representatives as such, is done equally towards all whom they do represent. And the whole people had two representatives that day: (1.) The twelve pillars of stone, that were set up to represent their twelve tribes; and, it may be, to signify their hard and stony heart under that covenant, Exodus 24:4. Whereas those pillars were placed close by the altar, some suppose that they were sprinkled, as representing the twelve tribes.(2.) There were the heads of their tribes, the chief of the houses of their fathers, and the elders, who drew nigh unto Moses, and were sprinkled with blood in the name and place of all the people, who were that day taken into covenant.5. The words which Moses spake unto the people upon the sprinkling of the blood are not absolutely the same in the story and in the repetition of it by the apostle. But this is usual with him in all his quotations out of the Old Testament in this epistle. He expresseth the true sense of them, but doth not curiously and precisely render the sense of every word and syllable in them. 6. The last difficulty in this context, and that which hath an appearance of the greatest, is in what the apostle affirms concerning the tabernacle and all the vessels of it; namely, that Moses sprinkled them all with blood. And the time which he seems to speak of, is that of the dedication of the first covenant. Hence a twofold difficulty doth arise; first, as unto the time; and secondly, as unto the thing itself. For at the time of the dedication of the first covenant, the tabernacle was not yet made or erected, and so could not then be sprinkled with blood. And afterwards, when the tabernacle was erected, and all the vessels brought into it, there is no mention that either it or any of them was sprinkled with blood, but only anointed with the holy oil, Exodus 40:9-11. Wherefore, as unto the first, I say the apostle doth plainly distinguish what he affirms of the tabernacle from the time of the dedication of the first covenant. The manner of his introduction of it, καὶτὴνσκηνὴνδέ, — “And moreover the tabernacle,” — doth plainly intimate a progress unto another time and occasion. Wherefore the words of Exo 40:21, concerning the sprinkling of the tabernacle and its vessels, do relate unto what follows, Exodus 40:22, “and almost all things are by the law purged with blood;” and not unto those that precede, about the dedication of the first covenant: for the argument he hath in hand is not confined unto the use of blood only in that dedication, but respects the whole use of the blood of sacrifices under the law; which in these words he proceeds unto, and closeth in the next verse. And this wholly removes the first difficulty. And as unto the second, expositors generally answer, that aspersion or sprinkling with blood did commonly precede unction with the holy oil. And as unto the garments of the priests, which were the vessels or utensils of the tabernacle, it was appointed that they should be sprinkled with blood, Exodus 29:21; and so it may be supposed that the residue of them were also. But to me this is not satisfactory. And be it spoken without offense, expositors have generally mistaken the nature of the argument of the apostle in these words. For he argues not only from the first dedication of the tabernacle and its vessels, — which, for aught appears, was by unction only, — but making, as we observed before, a progress unto the further use of the blood of sacrifices in purging, according to the law, he giveth an instance in what was done with respect unto the tabernacle and all its vessels, and that constantly and solemnly every year; and this he doth to prove his general assertion in the next verse, that “under the law almost all things were purged with blood.” And Moses is here said to do what he appointed should be done. By his institution, — that is, the institution of the law, — the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were sprinkled with blood. And this was done solemnly once every year; an account whereof is given, Leviticus 16:14-16; Leviticus 16:18-20. On the solemn day of atonement, the high priest was to sprinkle the mercy-seat, the altar, and the whole tabernacle with blood, to make an atonement for them, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, the tabernacle remaining among them in the midst of their uncleanness, Leviticus 16:16. This he takes notice of, not to prove the dedication of the first covenant and what belonged thereunto with blood, but the use of blood in general to make atonement, and the impossibility of expiation and pardon without it. This is the design and sense of the apostle, and no other. Wherefore we may conclude, that the account here given concerning the dedication of the first covenant, and the use of blood for purification under the law, is so far from containing any thing opposite unto or discrepant from the records of Moses concerning the same things, that it gives us a full and clear exposition of them. . The second thing to be considered, is the nature of the argument in this context; and there are three things in it, neither of which must be omitted in the exposition of the words.He designeth, 1. To prove yet further the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the mediator of the new testament, both as it had the nature of a testament and that also of a solemn covenant.2. To declare the necessity of the kind of his death, in the way of a sacrifice by the effusion of blood; because the testament, as it had the nature of a solemn covenant, was confirmed and ratified thereby.3. To manifest the necessity of shedding of blood in the confirmation of the covenant, because of the expiation, purging, and pardon of sin thereby. How these things are proved, we shall see in the exposition of the words. THIRDLY, There are in the words themselves, 1. A proposition of the principal truth asserted, Hebrews 9:18.2. The confirmation of that proposition: which is twofold;(1.) From what Moses did, Hebrews 9:19;(2.) From what he said, Hebrews 9:20.3. A further illustration of the same truth, by other instances, Hebrews 9:21.4. A general inference or conclusion from the whole, comprising the substance of what he intended to demonstrate, Hebrews 9:22. In the proposition there are five things considerable: 1. A note of introduction; “whereupon.”2. The quality of the proposition, it is negative; “neither was.”3. The subject spoken of; “the first.”4. What is affirmed of it; it was “dedicated.”5. The way and manner thereof; it was “not without blood.”1. The note of introduction is in the particle ὅδεν, which the apostle frequently makes use of in this epistle, as a note of inference in those discourses which are argumentative. We render it by “therefore,” and “wherefore;” here, “whereupon.” For it intimates a confirmation of a general rule by especial instances. He had before laid it down as a general maxim, that a testament was to be confirmed by death. For thereupon the first testament was confirmed with the blood of sacrifices shed in their death. ‘Wherefore let not any think it strange that the new testament was confirmed by the death of the testator; for this is so necessary, that even in the confirmation of the first there was that which was analogous unto it. And moreover, it was death in such a way as was required unto the confirmation of a solemn covenant.’2. The proposition hath a double negative in it, οὐδέ, and χωρὶςαἵματος, — “neither was it without blood;” that is, it was with blood, and could not otherwise be. 3. The subject spoken of is ἡπρώτη, “the first;” that is διαθήκη, “testament,” or “covenant.” And herein the apostle declares what he precisely intended by the first or old covenant, whereof he discoursed at large, Hebrews 8. It was the covenant made with the people at Horeb; for that and no other was dedicated in the way here described. And, to take a brief prospect into this covenant, the things ensuing may be observed: —(1.) The matter of it, or the terms of it materially considered, before it had the formal nature of a covenant. And these were all the things that were written in the book before it was laid on the altar; namely, it was that epitome of the whole law which is contained in chapters 20-23, of Exodus And other commands and institutions that were given afterwards belonged unto this covenant reductively. The substance of it was contained in the book then written. (2.) The manner of the revelation of these terms of the covenant. Being proposed on the part of God, and the terms of it being entirely of his choosing and proposal, he was to reveal, declare, and make them known. And this he did two ways:[1. As unto the foundation and substance of the whole in the decalogue. He spake it himself on the mount, in the way and manner declared, Exodus 19, 20. [2. As unto the following judgments, statutes, and rites, directive of their walking before God, according to the former fundamental rule of the covenant. These he declared by revelation unto Moses; and they are contained in chapters 21-23. (3.) The manner of its proposal. And this also was twofold:[1. Preparatory. For before the solemn covenanting between God and the people, Moses declared all the matter of it unto the people, that they might consider well of it, and whether they would consent to enter into covenant with God on those terms; whereon they gave their approbation of them. [2. Solemn, in their actual and absolute acceptance of it, whereby they became obliged throughout their generations. This was on the reading of it out of the book, after it was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant on the altar, Exodus 24:7.(4.) The author of this covenant was God himself: “The covenant which the Load hath made with you,” verse 8. And immediately after, he is thereon called “the God of Israel,” verse 10; which is the first time he was called so, and it was by virtue of this covenant. And the pledge or token of his presence, as covenanting, was the altar, the altar of Jehovah; as there was a representative pledge of the presence of the people in the twelve pillars or statues.(5.) Those with whom this covenant was made were “the people;” that is, “all the people,” as the apostle speaks, none exempted or excluded. It was made with the “men, and women, and children,” Deuteronomy 31:12; even all on whom was the blood of the covenant, as it was on the women; or the token of the covenant, as it was on the male children in circumcision; or both, as in all the men of Israel. (6.) The manner on the part of the people of entering into covenant with God, was in two acts before mentioned: [1. In a previous approbation of the matter of it; [2. In a solemn engagement into it. And this was the foundation of the church of Israel. This is that covenant whereof there is afterwards in the Scripture such frequent mention, between God and that people, the sole foundation of all especial relation between him and them. For they took the observation of its terms on themselves for their posterity in all generations, until the end should be. On their obedience hereunto, or neglect hereof, depended their life or death in the land of Canaan. No farther did the precepts and promises of it in itself extend. But whereas it did not disannul the promise that was made unto Abraham, and confirmed with the oath of God, four hundred years before, and had annexed unto it many institutions and ordinances prefigurative and significant of heavenly things, the people under it had a right unto, and directions for the attaining of an eternal inheritance. And something we may hence observe. Obs. 1. The foundation of a church-state among any people, wherein God is to be honored in ordinances of instituted worship, is laid in a solemn covenant between him and them. — So it was with this church of Israel. Before this they served God in their families, by virtue of the promise made unto Abraham, but now the whole people were gathered into a church-state, to worship him according to the terms, institutions, and ordinances of the covenant. Nor doth God oblige any unto instituted worship but by virtue of a covenant. Unto natural worship and obedience we are all obliged, by virtue of the law of creation and what belongs thereunto. And God may, by a mere act of sovereignty, prescribe unto us the observation of what rites and ordinances in divine service he pleaseth. But he will have all our obedience to be voluntary, and all our service to be reasonable. Wherefore, although the prescription of such rites be an act of sovereign pleasure, yet God will not oblige us unto the observance of them but by virtue of a covenant between him and us, wherein we voluntarily consent unto and accept of the terms of it, whereby those ordinances of worship are prescribed unto us, And it will hence follow, — (1.) That men mistake themselves, when they suppose that they are interested in a church-state by tradition, custom, or as it were by chance, — they know not how. There is nothing but covenanting with God that will instate us in this privilege. And therein we do take upon ourselves the observance of all the terms of the new covenant. And they are of two sorts: [1. Internal and moral, in faith, repentance, and obedience; [2. Such as concern the external worship of the gospel, in the ordinances and institutions of it. Without such a covenant formally or virtually made, there can be no church-state. I speak not at all of any such covenants as men may make or have made among themselves, and with God, upon a mixture of things sacred, civil and political, with such sanctions as they find out and agree upon among themselves. For whatever may be the nature, use, or end of such covenants, they no way belong unto that concerning which we treat. For no terms are to be brought hereinto but such as belong directly unto the obedience and ordinances of the new testament. Nor was there any thing to be added unto or taken from the express terms of the old covenant. whereby the church-state of Israel was constituted And this was the entire rule of God’s dealing with them. The only question concerning them was, whether they had kept the terms of the covenant or no. And when things fell into disorder among them, as they did frequently, as the sum of God’s charge against them was that they had broken his covenant, so the reformation of things attempted by their godly kings before, and others after the captivity, was by inducing the people to renew this covenant, without any addition, alteration, or mixture of things of another nature. (2.) That so much disorder in the worship of God under the gospel hath entered into many churches, and that there is so much negligence in all sorts of persons about the observance of evangelical institutions, so little conscientious care about them, or reverence in the use of them, or benefit received by them; it is all much from hence, that men understand not aright the foundation of that obedience unto God which is required in them and by them. This, indeed, is no other but that solemn covenant between God and the whole church, wherein the church takes upon itself their due observance. This renders our obedience in them and by them no less necessary than any duties of moral obedience whatever. But this being not considered as it ought, men have used their supposed liberty, or rather, fallen into great licentiousness in the use of them, and few have that conscientious regard unto them which it is their duty to have. Obs. 2. Approbation of the terms of the covenant, consent unto them, and solemn acceptance of them, are required on our part, unto the establishment of any covenant between God and us. and our participation of the benefits of it. — Thus solemnly did the people here enter into covenant with God, whereby a peculiar relation was established between him and them. The mere proposal of the covenant and the terms of it unto us, which is done in the preaching of the gospel, will not make us partakers of any of the grace or benefits of it. Yet this is that which most content themselves withal. It may be they proceed to the performance of some of the duties which are required therein; but this answers not the design and way of God in dealing with men. When he hath proposed the terms of his covenant unto them, he doth neither compel them to accept of them nor will be satisfied with such an obedience. He requires that upon a due consideration of them, we do approve of them, as those which answer his infinite wisdom and goodness, and such as are of eternal advantage unto us; that they are all equal, holy, righteous, and good. Hereon he requires that we voluntarily choose and consent unto them, engaging ourselves solemnly unto the performance of them all and every one. This is required of us, if we intend any interest in the grace and glory prepared in the new covenant.Obs. 3. It has been the way of God from the beginning, to take children of covenanters into the same covenant with their parents. — So he dealt with this people in the estabhsnment of the first covenant; and he hath made no alteration herein in the establishment of the second. But we must proceed with the exposition of the words. 4. Of this covenant it is affirmed, that it “was consecrated with blood,” or “was not dedicated without blood.” ᾿Εγκαινίζω is “solemnly to separate any thing unto a sacred use.” ηָ ?πַ ?κְ is the same in Hebrew. But it is not the sanction of the covenant absolutely that the apostle intends in this expression, but the use of it. The covenant had its sanction, and was confirmed on the part of God, in offering of the sacrifices. In the killing of the beasts, and offering of their blood. did the ratification of the covenant consist. This is included and supposed in what is signified by the dedication of it. But this is not an effect of the shedding and offering of blood, but only of the sprinkling of it on the book and the people. Thereby had it its ἐγκαίνισμος, its “consecration” or “dedication unto sacred use,” as the instrument of the peculiar church relation between God and that people, whereof the book was the record. So was every thing consecrated unto its proper use under the law, as the apostle declares. This, therefore, is the meaning of the words: ‘That first covenant, which God made with the people at mount Sinai, wherein he became their God, the God of Israel, and they became his people, was dedicated unto sacred use by blood, in that it was sprinkled on the book and the people, after part of the same blood had been offered in sacrifice at the altar.’Hence it follows that this, which belongs so essentially unto the solemn dedication and confirmation of a covenant between God and the church, was necessary also unto the dedication and confirmation of the new covenant, — which is that which is to be proved. Obs. 4. It is by the authority of God alone that any thing can be effectually and unchangeably dedicated unto sacred use, so as to have force and efficacy given unto it thereby. — But this dedication may be made by virtue of a general rule, as well as by an especial command.5. The assertion of the apostle concerning the dedication of the first covenant with blood is confirmed by an account of the matter of fact, or, — First, What Moses did therein, Hebrews 9:19.Hebrews 9:19. — “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people.”There are two things considerable in the words: 1. The person made use of in the dedication of the covenant; which was Moses. 2. What he did therein; which is referred unto two heads: (1.) His speaking or reading the terms of the covenant, every precept out of the book;(2.) His sprinkling of the book and people with blood.1. Moses was the internuncius between God and the people in this great transaction. On God’s part he was immediately called unto this employment, Exodus 3. And on the part of the people he was chosen, and desired by them to transact all things between God and them, in the making and confirmation of this covenant; because they were not able to bear the effects of God’s immediate presence, Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:22-27. And this choice of a spokesman on their part God did approve of, verse 28. Hence he became in a general sense a μεσίτης, a mediator between God and men, in the giving of the law, Galatians 3:19. Whatever, therefore, was done by Moses in this whole affair of the dedication of the covenant, on the part of God or of the people, was firm and unalterable, he being a public person authorized unto this work. And, — Obs. 1. There can be no covenant between God and men but in the hand or by virtue of a mediator. The first covenant, in the state of innocency, was immediately between God and man. But since the entrance of sin it can be so no more. For,(1.) Man hath neither meetness nor confidence to treat immediately with God. Nor,(2.) Any credit or reputation with him, so as to be admitted as an undertaker in his own person. Nor,(3.) Any ability to perform the conditions of any covenant with God. Obs. 2. A mediator may be either only an internuncius, a messenger, a daysman; or also a surety and an undertaker. Of the first sort was the mediator of the old covenant; of the latter, that of the new.Obs. 3. None can interpose between God and a people in any sacred office, unless he be called of God and approved of the people, as was Moses.2. That which Moses did in this affair was first in way of preparation. And there are three things in the account of it: (1.) What he did precisely.(2.) With respect unto whom.(3.) According to what rule or order he did it: —(1.) He “spake every precept.” Vulg. Lat., “lecto omni mandato,” “having read every command;” which is the sense intended. Λαληθείσης is as much in this place as “recited.” So it is rendered by most translators, “cum recitasset;” that is, when he had read in the book. For his first speaking unto the people, Exodus 24:3, is not here intended, but his reading in the audience of the people, Exodus 24:7. He spake what he read, — that is, audibly; so it is in the story, “He read it in the audience of the people,” so as that they might hear and understand. It is added by the apostle, that he thus read, spake, recited “every precept” or “command.” “He took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people,” saith the text; that is, the whole book, and all that was contained in it, or “every precept.” And the whole is reduced by the apostle unto precepts, It was νόμοςἐντολῶν, Ephesians 2:15; “a law, a system of precepts.” And it is so called to intimate the nature of that covenant. It consisted principally in precepts or commandments of obedience, promising no assistance for the performance of them. The new covenant is of another nature; it is a “covenant of promises.” And although it hath precepts also requiring obedience, yet is it wholly founded in the promise, whereby strength and assistance for the performance of that obedience are given unto us. And the apostle doth well observe that Moses read “every precept unto all the people;” for all the good things they were to receive by virtue of that covenant depended on the observation of every precept. For a curse was denounced against every one that continued not “in all things written in the book of the law to do them,” Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10.And we may observe, — Obs. 4. A covenant that consisted in mere precepts, without an exhibition of spiritual strength to enable unto obedience, could never save sinners. — The insufficiency of this covenant unto that end is that which the apostle designs to prove in all this discourse. But thereon a double inquiry may be made:[1. Why God gave this covenant, which was so insufficient unto this great end? This question is proposed and answered by the apostle, Galatians 3:19.[2. How then did any of the people yield obedience unto God, if the covenant exhibited no aid or assistance unto it? The apostle answereth in the same place, that they received it by faith in the promise, which was given before, and not disannulled by this covenant. Obs. 5. In all our dealings with God respect must be had unto every one of his precepts. — And the reason hereof is given by the apostle James, namely, that the authority of God is the same in every one of them, and so may be despised in the neglect of the least as well as of the greatest, James 2:10-11.(2.) To whom did Moses thus read every precept? It was, saith the apostle, “to all the people.” In the story it is said indefinitely, “In the audience of the people;” as afterwards, “He sprinkled the people.” The apostle adds the note of universality in both places; “all the people.” For whereas these things were transacted with the representatives of the people, (for it was naturally impossible that the one-half of the individuals of them should hear Moses reading,) they were all equally concerned in what was said and done. Yet I do believe, that after Moses first “told the people,” — that is, the elders of them, — “all the words of the LORD,” Exodus 24:3, there were means used by the elders and officers to communicate the things, yea, to repeat the words unto all the people, that they might be enabled to give their rational consent unto them. And we may observe, —Obs. 6. The first eminent use of the writing of the book of the law, (that is, of any part of the Scripture, for this book was the first that was written,) was, that it might be read unto the people. — He gave not this book to be shut up .by the priests; to be concealed from the people, as containing mysteries unlawful to be divulged, or impossible to be understood. Such conceits befell not the minds of men, until the power and ends of religion being lost, some got an opportunity to order the concerns of it unto their own worldly interest and advantage. Obs. 7. This book was both written and read in the language which the people understood and commonly spake. — And a rule was herein prescribed unto the church in all ages; if so be the example of the wisdom and care of God towards his church may be a rule unto us.Obs. 8. God never required the observance of any rites or duties of worship without a previous warranty from his word. — The people took not on them, they were not obliged unto obedience, with respect unto any positive institutions, until Moses had read unto them every precept out of the book. Obs. 9. The writing of this book was an eminent privilege, now first granted unto the church, leading unto a more perfect and stable condition than formerly it had enjoyed. — Hitherto it had lived on oral instructions, from traditions, and by new immediate revelations; the evident defects whereof were now removed, and a standard of divine truth and instruction set up and fixed among them.(3.) There is the rule whereby Moses proceeded herein, or the warranty he had for what he did: “According unto the law.” He read every precept according to the law. It cannot be the law in general that the apostle intends, for the greatest part of that doctrine which is so called was not yet given or written; nor doth it in any place contain any precept unto this purpose. Wherefore it is a particular law, rule, or command, that is intended; — according unto the ordinance or appointment of God. Such was the command that God gave unto Moses for the framing of the tabernacle: “See thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.” Particularly, it seems to be the agreement between God and the people, that Moses should be the internuncius, the interpreter between them. According unto this rule, order, or divine constitution, Moses read all the words from God out of the book unto the people. Or it may be, “the law” may here be taken for the whole design of God in giving of the law; so as that “according unto the law,” is no more but, according unto the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God in giving of the law, with all things that belong unto its order and use. And it is good for us to look for God’s especial warranty for what we undertake to do in his service.The second thing in the words is, what Moses did immediately and directly towards the dedication or consecration of this covenant. And there are three things to this purpose mentioned: (1.) What he made use of.(2.) How he used it.(3.) With respect unto what and whom: —(1.) The first is expressed in these words: “He took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop.” He took the blood of the beasts that were offered for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, Exodus 24:5-6; Exodus 24:8. Unto this end, in their slaying he took all their blood in basins, and made an equal division of it. The one half he sprinkled on the altar, and the other half he sprinkled on the people. That which was sprinkled on the altar was God’s part; and the other was put on the people. Both the mutual stipulation of God and the congregation in this covenant, and the equality of it, or the equity of its terms, were denoted hereby. And herein lies the principal force of the apostle’s argument in these words: ‘Blood was used in the dedication of the first covenant. This was the blood of the beasts offered in sacrifice unto God. Wherefore both death, and death by blood-shedding, was required unto the confirmation of a covenant So also, therefore, must the new covenant be confirmed; but with blood and a sacrifice far more precious than they were.’ This distribution of blood, that half of it was on the altar, and half of it on the people, — the one to make atonement, the other to purify or sanctify, — was to teach the twofold efficacy of the blood of Christ, in making atonement for sin unto our justification, and the purifying of our natures in sanctification. (2.) With this blood he took the things mentioned with respect unto its use, which was sprinkling. The manner of it was in part declared before. The blood being put into basons, and having water mixed with it to keep it fluid and aspersible, he took a bunch or bundle of hyssop bound up with scarlet wool, and dipping it into the basons, sprinkled the blood, until it was all spent in that service.This rite or way of sprinkling was chosen of God as an expressive token or sign of the effectual communication of the benefits of the covenant unto them that were sprinkled. Hence the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ unto sanctification is called the sprinkling of his blood, 1 Peter 1:2. And our apostle compriseth all the effects of it unto that end under the name of “the blood of sprinkling,” Hebrews 12:24 And I fear that those who have used the expression with some contempt, when applied by themselves unto the sign of the communication of the benefits of the death of Christ in baptism, have not observed that reverence of holy things that is required of us. For this symbol of sprinkling was that which God himself chose and appointed, as a meet and apt token of the communication of covenant mercy; that is, of his grace in Christ Jesus unto our souls. And, — Obs. 10. The blood of the covenant will not benefit or advantage us without an especial and particular application of it unto our own souls and consciences. — If it be not as welt sprinkled upon us as it was offered unto God, it will not avail us. The blood of Christ was not divided, as was that of these sacrifices, the one half being on the altar, the other on the people; but the efficacy of the whole produced both these effects, yet so, as that the one will not profit us without the other. We shall have no benefit el the atonement made at the altar, unless we have its efficacy on our own souls unto their purification. And this we cannot have unless it be sprinkled on us, unless particular application be made of it unto us by the Holy Ghost, in and by an especial act of faith in ourselves. (3.) The object of this act of sprinkling was “the book” itself “and all the people.” The same blood was on the book wherein the covenant was recorded, and the people that entered into it. But whereas this sprinkling was for purifying and purging, it may be inquired unto what end the book itself was sprinkled, which was holy and undefiled. I answer, There were two things necessary unto the dedication of the covenant, with all that belonged unto it:[1. Atonement; [2. Purification. And in both these respects it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled. [1. As we observed before, it was sprinkled as it lay upon the altar, where atonement was made. And this was plainly to signify that atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against that book, or the law contained in it. Without this, that book would have been unto the people like that given to Ezekiel, that was “written within and without; and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe,” Ezekiel 2:10. Nothing but curse and death could they expect from it. But the sprinkling of it with blood as it lay upon the altar was a testimony and assurance that atonement should be made by blood for the sins against it; which was the life of the things. [2. The book in itself was pure and holy, and so are all God’s institutions; but unto us every thing is unclean that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. So afterwards the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were purified every year with blood, “because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions,” Leviticus 16:16. Wherefore on both these accounts it was necessary that the book itself should be sprinkled. The blood thus sprinkled was mingled with water. The natural reason of it was, as we observed, to keep it fluid and aspersible. But there was a mystery in it also. That the blood of Christ was typified by this blood of the sacrifices used in the dedication of the old covenant, it is the apostle’s design to declare. And it is probable that this mixture of it with water might represent that blood and water which came out of his side when it was pierced. For the mystery thereof was very great. Hence that apostle which saw it, and bare record of it in particular, John 19:34-35, affirms likewise that “he came by water and blood,” and not by blood only, 1 John 5:6. He came not only to make atonement for us with his blood, that we might be justified, but to sprinkle us with the efficacy of his blood, in the communication of the Spirit of sanctification, compared unto water. For the sprinkler itself, composed of scarlet wool and hyssop, I doubt not but that the human nature of Christ, whereby and through which all grace is communicated unto us, (“for of his fullness we receive, and grace for grace,”) was signified by it; but the analogy and similitude between them are not so evident as they are with respect unto some other types. The hyssop was a humble plant, the meanest of them, yet of a sweet savor, 1 Kings 4:33; so was the Lord Christ amongst men in the days of his flesh, in comparison of the tall cedars of the earth. Hence was his complaint, that he was as “a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,” Psalms 22:6. And the scarlet wool might represent him as red in the blood of his sacrifice. But I will not press these things, of whose interpretation we have not a certain rule.Secondly, The principal truth asserted is confirmed by what Moses said, as well as what he did: — Hebrews 9:20. — “Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” The difference between the words of Moses and the repetition of them by the apostle is not material, as unto the sense of them. δִ ?πֵּ ?δ, “behold,” in Moses, is rendered by τοῦτο, “this;” both demonstrative notes of the same thing. For in pronouncing of the words Moses showed the blood unto the people; and so, “Behold the blood,” is all one as if he had said, “This is the blood.” The making of the covenant in the words of Moses is expressed by λָּ ?ψַ ?ϊ, “hath cut,” “divided,” solemnly made. This the apostle renders by ἐνετείλατο “hath enjoined” or “commanded you.” And this he doth partly to signify the foundation of the people’s acceptance of that covenant, which was the authority of God enjoining them or requiring them so to do; partly to intimate the nature of the covenant itself, which consisted in precepts and injunctions principally, and not absolutely in promises, as the new covenant doth. The last words of Moses, “Concerning all these words,” the apostle omits; for he includes the sense of them in that word, “Which God hath commanded you.” For he hath respect therein both unto the words themselves written in the book, which were precepts and injunctions, as also the command of God for the acceptance of the covenant. That which Moses said is, “This is the blood of the testament.” Hence the apostle proves that death, and the shedding of blood therein, was necessary unto the consecration and establishment of the first testament. For so Moses expressly affirms in the dedication of it, “This is the blood of the covenant;” without which it could not have been a firm covenant between God and the people. Not, I confess, from the nature of a covenant in general, for a covenant may be solemnly established without death or blood; but from the especial end of that covenant, which in the confirmation of it was to prefigure the confirmation of that new covenant which could not be established but with the blood of a sacrifice. And this adds both force and evidence unto the apostle’s argument. For he proves the necessity of the death and blood-shedding or sacrifice of Christ in the confirmation of the new covenant from hence, that the old covenant, which in the dedication of it was prefigurative hereof, was not confirmed without blood. Wherefore, whereas God had solemnly promised to make a new covenant with the church, and that different from, or not according unto the old (which he had proved in the foregoing chapter), it follows unavoidably that it was to be confirmed with the blood of the mediator (for by the blood of beasts it could not be); which is that truth wherein he did instruct them. And nothing was more cogent to take off the scandal of the cross and of the sufferings of Christ. For the enunciation itself, “This is the blood of the covenant,” it is figurative and sacramental. The covenant had no blood of its own; but the blood of the sacrifices is called “the blood of the covenant,” because the covenant was dedicated and established by it. Neither was the covenant really established by it; for it was the truth of God on the one hand, and the stability of the people in their professed obedience on the other, that the establishment of the covenant depended on. But this blood was a confirmatory sign of it, a token between God and the people of their mutual engagement in that covenant. So the paschal lamb was called “the LORD’S passover,” because it was a sign and token of God’s passing over the houses of the Israelites when he destroyed the Egyptians, Exodus 12:11-12. With reference it was unto those sacramental expressions which the church under the old testament was accustomed unto, that our Lord Jesus Christ, in the institution of the sacrament of the supper, called the bread and the wine, whose use he appointed therein, by the names of his body and blood; and any other interpretation of the words wholly overthrows the nature of that holy ordinance. Wherefore this blood was a confirmatory sign of the covenant. And it was so, 1. From God’s institution; he appointed it so to be, as is express in the words of Moses.2. From an implication of the interest of both parties in the blood of the sacrifice; God, unto whom it was offered; and the people, on whom it was sprinkled. For it being the blood of beasts that were slain, in this use of it each party as it were engaged their lives unto the observation and performance of what was respectively undertaken by them.3. Typically, in that it represented the blood of Christ, and fore-signified the necessity of it unto the confirmation of the new covenant. See Zechariah 9:11; Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25. So was it “the blood of the covenant,” in that it was a sign between God and the people of their mutual consent unto it, and their taking on themselves the performance of the terms of it, on the one side and the other. Obs. 11. The condescension of God in making a covenant with men, especially in the ways of the confirmation of it, is a blessed object of all holy admiration. — For,1. The infinite distance and disproportion that is between him and us, both in nature and state or condition;2. The ends of this covenant, which are all unto our eternal advantage, he standing in no need of us or our obedience; 3. The obligation that he takes upon himself unto the performance of the terms of it, whereas he might righteously deal with us in a way of mere sovereignty;4. The nature of the assurance he gives us thereof, by the blood of the sacrifice, confirmed with his oath; do all set forth the ineffable glory of this condescension. And this will at length be made manifest in the eternal blessedness of them by whom this covenant is embraced, and the eternal misery of them by whom it is refused.The apostle having given this full confirmation unto his principal assertion, he adds, for the illustration of it, the use and efficacy of blood, that is, the blood of sacrifices, unto purification and atonement. Hebrews 9:21. — “Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.”The manner of the introduction of this observation, Hebrews 9:21, by καὶὁμοίως, “and in like manner,” doth manifest that this is not a continuation of the former instance, in that which belongs thereunto; but that there is a proceed unto another argument, to evince the further use of the sprinkling of blood unto purification and atonement under the old testament. For the design of the apostle is not only to prove the necessity of the blood of Christ in sacrifice, but also the efficacy of it in the taking away of sins. Wherefore he shows that as the covenant itself was dedicated with blood, which proves the necessity of the blood of Christ unto the confirmation of the new covenant; so all the ways and means of solemn worship were purged and purified by the same means, which demonstrates its efficacy.I will not absolutely oppose the usual interpretation of these words; namely, that at the erection of the tabernacle, and the dedication of it with all its vessels and utensils, there was a sprinkling with blood, though not expressly mentioned by Moses, for he only declares the unction of them with the holy oil, Exodus 40:9-11. For as unto the garments of Aaron and his sons, which belonged unto the service of the tabernacle, and were laid up in the holy place, it is expressly declared that they were sprinkled with blood, Exodus 29:21; and of the altar, that it was sprinkled when it was anointed, though it be not said wherewith. And Josephus, who was himself a priest, affirms that “all the things belonging unto the sanctuary were dedicated with the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices;” which things are usually pleaded for this interpretation. I shall not, as I said, absolutely reject it; yet because it is evident that the apostle makes a progress in these words, from the necessity of the dedication of the covenant with blood unto the use and efficacy of the sprinkling of blood in all holy administrations, that they might be accepted with God, I choose rather to refer the words unto that solemn sprinkling of the tabernacle and all the vessels of it by the high priest with blood of the expiatory sacrifice which was made annually, on the day of atonement. This the introduction of these words by καί and ὁμοίως; doth declare. As the covenant was dedicated with the sprinkling of blood, so in like manner afterwards, the tabernacle and all the vessels of it were sprinkled with blood unto their sacred use. All the difficulty in this interpretation is, that Moses is said to do it, but that which we intend was done by Aaron and his successors. But this is no way to be compared with that of applying it unto the dedication of the tabernacle, wherein there is no mention made of blood or its sprinkling, but of anointing only. Wherefore Moses is said to do what he appointed to be done, what the law required which was given by him. So “Moses” is frequently used for the law given by him: Acts 15:21, “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day;” that is, the law. Moses, then, sprinkled the tabernacle, in that by an everlasting ordinance he appointed that it should be done. And the words following, Acts 15:22, declare that the apostle speaks not of dedication, but of expiation and purification. This sprinkling, therefore, of the tabernacle and its vessels, was that which was done annually, on the day of atonement, Leviticus 16:14-16; Leviticus 16:18. For thereon, as the apostle speaks, “both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry were sprinkled with blood;” as the ark, the mercy-seat, and the altar of incense. And the end of it was to purge them because of the uncleannesses of the people; which is that the apostle intends. And that which we are taught herein is, that, —Obs. 1. In all things wherein we have to do with God, whereby we approach unto him, it is the blood of Christ, and the application of it unto our consciences, that gives us a gracious acceptance with him. — Without this all is unclean and defiled.Obs. 2. Even holy things and institutions, that are in themselves clean and unpolluted, are relatively defiled, by the unholiness of them that use them; defiled unto them. — So was the tabernacle, because of the uncleannesses of the people among whom it was. For unto the unclean all things are unclean. From this whole discourse the apostle makes an inference which he afterwards applies at large unto his present purpose. Hebrews 9:22. — “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”There are two parts of this verse, or there is a double assertion in it: 1. That “almost all things are by the law purged with blood.”2. That “without shedding of blood is no remission.”1. In the first of these there is considerable the assertion itself, and the limitation of it.(1.) The assertion itself is, that “by the law all things were purged with blood; κατὰτὸννόμον — according unto the law;” the rules, the commands, the institutions of it; in that way of worship, faith, and obedience, which the people were obliged unto by the law. According unto the law, there was a necessity of the blood of sacrifices, for the purging of sin and making of atonement. This he infers and concludes from what he had said before, concerning the dedication of the covenant and the purification of the tabernacle with all the vessels of its ministry. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ In the following verses, unto the end of the chapter, the apostle makes an application of all that he had discoursed, concerning the services and sacrifices of the tabernacle, with their use and efficacy, on the one hand, and the sacrifice of Christ, its nature, use, and efficacy, on the other, unto his present argument. Now this was to demonstrate the excellency, dignity, and virtue of the priesthood of Christ, and the sacrifice of himself that he offered thereby, as he was the mediator of the new covenant. And he doth it in the way of comparison, as unto what there was of similitude between them; and of opposition, as unto what was singular in the person and priesthood of Christ, wherein they had no share; declaring on both accounts the incomparable excellency of him and his sacrifice above the priests of the law and theirs, And hereon he concludes his whole discourse with an elegant comparison and opposition between the law and the gospel, wherein he compriseth in few words the substance of them both, as unto their effects on the souls of men. That wherein in general there was a similitude in these things is expressed, Hebrews 9:23. Hebrews 9:23 — ᾿Ανάγκηου῏ντὰμὲνὑποδείγματατῶνἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς, τούτοιςκαθαρίζεσθαι·αὐτὰδὲτὰἐπουράνιακρείττοσιθυσίαιςπαρὰταύτας.There is no difference of importance in the translation of these words by any interpreters of reputation, and singly they have been all of them before spoken unto. Only the Syriac renders ὑποδει.γματα by γְ ?ξεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ “similitudes;” not unaptly.Hebrews 9:23. — It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. An entrance is made in these words into the comparison intended. For as unto both sorts of sacrifices compared, it is here granted in general that they purged the things whereunto they were applied. But there is a difference also laid down in this verse, namely, as unto the things that were purified by them, and consequently in the nature of their respective purifications. There are in the words, 1. A note of inference, or dependence on the former discourse; “therefore.”2. A double proposition of things of diverse natures compared together. 3. The modification of both these propositions; “it was necessary.”4. In the first proposition there is,(1.) The subject-matter spoken of; “the patterns of things in the heavens.”(2.) What is affirmed of them as necessary to them; that they “should be purified.” (3.) The means whereby; “with these.”5. The same things are proposed in the second, namely,(1.) The things spoken of, or the “heavenly things themselves.” (2.) What is affirmed of them is traduced from the other proposition; they also were “purified.”(3.) The means whereby they were so; “with better sacrifices than these.”1. That which first occurs is the note of inference, or dependence on the former discourse; “therefore.” And it hath an equal respect unto both parts of the assertion. And it is not the being of the things, but their manifestation, that is intended: ‘From what hath been said concerning the legal purification of all things, and the spiritual purification that is by the sacrifice of Christ, these things are evident and manifest.’2. Of both the things affirmed it is said that “it was necessary” they should be so; that is, it was so from God’s institution and appointment. There was no necessity in the nature of the things themselves, that the patterns of heavenly things should be purged with these sacrifices; but on supposition that God would in and by them represent the purification of the heavenly things, it was necessary that they should be thus purged with blood. And on the supposition of the same divine ordination that the heavenly things themselves should be purified, it was necessary that they should be purified with better sacrifices than these, which were altogether insufficient unto that end. 3. The subject of the first proposition is, “The patterns of things in the heavens.” The τὰἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς are the τὰἐπουράνια in the next words. “Things in the heavens” are “heavenly things.” And they are the same with ἀντίτυπατῶνἀληθινῶν, in the next verse; “figures of the true things.(1.) The things intended are those which the apostle hath discoursed of; the covenant, the book, the people, the tabernacle, with all the vessels of its ministry. These he calls ὑποδείγματα, which we well render “patterns.” And patterns are of two sorts:[1. Such as are πρωτότυπα, “exemplaria;” those from and according unto which any other thing is framed. That is the pattern of any thing, according unto which it is contrived, made and fashioned. So a scheme or frame drawn and delineated, is the pattern of — an edifice.[2. Such as are ἔκτυπα, “exemplata;” that are framed according unto other things which they do resemble and represent. These also are ὑποδείγματα.The things mentioned were not patterns of the heavenly things in the first sense; the heavenly things were not framed by them, to answer, resemble, and represent them. But they were so in the latter only. And therefore in the first constitution of them, those which were durable and to abide, as the tabernacle with all its utensils and vessels, with the posture and disposal of them, were made and erected according to an original pattern showed in the mount; or they were framed according unto the idea of the heavenly things themselves, whereof he made a representation unto Moses, and communicated a resemblance of them unto him, according unto his own good pleasure. This is the order of these things: The heavenly things themselves were designed, framed, and disposed in the mind of God, in all their order, courses, beauty, efficacy, and tendency unto his own eternal glory. This was the whole mystery of the wisdom of God for the redemption and salvation of the church by Jesus Christ. This is that which is declared in the gospel, being before hid in God from the foundation of the world, Ephesians 3:8-10. Of these things did God grant a typical resemblance, similitude, and pattern, in the tabernacle and its services. That he would make such a kind of resemblance of those heavenly things, as unto their kind, nature, and use, that he would instruct the church by them, was an act of his mere sovereign will and pleasure. And this is that effect of his wisdom which was manifest under the old testament; whereon the faith and obedience of the church were wholly to acquiesce in his sovereignty. And this their resemblance of heavenly things, which they had not from their own nature, but merely from the pleasure of God, gave them all their glory and worth; which the saints under the old testament did in some measure understand. The present Jews do, as their forefathers did, under the degeneracy of their church, conceive their glory to consist in the materials and curious structure of them; things that the wealth and art of men might exceed. But in themselves they were all earthly, carnal, perishing, and liable unto all sorts of corruption. Much inferior they were in nature and glory unto the souls of men, which were conversant in their highest and most noble acts about them. But herein alone consisted their honor, worth, and use, — they were “patterns of heavenly things,” And we may observe, that — Obs. 1. The glory and efficacy of all ordinances of divine worship which consist in outward observance (as it is with the sacraments of the gospel) consist in this, that they represent and exhibit heavenly things unto us. — And this power of representation they have from divine institution alone.(2.) What they were patterns of is expressed; namely, of “things in the heavens.” What these were in particular must be spoken unto in the exposition of the next proposition, whereof they are the subject, “The heavenly things themselves.”(3.) Of these things it is affirmed that they were “purified.” The apostle had treated before of a double purification:[1. Of that which consisted in a cleansing from defilements of its own; “sprinkling the unclean,” and “sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh,” Hebrews 9:13; Hebrews 9:22. [2. That which consisted in a dedication unto sacred use. But this also had some respect unto uncleanness: not unto any that the things so dedicated had in themselves, but because of the uncleanness of them that were to make use of them. This was such, as that God would have the intervention of the sprinkling of blood between him and them in all their services, as he declares, Leviticus 16:15-17. And this he would do, that he might teach them the absolute and universal necessity of the purifying efficacy of the blood of Christ, in all things between him and sinners. Of this purification he gives us in this discourse two instances: [1. That which was initial, at the first solemnization of the covenant, Hebrews 9:18-20. [2. That which was annual, in the sprinkling of the tabernacle and its vessels, because of the uncleannesses of the people, Hebrews 9:21. This latter purification is that which is intended. (4.) The means whereby they were thus to be purified is, “with these.” In the next proposition, the heavenly things themselves are said to be purified θυσίαις, “with sacrifices.” But the purification of these patterns was not absolutely confined unto sacrifices. Water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and the ashes of an heifer, in some cases, were required thereunto. “With these;” that is, with all those things which were appointed by the law to be used in their purification or dedication unto sacred use.(5.) If inquiry be made why these patterns were thus purified, the apostle affirms that “it was necessary” it should be so. This, as it respects both propositions in this verse equally, was spoken unto in general before. The grounds of this necessity with respect unto these patterns were these:[1. The will and command of God. This is that which originally, or in the first place, makes any thing necessary in divine worship. This is the only spring of rational obedience in instituted worship; whatever is without it, whatever is beyond it, is no part of sacred service. God would have them thus purified. Yet also was there herein this manifest reason of his will, namely, that thereby he might represent the purification of heavenly things. On this supposition, that God would so represent heavenly things by them, it was necessary that they should be purified. [2. Seeing he would have them purified, there was a meetness that they should be so with these things. For being themselves carnal and earthly, as were the tabernacle and all the vessels of it, it was meet they should be purified with things carnal also; such as were the blood of beasts, water, hyssop, and scarlet wool. [3. In particular, it was necessary that they should be purified with the blood of sacrifices; because they were types of those things which were to be purified with the only proper expiatory sacrifice. These were the foundations of the whole system of Mosaical rites and ordinances; and on them they stood until they were removed by God himself. Obs. 2. And that which we should learn from hence is, a due consideration of that respect which we ought to have to the holiness of God in his worship and service. He did manifest it unto us, to beget in us a due reverence of it. He would never admit of any thing therein but what was purified according unto his own institution. All other things he always rejected as unclean and profane. Without a due apprehension hereof, and endeavoring to have both our persons and our services purified by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. neither they nor we can be accepted before him. 4. The other proposition in the text is, that “the heavenly things themselves were to be purified with better sacrifices”(1.) The first thing in the words is the subject of the proposition, “the heavenly things themselves;” that is, the things whereof the other were the patterns, by which God represented them unto the church. But what these things are is not easy to determine. Some say that heaven itself is intended, the superethereal heavens; the place of the present residence of Christ, and of the souls of them that are saved by him. But taking the heavens absolutely, especially for that which is called “the heaven of heavens,” with respect unto their fabric, and as the place of God’s glorious residence, and it is not easy to conceive how they stood in need to be purified by sacrifice. Some say it is spiritual things, that is, the souls and consciences of men, that are intended. And they are called “heavenly” in opposition unto the things of the law, which were all carnal and earthly. And it is certain they are not to be excluded out of this expression; for unto their purification is the virtue of the sacrifice of Christ directly applied, verse 14. Yet the whole context, and the antithesis in it between the types and the things typified, make it evident that they alone are not intended. To clear the mind of the apostle in this expression, sundry things must be observed out of the context: — [1. The apostle treats of a double purification, as was immediately before declared. In this application of his discourse he intends them both. But whereas some things stood in need of the one only, namely, of that of dedication unto God; and some of the other, namely, purging from defilements, as the souls and consciences of men; they are distinctly to be applied unto the things spoken of, according to their capacity. Some were purified by dedication, some by actual cleansing from real defilements; both which are included in the notion of sacred purification, or sanctification. [2. These heavenly things must be all those, and only those, whereof the other were patterns or resemblances This is plain in the context and antithesis. Wherefore, — [3. By “heavenly things,” I understand all the effects of the counsel of God in Christ, in the redemption, worship, salvation, and eternal glory of the church; that is, Christ himself in all his offices, with all the spiritual and eternal effects of them on the souls and consciences of men, with all the worship of God by him according unto the gospel. For of all these things those of the law were the patterns. He did in and by them give a representation of all these things, as we may see in particular: — 1st. Christ himself, and the sacrifice of himself, were typed out by these things To prove this, is the principal purpose of the apostle. They were the “shadow,” he the “body” or substance, as he speaks elsewhere. He was “the Lord from heaven;” “who is in heaven,” “who speaketh from heaven,” 1 Corinthians 15:47; John 3:13; Hebrews 12:25.2dly. All spiritual and eternal grace, mercy, blessings, whereof the souls of men are made partakers by the mediation and sacrifice of Christ, are “heavenly things,” and are constantly so called, Hebrews 3:1; John 3:12; Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 2:6.3dly. The church itself and its worship are of the same kind; the things principally to be purified by these sacrifices It is God’s heavenly kingdom, Ephesians 5:25-26.4thly. Heaven itself is comprised herein, not absolutely, but as it is the mansion of Christ and the redeemed in the presence of God for evermore. (2.) Hereon the inquiry will be, how these things are said to be “purified;” for of real purification from uncleanness not one of them is capable but only the church, — that is, the souls and consciences of men. I answer, that we are to have recourse unto that twofold sense of purification before laid down, namely, of external dedication, and internal purging; both which are expressed by the name of “sanctification” in the Scripture. Most of the things that were purified by the blood of the sacrifices at the ,giving of the law were so in the first sense, and no otherwise. The covenant, the book of the law, and the tabernacle with all its vessels, were purified in their sacred dedication unto God and his service. Thus were all the heavenly things themselves purified. Christ himself was sanctified, consecrated, dedicated unto God, in his own blood. He “sanctified himself,” John 17:19; and that by “the blood of the covenant,” Hebrews 10:29; even when he was “consecrated” or “made perfect through sufferings,” Hebrews 2:10. So was the church and the whole worship of it dedicated unto God, made holy unto him, Ephesians 5:25-26. And heaven itself was dedicated to be a habitation for ever unto the mystical body of Christ, in perfect peace with the angels above, who had never sinned, Ephesians 1:10; Hebrews 12:22-25. But yet there was, moreover, a real purification of the most of these things. The church, or the souls and consciences of men, were really cleansed, purified, and sanctified, with an internal, spiritual purification, Ephesians 5:25-26; Titus 2:14. It was washed in the blood of Christ, Revelation 1:5; and is thereby cleansed from sin, 1 John 1:7. And heaven itself was in some sense so purified, as the tabernacle was because of the sins of the people among whom it was, Leviticus 16:16. Sin had entered into heaven itself, in the apostasy of angels; whence it was not pure in the sight of God, Job 15:15. And upon the sin of man, a state of enmity ensued between the angels above and men below; so that heaven was no meet place for a habitation unto them both, until they were reconciled; which was done only in the sacrifice of Christ, Ephesians 1:10. Hence, if the heavenly things were not defiled in themselves, yet in relation unto us they were so; which is now taken away. The sum is: As the covenant, the book, the people, the tabernacle, were all purified, and dedicated unto their especial ends, by the blood of calves and goats, wherein was laid the foundation of all gracious intercourse between God and the church, under the old covenant; so all things whatever, that in the counsel of God belonged unto the new covenant, the whole mediation of Christ, with all the spiritual and eternal effects of it, were confirmed, dedicated unto God, and made effectual unto the ends of the covenant, by the blood of the sacrifice of Christ, which is the spring from whence efficacy is communicated unto them all. And moreover, the souls and consciences of the elect are purified and sanctified from all defilements thereby; which work is gradually carried on in them, by renewed applications of the same blood unto them, until they are all presented unto God glorious, “without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” And we are taught that, — Obs. 3. The one sacrifice of Christ, with what ensued thereon, was the only means to render effectual all the counsels of God concerning the redemption and salvation of the church. Ephesians 1:3-7, Romans 3:24-26.(3.) Of these heavenly things it is said, that they were purified “with better sacrifices than these,” — κρείττοσιθυσίαιςπαρὰταύτας. Παρά is added to increase the signification. All sober expositors agree that here is an enallage of number, the plural put for the singular. The one sacrifice of Christ is alone intended. But because it answered all other sacrifices, exceeded them all in dignity, was of more use and efficacy than they all, it is so expressed. That one sacrifice comprised the virtue, benefit, and signification of all others. The gloss of Grotius on these words is intolerable, and justly offensive unto all pious souls: Θυσίαις, saith he, “quia non tantum Christi perpessiones intelligit, sed eorum qui ipsum sectantur, una cum precibus et operibus misericordiae.” Is it possible that any Christian should not tremble to join the sufferings of men and their works with the sacrifice of Christ, as unto the same kind of efficacy in purifying of these heavenly things? Do they make atonement for sin? Are they offered unto God for that end? Are they sprinkled on these things for their purification?(4.) The modification of the former proposition belongs unto this also. “It was necessary” these things should be thus purified:[1. As that which the holiness of God required, and which therefore in his wisdom and grace he appointed; [2. As that which in itself was meet and becoming the righteousness of God, Hebrews 2:10. Nothing but the sacrifice of Christ, with the everlasting efficacy of his most precious blood, could thus purify the heavenly things, and dedicate the whole new creation unto God. (5.) The last thing we shall observe hereon is, that it was θυσία that this dedication and purification is ascribed unto. Now θυσία is a “slain sacrifice,” a sacrifice as slain; a sacrifice by mactation, killing, or shedding of blood. So is ζֶ ?αַ ?η, also. Wherefore it is the sacrifice of Christ in his death and blood-shedding that is the cause of these things. Other θυσία of him there was none, he offered none. For the vindication hereof we must examine the comment of Schlichtingius on this place. His words are, —“Licet enim non sanguinem suum Christus Deo obtulerit, sed se ipsum; tamen sine sanguinis effusione offerre se ipsum non potuit neque debuit. Ex eo vero quod diximus fit, ut auctor divinus Christum cum victimis legalibus contferens, perpetuo fugiat dicere Christi sanguinem fuisse oblatum; et nihilominus ut similitudini serviat, perpetuo Christi sanguinis fusionem insinuet, quae nisi antecessisset, hand quaquam tam plena, tamque concinna inter Christum et victimas antiquas comparatio institui potuisset. Ex his ergo manifestum est in ilia sancta celestia ad eorum dedicationem emundationemque peragendam, victimam pretiosissimam, proinde non sanguinem hircorum et vitulorum, imo ne sanguinem quidem ullum, sed ipsum Dei Filium, idque omnibus mortalis naturae exuviis de-positis, quo nulla pretiosior et sanctior victima cogitari potuit, debuisse inferri.” Ans. [1. The distinction between Christ offering [his blood and offering himself to God (the foundation of this discourse), is coined on purpose to pervert the truth. For neither did Christ offer his blood unto God but in the offering of himself, nor did he offer himself unto God but in and by the shedding and offering of his blood. There is no distinction between Christ offering of himself and offering of his blood, other than between the being of any thing and the form and manner of its being what it is [2. That “he could not offer himself without the antecedent effusion of his blood,” seems a kind concession; but it hath the same design with the preceding distinction. But in the offering of himself he was θυσία, “a slain sacrifice,” which was in and by the effusion of his blood; in the very shedding of it, it was offered unto God. [3. It is a useless observation, that the apostle, in comparing the sacrifice of Christ with the legal victims, doth (as it is said) “carefully avoid the saying that he offered his blood.” For in those legal sacrifices the beasts themselves were always said to be offered, although it was the blood alone wherewith atonement was made on the altar, Leviticus 17:11. And this the apostle expressly ascribes unto the blood of Christ, in answer unto the blood of bulls and goats, Hebrews 9:13-14.[4. The apostle doth not “insinuate the mention of the shedding of the blood of Christ only to make up a full and fit comparison with the legal victims,” as is impudently insinuated; but he directly ascribes the whole effect of reconciliation, peace, atonement, remission of sins, and sanctification, unto the blood of Christ, as shed and offered unto God. And this he doth not only in this epistle, where he insists on this comparison, but in other places also, where he hath no regard unto it, Romans 3:25; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 5:2; Ephesians 5:25-26; Titus 2:14; Colossians 1:20.[5. Having advanced thus far, in the close of his exposition he “excludes the blood of Christ from any more interest or efficiency in the purification of these heavenly things than the blood of goats and calves;” which is such an open contradiction unto the whole design and express words of the apostle, as that the assertion of it exceeds all the bounds of sobriety and modesty. From the words thus opened, we may observe unto our own use, — Obs. 4. Neither could heavenly things have been made meet for us or our use, nor we have been meet for their enjoyment, had they not been dedicated and we been purged by the sacrifice of Christ. — There was no suitableness either in them unto us, or in us unto them, until it was introduced by the blood of Christ. Without the efficiency hereof, heavenly things would not be heavenly unto the minds and souls of men; they would neither please them nor satisfy them, nor make them blessed. Unless they themselves are purged, all things, even heavenly things themselves, would be unclean and defiled unto them, Titus 1:15.Obs. 5. Every eternal mercy, every spiritual privilege, is both purchased for us and sprinkled unto us by the blood of Christ. Obs. 6. There is such an uncleanness in our natures, our persons, our duties, and worship, that unless they and we are all sprinkled with the blood of Christ, neither we nor they can have any acceptance with God.Obs. 7. The sacrifice of Christ is the one, only, everlasting fountain and spring of all sanctification and sacred dedication; whereby the whole new creation is purified and dedicated unto God. The opposition between the high priests of the law and their sacrifices, with their efficacy, and the Lord Christ with his sacrifice and its efficacy, is further carried on in this verse. And this is done in an instance of a dissimilitude between them, as it was showed in general before in how many things they did agree. And this dissimilitude consists in the place and manner of the discharge of their office, after the great expiatory sacrifice which each of them did offer. The causal connection of the words doth also intimate that a further evidence is given unto what was before laid down, namely, that heavenly things were purified by the blood of Christ: ‘For, as an assurance thereof, upon the dedication of the new covenant he entered into heaven itself.’ Had he purified the things only on the earth, he could have entered only into an earthly sanctuary, as did the high priest of old. But he is entered, as the apostle now declares, into heaven itself; which, in the gracious presence of God therein, is the spring and center of all the things purified by his sacrifice. Hebrews 9:24.— ΟὐγὰρεἰςχειροποίηταἅγιαεἰσῆλθενὁΧριστὸς, ἀντίτυπατῶνἀληθινῶν, ἀλλ᾿εἰςαὐτὸντὸνοὐρανὸννῦνἐμρανισθῆναιτῷπροσώπῳτοῦΘεοῦὑπὲρἡμῶν.Εἰςἄγια. Syr., μְ ?αֵ ?ιϊξַ ?χְ ?γְ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ, “into the house of the sanctuary.” “Sancta;” “sacrarium;” “sanctuarium;” “sancta sanctorum;” “the most holy place.” Χειροποίητα. “Manufacta;” “manibus exstructa;” “built with hands.” ᾿Αντίτυπατῶνἀληθινῶν. Syr., γִּ ?ΰιϊַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιγְּ ?ξεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰγְּ ?δָ ?εωַׁ ?ιִ ?ιψָ ?ΰ, “which is the similitude of that which is true.” Vulg., “exemplaria verorum;” “exemplar respondens veris illis;” “an example answering unto the true,” a “resemblance of the true.” Τῷπροσώπῳ. Syr.,χְ ?γָ ?ντַ ?ψְ ?φελֵּ ?δּ, “before the face;” “faciei,” “vultui,” “conspectui;” “in the presence.”Hebrews 9:24. — For Christ is not entered into the holy places [the sanctuary] made with hands, the figures of the true; but into heaven itself; now to appear in the presence of God for us. There is in the words a dissimilitude between the Lord Christ and the priests of the law, or an opposition between what was done by the one and the other. And one branch of the antithesis, as unto affirmation on the one hand, is included in the negation on the other; for in that he says, “He is not entered into the holy places made with hands,” it is affirmed that the high priest did so of old, and no more. In the words there is, 1. The subject spoken of; that is “Christ.”2. A double proposition concerning him:(1.) Negative; that “he is not entered into the holy places made with hands.”(2.) Affirmative; that he is so “into heaven itself.”3. The end of what is so affirmatively ascribed unto him; “to appear in the presence of God for us.”First, The subject spoken of is “Christ.” “Jesus,” saith the Vulgar Latin; but all Greek copies, with the Syriac, have “Christ.” From the 15th verse he had spoken indefinitely of the mediator of the new covenant, what he was to be, and what he had to do, whoever he were. This mediator and the high priest of the church are one and the same. He makes application of all he had said unto one singular person, — Christ, our high priest. Secondly, That which in general is ascribed unto him, or spoken of him, both negatively and affirmatively, is an entrance. That which was the peculiar dignity of the high priest of old, wherein the principal discharge of his duty did consist, and whereon the efficacy of his whole ministration did depend, was, that he, and he alone, did enter into the holy place, the typical representation of the presence of God. Wherefore such an entrance must our high priest have, after he had offered himself once for all.This entrance of our high priest, as unto the place whereinto he entered, is expressed: First negatively: “Not into the holy places made with hands.” The place intended is the sanctuary, or most holy place in the tabernacle. It is here expressed in the plural number, to answer the Hebrew δַ ?χָּ ?γָ ?ωִׁ ?ινχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ; for so the LXX. render their reduplications wherewith they supply their want of superlatives. These holy places Christ entered not into. A double description is here given of this place; 1. As unto its nature; 2. As unto its use: —1. As unto its nature, it was “made with hands,” built by the hands of men. The manner of this building was part of its glory; for it relates unto the framing and erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness. And as this was wholly directed by God himself, so he endowed them in an extraordinary manner with singular skill and wisdom by whom the work was wrought. But as unto the thing itself, it is a diminution from its glory, not absolutely, but comparatively; — yet was still made by the hands of men, and so had no glory in comparison of that which doth excel, namely, “heaven itself.”2. As unto the use of these “holies,” they were ἀντίτυπατῶνἀληθινῶν. ᾿Αντίτυπον is sometimes used for πρᾶγμαἀντὶτοῦτὺπου, — “that which is signified by the type;” and this we commonly call the antitype. So is the word used by the apostle Peter, 1 Peter 3:21; — the substance of what is typified. Sometimes it is used for τύποςἀντιτοῦπράγματος, — “the type and resemblance of the thing signified.” So is it here used, and well rendered “figures. And what the apostle calls ὑποδείγματα in the foregoing verse, he here calls ἀντίτυπα. They are therefore the same; only they express different respects and notions of the same things. As the delineation and representation of heavenly things in them were obscure and dark, they were ὑποδείγματα, “similitudes,” resemblances of heavenly things; as that representation which they had and made of them was a transcript from the original pattern and idea in the mind of God, and showed unto Moses in the mount, they were ἀντίτυπα, or express “figures.”And they were thus “figures of the true;” that is, the true holies. “True” in these expressions is opposed unto shadowy and typical, not unto that which is false or adulterated. So John 1:17-18, “real,” “substantial;” the things originally signified in all these institutions.This is a brief description of the place whereinto the high priest under the law did enter, wherein his great privilege did consist, and whereon the efficacy of all his other administrations did depend. And it is described, 1. With respect unto its institution; it was “the most holy place,” peculiarly dedicated unto the reception of the especial pledges of the presence of God.2. As unto its fabric; it was “made with hands;” though of an excellent structure, directed by God himself, and framed by his especial command, yet was it in itself no more but the work of men’s hands.3. As unto its principal end and use; it was a “figure” and “resemblance” of heavenly things.” All God’s appointments in his service have their proper season, beauty, glory, and use; which are all, given them by his appointment. Even the things that were made with men’s hands had so, whilst they had the force of a divine institution. To enter into the presence of God, represented by the typical pledges of it in this place, was the height of what the high priest under the law attained unto. And this he did on the ground of the dedication and purification of the tabernacle by the blood of the sacrifices of goats and calves. And it may be said, ‘If the Lord Jesus Christ be the high priest of the church, hither or into this place he ought to have entered.’I answer, He ought indeed so to have done, if by his sacrifice he had purified only earthly things; but whereas he had no such design, nor were the temporal things of the whole creation worth the purification with one drop of his blood, but they were things spiritual and heavenly that were purified by his sacrifice, he was not to “enter into the holy places made with hands, the figures of the true, but into heaven itself.” Secondly, In opposition unto what is denied of him, and which is therein ascribed unto the high priest of the law, the place whereinto he did enter is called “heaven itself.” The entrance spoken of was sacerdotal, not triumphant and regal, as I have elsewhere declared. And by this “heaven itself,” a peculiar place is intended. The apostle hath in several places affirmed that in his ascension he “passed through the heavens,” and “was made higher than the heavens.” Wherefore by this “heaven itself,” some place that is called so by the way of eminency is intended. This in the Scripture is sometimes called “the heaven of heavens,” and “the third heaven;” the place of the peculiar residence of the presence, majesty, and glory of God, and of his throne; where all the blessed saints enjoy his presence, and all his holy angels minister unto him; — a place above all these aspect-able heavens, the heavens which we do behold. The entrance of Christ into heaven as our high priest was into it as the temple of God; wherein the chief thing considerable is the throne of grace. For it is that which answers unto and was signified by the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place in the tabernacle: and there was nothing therein but the ark and the mercy-seat, with the cherubim of glory overshadowing them; which, as we have declared, was a representation of a throne of grace. He entered likewise into heaven triumphantly, as, it was the palace of God, the throne of the great King, and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; but this he did with respect unto the execution of his kingly office with authority and power For as the offices of Christ are distinct, and their exercise is so also, so heaven itself, wherein he now dischargeth them all, is proposed unto us under diverse considerations, distinctly answering unto the work that the Lord Christ hath yet to perform therein. Obs. 1. And this serves unto the direction and encouragement of faith. — When we apply ourselves unto Christ to seek for aid for the subduing and destruction of our spiritual adversaries by his ruling power, — that mighty power “whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself,” — we consider him on the throne of majesty, in the full possession of “all power in heaven and in earth.” Hereby is faith both encouraged and directed in its acting or approach unto him. And when we go unto him for relief under our temptations, with a sense of the guilt of sin, which requires tenderness and compassion, we consider him as in the temple of God, appearing as our high priest before the throne of grace, Hebrews 4:14-16.Obs. 2. This representation is the spring of all spiritual consolation. — God on a throne of grace, the Lord Christ before it in the exercise of his office with faithfulness, compassion, and power, is the spring and center of all the comforts of the church. Schlichtingius affirms on this place, that these things are spoken of Christ only in “a neat and handsome metaphor, under which he is compared unto the priests of old.” And the whole of his discourse tends unto this, that it is a comparison framed or coined by the apostle for the illustration of what he intends. But this is not to interpret the meaning of his words, but directly to oppose his whole design. For it is not a fancied, framed comparison that the apostle insists on, but a declaration of the typical significancy of legal institutions; and his purpose is to manifest the accomplishment of them all in Christ alone. Thirdly. The end of this sacerdotal entrance of Christ into heaven is expressed: “Now to appear in the presence of God for us.”A further degree of opposition between our high priest and those of the law is expressed in these words. They entered into the holy place, to appear for the people, and to present their supplications unto God; but this was only in an earthly tabernacle, and that before a material ark and mercy- seat. In what is here ascribed unto Christ there are many differences from what was so done by them. 1. In the time of what he did or doth; νῦν, “now,” — at this present season, and always. What those others did was of no continuance; but this “NOW” is expressive of the whole season and duration of time from the entrance of Christ into heaven unto the consummation of all things. So he declares it in the next verse. He never departs out of the sanctuary to prepare for a new sacrifice, as they did of old. There is no moment of time, wherein it may not be said, ‘He now appeareth for us.’2. In the end of his entrance into this heavenly sanctuary; ἐμφανισθῆναι, — that is, εἰςτό; “to appear.” Absolutely his entrance into heaven had other ends, but this is the only end of his entering into heaven as God’s temple, the seat of the throne of grace, as our high priest. And the whole discharge of the remaining duties of his sacerdotal office are comprised in this word, as we shall immediately demonstrate.3. In that he doth thus appear τῷπροσώπῳτοῦΘεοῦ, — “vultui,” “conspectui,” “faciei Dei;” that is, the immediate presence of God, in opposition unto the typical symbols of it in the tabernacle, before which the high priest presented himself. The high priest appeared before the ark, the cherubim and mercy-seat, composed into the form of a throne: Christ enters into the real presence of God, standing in his sight, before his face; and this expresseth his full assurance of his success in his undertaking, and his full discharge from that charge of the guilt of sin which he underwent Had he not made an end of it, had he not absolutely been freed from it, he could not have thus appeared with confidence and boldness in the presence of God. 4. This is said to be done ὑπὲρἡμῶν, — “for us.” This refers only to “appear,” — to appear for us; that is, as we shall see, to do all things with God for us at the throne of grace, that we may be saved. The words being opened, the nature of the thing itself, namely, of the present appearance of Christ in heaven, must be further inquired into. And it may be declared in the ensuing observations: — 1. It is an act of his sacerdotal office. Not only he who is our high priest doth so appear, but he so doth as the high priest of the church. For such was the duty of the high priest under the law, whereby it was typified and represented. His entrance into the holy place, and presentation of himself before the mercy-seat, was in the discharge of his office, and he did it by virtue thereof. And this is one principal foundation of the church’s comfort, namely, that the present appearance of Christ in the presence of God is a part of his office, a duty in the discharge of it.2. It is such an act and duty of our high priest as supposeth the offering of himself a sacrifice for sin antecedently thereunto; for it was with the blood of the expiatory sacrifices offered before on the altar that the high priest entered into the holy place. It hath therefore regard unto his antecedent sacrifice, or his offering himself in his death and blood-shedding unto God. Without a supposition hereof he could not, as our high priest, have entered into the sanctuary and have appeared in the presence of God. Wherefore, — 3. It supposeth the accomplishment of the work of the redemption of the church. His words in this appearance before God are expressed, John 17:4, “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do; and now I come unto thee.” He was sent of God into the world on this great errand, for this great work; and he returned not unto him, he appeared not in the presence of him that sent him, until he had fulfilled it, and was ready in all things to give an account of it unto the eternal glory of God. 4. In this his appearance he presents himself unto God as a Lamb that had been slain, Revelation 5:6. He is now alive, and lives for ever. But there must, as unto efficacy in this appearance, be a representation of his sacrifice, his suffering, his death, his blood, — of himself as a Lamb slain and offered unto God. And this was to be so in answer unto the blood of the expiatory sacrifice which the high priest carried into the holy place. For he was himself both the priest and the sacrifice, the offerer and the lamb. And as that blood was sprinkled before the ark and the mercy-seat, to apply the atonement made unto all the sacred pledges of God’s presence and good-will; so from this representation of the offering of Christ, of himself as “a Lamb that had been slain,” in this his appearance before God, doth all the application of its benefits unto the church proceed. 5. He thus appears for us. He is therein, therefore, the great representative of the church, or he represents the whole church of his redeemed unto God. There is more in it than merely for our good. It is as it were the appearance of an advocate, a law-appearance in the behalf of others. So is it declared 1 John 2:1-2. He will at the end of all present his whole church unto God, with the whole work of his love and grace accomplished towards them. He first so presents it unto himself, and then to God, Ephesians 5:26-27. Now he presents them as the portion given unto him of God out of fallen mankind to be redeemed and saved; saying, ‘“Behold I and the children which thou gavest me; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me.” I present them unto thy love and care, holy Father, that they may enjoy all the fruits of thine eternal love, all the benefits of my death and sacrifice.’ 6. This is the great testimony of the continuation of his love, care, and compassion towards the church, now he is in the height of his own glory. Love, care, and compassion, belong unto him in an especial manner as he is a high priest; which we have declared on many occasions. They are the spring of all his sacerdotal actings. And they are all witnessed unto in his perpetual appearance in the presence of God for us.7. This also compriseth his being an advocate. He is hereby in a continual readiness to plead our cause against all accusations, which is the especial nature of his work as an advocate; which is distinct from his intercession, whereby he procures supplies of grace and mercy for us.8. This account of the appearance of Christ before God on the throne of grace gives direction into a right apprehension of the way of the dispensation of all saving grace and mercy unto the church. The spring and fountain of it is God himself, not absolutely considered, but as on a throne of grace. Goodness, grace, love, and mercy, are natural unto him; but so also are righteousness and judgment. That he should be on a throne of grace is an act of his sovereign will and pleasure, which is the original spring of the dispensation of all grace unto the church. The procuring cause of all grace and mercy for the church, as issuing from this throne of grace, is the sacrifice of Christ, whereby atonement was made for sin, and all heavenly things purified unto their proper end. Hence he is continually represented before this throne of God, “as a Lamb that had been slain.” The actual application of all grace and mercy unto the church, and every member of it, depends on this his appearance before God, and the intercession wherewith it is accompanied. Schlichtingius grants on the place, that Christ doth indeed “solicitously take care of the salvation of the church;” but “yet God,” saith he, “doth grant it of mere mercy, without any regard unto satisfaction or merit; which,” saith he, “we exclude.” And the only reason he gives for their so doing is this, that “where there is satisfaction or merit, there is no need of oblation, appearance, or intercession.” But this fancy (opposed unto the wisdom of God in the dispensation of himself and his grace) ariseth from their corrupt notion of these things. If the oblation of Christ, with his appearance in heaven and intercession, were nothing but what they imagine them to be, — that is, his appearance in heaven with all power committed unto him, and the administration of it for our good, — his satisfaction and merit could not directly be thence proved. Yet also on the other hand are they no way disproved thereby; for they might be antecedently necessary unto the exercise of this power. But the argument is firm on the other hand. There is in the dispensation of grace and mercy respect had unto satisfaction and merit, because it is by the blood and sacrifice of Christ, as it is the design of the apostle to declare. For whereas he was therein an “offering for sin,” was “made sin for us,” and “bare our sins,” undergoing the penalty or curse of the law due unto them, which we call his satisfaction or sufferings in our stead; and whereas all that he did antecedently unto the oblation of himself for the salvation of the church, he did it in a way of obedience, unto God, by virtue of the compact or covenant between the Father and him for our salvation unto his glory, which we call his merit: unto these there is respect in the dispensation of grace, or the Lord Christ lived and died in vain. But to declare their apprehension of these things, the same author adds: “Porro in pontifice legali, apparitio distincta erat ab oblatione, licet utraque erat conjuncta et simul fieret; nempe quia alius erat pontifex, alia victima; et apparebat quidem pontifex, offerebatur autem victima, seu sanguis victimae: at nostri pontificis et oblatio et apparitio, quemadmodum et interpellatio, reipsa idem sunt; quia nimirum idem est pontifex et victima. Dum enim apparet Christus, seipsum offert; et dum seipsum offert, apparet; dum autem et offert et apparet, interpellat.” 1. It is not true that the oblation or offering of the sacrifice by the high priest, and his appearance in the holy place, “was at the same time;” for he offered his sacrifice at the altar without, and afterwards entered with the blood into the holy place.2. He grants that the blood of the sacrifice was offered; but will not allow that the blood of Christ was offered at all, nor that Christ offered himself before he had laid aside both flesh and blood, having no such thing belonging unto him.3. That the sacrifice of Christ, his oblation, appearance, and intercession, are all one and the same, and that nothing but his power and care in heaven for the salvation of the church are intended by them, is an imagination expressly contradictory unto the whole design and all the reasonings of the apostle in the context. For he carefully distinguisheth these things one from the other, showeth the different and distinct times of them under the old testament, declareth their distinct natures, acts, and effects, with the different places of their performance. Violence also is offered unto the signification of the words, and the common notion of things intended by them, to make way for this conceit. In common use and force, προσφορά or θυσία are one thing, and ἐμφανισμός and ἔντευξις are others. It is true, the Lord Christ is in him self both the priest and the sacrifice; but it doth not thence follow that his offering of himself and his appearance in the presence of God for us are the same, but only that they are the acts of the same person.This continual appearance of the Lord Christ for us, as our high priest in the presence of God, in the way explained, is the foundation of the safety of the church in all ages, and that whereon all our consolation doth depend; whence relief is derived by faith on all occasions. The consideration hereof being rightly improved will carry us through all difficulties, temptations, and trials, with safety unto the end. Οὐδ᾿ἵναπολλάκιςπροσφέρῃἐαυτὸν, ὥσπερὁἀρχιερεὺςεἰσέρχεταιεἰςτὰἅγιακατ᾿ἐνιαυτὸνἐναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ.Οὐδέ. Syr., ΰַ μָ ?ΰ, “and not also;” “neque,” “neither;” “nor yet.”῾Εαυτόν. Syr., πַ ?τְ ?ωֵׁ ?δּ, “his soul;” he made his soul an offering for sin. Πολλάκις. Syr., ζַ ?αְ ?πָ ?ϊָ ?ΰρַ ?βְּ ?ιָ ?ΰϊָ ?ΰ, “many times.” ᾿Εναἵματιἀλλοτρίῳ,. Syr., αַּ ?γְ ?ξָ ?ΰγְּ ?μָ ?ΰγִּ ?ιμֵ ?δּ, “in” or “with blood that was not his own,” properly, Heb., αְּ ?γַּ ?νΰַ ?ηֵ ?ψ, “with other blood,” or the blood of another.Hebrews 9:25. — Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others.In the foregoing verse there is an opposition in the comparison between the Lord Christ and the high priest of the law; yet is it such as hath its foundation in a similitude that is between them, and therefore respects not so much the things themselves opposed as, the manner of them. For as the Lord Christ entered not into the holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself; so the high priest had an entrance also, yet not into heaven, but into that other holy place. But in this verse there is an opposition in the comparison that hath no foundation in any similitude between them, and that is absolutely denied of Christ which belonged essentially unto the discharge of the office of the high priest of old. Many things ensued on the weakness and imperfection of the types which would not allow that there should be a perfect, complete resemblance in them of the substance itself, that all things between them should exactly answer unto one another. Hence they did at best but obscurely represent the good things to come, and in some things it was not possible but there should be a great discrepancy between them. The assertion in these words proceeds on a supposition of the duty of the high priest, which had that reason for it, as that it was absolutely necessary that our high priest should not do after the same manner. The high priest ended not his work of offering sacrifice by his entrance into the holy place with the blood of it, but he was to repeat the same sacrifice again every year. This, therefore, in correspondence with this type, might be expected from Christ also, namely, that whereas he offered himself unto God through the eternal Spirit, and afterwards entered into the holy place, or heaven itself, he should offer himself again, and so have another entrance into the presence of God. This the apostle denies him to have done; and in the next verse gives a demonstration, proving it was impossible he should so do. And hereof he gives the reason both in the remaining verses of this chapter and the beginning of the next. The repetition of the annual sacrifices under the law was mainly from hence, because they were not able perfectly to effect that which they did signify; but the one sacrifice of Christ did at once perfectly accomplish what they did represent. Herein, therefore, of necessity there was to be a difference, a dissimilitude, an opposition between what those high priests did as unto the repetition of sacrifices, and what was done by our high priest, which is expressed in this verse. The introduction of the apostle’s assertion is by the disjunctive negative, οὐδέ, “nor yet.” It answers the negative in the first part of the preceding verse: ‘He entered not into the holy place made with hands, as the high priest; nor yet did what the high priest did afterwards.’In the words themselves, there are two things: 1. What is denied of the Lord Christ. 2. The limitation of that denial unto the other part of the comparison, as unto what the high priest did: —First, It is denied of him that he did thus enter into heaven that he should offer himself often. ‘It doth not follow,’saith the apostle, ‘that because as a high priest he entered into heaven, as the high priest of the law entered into the holy place made with hands, he should therefore offer himself often, as that high priest offered every year.’It was not required of him; there was no need of it, for the reasons mentioned; it was impossible he should. For this offering of himself was not his appearance in the presence of God; but the one sacrifice of himself by death, as the apostle declares in the next verse. That he should so offer himself often, more than once, was needless, from the perfection of that one offering, — “By one offering he hath for ever perfected them that were sanctified;” and impossible, from the condition of his person, — he could not die often. What remains for the exposition of these words will be declared in the removal of those false glosses and wrestings of them whereby some endeavor to pervert them. The Socinians plead from hence that the sacrifice of Christ, or his offering of himself, is the same with his appearance in heaven and the presentation of himself in the presence of God; and they do it out of hatred unto the atonement made by his blood. For, say they, “it is here compared unto the entrance of the high priest into the holy place every year; which was only an appearance in the presence of God.” Ans. 1. There is no such comparison intended in the words. The apostle mentioning the entrance of the high priest with blood into the holy place, intends only to evince the imperfection of that service, in that after he had done so he was again to offer renewed sacrifices every year; a sufficient evidence that those sacrifices could never make them perfect who came unto God by them. With Christ it was not so, as the apostle declares. So that there is not herein a comparison between the things themselves, but an opposition between their effects.2. It is granted that the entrance of the high priest into the holy place belonged unto the complement or perfection of his service in the expiatory sacrifice. But the sacrifice itself did not consist therein. So likewise did the entrance of Christ into heaven belong unto the perfection of the effects and efficacy of his sacrifice, as unto the way of its application unto the church. So far there is a comparison in the words, and no farther.3. That the sacrifice of Christ, or his offering himself once for all, once, and not often, is the same with his continual presentation of himself in the presence of God, is both false in itself and contrary to the express design of the apostle. For, —(1.) It is θυσία, a slain or bloody sacrifice, whereof he treats, as he expressly calls it, verse 26; but there is no shedding of blood in the appearance of Christ in heaven; nor, according to these men, any such thing appertaining unto his nature.(2.) These things are distinguished in the Scripture, from their different natures and effects, 1 John 2:1-2.(3.) His sacrifice, or the offering of himself, is so affirmed to be one, as to consist in one individual act. It is not only said that it was “one offering,” but that. it was “once” only “offered,” verses 26, 28. This is no way reconcilable unto his continual appearance in the presence of God. (4.) His offering is mentioned by the apostle as that which was then past, and no more to be repeated: “He hath by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”(5.) His oblation was accompanied with, and inseparable from suffering; so he declares in the next verse, proving that he could not often offer himself, because he could not often suffer. But his presentation of himself in heaven is not only inconsistent with actual suffering, but also with any obnoxiousness thereunto. It belongs unto his state of exaltation and glory.(6.) The time of the offering of himself is limited unto the end of the world, “Now once in the end of the world,” in opposition unto the season that passed before; denoting a certain determinate season in the dispensation of times; of which afterwards.(7.) This imagination is destructive of the principal design and argument of the apostle. For he proves the imperfection of the sacrifices of the law, and their insufficiency to consummate the church, from their annual repetition; affirming, that if they could have perfected the worshippers they would have ceased to have been offered: yet was that sacrifice which he respects repeated only once a-year. But on this supposition, the sacrifice of Christ must be offered always, and never cease to be actually offered; which reflects a greater imperfection on it than was on those which were repeated only once a year. But the apostle expressly affirms that the sacrifice which could effect its end must “cease to be offered,” Hebrews 10:2. Whereas, therefore, “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” he doth not continue to offer himself; though he doth continue to appear in the presence of God to make application of the virtue of that one offering unto the church. The expositors of the Roman church do raise an objection on this place, for no other end but that they may return an answer unto it perniciously opposite unto and destructive of the truth here taught by the apostle; though some of them do acknowledge that it is capable of another answer. But this is that which they principally insist upon as needful unto their present cause. They say, therefore, “That if Christ cease to offer himself, then it seems that his sacerdotal office ceaseth also; for it belongs unto that office to offer sacrifices continually.” But there is no force in this objection; for it belonged to no priest to offer any other or any more sacrifices but what were sufficient and effectual unto the end of them and their office. And such was the one sacrifice of Christ. Besides, though it be not actually repeated, yet it is virtually applied always; and this belongs unto the present discharge of his sacerdotal office. So doth also his appearance in heaven for us, with his intercession; where he still continues in the actual exercise of his priesthood, so far as is needful or possible. But they have an answer of their own unto their own objection. They say, therefore, that “Christ continueth to offer himself every day in the sacrifice of the mass, by the hands of the priests of their church.” And, “This sacrifice of him, though it be unbloody, yet is a true, real sacrifice of Christ; the same with that which he offered on the cross.” It is better never to raise objections than thus to answer them. For this is not to expound the words, but to dispute against the doctrine of the apostle, as I shall briefly evince: — 1. That the Lord Christ hath “by the one offering of himself for ever perfected them that are sanctified,” is a fundamental article of faith. Where this is denied or overthrown, either directly or by just consequence, the church is overthrown also. But this is expressly denied in the doctrine of the frequent repetition of his sacrifice, or of the offering of himself. And there is no instance wherein the Romanists do more expressly oppose the fundamental articles of religion.2. The repetition of sacrifices arose solely from their imperfection, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 10:1-2. And if it undeniably proved an imperfection in the sacrifices of the law that they were repeated once every year, in one place only, how great must the imperfection of the sacrifice of Christ be esteemed, if it be not effectual to take away sin and perfect them that are sanctified unless it be repeated every day, and that, it may be, in a thousand places!3. To say that Christ offereth himself often, is expressly and in terms contradictory to the assertion of the apostle. Whatever, therefore, they may apprehend of the offering of him by their priests, yet most certain it is that he doth not every day offer himself. But as the faith of the church is concerned in no offering of Christ but that which he offered himself, of himself, by the eternal Spirit, once for all, so the pretense to offer him often by the priests is highly sacrilegious.4. The infinite actings of the divine nature in supporting and influencing of the human, the inexpressible operation of the Holy Ghost in him unto such a peculiar acting of all grace, especially of zeal unto the glory of God and compassion for the souls of men, as are inimitable unto the whole creation, were required unto the offering of himself a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savor unto God. And how can a poor sinful mortal man, such as are the best of their priests, pretend to offer the same sacrifice unto God? 5. An unbloody sacrifice is,(1.) A contradiction in itself. Θυσία, which is the only sacrifice which the apostle treats of, is “victimae mactatio,” as well as “victimae mactatae oblatio.” It is a sacrifice by death, and that by blood-shedding; other θυσία there never was any.(2.) If it might be supposed, yet is it a thing altogether useless; for “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” The rule, I acknowledge, is firstly expressed with respect unto legal sacrifices and oblations: yet is it used by the apostle, by an argument drawn from the nature and end of those institutions, to prove the necessity of blood- shedding in the sacrifice of Christ himself for the remission of sin. An unbloody sacrifice for the re-minion of sin overthrows both the law and the gospel (3.) It is directly contrary unto the argument of the apostle in the next verse; wherein he proves that Christ could not offer himself often. For he doth it by affirming, that if he did so then must he “often suffer;” that is, by the effusion of his blood, which was absolutely necessary in and unto his sacrifice. Wherefore an unbloody sacrifice, which is without suffering, whatever it be, is not the sacrifice of Christ; for if he be often offered, he must often suffer, as the apostle affirms. Nor is it unto any purpose to say, that this unbloody sacrifice of the mass receiveth its virtue and efficacy from the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross, as is pleaded by the defenders of it; for the question is not what value it hath, nor whence it hath it, but whether it be the sacrifice of Christ himself or no.To sum up the substance of this whole controversy: The sacrifice or offering of Christ was, 1. By himself alone, through the eternal Spirit.2. Was of his whole human nature, as to the matter of it. He made his soul an offering for sin. 3. Was by death and blood-shedding; whereon its entire efficacy as unto atonement, reconciliation, and the sanctification of the church, do depend.4. Was once only offered, and could be so no more, from the glory of his person and the nature of the sacrifice itself.5. Was offered with such glorious internal actings of grace as no mortal creature can comprehend.6. Was accompanied with his bearing the curse of the law and the punishment due unto our sins; which were taken away thereby. And in all this the human nature was supported, sustained, and acted by the divine in the same person; which gave the whole duty its efficacy and merit.That pretended in the mass is, 1. Offered by priests, without him, or those which call themselves so; who therefore rather represent them by whom he was crucified than himself who offered himself alone. 2. Is only of bread and wine, which have nothing in them of the soul of Christ, allowing their transubstantiation. 3. Can have no influence into the remission of sins, being confessedly unbloody, whereas “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” 4. Is often offered, — that is, every day; declaring a greater imperfection in it than was in the great expiatory sacrifice of the law, which was offered only once a year.5. Requires unto it no grace in the offerer, but only an intention to do his office.6. Doth in nothing answer the curse of the law, and therefore makes no atonement. Wherefore these things are so far from being the same sacrifice, as that they are opposite, inconsistent, and the admission of the one is the destruction of the other.Some observations we may take from the text. Obs. 1. Such is the absolute perfection of the one offering of Christ, that it stands in need of, that it will admit of no repetition in any kind. Hence the apostle affirms that if it be despised or neglected, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.” There is none of any other kind, nor any repetition to be made of itself, as there was of the most solemn legal sacrifices. Neither of them is consistent with its perfection. And this absolute perfection of the one offering of Christ ariseth, 1. From the dignity of his person, Acts 20:28. There needs no newoffering after that, wherein he who offered and who was offered was God and man in one person. The repetition of this offering is inconsistent with the glory of the wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and grace of God, and would be utterly derogatory to the dignity of his person.2. From the nature of the sacrifice itself:(1.) In the internal gracious actings of his soul; He “offered himself unto God through the eternal Spirit.” Grace and obedience could never be more glorified.(2.) In the punishment he underwent, answering and taking away the whole curse of the law; any further offering for atonement is highly blasphemous.(3.) From the love of the Father unto him, and delight in him. As in his person, so in his one offering, the soul of God resteth and is well pleased.(4.) From its efficacy unto all the ends of a sacrifice. Nothing was ever designed therein but was at once accomplished by this one offering of Christ. Wherefore, —Obs. 2. This one offering of Christ is always effectual unto all the ends of it, even no less than it was in the day and hour when it was actually offered. — Therefore it needs no repetition like those of old, which could affect the conscience of a sinner only for a season, and until the incursion of some new sin. This is always fresh in the virtue of it, and needs nothing but renewed application by faith for the communication of its effects and fruits unto us. Wherefore, —Obs. 3. The great call and direction of the gospel is to guide faith, and keep it up unto this one offering of Christ, as the spring of all grace and mercy. — This is the immediate end of all its ordinances of worship. In the preaching of the word, the Lord Christ is set forth as evidently crucified before our eyes; and in the ordinance of the supper especially is it represented unto the peculiar exercise of faith. Secondly. But we must proceed to a brief exposition of the remainder of this verse. The one offering of Christ is not here proposed absolutely, but in opposition unto the high priest of the law, whose entrance into the holy place did not put an end unto his offering of sacrifices, but his whole service about them was to be annually repeated. This sacrifice of the high priest we have treated of before, and shall therefore now only open these words wherein it is expressed: —1. The person spoken of is “the high priest;” that is, any one, every one that is so, or that was so in any age of the church from the institution of that priesthood unto the expiration of it. “As the high priest;” in like manner as he did.2. It is affirmed of him, that he “entereth,” in the present tense. Some think that respect is had unto the continuance of the temple-service at that time. “He entereth;” that is, he continueth so to do. And this the apostle sometimes admits of, as Hebrews 8:4. But in this place he intends no more but the constitution of the law. ‘According unto the law, he entereth. This is that which the law requires.’And hereby, as in other instances, the apostle lays before their consideration a scheme of their ancient worship, as it was at first established, that it might be the better compared with the dispensation of the new covenant and the ministry of Christ.3. This entrance is limited unto “the holy place;” the most holy place in the tabernacle or temple, the holy place made with hands.4. There is the season of his entrance; “yearly:” once in an annual revolution, on the day fixed by the law, the tenth day of the month Tizri, or our September.5. The manner of his entrance was, “with the blood of others;” “blood that was not his own,” as the Syriac expresseth it. The blood of the sacrifice of Christ was his own. He “redeemed the church διὰτοῦἰδίουαἵματος,”Acts 20:28. Hereunto ἀλλότριον is opposed, — γַּ ?νΰַ ?ηֵ ?ψ, “other blood,” “the blood of others;” that is, the blood of bulls and goats offered in sacrifice: “in” for “cum,” say most expositors; which is not unusual. See 1 John 5:6; Genesis 32:10; Hosea 4:3. The meaning is, by virtue of the blood of others, which he carried with him into the holy place. That which is denied of Christ, the antitype, is the repetition of this service, and that because of the perfection of his sacrifice; the other being repeated because of their imperfection. And we may observe, that — Obs. 4. Whatever had the greatest glory in the old legal institutions, carried along with it the evidence of its own imperfection, compared with the thing signified in Christ and his office. — The entrance of the high priest into the holy place was the most glorious solemnity of the law; howbeit the annual repetition of it was a sufficient evidence of its imperfection, as the apostle disputes in the beginning of the next chapter. ᾿Επεὶἔδειαὐτὸνπολλάκιςπαθεῖνἀπὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου·νῦνδὲἅπαξἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων, εἰςἀθέτησινἀμαρτίαςδιὰτῆςθυσίαςαὐτοῦπεφαςέρωται.᾿Επεί is properly causal; “quia,” “quandoquidem, quoniam.” But it is generally rendered in this place by all expositors, “alioquin,” by concession, — ‘If it were so that he would offer, offer himself;’ “for otherwise.” ῎Εδει. Syr., δֲ ?εָ ?ΰηַ ?ιּ ?αָ, “he would have been a debtor;” it would have been due from him. “Oportebat,’ “oportuisset;” “he ought.” Πολλάκις. Vulg., “frequenter pati.” Others, “saepe,” “saepius passum fuisse;” “to have suffered often,” “more often,” “frequently;” that is, once every year. Syriac, γְּ ?ζַ ?αְ ?πָ ?ϊָ ?ΰρַ ?βְ ?ιָ ?ΰϊָ ?ΰ, “many times,” and not once only.᾿Ατὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου. Vulg., “aborigine mundi;” others, “a condito mundo,” “from the foundation of the world;” that is, after the entrance of sin. ᾿Επὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων. Syr., αְּ ?ηַ ?ιְ ?δֵ ?ϊּ γְּ ?ςָ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ΰ, “in the end of the world.” Vulg., “in consummatione seculorum;” “sub consummationem seculorum;” “towards the consummation of all things.” “In the fullness of time.” Εἰςἀθέτησινἁμαρτίας, “ad peccatum abolendum,” “ad abolitionem peccati.” Vulg., “ad destructionem peccati;” Rhem., “the destruction of sin.” Πεφανέρωται, “apparuit,” “patefactus est.” “He was made manifest.” Διὰτῆςθυσίαςαὑτοῦ. The Vulgar renders the words, “per hostiam suam apparuit;” which the Rhemists translate, “he hath appeared by his own host;” most absurdly, both as unto words and sense. Syr., “at one time he offered his soul by the sacrifice” or “immolation of himself.” What πεφανέρωται doth relate unto, we must inquire in the exposition of the words. [11] [11] . — From the fact that Christ has offered his own blood, it is inferred that he needed not to repeat this sacrifice; in verses 27, 28, it is inferred from the same thing that he could not repeat it. A man can offer the blood of another repeatedly; his own blood he can offer — in other words, die — only once. — Ebrard The pretense of repeating the Redeemer’s one and only offering in the sacrifice of the mass, is in most direct opposition to the doctrine of this epistle. ...... The apostle speaks of men’s dying only “once” as analogous to Christ’s having been but “once offered.” There is only one death for men on earth; and there is only one offering by Christ, and that implies his death. — Turner. — ED.Hebrews 9:26. — For then [if otherwise] must he [he ought] often [to] have suffered since [from] the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world [in the consummation of times] hath he appeared, [been made manifest,] to put away [to abolish, or for the destruction of.] sin by the sacrifice of himself. There are sundry difficulties in these words, both as to the signification and construction of them, as also as unto their sense and importance, with the nature of the argument contained in them and the things treated of. I shall not repeat the various conjectures of expositors, most of which are alien from the mind of the apostle and easy to be refuted, if that belonged any way unto the edification of the reader; but I shall only give that account of the whole and the several parts of it which, according unto the best of my understanding, doth represent the mind of the Holy Ghost with perspicuity and clearness. There are two parts of the words: 1. A reason confirming the foregoing assertion, that Christ was not often to offer himself, as the high priest did offer sacrifice every year when he entered into the holy place: “For then must he,” etc.2. A confirmation of that reason, from the nature and end of the sacrifice of Christ, as stated in matter of fact according unto the appointment of God: “But now once in the end,” etc.In the FIRST, we may consider,1. The note of connection and of the introduction of the reason insisted on. 2. The signification or sense of the words. 3. The ground and nature of the argument contained in them.First, The note of connection is ἐπεί, which we render, “for then:” ‘If it were so, namely; that Christ should often offer himself;’‘Had it been otherwise, that Christ had so offered himself:’so we observed that most translate the word by “alioquin.’Either way the intention of the apostle is expressed, which is to confirm what he had before affirmed, by the introduction of a new reason of it.Secondly, From a supposition of the contrary unto what he had affirmed, the apostle proves not only the truth but the necessity of his assertion. “For then,”1. “He must,” “he ought,” “he would have been a debtor,” as the Syriac speaks; it would have been due from him, and indispensably required of him. It would have been so “necessitate medii,” which is the greatest in divine institutions and duties. There could have been no such thing, unless that which he now infers from it be allowed, which was utterly impossible. 2. That which he ought so to have done, is “to suffer” in the offering of himself. All the sufferings of Christ, in the whole course of his humiliation and obedience, are sometimes expressed by this word, as Hebrews 5:8. But the suffering here intended is that of his death, and the shedding of his blood therein alone; that which accompanied and was inseparable from his actual sacrifice, or the mactation of himself; — ‘to have died, to have shed his blood, to have underwent the penalty and curse of the law.’3. “Often,” “frequently,” as the high priest offered sacrifice of old once every year.4. “Since,” or rather, “from the foundation of the world.” This expression is sometimes used absolutely for the original of the world in its creation, for the absolute beginning of time and all things measured by it, Ephesians 1:4; Matthew 25:34; John 17:24; 1 Peter 1:20; —sometimes for what immediately succeeded on that beginning, Matthew 13:35; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8. And it is in the latter sense that it is here used. “From the foundation of the world;” that is, from the first entrance of sin into the world, and the giving of the first promise, which was immediately after the creation of it, or its foundation and constitution in its original frame. This is the first thing on record in the Scripture. So “God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began, Luke 1:70; that is, the first revelation of God unto the church concerning the Messiah, with all that succeeded. So Christ is said to be a “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” Revelation 13:8; because of the efficacy of his sacrifice extending itself unto the first entrance of sin, and the promise thereon, immediately on the foundation of the world. Wherefore, “The foundation of the world” absolutely is in its creation. “Before the foundation of the world,” is an expression of eternity, and the counsels of God therein, Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20. “From the foundation of the world,” is mostly from the first entrance of sin, and God’s dispensation of grace in Christ thereon.Thirdly, The third thing considerable in the words is the nature and force of the argument contained in them. And it is taken from the most cogent topics; for it is founded on these evident suppositions: —1. That the suffering and offering of Christ are inseparable. For although, abstracted from the present subject-matter, suffering is one thing and offering another, yet the Lord Christ offered himself unto God in and by his suffering of death. And the reason hereof is, because he himself was both the priest and the sacrifice. The high priest of old offered often, yet never once suffered therein. For he was not the sacrifice itself. It was the lamb that was slain that suffered. Christ being both, he could not offer without suffering; no more than the high priest could offer without the suffering of the beast that was slain. And herein doth the force of the argument principally consist. For he proves that Christ did not, nor could offer himself often; not absolutely, as though the reiteration of any kind of oblation were impossible, but from the nature of his especial offering or sacrifice, which was with and by suffering, — that is, his death and blood-shedding. And this wholly explodes the Socinian imagination of the nature of the offering of Christ. For if his offering might be separated from his suffering, and were nothing but the presentation of himself in the presence of God in heaven, it might have been reiterated without any inconvenience, nor would there have been any force in the arguing of the apostle; for if his oblation be only that presentation of himself, if God had ordered that it should have been done only at certain seasons, as once every year, nothing inconvenient would have ensued. But the argument of the apostle against the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ, from the necessity of his suffering therein, is full of light and evidence; for, — (1.) It was inconsistent with the wisdom, goodness, grace, and love of God, that Christ should often suffer in that way which was necessary unto the offering of himself, namely, by his death and blood-shedding. It was not consistent with the wisdom of God to provide that as the ultimate and only effectual means of the expiation of sin which was insufficient for it; for so it would have been if the repetition of it had been necessary. Nor was it so with his unspeakable love unto his Son, namely, that he should frequently suffer an ignominious and cursed death. It is the eternal object of the admiration of men and angels, that he should do it once. Had it been done often, who could have understood the love of the Father unto the Son, and not rather have conceived that he regarded him not in comparison of the church? whereas indeed his love to him is greater than that unto all others, and the cause of it. And moreover, it would have been highly dishonorable unto the Son of God, giving an appearance that his blood was of no more value or excellency than the blood of beasts, the sacrifice whereof was often repeated. (2.) It was impossible, from the dignity of his person. Such a repetition of suffering was not consistent with the glory of his person, especially as it was necessary to be demonstrated unto the salvation of the church. That he once “emptied himself, and made himself of no reputation,” that he might be “obedient unto death, the death of the cross,” proved a stumbling-block unto the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. The faith of the church was secured by the evident demonstration of his divine glory which immediately ensued thereon. But as the frequent repetition hereof would have been utterly inconsistent with the dignity of his divine person, so the most raised faith could never have attained a prospect of his glory. (3.) It was altogether needless, and would have been useless. For, as the apostle demonstrates, “by one offering” of himself, and that once offered, “he put away sin,” and “for ever perfected them that are sanctified.”Wherefore the argument of the apostle is firm on this supposition, that if he were often to offer himself then was he often to suffer also. But that he should so do, was, as inconsistent with the wisdom of God and the dignity of his own person, so altogether needless as unto the end of his offering. And, — Obs. 1. As the sufferings of Christ were necessary unto the expiation of sin, so he suffered neither more nor oftener than was necessary.2. The argument is also built on another supposition, namely, that there was a necessity for the expiation of the sin of all that were to be saved from the foundation of the world. For otherwise it might be objected, that there was no need at all that Christ should either offer or suffer before he did so, and that now it may be yet necessary that he should often offer himself, seeing that all sins before were either punished absolutely, or their sins were expiated and themselves saved some other way. And those by whom this supposition is rejected, as it is by the Socinians, can give no color of force unto the argument of the apostle, although they invent many allusions, whereby they endeavor to give countenance unto it. But whereas he discourseth of the only way and means of the expiation of sin, to prove that it was done at once, by the one offering of Christ, which needed no repetition, he supposeth, (1.) That sin entered into the world from the foundation of it, or immediately upon its foundation, namely, in the sin and apostasy of our first parents.(2.) That notwithstanding this entrance of it, many who were sinners, as the patriarchs from the beginning, and the whole Israel of God under the old testament, had their sins expiated, pardoned, and were eternally saved.(3.) That none of the sacrifices which they offered themselves, none of the religious services which they performed,, either before or under the law, could expiate sin, or procure the pardon thereof, or consummate them in conscience before God.(4.) That all this, therefore, was effected by virtue of the sacrifice or one offering of Christ. Hence it follows unavoidably, that if the virtue of this one offering did not extend unto the taking away of all their sins, then he must often have suffered and offered from the foundation of the world, or they must all have perished, at least all but only those of that generation wherein he might have once suffered. But this he did not, he did not thus often offer himself; and therefore there was no need that he should so do, though it was necessary that the high priest under the law should repeat his every year. For if the virtue of his one offering did extend itself unto the expiation of the sins of the church from the foundation of the world, before it was offered, much more might and would it extend itself without any repetition unto the expiation of the sins of the whole church unto the end of the world, now it is actually offered. This is the true force and reason of the argument in these words, which is cogent and conclusive. And we may hence observe, that, — Obs. 2. The assured salvation of the church of old from the foundation of the world, by virtue of the one offering of Christ, is a strong confirmation of the faith of the church at present to look for and expect everlasting salvation thereby. To this end we may consider, —(1.) That their faith had all the difficulties to conflict withal that our faith is to be exercised with, and yet it carried them through them all, and was victorious. This argument, for the strengthening of our faith, the apostle insists upon in the whole 11th chapter throughout. In particular, [1. They had all the trials, afflictions, and temptations, that we have; — some of them unto such a degree as the community of believers met not withal. Yet was not their faith by any of them prevailed against. And why should we despond under the same trials? [2. They had all of them the guilt of sin, in the same or the like kind with us. Even Elijah was a man subject unto the like passions with others. Yet did not their sins hinder them from being brought unto the enjoyment of God. Nor shall ours, if we walk in the steps of their faith. [3. They had all the same enemies to conflict withal that we have. Sin, the world, and Satan, made no less opposition unto them than they do unto us. Yet were they victorious against them all. And following their example, we may look for the same success. (2.) They wanted many advantages of faith and holiness which we enjoy. For,[1. They had not a clear revelation of the nature of God’s way of salvation. This is that which gives life and vigor unto gospel-faith. Yet did they follow God through the dark representation of his mind and grace unto the eternal enjoyment of him. We cannot miss our way, unless we wilfully “neglect so great salvation.” [2. They had not such plentiful communications of the Holy Spirit as are granted under the gospel; but being faithful in that little which they received, they missed not of the reward. [3. They had not that light, those directions for the actings of faith unto consolation and assurance, with many more advantages unto all the ends of faith and obedience, which believers now enjoy; yet in this state and condition, by virtue of the one offering of Christ, they were all pardoned and eternally saved. The consideration hereof tends greatly to the confirmation of the faith of them who truly believe. , The latter part of this verse contains the confirmation of the argument proposed in the former. And it consists in a declaration of the true state, nature, efficacy, and circumstances of the one offering of Christ, now accomplished according unto the will of God. There are three things in the words: 1. An opposition unto, or a rejection of the supposition of Christ’s offering himself often since the foundation of the world.2. An assertion of the use, end, and efficacy of that offering, manifesting the uselessness of its repetition.3. The means of accomplishing that end, or whereby he came to offer himself.The opposition unto the rejected supposition is in these words, “But now once in the end of the world.” And every word hath its distinct force in the opposition: — 1. As unto the time in general: “But now.” Νῦν,” now, generally is a limitation of time unto the present season; opposed to τότε, “then.” But sometimes it is only a note of opposition, when joined with δέ, “but,” as in this place. It may be taken in either sense, or include both. In the latter, “But now,” is no more, ‘But it is not so, it is otherwise, and so declared to be; he did not offer himself often since the world began.’A limitation of time may also be included in it. ‘Now, at this time and season, it is declared that things are otherwise ordered and disposed.’This makes the opposition more emphatical. ‘Now it is, and now only, that Christ hath suffered, and not before.’2. He did this “once,” ἅπαξ; which is opposed unto πολλάκις, “often.” The apostle useth this word on this occasion, verse 28, Hebrews 10:2.1 Peter 3:18. So he doth ἐφάπαξ, “once for all,” Hebrews 10:10. He hereby confines our thoughts about the offering of Christ unto that time and action wherein he offered himself unto God in his death. He speaks of it as a thing once performed, and then past; which cannot be referred unto the continual presentation of himself in heaven. ‘Thus it is,’saith he, in matter of fact, ‘he hath not often, but once only, offered himself.’ 3. He confirms his opposition unto the rejected supposition by an especial denotation of the time when he once offered himself. He did it “in the end of the world,” — ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰώνων: in opposition unto ἀπὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου. ‘Not then, but now; not often, but once; not from the foundation of the world, but in the end of it.’ There is no question as unto the thing itself, or the time intended in this exposition. It was the time when our Lord Jesus Christ appeared in the flesh, and offered himself unto God. But why he should express that time by “the end of the world,” in the words that our Savior designeth the end of the world absolutely by, Matthew 28:20, is not so plain; for there was after this a long continuance and duration of the world to succeed, — so far as any knows, not less than what was past before it.Various are the conjectures of learned men about this expression; I shall not detain the reader with their repetition. My thoughts are determined by what I have discoursed on Hebrews 1:1-2; the exposition of which place the reader may consult on this occasion, I hope unto his satisfaction. In brief, to give a short account of what more largely I have explained and fully confirmed in the place referred unto, αἰών and αἰῶνες do answer unto the Hebrew ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν and ςָֹ ?εμξִ ?ιν. And “the world,” not absolutely with respect unto its essence or substance, but its duration and the succession of ages therein, is signifed by them. And the succession of the times of the world is considered with reference unto God’s distinction and limitation of things in his dealing with the church, called οἰκονομίατοῦπληρώματοςτῶνκαιρῶν, Ephesians 1:10. And God’s distinction of time with respect unto the dispensation of himself in his grace to the church, may be referred unto three general heads: first, the time before the law; secondly, that which was spent under the law; thirdly, that of the exhibition of Christ in the flesh, with all that doth succeed it unto the end of the world. This last season, absolutely considered, is called πλήρωματῶνκαιρῶν, “the fullness of time,” when all that God had designed in the dispensation of his grace was come unto that head and consistency wherein no alteration should be made unto the end of the world. This is that season which, with respect unto those that went before, is called συντέλειατῶναἰώνων, “the end of the world,” or the last age of the world, the consummation of the dispensation of time, no change being afterwards to be introduced, like those which were made before in the dispensation of God. This season, with respect unto the coming of Christ unto the Judaical church, is called ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊηַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, the “latter days,” or the “end of the days;” namely, of that church-state, of the dispensation of God in that season. With respect unto the whole dispensation of God in the ςεֹ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν, all the allotted ages of the church, it was the last or end of them all; it was that wherein the whole divine disposition of things had its consummation. Wherefore both the entrance and the end of this season are called by the same name, — the beginning of it here, and the end of it Matthew 28:20; for the whole is but one entire season. And the preposition ἐπὶ, in this construction with a dative case, signifies the entrance of any thing; as ἐπὶθανάτῳ is “at the approach of death” Wherefore, whatever hath been, or may be in the duration of the world afterwards, the appearance of Christ to offer himself was ἐπὶσυντελείᾳτῶναἰάνων, “in the end of the world;” that is, at the entrance of the last season of God’s dispensation of grace unto the church.‘Thus it was,’saith the apostle, ‘in matter of fact; then did Christ offer himself, and then only.’ With respect unto this season so stated, three things are affirmed of Christ in the following words: 1. What he did; “he appeared.”2. Unto what end; “to take away sin.”3. By what means; “by the sacrifice of himself.”But there is some difficulty in the distinction of these words, and so variety in their interpretation, which must be removed. For these words, διὰτῆςθυσίας, “by the sacrifice of himself,” may be referred either unto εἰςἀθέτησινἁμαρτίας, “the putting away of sin,” that goes before; or unto πεφανέρωται, “was manifest,” that follows after. In the first way the sense is, ‘He was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;’— in the latter, ‘He appeared by the sacrifice of himself to put away sin;’ which confines his appearance unto his sacrifice; which sense is expressed by the Vulgar translation, “per hostiam suam apparuit.” “He appeared by his own host,” say the Rhemists. But the former reading of the words is evidently unto the mind of the apostle; for his appearance was what he did in general with respect unto the end mentioned, and the way whereby he did it. 1. There is what he did, — ‘“he appeared,” “he was manifested.” Some say that this appearance of Christ is the same with his appearance in the presence of God for us, mentioned in the foregoing verse. But it is, as another word that is used, so another thing that is intended. That appearance was after his sacrifice, this is in order unto it; that is in heaven, this was on earth; that is still continued, this is that which was already accomplished, at the time limited by the apostle. Wherefore this “appearance,” this φανέρωσις or “manifestation” of Christ in the end of the world, is the same with his being “manifested in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16; or his coming into the world, or taking on him the seed of Abraham, to this end, that he might suffer and offer himself unto God. For what is affirmed is opposed unto what is spoken immediately before, namely, of his suffering often since the foundation of the world. This he did not do, but appeared, was manifested, (that is, in the flesh,) in the end of the world, to suffer and to expiate sin. Nor is the word ever used to express the appearance of Christ before God in heaven. His φανέρωσις is his coming into the world by his incarnation, unto the discharge of his office; his appearance before God in heaven is his ἐμφανισμός; and his illustrious appearance at the last day is his ἐπιφάνεια, though that word be used also to express his glorious manifestation by the gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10. See 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 3:8; Titus 2:13. This, therefore, is the meaning of the word: ‘Christ did not come into the world, he was not manifested in the flesh, often since the foundation of the world, that he might often suffer and offer; but he did so, he so appeared, was so manifested, in the end of the world.’2. The end of this appearance of Christ was to “put away sin.” And we must inquire both what is meant by “sin,” and what by the “putting of it away.” Wherefore by “sin,” the apostle intends the whole of its nature and effects, in its root and fruits, in its guilt, power, and punishment; sin absolutely and universally; sin as it was an apostasy from God, as it was the cause of all distance between God and us, as it was the work of the devil; sin in all that it was and all that it could effect, or all the consequents of it; sin in its whole empire and dominion, — as it entered by the fall of Adam, invaded our nature in its power, oppressed our persons with its guilt, filled the whole world with its fruits, gave existence and right unto death and hell, with power to Satan to rule in and over mankind; sin, that rendered us obnoxious unto the curse of God and eternal punishment. In the whole extent of sin, “he appeared to put it away;” — that is, with respect unto the church, that is sanctified by his blood, and dedicated unto God..᾿Αθέτησις, which we render “putting away,” is “abrogatio,” “dissolutio,” “destructio;” an “abrogation,” “disannulling,” “destroying,” “disarming.” It is the name of taking away the force, power, and obligation of a law. The power of sin, as unto all its effects and consequents, whether sinful or penal, is called its law, the “law of sin,” Romans 8:2. And of this law, as of others, there are two parts or powers: (1.) Its obligation unto punishment, after the nature of all penal laws; hence it is called “the law of death,” that whereon sinners are bound over unto eternal death. This force it borrows from its relation unto the law of God and the curse thereof.(2.) Its impelling, ruling power, subjectively in the minds of men, leading them captive into all enmity and disobedience unto God, Romans 7:23.Christ appeared to abrogate this law of sin, to deprive it of its whole power, (1.) That it should not condemn us any more, nor bind us over to punishment. This he did by making atonement for it, by the expiation of it, undergoing in his own suffering the penalty due unto it; which of necessity he was to suffer as often as he offered himself. Herein consisted the ἀθέτησις or “abrogation” of its law principally.(2.) By the destruction of its subjective power, purging our consciences from dead works, in the way that hath been declared. This was the principal end of the appearance of Christ in the world, 1 John 3:8.3. The way whereby he did this, was “by the sacrifice of himself,” — διὰτῆςθυσίαςαὐτοῦ for ἑαυτοῦ: that sacrifice wherein he both suffered and offered himself unto God. For that both are included, the opposition made unto his often suffering doth evince.This, therefore, is the design and meaning of these words: — to evidence that Christ did not offer himself unto God often, more than once, as the high priest offered every year, before his entrance into the holy place, the apostle declares the end and effect of his offering or sacrifice, which rendered the repetition of it needless. It was one, once offered, in the end of the world; nor need be offered any more, because of the total abolition and destruction of sin at once made thereby. What else concerns the things themselves spoken of will be comprised under the ensuing observations. Obs. 3. It is the prerogative of God, and the effect of his wisdom, to determine the times and seasons of the dispensation of himself and his grace unto the church. — Hereon it depended alone that Christ “appeared in the end of the world,” not sooner nor later, as to the parts of that season. Many things do evidence a condecency unto divine wisdom in the determination of that season; as, 1. He testified his displeasure against sin, in suffering the generality of mankind to lie so long under the fatal effects of their apostasy, without relief or remedy, Acts 14:16; Acts 17:30; Romans 1:21-24; Romans 1:26.2. He did it to exercise the faith of the church, called by virtue of the promise, in the expectation of its accomplishment. And by the various ways whereby God cherished their faith and hope was he glorified in all ages, Luke 1:70; Matthew 13:17; Luke 10:24; 1 Peter 1:10-11; Haggai 2:7.3. To prepare the church for the reception of him, partly by the glorious representation made of him in the tabernacle and temple with their worship, partly by the burden of legal institutions laid on them until his coming, Galatians 3:24.4. To give the world a full and sufficient trial of what might be attained towards happiness and blessedness by the excellency of all things here below. Men had time to try what was in wisdom, learning, moral virtue, power, rule, dominion, riches, arts, and whatever else is valuable unto rational natures. They were all exalted unto their height, in their possession and exercise, before the appearance of Christ; and all manifested their own insufficiency to give the least real relief unto mankind from under the fruits of their apostasy from God. See 1 Corinthians 1:5. To give time unto Satan to fix and establish his kingdom in the world, that the destruction of him and it might be the more conspicuous and glorious. These, and sundry other things of a like nature, do evince that there was a condecency unto divine wisdom in the determination of the season of the appearance of Christ in the flesh; howbeit it is ultimately to be resolved into his sovereign will and pleasure.Obs. 4. God had a design of infinite wisdom and grace in his sending of Christ, and his appearance in the world thereon, which could not be frustrated. “He appeared to put away sin.” The footsteps of divine wisdom and grace herein I have inquired into in a peculiar treatise, and shall not here insist on the same argument. [12] [12] See vol. 5 of miscellaneous works, on Justification. Obs. 5. Sin had erected a dominion, a tyranny over all men, as by a law. — Unless this law be abrogated and abolished, we can have neither deliverance nor liberty. Men generally think that they serve themselves of sin, in the accomplishment of their lusts and gratification of the flesh; but they are indeed servants of it and slaves unto it. It hath gotten a power to command their obedience unto it, and a power to bind them over to eternal death for the disobedience unto God therein. As unto what belongs unto this law and power, see my discourse of Indwelling Sin. [13] [13] See vol. 6 ibid.Obs. 6. No power of man, of any mere creature, was able to evacuate, disannul, or abolish this law of sin; for, —Obs. 7. The destruction and dissolution of this law and power of sin, was the great end of the coming of Christ for the discharge of his priestly office in the sacrifice of himself; No other way could it be effected. And, —Obs. 8. It is the glory of Christ, it is the safety of the church, that by his one offering, by the sacrifice of himself once for all, he hath abolished sin as unto the law and condemning power of it. Καὶκαθ᾿ὅσονἀπόκειταιτοῖςἀνθρώποιςἅπαξἀποθανεῖν, μετὰδὲτοῦτοκρίσοις·οἵτωκαὶὁΧριστὸςἅπαξπροσενεχθεὶςεἰςτὸπολλῶνἀνενεγκεῖνἁμαρτίας, ἐκδευτέρουχωρὶςἀμαρτίαςὀφθήσεταιτοῖςαὐτὸνἀπεκδεχομένοιςεἰςσωτηρίαν.Καὶκαθ᾿ὅσον, “et sicut,” “et quemadmodum.” ᾿Απόκειται, “statutum,” “constitutum est.” Τοῖςἀνθρώποις. Syr., μַ ?αְ ?πַ ?ιπָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ, “to the sons of men;” of Adam, all his posterity. ῎Απαξ. Syr., γַּ ?ηֲ ?γָ ?ΰζְ ?αַ ?ο, “that at one time,” “a certain appointed time.” Μετὰδὲτοῦτο. Vulg., “post hoc autem.” “Postea vero;” “and afterward.” Syr., εּ ?ξֵ ?οαָּ ?ϊַ ?ιξַ ?εְ ?ϊְ ?δεּ ?ο, “and after their death,” the death of them.So also Christ ἅπαξ. Syr., ηֲ ?γָ ?ΰζְ ?αַ ?ο, “one time,” “at one time.” Εἰςτὸἀνενεγκεῖν. Vulg., “ad exhaurienda peccata;” Rhem.,” to exhaust the sins of many;” without any sense. ᾿Αναφέρω may signify “to lift” or “bear up;” not at all “to draw out of any deep place,” though there may be something in that allusion. Syr., εְ ?αַ ?χְ ?πεּ ?ξֵ ?δּ γְּ ?αַ ?ηηֲ ?θָּ ?δֵ ?ΰ, “and in himself he slew” (or “sacrificed”) “the sins of many.” “In himself;” that is, by the sacrifice of himself he took them away. Beza, “ut in seipso attolleret multorum peccata;” that he might “lift” or” beat’up” the sins of many in himself: he took them upon himself as a burden, which he bare upon the cross; as opposed to χωρὶςἀμαρτίας, afterwards, “not burdened with sin.” Others, “ad attollendum peccata multorum in semet ipsum;” “to take up unto himself” (that is, “upon himself”) “the sins of many.”The Syriac reads the first clause, “He shall appear the second time unto the salvation of them that expect” or “look for him.” All others, “He shall appear unto” (or “be seen by”) “them that look for him, unto salvation:” unto which difference we shall speak afterwards. Hebrews 9:27-28. — And [in like manner] as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this [afterwards] the judgment: so also Christ was once offered to bear [in himself] the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation. These verses put a close unto the heavenly discourse of the apostle concerning the causes, nature, ends, and efficacy, of the sacrifice of Christ, wherewith the new covenant was dedicated and confirmed. And in the words there is a treble confirmation of that singularity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ which he had pleaded before: 1. In an elegant instructive similitude, “And as it is appointed,” etc. Hebrews 9:27. 2. In a declaration of the use and end of the offering of Christ; “He was once offered to bear the sins of many.”3. In the consequent of it; his second appearance, unto the salvation of believers, Hebrews 9:28.In the comparison, we must first consider the force of it in general, and explain the words. That, as we have observed, which the apostle designeth to confirm and illustrate, is what he had pleaded in the foregoing verses concerning the singularity and efficacy of the offering of Christ; whereon also he takes occasion to declare the blessed consequent of it. Hereof he gives an illustration, by comparing it unto what is of absolute and unavoidable necessity, so as that it cannot otherwise be, namely, the death of all the individuals of mankind by the decretory sentence of God. As they must die every one, and every one but once; so Christ was to die, to suffer, to offer himself, and that but once. The instances of those who died not after the manner of other men, as Enoch and Elijah, or those who, having died once, were raised from the dead and died again, as Lazarus, give no difficulty herein. They are instances of exemption from the common rule by mere acts of divine sovereignty; but the apostle argues from the general rule and constitution, and thereon alone the force of his comparisons doth depend, and they are not weakened by such exemptions. As this is the certain, unalterable law of human condition, that every man must die once, and but once, as unto this mortal life; so Christ was once, and but once, offered. But there is more in the words and design of the apostle than a bare similitude and illustration of what he treats of, though expositors own it not. He doth not only illustrate his former assertion by a fit comparison, but gives the reason of the one offering of Christ, from what it was necessary for and designed unto. For that he introduceth a reason for his former assertion, the causal connection, καί, doth demonstrate; especially as it is joined with καθ᾿ὅον, — that is, “in quantum,” “inasmuch as: in which sense he constantly useth that expression, Hebrews 3:3; Hebrews 7:20; Hebrews 8:6. ‘And inasmuch as it was so with mankind, it was necessary that Christ should suffer once for the expiation of sin and the salvation of sinners.’ How was it with mankind in this matter? On the account of sin they were all subject unto the law and the curse thereof. Hereof there were two parts: 1. Temporal death, to be undergone penally on the sentence of God.2. Eternal judgment, wherein they were to perish for evermore. In these things consist the effects of sin, and the curse of the law.And they were due unto all men unavoidably, to be inflicted on them by the judgment and sentence of God. ‘It is appointed, decreed, determined of God, that men, sinful men, shall once die, and after that come to judgment for their sins.’This is the sense, the sentence, the substance of the law. Under this sentence they must all perish eternally, if not divinely relieved. But inasmuch as it was thus with them, the one offering of Christ, once offered, is prepared for their relief and deliverance. And the relief is, in the infinite wisdom of God, eminently proportionate unto the evil, the remedy unto the disease. For, — 1. As man was to die once legally and penally for sin, by the sentence of the law, and no more; so Christ died, suffered, and offered once, and no more, to bear sin, to expiate it, and thereby to take away death so far as it was penal.2. As after death men must appear again the second time unto judgment, to undergo condemnation thereon; so after his once offering, to take away sin and death, Christ shall appear the second time to free us from judgment, and to bestow on us eternal salvation.In this interpretation of the words I do not exclude the use of the comparison, nor the design of the apostle to illustrate the one offering of Christ once offered by the certainty of the death of men once only; for these things do illustrate one another as so compared. But withal I judge there is more in them than a mere comparison between things no way related one to another, but only having some mutual resemblance in that they fall out but once; yea, there seems not to be much light nor any thing of argument in a comparison so arbitrarily framed. But consider these things in their mutual relation and opposition one unto the other, which are the same with that of the law and the gospel, and there is much of light and argument in the comparing of them together. For whereas the end of the death, suffering, and offering of Christ, was to take away and remove the punishment due unto sin, which consisted in this, that men should once die, and but once, and afterwards come to judgment and condemnation, according to the sentence of the law; and it was convenient unto divine wisdom that Christ for that end should die, suffer, offer once only, and afterwards bring them for whom he died unto salvation. And this is the proper sense of καθ᾿ὅσον, “in quantum,” which interpreters know not what to make of in this place, but endeavor variously to change and alter. Some pretend that some copies read καθ᾿ὅ, and one καθ᾿ὅ; which they suppose came from καθῶς. But the only reason why the word is not liked, is because the sense is not understood. Take the mind of the apostle aright, and his expression is proper unto his purpose. Wherefore there is in these verses an entire opposition and comparison between the law and the gospel; the curse due to sin, and the redemption that is by Christ Jesus. And we may observe, that — Obs. 1. God hath eminently suited our relief, the means and causes of our spiritual deliverance, unto our misery, the means and causes of it, so that his own wisdom and grace may be exalted and our faith established. — That which is here summarily represented by our apostle in this elegant antithesis, he declares at large, Romans 5., from Romans 5:12 to the end of the chapter. But we proceed with the interpretation of the words. In the first part of the antithesis and comparison, verse 27, there are three things asserted: 1. The death of men, 2. The judgment that ensues, and, 3. The cause of them both. The last is first to be explained.First, “It is appointed,” “determined,” “enacted,” “statutum est.” It is so by him who hath a sovereign power and authority in and over these things; and hath the force of an unalterable law, which none can transgress. God himself hath thus appointed it; none else can determine and dispose of these things. And the word equally respects both parts of the assertion, death and judgment. They are both equally from the constitution of God, which is the cause of them both. The Socinians do so divide these things, that one of them, namely, death, they would have to be natural; and the other, or judgment, from the constitution of God: which is not to interpret, but to contradict the words. Yea, death is that which in the first place and directly is affirmed to be the effect of this divine constitution, being spoken of as it is penal, by the curse of the law for sin; and judgment falls under the same constitution, as consequential thereunto. But if death, as they plead, be merely and only natural, they cannot refer it unto the same divine constitution with the future judgment, which is natural in no sense at all. Death was so far natural from the beginning, as that the frame and constitution of our nature were in themselves liable and subject thereunto; but that it should actually have invaded our nature unto its dissolution, without the intervention of its meritorious cause in sin, is contrary unto the original state of our relation unto God, the nature of the covenant whereby we were obliged unto obedience, — the reward promised therein, with the threatening of death in case of disobedience. Wherefore the law, statute, or constitution here related unto, is no other but that of Gen 2:17, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;” with that addition, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” Genesis 3:19. God enacted it, as an everlasting law concerning Adam and all his posterity, that they should die, and that once, as they were once taken out of the dust. But in the words of God before mentioned there are two things: 1. A penal law enacted, Genesis 2:17; 2. A judicial sentence denounced, Genesis 3:19; — not only death, but future judgment also was appointed thereby.Thus “it is appointed to men;” that is, to all men, or men indefinitely, without exception, — it is their lot and portion. It is appointed unto men, not; merely as men, but as sinners, as sinful men; for it is of sin and the effects of it, with their removal by Christ, that the apostle discourseth. It is appointed unto them “to die;” — that is, penally for sin, as death was threatened in that penal statute mentioned in the curse of the law; and death under that consideration alone is taken away by the death of Christ. The sentence of dying naturally is continued towards all; but the moral nature of dying, with the consequents of it, is removed from some by Christ. The law is not absolutely reversed; but what was formally penal in it is taken away. Observe, — Obs. 2. Death in the first constitution of it was penal. — And the entrance of it as a penalty keeps the fear of it in all living. Yea, it was by the law eternally penal. Nothing was to come after death but hell. And, —Obs. 3. It is still penal, eternally penal, unto all unbelievers. — But there are false notions of it amongst men, as there are of all other things. Some are afraid of it when the penalty is separated from it. Some, on the other hand, regardless of the penalty, look on it as a relief, and so either seek it or desire it; — unto whom it will prove only an entrance into judgment. It is the interest of all living to inquire diligently what death will be unto them.Obs. 4. The death of all is equally determined and certain in God’s constitution. It hath various ways of approach unto all individuals, — hence is it generally looked on as an accident befalling this or that man, — but the law concerning it is general and equal. The second part of the assertion is, that “after this is the judgment.” This, by the same divine, unalterable constitution, is appointed unto all. “God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness.” Death makes not an end of men, as some think, others hope, and many desire it should: “Ipsa mors nihil, et post mortem nihil.” But there is something yet remaining, which death is subservient unto. Hence it is said to be “after this.” As surely as men die, it is sure that somewhat else follows after death. This is the force of the particle δέ, “but,” — “but after it.” Now this “after” doth not denote the immediate succession, of one thing unto another; — if one go before, and the other certainly follow after, whatever length of time be interposed between them, the assertion is true and proper. Many have been long dead, probably the most that shall die, and yet judgment is not come after. But it shall come in its appointed season; and so as that nothing shall interpose between death and judgment to make any alteration in the state or condition of the persons concerned in them. The souls of them that are dead are yet alive, but are utterly incapable of any change in their condition between death and judgment. “As death leaves men, so shall judgment find them.” The second part of this penal constitution is judgment, “After death the judgment.” It is not a particular judgment on every individual person immediately on his death, although such a judgment there be, for in and by death there is a declaration made concerning the eternal condition of the deceased; but “judgment” here is opposed unto the second appearance of Christ unto the salvation of believers, which is the great or general judgment of all at the last day. Κρίσις and κρῖμα, used with respect unto this day, or taken absolutely, do signify a condemnatory sentence only.᾿Ανάστασιςκρίσεως, “the resurrection of” or “unto judgment, is opposed unto ἀνάστασιςζωῆς, “the resurrection of” or “unto life,” John 5:29. See verses 22, 24. So is it here used; “judgment,” that is, condemnation for sin, follows after death, in the righteous constitution of God, by the sentence of the law. And as Christ by his death doth not take away death absolutely, but only as it is penal; so on his second appearance, he doth not take away judgment absolutely, but only as it is a condemnatory sentence, with respect unto believers. For as we must all die, so “we must all appear before his judgment-seat,” Romans 14:10. But as he hath promised that those that believe in him “shall not see death,” for “they are passed from death unto life,” — they shall not undergo it as it is penal; so also he hath, that they “shall not come εἰςκρίσιν,” (the word here used) “into judgment,” John 5:24, — they shall be freed from the condemnatory sentence of the law. For the nature and manner of this judgment, see the exposition on Hebrews 6:1-2. This, then, is the sense of the words:‘Whereas, therefore, or inasmuch as this is the constitution of God, that man, sinful man, shall once die, and afterwards be judged, or condemned for sin:’— which would have been the event with all, had not a relief been provided, which in opposition hereunto is declared in the next verse. And no man that dies in sin shall ever escape judgment. Hebrews 9:28. — This verse gives us the relief provided in the wisdom and grace of God for and from this condition. And there is in the words,1. The redditive note of comparison and opposition, “so.”2. The subject spoken of; “the offering of Christ.”3. The end of it; “to bear the sins of many.”4. The consequent of it, which must be spoken to distinctly.First, The redditive note is οὕτω, “so,” “in like manner,” in answer unto that state of things, and for the remedy against it, in a blessed condecency unto divine wisdom, goodness, and grace.Secondly, The subject spoken of is the offering of Christ. But it is here mentioned passively; “he was offered.” Most frequently it is expressed by his offering of himself, the sacrifice he offered of himself. For as the virtue of his offering depends principally on the dignity of his person, so his human soul, his mind, will, and affections, with the fullness of the graces of the Spirit resident and acting in them, did concur unto the efficacy of his offering, and were necessary to render it an act of obedience, “a sacrifice unto God of a sweet-smelling savor,” Ephesians 5:2; yea, herein principally depended his own glory, which arose not merely from his suffering, but from his obedience therein, Philippians 2:7-11. Wherefore he is most frequently said to offer himself, 1. Because of the virtue communicated unto his offering by the dignity of his person. 2. Because he was the only priest that did offer. 3. Because his obedience therein was so acceptable unto God. 4. Because this expresseth his love unto the church. “He loved it, and gave himself for it.”But as himself offered, so his offering was himself. His whole entire human nature was that which was offered. Hence it is thus passively expressed, “Christ was offered;” that is, he was not only the priest who offered, but the sacrifice that was offered. Both were necessary, — that Christ should offer, and that Christ should be offered. And the reason why it is here so expressed, is because his offering is spoken of as it was by death and suffering. For having affirmed that if he must often offer he must often suffer, and compared his offering unto the once dying of men penally, it is plain that the offering intended is in and by suffering and death. “Christ was offered,” is the same with “Christ suffered,” “Christ died.” And this expression is utterly irreconcilable unto the Socinian notion of the oblation of Christ. For they would have it to consist in the presentation of himself in heaven, eternally free from and above all sufferings; which cannot be the sense of this expression, “Christ was offered.” The circumstance of his being thus offered is, that it was “once” only. This, joined as it is here with a word in the present tense, can signify nothing but an action or passion then past and determined. It is not any present continued action, such as is the presentation of himself in heaven, that can be signified hereby. Thirdly, The end of Christ’s being thus once offered, and which his one offering did perfectly effect, was “to bear the sins of many.” There is an antithesis between πολλῶν, “of many,” and ἀνθρώποις, “unto men,” in the verse foregoing. “Men,” expressed indefinitely in that necessary proposition, intends all men universally; nor, as we have showed, is there any exception against the rule by a few instances of exemption by the interposition of divine sovereignty. But the relief which is granted by Christ, though it be unto men indefinitely, yet it extends not to all universally, but to “many” of them only. That it doth not so extend unto all eventually, is confessed. And this expression is declarative of the intention of God, or of Christ himself in his offering. See Ephesians 5:25-26.He was thus offered for those “many,” to “bear their sins,” as we render the words. It is variously translated, as we have seen before, and various senses are sought after by expositors. Grotius wholly follows the Socinians in their endeavors to pervert the sense of this word. It is not from any difficulty in the word, but from men’s hatred unto the truth, that they put themselves on such endeavors. And this whole attempt lies in finding out one or two places where ἀναφέρω signifies “to take away;” for the various signification of a word used absolutely in any other place is sufficient for these men to confute its necessary signification in any context. But the matter is plain in itself; Christ did bear sin, or take it away, as he was offered, as he was a sacrifice for it. This is here expressly affirmed: “He was offered to bear the sins of many.” This he did as the sacrifices did of old, as unto their typical use and efficacy. A supposition hereof is the sole foundation of the whole discourse of the apostle. But they bare sin, or took away sin (not to contend about the mere signification of the word) no otherwise but by the imputation of the sin unto the beast that was sacrificed, whereon it was slain, that atonement might be made with its blood. This I have before sufficiently proved. So “Christ bare the sins of many.” And so the signification of this word is determined and limited by the apostle Peter, by whom alone it is used on the same occasion 1 Peter 2:24, ῞Οςτὰςἁμαρτίαςἡμῶναὐτὸςἀνήνεγκενἐντῷσώματιαὐτιῦἐπὶτὸξὺλος, — “Who himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” That place, compared with this, doth utterly evert the Socinian fiction of the oblation of Christ in heaven. He was offered ἀνενεγκεῖν, “to bear the sins of many.” When did he do it? how did he do it? ᾿Ανήνεγκεν, “He bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” Wherefore then he offered himself for them; and this he did in his suffering.Moreover, wherever in the Old Testament πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰis translated by ἀναφέρω in the LXX., as Numbers 14:33, Isaiah 53:12, or by φέρω, with reference unto sin, it constantly signifies to “hear the punishment of it.” Yea, it doth so when, with respect unto the event, it is rendered by ἀφαιρεῖν, as it is Leviticus 10:17. And the proper signification of the word is to be taken from the declaration of the thing signified by it. “He shall bear their iniquities,” Isaiah 53:11; — ιִ ?ρְ ?αֹּ ?μ, “bear them as a burden upon him.” He was “once offered,” so as that he suffered therein.As he suffered, he bare our iniquities; and as he was offered, be made atonement for them. And this is not opposed unto the appearance of men before God at the last day, but unto their death, which they were once to undergo. Wherefore, — Obs. 5. The ground of the expiation of sin by the offering of Christ is this, that therein he bare the guilt and punishment due unto it.Fourthly, Upon this offering of Christ the apostle supposeth what he had before declared, namely, that “he entered into heaven, to appear in the presence of God for us;” and hereon he declares what is the end of all this dispensation of God’s grace: “Unto them that look for him he shall appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation.” And he shows,1. What “de facto” Christ shall yet do: “He shall appear.”2. To whom he shall so appear: “Unto them that look, for him.”3. In what manner: “Without sin.”4. Unto what end: “Unto salvation.”5. In what order: “The second time.”1. The last thing mentioned is first expressed, and must first be explained: “The second time.” The Scripture is express unto a double appearing or coming of Christ. The first was his coming in the flesh, coming into the world, coming unto his own, — namely, to discharge the work of his mediation, especially to make atonement for sin in the sacrifice of himself, unto the accomplishment of all promises made concerning it, and all types instituted for its representation; the second is in glory, unto the judgment of all, when he shall finish and complete the eternal salvation of the church. Any other personal appearance or coming of Christ the Scripture knows not, and in this place expressly excludes any imagination of it. His first appearance is past; and appear the second time he will not until that judgment comes which follows death, and the salvation of the church shall be completed. Afterward there will be no further appearance of Christ in the discharge of his office; for “God shall be all in all.” 2. That which he affirms of him is, “He shall appear,” “he shall be seen.” There shall be a public vision and sight of him. He was seen on the earth in the days of his flesh: he is now in heaven, where no mortal eye can see him, within the veil of that glory which we cannot look into. “The heaven must receive him until the times of restitution of all things.” He can, indeed, appear unto whom he pleaseth, by an extraordinary dispensation. So he was seen of Stephen standing at the right hand of God, Acts 7:56.So he appeared unto Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:8. But as unto the state of the church in general, and in the discharge of his mediatory office, he is not seen of any. So the high priest was not seen of the people, after his entrance into the holy place, until he came forth again. Even concerning the person of Christ we live by faith, and not by sight. And, — Obs. 6. It is the great exercise of faith, to live on the invisible actings of Christ on the behalf of the church. So also the foundation of it doth consist in our infallible expectation of his second appearance, of our seeing him again, Acts 1:11. “We know that our Redeemer liveth;” and we shall see him with our eyes. Whilst he is thus invisible, the world triumpheth, as if he were not. “Where is the promise of his coming?” The faith of many is weak. They cannot live upon his invisible actings. But here is the faith and patience of the church, of all sincere believers: — in the midst of all discouragements, reproaches, temptations, sufferings, they can relieve and comfort their souls with this, that “their Redeemer liveth,” and that “he shall appear again the second time,” in his appointed season. Hence is their continual prayer, as the fruit and expression of their faith, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” The present long-continued absence of Christ in heaven is the great trial of the world. God doth give the world a trial by faith in Christ, as he gave it a trial by obedience in Adam. Faith is tried by difficulties. When Christ did appear, it was under such circumstances as turned all unbelievers from him. His state was then a state of infirmity, reproach, and suffering. He appeared in the flesh. Now he is in glory, he appeareth not. As many refused him when he appeared, because it was in outward weakness; so many refuse him now he is in glory, because he appeareth not. Faith alone can conflict with and conquer these difficulties. And it hath sufficient evidences of this return of Christ, (1.) In his faithful word of promise. The promise of his coming, recorded in the Scripture, is the ground of our faith herein.(2.) In the continual supplies of his Spirit which believers do receive. This is the great pledge of his mediatory life in heaven, of the continuance of his love and care towards the church, and consequently the great assurance of his second coming.(3.) In the daily evidences of his glorious power, put forth in eminent acts of providence for the protection, preservation, and deliverance of the church; which is an uninterrupted assurance of his future appearance. He hath determined the day and season of it; nor shall all the abuse that is made of his seeming delay in coming hasten it one moment.And he hath blessed ends of his not appearing before the appointed season, though the time seems long to the church itself: as, (1.) That the world may “fill up the measure of its iniquities,” to make way for its eternal destruction:(2.) That the whole number of the elect may be gathered in; though days of trouble are sometimes shortened for their sakes, that they may not faint after they are called, Matthew 24:22, yet are they also in general continued, that there may be time for the calling of them all:(3.) That all the graces of his people may be exercised and tried unto the utmost:(4.) That God may have his full revenue of glory from the new creation, which is the first-fruits of the whole:(5.) That all things may be ready for the glory of the great day.3. To whom shall he thus appear? Of whom shall he be thus seen? “To them that look for him.” But the Scripture is plain and express in other places that he shall appear unto all; shall be seen of all, even of his enemies, Revelation 1:7. And the work that he hath to do at his appearance requires that so it should be; for he comes to judge the world in general, and in particular to plead with ungodly men about their ungodly deeds and speeches, Jude 1:15. So therefore must and shall it be. His second illustrious appearance shall fill the whole world with the beams of it; the whole rational creation of God shall see and behold him. But the apostle treats of his appearance hero with respect unto the salvation of them unto whom he doth appear: “He shall appear unto salvation.” And this word, “unto salvation,” is capable of a double explication. For it may refer unto “them that look for him,” — “that look for him unto salvation;” that is, that look to be saved by him: or it may do so unto his appearance; “he shall appear unto the salvation of them that look for him.” The sense is good either way. This looking for the coming of Christ, — which is a description of faith by a principal effect and fruit of it, called also waiting, expecting, longing, earnest expectation, — consists in five things: (1.) Steadfast faith of his coming and appearance. This is in the foundation of Christian religion. And whatever the generality of hypocritical, nominal Christians profess, there are uncontrollable evidences and demonstrations that they believe it not.(2.) Love unto it, as that which is most desirable, which contains in it every thing wherein the soul takes delight and satisfaction: “That love his appearing,” 2 Timothy 4:8.(3.) Longing for it, or desires after it: “Even so, come, Lord Jesus;” that is, “come quickly,” Revelation 22:20. If the saints of the old testament longed after his appearance in the flesh, how shall not we do so for his appearance in glory? See Titus 2:13. “Looking for and hasting unto,” 2 Peter 3:12.(4.) Patient waiting for it, in the midst of all discouragements. These the world is filled withal; and it is the great trial of faith, Jude 1:20-21.(5.) Preparation for it, that we may be ready and meet for his reception; which is the substance of what we are taught in the parable of the virgins, Matthew 25. Unto those that thus “look for him” shall the Lord Christ “appear unto salvation.”4. The manner of his appearance is, “without sin.” This may either respect himself or the church, or both. In his first appearance in the flesh he was absolutely in himself without sin; but his great work was about sin. And in what he had to do for us he was “made sin,” “he bare our iniquities,” and was treated both by God and man as the greatest sinner. He had all the penal effects and consequents of sin upon him; all dolorous infirmities of nature, as fear, sorrow, grief, pain; all sufferings that sin deserved, that the law threatened, were in him and upon him. Nothing, as it were, appeared with him or upon him but sin; that is, the effects and consequents of it, in what he underwent for our sakes. But now he shall appear perfectly free from all these things, as a perfect conqueror over sin, in all its causes, effects, and consequents. It may respect the church. He will then have made an utter end of sin in the whole church for ever. There shall not then be the least remainder of it. All its filth, and guilt, and power; and its effects, in darkness, fear, and danger, shall be utterly abolished and done away. The guilt of sin being done withal, the whole church shall then be perfectly purified, “without spot or wrinkle,” every way glorious. Sin shall be no more. Respect may be had to both himself and the church. 5. The end of his appearance is the “salvation” of “them that look for him.” If this word relate immediately unto his appearance, the meaning is, to bestow, to collate salvation upon them, eternal salvation. If it respect them that look for him, it expresseth the qualification of their persons by the object of their faith and hope. They look for him, to be perfectly and completely saved by him. Where both senses are equally true, we need not limit the signification of the words to either of them. But we may observe, — Obs. 7. Christ’s appearance the second time, his return from heaven to complete the salvation of the church, is the great fundamental principle of our faith and hope, the great testimony we have to give against all his and our adversaries. And, —Obs. 8. Faith concerning the second coming of Christ is sufficient to support the souls of believers, and to give them satisfactory consolation in all difficulties, trials, and distresses.Obs. 9. All true believers do live in a waiting, longing expectation of the coming of Christ. It is one of the most distinguishing characters of a sincere believer so to do.Obs. 10. To such alone as so look for him will the Lord Christ appear unto salvation.Obs. 11. Then will be the great distinction among mankind, when Christ shall appear unto the everlasting confusion of some, and the eternal salvation of others; — a thing that the world loves not to hear of. Obs. 12. At the second appearance of Christ there will be an end of all the business about sin, both on his part and ours.Obs. 13. The communication of actual salvation unto all believers, unto the glory of God, is the final end of the office of Christ.ΜόνῳτῷΘεῷδόζα. THERE are two parts of this chapter. The first concerneth the necessity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ; from the beginning unto Hebrews 10:18. The other is an improvement of the doctrine of it unto faith, obedience, and perseverance; from Hebrews 10:19 to the end of the chapter. Of the first general proposition of the subject to be treated of there are two parts: 1. A demonstration of the insufficiency of legal sacrifices for the expiation of sin, Hebrews 10:1-4;2. A declaration of the necessity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ unto that end, Hebrews 10:5-18. Of this declaration there are two parts:(1.) The substitution of the sacrifice of Christ in the place and room of all legal sacrifices, because of its efficacy unto the end which they could not attain, and without which the church could not be saved, Hebrews 10:5-10.(2.) A final comparison of his priesthood and sacrifice with those of the law, and their absolute preference above them, unto Hebrews 10:18.In the first particular of the first general part, there are three things: [1. An assertion of the insufficiency of legal sacrifices unto the expiation of sin, wherein a reason of it also is included, Hebrews 10:1. [2. A confirmation of the truth of that assertion, from the consideration of the frequency of their repetition, which manifestly evidenceth that insufficiency, Hebrews 10:2-3. [3. A general reason taken from the nature of them, or the matter whereof they did consist, Hebrews 10:4. The first of these is contained in the first verse. Σκιὰνγὰρἔχωνὁνόμοςτῶνμελλόντωνἀγαθῶν, οὐκαὐτὴντὴνεἰκόνατῶνπραγμάτων, κατ᾿ἐνιαυτὸνταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαιςἅςπροσφέρουσινεἰςτὸδιηνεκὲς, οὐδέποτεδὺναταιτοὺςπροσερχομένουςτελειῶσαι.There is no difficulty in the reading, nor much difference about the translation of the words. Syr., πָ ?ξεּ ?ρָ ?ΰβֵ ?ιψθְ ?μָ ?πִ ?ιδָ ?ΰΰִ ?ιϊδֲ ?εָ ?ΰαֵ ?δ“for the law, a shadow was in it;” μָ ?ΰδֲ ?εָ ?ΰχִ ?πεּ ?ξָ ?ΰ, “not the substance itself.”Προσερχομένους, γַּ ?ξְ ?χַ ?ιְ ?αִ ?ιομְ ?δεּ ?ο, “that shall offer them.” Εἰςτὸδιηνεκές that translator omits, supposing it the same with κατ᾿ἐνιαυτόν. But it hath its own signification: “Continenter,” “in assiduum,” “in perpetuum.” “ ῎Εχων, “habens,” “obtinens,” “continens.” Αὐτὴντὴνεἰκόνα, “ipsam expressam formam,” “ipsam imaginem.” Τελειῶσαι, “sanctificare,” “perfecte sanctificare,” “perfectos facere,” Vulg. Lat.; “make perfect;” “perficere,” “confirmare;” “to perfect,” “to confirm.”Hebrews 10:1. — For the law having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto [the worshippers] perfect.There are in these words, 1. A note of inference, giving a connection unto the preceding discourse; “for.”2. The subject spoken of; “the law.”3. An ascription made unto it; it had “a shadow of good things to come.”4. A negation concerning it, derogatory unto its perfection; it had “not the very image of the things” themselves. 5. An inference or conclusion from both; “can never with those sacrifices,” etc.First, The conjunctive particle γάρ, “for,” intimates that what follows or is introduced thereby is an inference from what he had before discoursed, or a conclusion made thereon. And this is the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ. For having declared that he had perfectly expiated sin thereby, and confirmed the new covenant, he concludes from thence and proves the necessity of it, because the legal sacrifices could not effect those ends which they seemed to be appointed for. Wherefore they must be taken away, to give place unto that whereby they were perfectly accomplished. This, therefore, he now proceeds to prove. God having designed the complete consummation or sanctification of the church, that which only made a representation of it, and of the way whereby it was to be done, but could not effect it, was to be removed. For there was an appointed time wherein he would perfectly fulfill the counsel of his infinite wisdom and grace towards the church herein. And at this time, which was now come, a full, clear understanding of the insufficiency of all legal sacrifices for that end was to be given unto it. For he requires not faith and obedience in any, beyond the means of light and understanding which he affords unto them. Therefore the full revelation and demonstration hereof were reserved for this season, wherein he required express faith in the way whereby these things were effected. Secondly, The subject spoken of is ὁνόμος, the law, — ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ. That which he immediately intends is the sacrifices of the law, especially those which were offered yearly by a perpetual statute, as the words immediately following do declare. But he refers what he speaks unto the law itself, as that whereby those sacrifices were instituted, and whereon all their virtue and efficacy did depend. They had no more of the one or other but what they had by and from the law. And “the law” here, is the covenant which God made with the people at Sinai, with all the institutions of worship thereunto belonging. It is not the moral law, which originally, and as absolutely considered, had no expiatory sacrifices belonging unto it; nor is it the ceremonial law alone, whereby all the sacrifices of old were either appointed or regulated: but it is the first testament, the first covenant, as it had all the ordinances of worship annexed unto it, as it was the spring and cause of all the privileges and advantages of the church of Israel; and whereunto the moral law as given on mount Sinai, and both the ceremonial law and the judicial also did belong. This he calls “the law,” Hebrews 7:19; and the “covenant” or “testament” completely, Hebrews 9. Thirdly, Concerning this law or covenant the apostle declares two things:1. Positively, and by way of concession, it had “a shadow of good things to come;” 2. Negatively, that it had “not the very image of the things” themselves: which we must consider together, because they contribute light unto one another.These expressions are metaphorical, and have therefore given occasion unto various conjectures about the nature of the allusions in them, and their application unto the present subject-matter. I shall not trouble the reader with a repetition of them; they may be found in most commentators. I shall therefore only fix on that sense of the words which I conceive to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, giving the reasons why I conceive it so to be. Both the expressions used and the things intended in them, a “shadow,” and “the very image,” have respect unto the “good things to come.” The relation of the law unto them is that which is declared. Wherefore the true notion of what these good things to come are, will determine what it is to have a shadow of them, and not the very image of the things themselves. First, The “good things” intended may be said to be μέλλοντα, either with respect unto the law or with respect unto the gospel; and were so either when the law was given or when this epistle was written. If they were yet to come with respect unto the gospel, and were so when he wrote this epistle, they can be nothing but the good things of heaven and eternal glory. These things were then, are still, and will always be, unto the church militant on the earth, “good things to come;” and are the subject of divine promises concerning future times: “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began,” Titus 1:2. But this cannot be the sense of the words. For, — 1. The gospel itself hath not the very image of these things, and so should not herein differ from the law. For that “the very image” of these things is the things themselves shall be immediately declared.2. The apostle in this whole discourse designs to prove that the law, with all the rites of worship annexed unto it, was a type of the good things that were really and actually exhibited in and by the gospel, or by the Lord Christ himself in the discharge of his office. Wherefore they are called “good things to come” with respect unto the time of the administration of the law. They were so whilst the law or first covenant was in force, and whilst the institutions of it were continued. They had, indeed, their original in the church, or were “good things to come,” from the first promise. They were more declared so to be, and the certainty of their coming more confirmed, by the promise made unto Abraham. After these promises, and their various confirmations, the law was given unto the people. Howbeit the law did not bring in, exhibit, or make present, the good things so promised, that they should no more yet be to come. They were still “good things to come” whilst the law was in force. Nor was this absolutely denied by the Jews; nor is yet so to this day. For though they place more in the law and covenant of Sinai than God ever placed in them, yet they acknowledge that there are good ,things to come promised and fore- signified in the law, which, as they suppose, are not yet enjoyed. Such is the coming of the Messiah; in which sense they must grant that “the law had a shadow of good things to come.” Hence it is evident what are those “good things to come;” namely, Christ himself, with all the grace, and mercy, and privileges, which the church receiveth by his actual exhibition and coming in the flesh, upon the discharge of his office. For he himself firstly, principally, and evidently, was the subject of all promises; and whatever else is contained in them is but that whereof, in his person, office, and grace, he is the author and cause. Hence he was signally termed ὁὲρχόμενος, — “he who was to come,” “he that should come:” “Art thou he who is to come?” And after his actual exhibition, the denying of him to be so come is to overthrow the gospel, 1 John 4:3.And these things are called τὰἀγαθά, “these good things,”1. Because they are absolutely so, without any alloy or mixture. All other things in this world, however in some respect, and as unto some peculiar end, they may be said to be good, yet are they not so absolutely. Wherefore,2. These things only are good things: nothing is good, either in itself or unto us, without them, nor but by virtue of what it receives from them. There is nothing so but what is made so by Christ and his grace.3. They are eminently “good things;” those good things which were promised unto the church from the foundation of the world, which the prophets and wise men of old desired to see; the means of our deliverance from all the evil things which we had brought upon ourselves by our apostasy from God. These being evidently “the good things” intended, the relation of the law unto them, namely, that it had the “shadow,” but “not the very image” of them, will also be apparent, The allusion, in my judgment, unto the art of painting, wherein a shadow is first drawn, and afterwards a picture to the life, or the very image itself, hath here no place, nor doth our apostle anywhere make use of such curious similitudes taken from things artificial, and known to very few; nor would he use this among the Hebrews, who of all people were least acquainted with the art of painting. But he declares his intention in another place, where, speaking of the same things, and using some of the same words, their sense is plain and determined: Colossians 2:17, “They are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” “They are a shadow of things to come,” is the same with this, “The law hath a shadow of good things to come;” for it is the law with its ordinances and institutions of worship concerning which the apostle there discourseth, as he doth in this place. Now the “shadow” there intended by the apostle, from whence the allusion is taken, is the shadow of a body in the light or sunshine, as the antithesis declares, “But the body is of Christ.” Now such a shadow is,1. A representation of the body. Any one who beholds it, knows that it is a thing which hath no subsistence in itself, which hath no use of its own; only it represents the body, follows it in all its variations, and is inseparable from it.2. It is a just representation of the body, as unto its proportion and dimensions. The shadow of any body represents that certain individual body, and nothing else: it will add nothing unto it, nor take anything from it, but, without an accidental hinderance, is a just representation of it; much less will it give an appearance of a body of another form and shape, different from that whereof it is the shadow. 3. It is but an obscure representation of the body; so as that the principal concernments of it, especially the vigor and spirit of a living body, are not figured nor represented by it.Thus is it with the law, or the covenant of Sinai, and all the ordinances of worship wherewith it was attended, with respect unto these “good things to come.” For it must be observed, that the opposition which the apostle makes in this place is not between the law and the gospel, any otherwise but as the gospel is a full declaration of the person, offices, and grace of Christ; but it is between the sacrifices of the law and the sacrifice of Christ himself. Want of this observation hath given us mistaken interpretations of the place. This shadow of good things the law had: ἔχων, — “having it.” It obtained it, it was in it, it was inlaid in it, it was of the substance and nature of it; it contained it in all that it prescribed or appointed, some of it in one part, some in another, — the whole in the whole. It had the whole shadow, and the whole of it was this shadow. It was so, —1. Because, in the sanction, dedication, and confirmation of it, by the blood of sacrifices; in the tabernacle, with all its holy utensils; in its high priest, and all other sacred administrations; in its solemn sacrifices and services; it made a representation of good things to come. This hath been abundantly manifested and proved in the exposition of the foregoing chapter. And according unto the first property of such a shadow, without this use it had no bottom, no foundation, no excellency of its own. Take the significancy and representation of Christ, his offices and grace, out of the legal institutions, and you take from them all impressions of divine wisdom, and leave them useless things, which of themselves will vanish and disappear. And because they are no more now a shadow, they are absolutely dead and useless. 2. They were a just representation of Christ only, the second property of such a shadow. They did not signify any thing more or less but Christ himself, and what belongs unto him. He was the idea in the mind of God, when Moses was charged to make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount. And it is a blessed view of divine wisdom, when we do see and understand aright how every thing in the law belonged unto that shadow which God gave in it of the substance of his counsel in and concerning Jesus Christ.3. They were but an obscure representation of these things, which is the third property of a shadow. The glory and efficacy of these good things appeared not visible in them. God by these means designed no further revelation of them unto the church of the old testament but what was in types and figures; which gave a shadow of them, and no more.Secondly, This being granted unto the law, there is added thereunto what is denied of it, wherein the argument of the apostle doth consist. It had “not the very image of the things.” The πράγματα are the same with the τὰἀγαθὰμελλοντα before mentioned. The negation is of the same whereof the concession was made, the grant being in one sense, and the denial in another. It had not αὐτὴντὴνεἰκόνα, — “the very image” itself; — that is, it had not the things themselves; for that is intended by this “image” of them. And the reasons why I so interpret the words are these: —1. Take “the image” only for a clear, express delineation and description of the things themselves, as is generally conceived, and we invalidate the argument of the apostle. For he proves that the law by all its sacrifices could not take away sin, nor perfect the church, because it had not this image. But suppose the law to have had this full and clear description and delineation of them, were it never so lively and complete, yet could it not by its sacrifices take away sin. Nothing could do it but the very substance of the things themselves, which the law had not, nor could have.2. Where the same truth is declared, the same things are expressly called “the body,” and that “of Christ;” that is, the substance of the things themselves, and that in opposition unto “the shadow” which the law had of them, as it is here also: Colossians 2:17, “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” And we are not without cogent reasons to depart from the explication of the metaphor there given us; for these expressions are every way the same. They had not the body, which is Christ. 3. That is intended which doth completely expiate sin, which doth consummate and perfect the church; which is denied unto the law. Now this was not done by an express and clear declaration of these things, which we acknowledge to be contained in the gospel; but it was done by the things themselves, as the apostle hath proved in the foregoing chapter, and doth further confirm in this; that is, it was done by Christ alone, in the sacrifice of himself. 4. It is confessed by all that there is an εἰκὼνἀρχέτυπος, a “substantial image;” so called, not because it is a representation of what it is not, but because it is that whereof somewhat else is an image and representation, as the law in its institutions and sacrifices was of these good things. And this the apostle directs us unto by his emphatical expression, αὐτὴντὴνεἰκόνα, “ipsissimam rerum imaginem;” “the things themselves.” So it is rendered by the Syriac translation, ‘“ipsam rem,” or “ipsam substantiam;” the “substance itself.” And εἰκών is frequently used in the New Testament in this sense: Romans 1:23, ᾿Ενὁμοιώματιεἰκόνοςφθαρτοῦἀνθρώπου, — “Into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man;” that is, into the likeness of a corruptible man. The image of the man is not something distinct from him, something to represent him, but the man himself. See Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 3:10. This, therefore, is that which the apostle denies concerning the law: It had not the actual accomplishment of the promise of good things; it had not Christ exhibited in the flesh; it had not the true, real sacrifice of perfect expiation: it represented these things, it had a shadow of them, but enjoyed not, exhibited not the things themselves. Hence was its imperfection and weakness, so that by none of its sacrifices it could make the church perfect. Obs. 1. Whatever there may be in any religious institutions, and the diligent observation of them, if they come short of exhibiting Christ himself unto believers, with the benefits of his mediation, they cannot make us perfect, nor give us acceptation with God. — For,1. It was he himself in his own person that was the principal subject of all the promises of old. Hence they who lived not to enjoy his exhibition in the flesh are said to “die in faith,” but “not to receive the promise,”Hebrews 11:39. But it is through the promise that all good things are communicated unto us.2. Nothing is good or useful unto the church but through its relation unto him. So was it with the duties of religious worship under the old testament. All their use and worth lay in this, that they were shadows of him and his mediation. And that of those in the new testament is, that they are more effcacious means of his exhibition and communication unto us.3. He alone could perfectly expiate sin and consummate the state of the church by the sacrifice of himself.Fourthly, This being the state of the law, or first covenant, the apostle makes an application of it unto the question under debate in the last words of the verse: “Can never with those sacrifices, which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.” We must first speak unto the reading of the words, and then unto the sense and meaning.Expositors generally take notice that in the original there is a trajection in the words, or that they are placed out of their proper order; which translators do rectify: Κατ᾿ἐνιαυτὸνταῖςθυσίαις, — “Every year” (or “yearly”) “with the sacrifices which they offer;” for Ταῖςκατ᾿ἐνιαυτὸνθυσίαις, — “With those sacrifices which they offer year by year,” as we have rendered the words. But the apostle seems to place κατ᾿ἐνιαυτόν in the entrance of the words to signalize the annual sacrifice, which he principally intended. But there is a great difficulty in the distinction and pointing of the words that follow: εἰςτὸδιηνεκές, “in perpetuum,” “continually,” or “for ever;” that is, say some, which they were so to do indispensably by the law whilst the tabernacle or temple was standing, or those ordinances of worship were in force.But neither the signification of the word nor the use of it in this epistle will allow it in this place to belong unto the words and sentence going before; for it doth not anywhere signify a duration or continuance with a limitation. And the apostle is far from allowing an absolutely perpetual duration-unto the law and its sacrifices, were they of what use soever, especially in this place, where he is proving that they were not perpetual, nor had an efficacy to accomplish any thing perfectly; which is the other signification of the word. And it is used only in this epistle, Hebrews 7:3, in this place, and verses 12, 14, of this chapter. But in all these places it is applied only unto the office of Christ, and the efficacy of it in his personal ministry. It is of the same signification with εἰςτὸπαντελές, Hebrews 7:25, “for ever,” “to the uttermost,” “perfectly.” Wherefore that which is affirmed of Christ and his sacrifice, verses 12, 14, of the chapter, is here denied of the law. And the words should be joined with those that follow: “The law by its sacrifices could not perfect for ever” (or “unto the utmost’) “the comers thereunto.” In the words thus read there are three things: 1. The impotency of the law; Οὐδέποτεδύναται, — “It can never.”2. That with respect whereunto this impotency is charged on it; that is, “the sacrifices which it offered.”3. The effect itself denied with respect unto that impotency; which is, “to perfect for ever the comers thereunto.”1. The impotency of the law as unto the end mentioned is emphatically expressed, Οὐδέποτεδύναται, — “It can never do it:” ‘it can do it by no means, no way; it is impossible it should.’And it is thus expressed to obviate all thoughts in the minds of the Hebrews of all expectations of perfection by the law. For thus they were apt to think and hope, that, by one way and means or another, they might have acceptance with God by the law. Wherefore it was necessary thus to speak unto them who had an inveterate persuasion unto the contrary. 2. That with respect whereunto this impotency is ascribed unto the law is its “sacrifices” For from them was the perfect expiation of sin to be expected, or from nothing prescribed by the law. To deny this power unto them, is to deny it absolutely unto the whole law, and all its institutions. And these sacrifices are expressed with respect unto their nature, the time of their offering, and those by whom they were offered.(1.) For their nature, he says, Ταῖςαὐταῖςθυσίαις: “Iisdem sacrificiis;” “iis ipsis hostiis” or “sacrificiis.” Our translation rendereth not the emphasis of the expression. “lis hostiis quas quotannis, — “with the same sacrifices,” or “those sacrifices which were of the same kind and nature.” Αὐταῖς is omitted in our translation. Ταῖςθυσίαις, is “with those sacrifices;” the article being demonstrative. “The same;” — not individually the same, for they were many, and offered often, or every year, when a sacrifice was offered again materially the same; but they were of the same kind. They could not by the law offer a sacrifice of one kind one year, and a sacrifice of another the next; but the same sacrifices in their substance and essence, in their matter and manner, were annually repeated, without variation or alteration. And this the apostle urgeth, to show that there was no more in any one of them than in another; and what one could not do, could not be done by its repetition, for it was still the same. Great things were effected by these sacrifices: by them was the first covenant consecrated and confirmed; by them was atonement and expiation of sin made, — that is, typically and declaratively; by them were the priests themselves dedicated unto God; by them were the people made holy. Wherefore this impotency being ascribed unto them, it absolutely concludes unto the whole law, with all other privileges and duties of it. (2.) He describes them from the time and season of their offering. It was κατ᾿ἐνιαυτόν, “yearly, every year, year by year.” It is hence manifest what sacrifices he principally intends, namely, the anniversary sacrifices of expiation, when the high priest entered into the most holy place with blood, Leviticus 16. And he instanceth therein, not to exclude other sacrifices from the same censure, but as giving an instance for them all in that which was most solemn, had the most eminent effects, at once respecting the whole church, and that which the Jews principally trusted unto. Had he mentioned sacrifices in general, it might have been replied, that although the sacrifices which were daily offered, or those on especial occasions, might not perfect the worshippers, at least not the whole congregation, yet the church itself might be perfected by that great sacrifice which was offered yearly, with the blood whereof the high priest entered into the presence of God. Accordingly, the Jews have such a saying among them, “That on the day of expiation all Israel was made as righteous as in the day wherein man was first created.” But the apostle, applying his argument unto those sacrifices, and proving their insufficiency unto the end mentioned, leaves no reserve unto any thoughts that it might be attained by other sacrifices which were of another nature and efficacy. And besides, to give the greater cogency unto his argument, he fixeth on those sacrifices which had the least of what he proves their imperfection by. For these sacrifices were repeated only once a-year. And if this repetition of them once a-year proves them weak and imperfect, how much more were those so which were repeated every day, or week, or month! (3.) He refers unto the offerers of those sacrifices: “Which they offer,” — that is, the high priests, of whom he had treated in the foregoing chapter. And he speaks of things in the present tense. “The law cannot,” and “which they offer:” not “The law could not,” and “which they offered.” The reason hereof hath been before declared. For he sets before the Hebrews a scheme and representation of all their worship at its first institution, that they might discern the original intention of God therein. And therefore he insists only on the tabernacle, making no mention of the temple. So he states what was done at the first giving of the law, and the institution of all its ordinances of worship, as if it were now present before their eyes. And if it had not the power mentioned at their first institution, when the law was in all its vigor and glory, no accession could be made unto it by any continuance of time, any otherwise but in the false imagination of the people. 3. That which remains of the words is an account of what the law could not do or effect by its sacrifices: “It could not make the comers thereunto perfect for ever.”There are in the words, (1.) The effect denied.(2.) The persons with respect unto whom it is denied. (3.) The limitation of that denial. (1.) The effect denied; what it cannot do, is τελειῶσαι, — “dedicate,” “consummate, “consecrate,” “perfect,” “sanctify.” Of the meaning of the word in this epistle I have spoken often before. As also, I have showed at large what that τελείωσις is which God designed unto the church in this world, wherein it did consist, and how the law could not effect it. See the exposition on Hebrews 7:11. Here it is the same with τελειῶσαικατὰσυνείδησιν, Hebrews 9:9, — “perfect as pertaining unto the conscience;” which is ascribed unto the sacrifice of Christ, verse 14. Wherefore the word principally in this place respects the expiation of sin, or the taking away the guilt of it by atonement; and so the apostle expounds it in the following verses, as shall be declared.(2.) Those with respect unto whom this power is denied unto the law are προσερχόμενοι; say we, “the comers thereunto; “accedentes.” The expression is every way the same with that of Heb 9:9, Τελειῶσαικατὰσυνείδησιντὸνλατρεύσντα. Οἱλατρεύοντες and οἱπροσερχόμενοι, “the worshippers” and “the comers,” are the same, as is declared Hebrews 9:2-3; those who make use of the sacrifices of the law in the worship of God, who approach unto him by sacrifices. And they are thus expressed by Lord comers,” partly from the original direction given about the observation, and partly from the nature of the service itself. The first we have, Leviticus 1:2, ΰָ ?γָ ?νλִּ ?ιΰּ ?ιַ ?χִ ?ψִ ?ιπξִ ?λֶּ ?νχָ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?ο.The word signifies “to draw nigh,” “to come near with an oblation:’These are the “comers,” those who draw nigh with, and bring their oblations unto the altar. And such was the nature of the service itself.. It consisted in coming with their sacrifice unto the altar, with the priests approaching unto the sacrifice; in all which an access was made unto God. Howbeit the word here is of a larger signification, nor is it to be limited unto them who brought their own sacrifices, but extends unto all that came to attend unto the solemnity of them; whereby, according to God’s appointment, they had a participation in the benefit of them. For respect is had unto the anniversary sacrifice, which was not brought by any, but was provided for all. But as the priests were included in the foregoing words, “which they offer;” so by these “comers,” the people are intended, for whose benefit these sacrifices were offered. For, as was said, respect is had unto the great anniversary sacrifice, which was offered in the name and on the behalf of the whole congregation. And those, if any, might be made perfect by the sacrifices of the law, namely, those that came unto God by them, or through the use of them, according unto his institution. (3.) That wherein the law failed, as unto the appearance it made of the expiation of sin, was that it could not effect it εἰςτὸδιηνεκές, “absolutely, completely,” and “for ever.” It made an expiation, but it was temporary only, not for ever. It did so both in respect unto the consciences of the worshippers and the outward effects of its sacrifices. Their effect on the consciences of the worshippers was temporary; for a sense of sin returned on them, which forced them unto a repetition of the same sacrifices again, as the apostle declares in the next verse. And as unto the outward effects of them, they consisted in the removal of temporal punishments and judgments, which God had threatened unto the transgressors of the old covenant. This they could reach unto, but no farther. To expiate sin fully, and that with respect unto eternal punishment, so as to take away the guilt of sin from the consciences, and all punishments from the persons of men, — which is to “perfect them for ever,” which was done by the sacrifice of Christ, — this they could not do, but only represent what was to be done afterwards.If any shall think meet to retain the ordinary distinction of the words, and refer εἰςτὸδιηνεκές to what goes before, so taking the word adverbially, “they offer them year by year continually,” then the necessity of the annual repetition of those sacrifices is intended in it. This they did, and this they were to do always whilst the tabernacle was standing, or the worship of the law continued. And from the whole verse sundry things may be observed. Obs. 2. Whatever hath the least representation of Christ, or relation unto him, the obscurest way of teaching the things concerning his person and grace, whilst it is in force, hath a glory in it. — He alone in himself originally bears the whole glory of God in the worship and salvation of the church; and he gives glory unto all institutions of divine worship. The law had but a shadow of him and his office, yet was the ministration of it glorious. And much more is that of the gospel and its ordinances so, if we have faith to discern their relation unto him, and experience of his exhibition of himself and the benefits of his mediation unto us by them. Without this they have no glory, whatever order or pomp may be applied unto their outward administration. Obs. 3. Christ and his grace were the only good things, that were absolutely so, from the foundation of the world, or the giving of the first promise. — In and by them there is not only a deliverance from the curse, which made all things evil; and a restoration of all the good that was lost by sin, in a sanctified, blessed use of the creatures; but an increase and addition is made unto all that was good in the state of innocency, above what can be expressed. Those who put such a-valuation on the meaner, uncertain enjoyment of other things, as to judge them their “good things,” their “goods,” as they are commonly called, so as not to see that all which is absolutely good is to be found in him alone; much more they who seem to judge almost all things good besides, and Christ with his grace good for nothing; will be filled with the fruit of their own ways, when it is too late to change their minds.Obs. 4. There is a great difference between the shadow of good things to come, and the good things themselves actually exhibited and granted unto the church. This is the fundamental difference between the two testaments, the law and the gospel, from whence all others do arise, and whereinto they are resolved. Some, when they hear that there was justification, sanctification, and eternal life, to be obtained under the old covenant and its administrations, by virtue of the promise which they all had respect unto, are ready to think that there was no material difference between the two covenants. I have spoken at large hereunto in the eighth chapter. I shall now only say, that he who sees not, who finds not a glory, excellency, and satisfaction, producing peace, rest, and joy in his soul, from the actual exhibition of these good things, as declared and tendered in the gospel, above what might be obtained from an obscure representation of them as future, is a stranger unto gospel light and grace.Obs. 5. The principal interest and design of them that come to God, is to have assured evidence of the perfect expiation of sin. — This of old they came unto God by the sacrifices of the law for; which could only represent the way whereby it was to be done. Until assurance be given hereof, no sinner can have the least encouragement to approach unto God. For no guilty person can stand before him. Where this foundation is not laid in the soul and conscience, all attempts of access unto God are presumptuous. This, therefore, is that which the gospel in the first place proposeth unto the faith of them that do receive it. Obs. 6. What cannot be effected for the expiation of sin at once by any duty or sacrifice, cannot be effected by its reiteration or repetition. — Those generally who seek for atonement and acceptation with God by their own duties, do quickly find that no one of them will effect their desire. Wherefore they place all their confidence in the repetition and multiplication of them; what is not done at one time, they hope may be done at another; what one will not do, many shall. But after all, they find themselves mistaken. For, —Obs. 7. The repetition of the same sacrifices doth of itself demonstrate their insufficiency unto the end sought after. — Wherefore those of the Roman church who would give countenance unto the sacrifice of the mass, by affirming that it is not another sacrifice, but the very same that Christ himself offered, do prove, if the argument of the apostle here insisted on be good and cogent, an insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ for the expiation of sin; for so he affirms it is with all sacrifices that are to be repeated, whereof he esteems the repetition itself a sufficient demonstration.Obs. 8. God alone limiteth the ends and efficacy of his own institutions. — It may be said, that if these sacrifices did not make perfect them that came unto God by them, then their so coming unto him was lost labor, and to no purpose. But there were other ends and other uses of this their coming unto God, as we have declared; and unto them all they were effectual. There never was, there never shall be, any loss in what is done according unto the command of God. Other things, however we may esteem them, are but hay and stubble, which have no power or efficacy unto any spiritual ends. ᾿Επεὶἅνἐπαύσαντοπροσφερόμεναι, διὰτὸμηδεμίανἔχεινἔτισυνείδησινἁμαρτιῶντοὺςλατρεύοντας, ἅπαξκεκαθαρμένους, ἀλλ᾿ἐναὐταῖςἀνάμνηοιςἁμαρτιῶνκατ᾿ἐνιαυτόν.The Syriac translation refers that unto the persons which is affirmed of their offerings, ΰִ ?μεּ βֵּ ?ιψβָּ ?ξְ ?ιִ ?ιοηֲ ?εָ ?ε“for if they had been perfect,” or” made perfect,” — referring unto what went before, that they were not made perfect, — ξֵ ?οχεּ ?ψְ αָ ?πַ ?ιְ ?δεּ ?ολְּ ?αַ ?ψγֵּ ?ιοΰֶ ?ϊְ ?πִּ ?ιηεּ, “they would have long since ceased” or “rested from their oblations” or “offerings.” “They would have offered them no more.” And although it doth not at all express τοὺςλατρεύοντας, which follows in the verse, yet it regulates the sense of the whole by that word, as it more plainly declares in rendering the following words, γַּ ?ηֲ ?γָ ?ΰζְ ?αַ ?οΰֶ ?ϊְ ?γַ ?λִּ ?ιεμְ ?δεּ ?οξֶ ?θεּ ?μγְּ ?μָ ?ΰξֵ ?λִ ?ιμθָ ?ιְ ?ιָ ?ΰδֲ ?εָ ?ϊμְ ?δεּ ?οϊִ ?ΰψְ ?ϊְּ ?δεּ ?οαַּ ?ηֲ ?θָ ?ηֵ ?ΰμְ ?ΰִ ?ιμֵ ?ιο, “because their conscience would no more have tossed” or “disquieted them for their sins, who had at one time been purified;” which is a good exposition, though not an exact translation of the words. And so it renders the next verse, “but in these sacrifices their sins are remembered (called to mind) every year.” ᾿Επεὶἅνἐπαύσαντο. Many ancient copies add the negative, οὐκ, — ἐπεὶοὐκἅν, whereof we shall speak immediately. ᾿Επεί. Vulg., “alioquin;” and so others generally. Of the word, see Hebrews 9:26. “For if so,” ἐπαύσαντοπροςφερόμεναι, “cessassent (semel) oblata;” “they would have ceased, being once offered.” Most render the participle by the infinitive mood, “desiissent offerri,” “they would have ceased to be offered.” Τοὺςλατρεύοντας, “cultores,” “the worshippers:” “sacrificantes,” “the sacrificers,” say some, I think improperly, both as to the proper sense of the word and the things intended. The priests only properly were “sacrificantes,” but the people are here intended. Κεκαθαρμένους, (Mss., κακαθαρισμένους,) “mundati,” “purificati,” “purgati;’ “cleansed,” “purified,” “purged.” Διὰτὸμηδεμίανἔχεινἕτισυνείδησιναμ᾿αρτιῶν. “Ideo quod nullam habent ultra conscientiam peecati.” Vulg. Lat., “ideo quod,” for “propterea;” “peccati,” for “peccatorum.” “Nullorum peccatorum amplius sibi essent conscii,” Beza; “they should no more be conscious unto themselves of any sin.” The sense is given in the Syriac before mentioned. Arab., “they would have made more mention of the commemoration of sins,” with respect unto the words following. ᾿Ανάμηνσις. Syr., “but in these they remembered their sins.” “Recommemoratio,” “repetita mentio;” a calling to remembrance by acknowledgment.There is, as was observed, a different reading in the ancient copies of the first words in the second verse. The Syriac and the Vulgar Latin take no notice of the negative particle οὐκ, but read the words positively, “then would they have ceased.” Those who follow other copies take οὐκ for οὐχί, — “non” for “nonne,” and render the words interrogatively, as doth our translation; “for then would they not have ceased?” that is, they would have done so. And then ἐπεί is to be rendered adversatively, by “alioquin,” as it is by most, “for otherwise.” But it may be rendered causally, by “for then,” if an interrogation be allowed. But the sense is the same in both readings, as we shall see. [1] [1] VARIOUS READING. — Though the textus receptus omits οὐκ, it is restored in most of the critical editions. Tischendorf in its favor appeals to all the uncial Mss., by far the most of the others, most of the versions, and many fathers. This passage is one in which the A.V. differs from the textus receptus. — ED. Hebrews 10:2. — For otherwise they would have ceased to be offered; because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.The words contain a confirmation, by a new argument, of what was affirmed in the verse foregoing. And it is taken from the frequent repetition of those sacrifices. The thing to be proved is the insufficiency of the law to perfect the worshippers by its sacrifices. This he proves in the foregoing verse, from the formal cause of that insufficiency; which is, that in them all it had but “a shadow of good things to come,” and so could not effect that which was to be done only by the good things themselves. Here the same truth is proved “ab effectu,” or “a signo,” from a demonstrative sign and evidence of it in their repetition. The present argument, therefore, of the apostle is taken from a sign of the impotency and insufficiency which he had before asserted. There is, as was observed, a variety in the original copies, some having the negative particle οὐκ, others omitting it. If that note of negation be allowed, the words are to be read by way of interrogation, “Would they not have ceased to be offered?” that is, they would have done so, or, God would not have appointed the repetition of them. If it be omitted, the assertion is positive,“They would have then ceased to be offered;” there was no reason for their continuance, nor would God have appointed it. And the notes of the inference, ἐπεὶἅν, are applicable unto either reading: ‘For then in that case, on this supposition that they could perfect the worshippers, would they not (or, they would) have ceased to be offered? There would have been rest given unto them, a stop put to their offering.’That is, God would have appointed them to have been offered once, and no more. So the apostle observes signally of the sacrifice of Christ, that he “once offered” himself, that he offered “once for all;” because by one offering, and that once offered, he did perfect them that were sanctified or dedicated unto God thereby.That which the apostle designs to prove, is that they did not by their own force and efficacy for ever perfect the church, or bring it unto that state of justification, sanctification, and acceptance with God, which was designed unto it, with all the privileges and spiritual worship belonging unto that state. That this they did not do he declares in the words following, by a notable instance included in their repetition. For all means of any sort, as such, do cease when their end is attained. The continuance of their use is an evidence that the end proposed is not effected. In opposition unto this argument in general it may be said, ‘That this reiteration or repetition of them was not because they did not perfectly expiate sins, the sins of the offerers, all that they had committed and were guilty of before their offering; but because those for whom they were offered did again contract the guilt of sin, and so stood in need of a renewed expiation hereof.’ In answer unto this objection, which may be laid against the foundation of the apostle’s argument, I say there are two things in the expiation of sin: first, The effects of the sacrifice towards God, in making atonement; secondly, The application of those effects unto our consciences. The apostle treats not of the latter, or the means of the application of the effects and benefits of the expiation of sin unto our consciences, which may be many, and frequently repeated. Of this nature are still all the ordinances of the gospel; and so also are our own faith and repentance. The principal end, in particular, of that great ordinance of the supper of the Lord, which by his own command is frequently to be repeated, and ever was so in the church, is to make application unto us of the virtue and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ in his death unto our souls. For a renewed participation of the thing signified is the only use of the frequent repetition of the sign. So renewed acts of faith and repentance are continually necessary, upon the incursions of new acts of sin and defilement. But by none of these is there any atonement made for sin, or an expiation of it; only the one, the great sacrifice of atonement, is applied unto us, not to be repeated by us. But the apostle treats only of that we mentioned in the first place, the efficacy of sacrifices to make reconciliation and atonement for sin before God; which the Jews expected from them. And actings towards God need no repetition, to make application of them unto him. Wherefore God himself being the only object of sacrifices for the expiation of sin, what cannot be effected towards him and with him by one and at once, can never be done by repetition of the same. Supposing, therefore, the end of sacrifices to be the making of atonement with God for sin, and the procurement of all the privileges wherewith it is accompanied, — which was the faith of the Jews concerning them, — and the repetition of them doth invincibly prove that they could not of themselves effect what they were applied unto or used for; especially considering that this repetition of them was enjoined to be perpetual, whilst the law continued in force. If they could at any time have perfected the worshippers, they would have ceased to be offered; for unto what end should that continuance serve? To abide in a show or pretense of doing that which is done already, doth no way answer the wisdom of divine institutions. And we may see herein both the obstinacy and miserable state thereon of the present Jews. The law doth plainly declare, that without atonement by blood there is no remission of sins to be obtained. This they expect by the sacrifices of the law, and their frequent repetition; not by any thing which was more perfect, and which they did represent. But all these they have been utterly deprived of for many generations; and therefore must all of them, on their own principles, die in their sins and under the curse. The woful, superstitious follies whereby they endeavor to supply the want of those sacrifices, are nothing but so many evidences of their obstinate blindness. And it is hence also evident, that the superstition of the church of Rome in their mass, wherein they pretend to offer, and every day to repeat, a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, doth evidently demonstrate that they disbelieve the efficacy of the one sacrifice of Christ, as once offered, for the expiation of sin. For if it be so, neither can it be repeated, nor any other used for that end, if we believe the apostle. The remaining words of this verse confirm the argument insisted on, namely, that those sacrifices would have ceased to be offered if they could have made the church perfect; for, saith he, “The worshippers being once purged, they should have had no more conscience of sins.” And we must inquire, 1. Who are intended by “the worshippers.”2. What it is to be “purged.”3. What is the effect of this purging, in “having no more conscience of sins.”4. How the apostle proves his intention hereby.1. The “worshippers,” οἱλατρεύοντες, are the same with οἱπροσερχόμενοι, the “comers,” in the verse foregoing: and in neither place the priests who offered the sacrifices, but the people for whom they were offered, are intended. They it was who made use of those sacrifices for the expiation of sin.2. Concerning these persons it is supposed, that if the sacrifices of the law could make them “perfect” then would they have been” purged; wherefore καθαρίζεσθαι is the effect of τελειῶσαι, — to be “purged,” of being “made perfect.” For the apostle supposeth the negation of the latter from the negation of the former: ‘If the law did not make them perfect, then were they not purged.’This sacred καθαρισμός respects either the guilt of sin or the filth of it. The one is removed by justification, the other by sanctification. The one is the effect of the sacerdotal actings of Christ towards God in making atonement for sin; the other of the application of the virtue and efficacy of that sacrifice unto our souls and consciences, whereby they are purged, cleansed, renewed, and changed. It is the purging of the first sort that is here intended; such a purging of sin as takes away the condemning power of sin from the conscience on the account of the guilt of it. ‘If they had been purged, (as they would have been had the law made the comers unto its sacrifices perfect);’that is, if there had been a complete expiation of sin made for them.And the supposition denied hath its qualification and limitation in the word ἅπαξ, “once.” By this word he expresseth the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, which being one, at once effected what it was designed unto. And it doth not design only the doing of a thing at one time, but the so doing of it as that it should never more be done. 3. That these worshippers were not thus purged by any of the sacrifices which were offered for them the apostle proves from hence, because they had not the necessary effect and consequence of such a purification. For if they had been so purged, “they would have had no more conscience of sins;” but that they had so he proves in the next verse, from the legal recognition that was made of them every year. And if they had had no more conscience of sins, there would have been no need of offering sacrifices for their expiation any more.(1.) The introduction of the assertion is by the particles “because that;” which direct unto the argument that is in the words,’” they would have ceased to be offered,” because their end would have been accomplished, and so themselves taken away.’(2.) On the supposition made, there would have been an alteration made in the state of the worshippers. When they came unto the sacrifices, they came with conscience of sin. This is unavoidable unto a sinner before expiation and atonement be made for it. Afterwards, if they were purged, it should be so no more with them; they should no more have conscience of sin. “They should no more have conscience of sins;” or rather, “they should not any more” (or “further”) “have any conscience of sins; or, “they should have no conscience of sins any more.” The meaning of the word is singularly well expressed in the Syriac translation: “They should have no conscience agitating, tossing, disquieting, perplexing for sins;” no conscience judging and condemning their persons for the guilt of sin, so depriving them of solid peace with God. It is conscience with respect unto the guilt of sin, as it binds over the sinner unto punishment in the judgment of God. Now this is not to be measured by the apprehension of the sinner, but by the true causes and grounds of it. Now these lie herein alone, that sin was not perfectly expiated; for where this is not, there must be a conscience of sin, that is, disquieting, judging, condemning for sin. 4. The apostle speaks on the one side and the other of them, who were really interested in the sacrifices whereunto they might trust for the expiation of sin. The way hereof, as unto them of old, and the legal sacrifices, was the due attendance unto them, and performance of them according unto God’s institution. Hence are the persons so interested called the “comers” to them, and the “worshippers.” The way and means of our interest in the sacrifice of Christ are by faith only. In this state it often falls out that true believers have a conscience judging and condemning them for sin, no less than they had under the law; but this trouble and power of conscience doth not arise from hence, that sin is not perfectly expiated by the sacrifice of Christ, but only from an apprehension that they have not a due interest in that sacrifice and the benefits of it. Under the old testament they questioned not their due interest in their sacrifices, which depended on the performance of the rites and ordinances of service belonging unto them; but their consciences charged them with the guilt of sin, through an apprehension that their sacrifices could not perfectly expiate it. And this they found themselves led unto by God’s institution of their repetition; which had not been done if they could ever make the worshippers perfect. It is quite otherwise as unto conscience for sin remaining in believers under the new testament; for they have not the least sense of fear concerning any insufficiency or imperfection in the sacrifice whereby it is expiated. God hath ordered all things concerning it so as to satisfy the consciences of all men in the perfect expiation of sin by it; only they who are really purged by it may be in the dark sometimes as unto their personal interest in it. But it may be objected, ‘That if the sacrifices neither by their native efficacy, nor by the frequency of repetition, could take away sin, so as that they who came unto God by them could have peace of conscience, or be freed from the trouble of a continual condemnatory sentence in themselves, then was there no true, real peace with God under the old testament, for other way of attaining it there was none. But this is contrary unto innumerable testimonies of Scripture, and the promises of God made then unto the church.’In answer hereunto, I say, The apostle did not, nor doth in these words, declare what they did and could, or could not attain unto under the old testament; only what they could not attain by the means of their sacrifices (so he declares it in the next verse); for in them “remembrance is made of sins.” But in the use of them, and by their frequent repetition, they were taught to look continually unto the great expiatory sacrifice, whose virtue was laid up for them in the promise; whereby they had peace with God. Obs. 1. The discharge of conscience from its condemning right and power, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, is the foundation of all other privileges we receive by the gospel. Where this is not, there is no real participation of any other of them. Obs. 2. All peace with God is resolved into a purging atonement made for sin: “Being once purged.”Obs. 3. It is by a principle of gospel light alone that conscience is directed to condemn all sin, and yet to acquit all sinners that are purged. Its own natural light can give it no guidance herein.Hebrews 10:3. — But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. It is the latter part of the foregoing assertion, namely, that the worshippers were not purged or perfected by them, in that they had still remaining a conscience for sins, which is proposed unto confirmation; for this being a matter of fact might be denied by the Hebrews. Wherefore the apostle proves the truth of his assertion from an inseparable adjunct, of the yearly repetition of these sacrifices, according unto divine institution. There are four things to be opened in the words: 1. The introduction of the reason intended, by an adversative conjunction, ἀλλά, “but.”2. The subject spoken of; “those sacrifices.”3. What belonged unto them by divine institution; which is, a renewed remembrance of sin. 4. The seasons of it; it was to be made every year.1. The note of introduction gives us the nature of the argument insisted on: ‘Had the worshippers been perfect, they would have had no more conscience for sins. But,’saith he, ‘it was not so with them; for God appoints nothing in vain, yet he had not only appointed the repetition of these sacrifices, but also that in every repetition of them there should be a remembrance made of sin, as of that which was yet to be expiated.’ 2. The subject spoken of is expressed in these words, ἐναὐταῖς, “in them.” But this relative is remote from the antecedent, which is in the first verse, by the interposition of the second, wherein it is repeated. We transfer it hither from the first verse in our translation, “but in those sacrifices;” and we supply the defect of the verb substantive by “there is:” for there is no more in the original than “but in them a remembrance again of sins.” The sacrifices intended are principally those of the solemn day of expiation: for he speaks of them that were repeated yearly; that is, “once every year.” Others were repeated every day, or as often as occasion did require; these only were so yearly. And these are peculiarly fixed on, because of the peculiar solemnity of their offering, and the interest of the whole people at once in them. By these, therefore, they looked for the perfect expiation of sin. 3. That which is affirmed of these sacrifices is, their inseparable adjunct, that in them there was a “remembrance of sins again;” that is, there was so by virtue of divine institution, whereon the force of the argument doth depend. For this remembrance of sin by God’s own institution was such as sufficiently evidenced that the offerers had yet a conscience condemning them for sins. Respect is had unto the command of God unto this purpose, Leviticus 16:21-22. ᾿Ανὰμνησις is an “express remembrance,” or a remembrance expressed by confession or acknowledgment. See Genesis 41:9; Genesis 42:21. For where it respects sin, it is a recalling of it unto the sentence of the law, and a sense of punishment. See Numbers 5:15; 1 Kings 17:18. And hereby the apostle proves effectually that these sacrifices did not make the worshippers perfect; for notwithstanding their offering of them, a sense of sin still returned upon their consciences, and God himself had appointed that every year they should make such an acknowledgment and confession of sin as should manifest that they stood in need of a further expiation than could be attained by them.But a difficulty doth here arise of no small importance. For what the apostle denies unto these offerings of the law, that he ascribes unto the one only sacrifice of Christ. ‘Yet notwithstanding this sacrifice and its efficacy, it is certain that believers ought not only once a-year, but every day, to call sins to remembrance, and to make confession thereof; yea, our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath taught us to pray every day for the pardon of our sins, wherein there is a calling of them unto remembrance. It doth not, therefore, appear wherein the difference lies between the efficacy of their sacrifices and that of Christ, seeing after both of them there is equally a remembrance of sin again to be made.’ Ans. The difference is evident between these things. Their confession of sin was in order unto, and preparatory for, a new atonement and expiation of it; — this sufficiently proves the insufficiency of those that were offered before; for they were to come unto the new offerings as if there had never been any before them: our remembrance of sin and confession of it respect only the application of the virtue and efficacy of the atonement once made, without the least desire or expectation of a new propitiation. In their remembrance of sin respect was had unto the curse of the law which was to be answered, and the wrath of God which was to be appeased; it belonged unto the sacrifice itself, whose object was God: ours respects only the application of the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ unto our own consciences, whereby we may have assured peace with God. The sentence or curse of the law was on them, until a new atonement was made; for the soul that did not join in the sacrifice was to be cut off: but the sentence and curse of the law was at once taken away, Ephesians 2:15-16. And we may observe, —Obs. 4. An obligation unto such ordinances of worship as could not expiate sin, nor testify that it was perfectly expiated, was part of the bondage of the church under the old testament.Obs. 5. It belongs unto the light and wisdom of faith so to remember sin, and make confession of it, as not therein or thereby to seek after a new atonement for it, which is made “once for all.” Confession of sin is no less necessary under the new testament than it was under the old; but not for the same end. And it is an eminent difference between the spirit of bondage and that of liberty by Christ: the one so confesseth sin as to make that very confession a part of atonement for it; the other is encouraged unto confession because of the atonement already made, as a means of coming unto a participation of the benefits of it. Wherefore the causes and reasons of the confession of sin under the new testament are,1. To affect our own minds and consciences with a sense of the guilt of sin in itself, so as to keep us humble and filled with self-abasement. He who hath no sense of sin but only what consists in dread of future judgment, knows little of the mystery of our walk before God, and obedience unto him, according unto the gospel.2. To engage our souls unto watchfulness for the future against the sins we do confess; for in confession we make an abrenunciation of them.3. To give unto God the glory of his righteousness, holiness, and aversation from sin. This is included in every confession we make of sin; for the reason why we acknowledge the evil of it, why we detest and abhor it, is its contrariety unto the nature, holy properties, and will of God. 4. To give unto him the glory of his infinite grace and mercy in the pardon of it.5. We use it as an instituted means to let in a sense of the pardon of sin into our own souls and consciences, through a fresh application of the sacrifice of Christ and the benefits thereof, whereunto confession of sin is required.6. To exalt Jesus Christ in our hearts, by the application of ourselves unto him, as the only procurer and purchaser of mercy and pardon; without which, confession of sin is neither acceptable unto God nor useful unto our own souls. But we do not make confession of sin as a part of a compensation for the guilt of it; nor as a means to give some present pacification unto conscience, that we may go on in sin, as the manner of some is. ᾿Αδύνατονγὰραἷματαύρωνκαὶτράγωνἀφαιρεῖνἁμαρτίας. There is no difficulty in the words, and very little difference in the translations of them. The Vulgar renders ἀφαιρεῖν by the passive: “Impossibile est enim sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata,” — “It is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats.” The Syriac renders ἀφαιρεῖν by ξַ ?γֵ ?κְ, which is to “purge” or “cleanse,” unto the same purpose.Hebrews 10:4. — For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.This is the last determinate resolution of the apostle concerning the insufficiency of the law and its sacrifices for the expiation of sin, and the perfecting of them who come unto God, as unto their consciences. And there is in the argument used unto this end an inference from what was spoken before, and a new enforcement from the nature or subject-matter of these sacrifices. Something must be observed concerning this assertion in general, and an objection that it is liable unto. For by “the blood of bulls and goats,” he intends all the sacrifices of the law. Now if it be impossible that they should take away sin, for what end then were they appointed? especially considering that, in the institution of them, God told the church that he had given the blood to make atonement on the altar, Leviticus 17:11. It may therefore be said, — as the apostle doth in another place with respect unto the law itself, ‘If it could not by the works of it justify us before God, to what end then served the law?’— To what end served these sacrifices, if they could not take away sin? The answer which the apostle gives with respect unto the law in general may be applied unto the sacrifices of it, with a small addition from a respect unto their special nature. For as unto the law, he answers two things: 1. That it was “added because of transgressions,” Galatians 3:19. 2. That it was “a schoolmaster to guide and direct us unto Christ,” because of the severities wherewith it was accompanied, like those of a schoolmaster; not in the spirit of a tender father. And thus it was as unto the end of these sacrifices. 1. They were added unto the promise because of transgressions. For God in them and by them did continually represent unto sinners the curse and sentence of the law; namely, that the soul that sinneth must die, or that death was the wages of sin. For although there was allowed in them a commutation, that the sinner himself should not die, but the beast that was sacrificed in his stead, — which belonged unto their second end, of leading unto Christ, — yet they all testified unto that sacred truth, that it is “the judgement of God that they who commit sin are worthy of death.” And this was, as the whole law, an ordinance of God to deter men from sin, and so put bounds unto transgressions. For when God passed by sin with a kind of connivance, winking at the ignorance of men in their iniquities, not giving them continual warnings of their guilt and the consequent thereof in death, the world was filled and covered with a deluge of impieties. Men saw not judgment speedily executed, nor any tokens or indications that so it would be; therefore was their heart wholly set in them to do evil. But God dealt not thus with the church. He let no sin pass without a representation of his displeasure against it, though mixed with mercy, in a direction unto the relief against it in the blood of the sacrifice. And therefore, he did not only appoint these sacrifices on all the especial occasions of such sins and uncleannesses as the consciences of particular sinners were pressed with a sense of, but also once a-year there was gathered up a remembrance of all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the whole congregation, Leviticus 16. 2. They were added as the teaching of a schoolmaster to lead unto Christ. By them was the church taught and directed to look continually unto and after that sacrifice which alone could really purge and take away all iniquity. For God appointed no sacrifices until after the promise of sending the Seed of the woman to break the head of the serpent. In his so doing was his own heel to be bruised, in the suffering of his human nature, which he offered in sacrifice unto God; which these sacrifices did represent.Wherefore the church knowing that these sacrifices did call sin to remembrance, representing the displeasure of God against it, which was their first end; and that although there was an intimation of grace and mercy in them, by the commutation and substitution which they allowed, yet that they could not of themselves take away sin; it made them the more earnestly, and with longing desires, look after him and his sacrifice who should perfectly take away sin and make peace with God; wherein the principal exercise of grace under the old testament did consist. 3. As unto their especial nature, they were added as the great instruction in the way and manner whereby sin was to be taken away. For although this arose originally from God’s mere grace and mercy, yet was it not to be executed and accomplished by sovereign grace and power alone. Such a taking away of sin would have been inconsistent with his truth, holiness, and righteous government of mankind, as I have elsewhere at large demonstrated.[2] It must be done by the interposition of a ransom and atonement; by the substitution of one who was no sinner in the room of sinners, to make satisfaction unto the law and justice of God for sin. Hereby they became the principal direction of the faith of the saints under the old testament, and the means whereby they acted it on the original promise of their recovery from apostasy. [2] Dissertation on Divine Justice, miscellaneous works, vol. 10 p. 481. — ED. These things do evidently express the wisdom of God in their institution, although of themselves they could not take away sin. And those by whom these ends of them are denied, as they are by the Jews and Socinians, can give no account of any end of them which should answer the wisdom, grace, and holiness of God. This objection being removed, I shall proceed unto the exposition of the words in particular. And there are four things in them as a negative proposition: 1. The illative conjunction, declaring its respect unto what went before. 2. The subject-matter spoken of; “the blood of bulls and goats.”3. What is denied concerning it; “it could not take away sins.”4. The modification of this negative proposition; “it was impossible they should do so.”1. The illative cojunction, “for,” declares what is spoken to be introduced in the proof and confirmation of what was before affirmed. And it is the closing argument against the imperfection and impotency of the old covenant, the law, priesthood, and sacrifices of it, which the apostle maketh use of. And indeed it is comprehensive of all that he had before insisted on; yea, it is the foundation of all his other reasonings unto this purpose. For if in the nature of the thing itself it was impossible that the sacrifices consisting of the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, then however, whensoever, and by whomsoever they were offered, this effect could not be produced by them. Wherefore in these words the apostle puts a close unto his argument, and resumes it no more in this epistle, but only once or twice makes mention of it in the way of an illustration to set forth the excellency of the sacrifice of Christ; as verses 11, 12, of this chapter, and Hebrews 13:10-12.2. The subject spoken of is “the blood of bulls and goats.” The reason why the apostle expresseth them by “bulls and goats,” which were calves and kids of the goats, hath been declared on Hebrews 9:11-12. And some things must be observed concerning this description of the old sacrifices: — (1.) That he makes mention of the “blood” of the sacrifices only, whereas in many of them the whole bodies were offered, and the fat of them all was burned on the altar. And this he doth for the ensuing reasons: [1. Because it was the blood alone whereby atonement was made for sin and sinners. The fat was burned with incense, only to show that it was accepted as a sweet savor with God. [2. Because he had respect principally unto the anniversary sacrifice, unto the consummation whereof, and atonement thereby, the carrying the blood into the holy place did belong. [3. Because life natural is in an especial manner in the blood, which signified that atonement was to be made by death, and that by the effusion of blood, as it was in the sacrifice of Christ. See Leviticus 17:11-12. And in the shedding of it there was an indication of the desert of sin in the offerer.(2.) He recalls them, by this expression of their sacrifices, “the blood of bulls and goats,” unto a due consideration of what effect might be produced by them. They were accompanied with great solemnity and pomp of ceremony in their celebration. Hence arose a great esteem and veneration of them in the minds of the people. But when all was done, that which was offered was but “the blood of bulls and goats.” And there is a tacit opposition unto the matter of that sacrifice whereby sin was really to be expiated, which was “the precious blood of Christ,” as Hebrews 9:13-14. 3. That which is denied of these sacrifices, is ἀφαιρεῖνἁμαρτίας, the “taking away of sins.” The thing intended is variously expressed by the apostle, as by ἱλάσκεσθαιτὰςἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 2:17; καθαρισμὸνποιῆσαι, Hebrews 1:3; καθαρίζεσθαι, Hebrews 9:14; ἀθέτησιςἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 9:26; ἀναφέρεινἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 9:28; — to “make reconciliation,” to “purge sin,” to “purge the conscience,” to “abolish sin,” to “bear it.” And that which he intendeth in all these expressions, which he denies to the law and its sacrifices, and ascribes unto that of Christ, is the whole entire effect thereof, so far as it immediately respected God and the law. For all these expressions respect the guilt of sin, and its removal, or the pardon of it, with righteousness before God, acceptance and peace with him. To “take away sin,” is to make atonement for it, to expiate it before God by a satisfaction given, or price paid, with the procurement of the pardon of it, according unto the terms of the new covenant. The interpretation of these words by the Socinians is contrary unto the signification of the words themselves, and the whole design of the context: “‘Impossibile est,’saith Schlichtingius, ‘ut sanguis taurorum et hircorum peccata tollat;’hoc est, efficiat ut homines in posterum a peccatis abstinerent, et sic nullam amplius habeant peccatorum conscientiam, sive ullas eorum poenas metuant; quam enim quaeso vim ad haec praestandum sanguis animalium habere potest? Itaque hoc dicit, taurorum et hircorum sanguinem earn vim nequaquam habere, et ut habeat, impossibile esse, ut homines a peccatis avocet, et ne in posterum peccent efficiat.” And Grotius after him speaks to the same purpose: “Ἀφαιρεῖνἁμαρτίας, quod supra ἀθετεῖν et ἀναφέρειν, est extinguere peccata, sive facere ne ultra peccetur. Id sanguis Christi facit, tum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus dat nobis auxilia necessaria impetrandi. Pecudum sanguis nihil efficit tale.”(1.) Nothing can be more alien from the design of the apostle and scope of the context. They are both of them to prove that the sacrifices of the law could not expiate sins, could not make atonement for them, could not make reconciliation with God, — could not produce the effect which the sacrifice of Christ alone was appointed and ordained unto. They were only signs and figures of it. They could not effect that which the Hebrews looked for from them and by them. And that which they expected by them was, that by them they should make atonement with God for their sins. Wherefore the apostle denies that it was possible they should effect what they looked for from them, and nothing else. It was not that they should be arguments to turn them from sin unto newness of life, so as they should sin no more. By what way, and on what consideration they were means to deter men from sin, I have newly declared. But they can produce no one place in the whole law to give countenance unto such an apprehension that this was their end; so that the apostle had no need to declare their insufficiency with respect thereunto. Especially, the great anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation was appointed so expressly to make atonement for sin, to procure its pardon, to take away its guilt in the sight of God, and from the conscience of the sinner, that he should not be punished according unto the sentence of the law, as that it cannot be denied. This is that which the apostle declares that of themselves they could not effect or perform, but only typically and by way of representation. (2.) He declares directly and positively what he intends by this taking away of sin, and the ceasing of legal sacrifices thereon, verses 17, 18, “Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” The cessation of offerings for sin follows directly on the remission of sin, which is the effect of expiation and atonement; and not upon the turning away of men from sin for the future. It is therefore our justification, and not our sanctification, that the apostle discourseth of. (3.) The words themselves will not bear this sense. For the object of ἀφαιρεῖν, that which it is exercised about, is ἁμαρτία. It is an act upon sin itself, and not immediately upon the sinner. Nor can it signify any thing but to take away the guilt of sin, that it should not bind over the sinner unto punishment; whereon conscience of sins is taken away. But to return.4. The manner of the negation is, that “it was impossible” that it should be otherwise. And it was so, —(1.) From divine institution. Whatever the Jews apprehended, they were never designed of God unto that end; and therefore had no virtue or efficacy for it communicated unto them. And all the virtue of ordinances of worship depends on their designation unto their end. The blood of bulls and goats, as offered in sacrifice, and carried into the most holy place, was designed of God to represent the way of taking away sin, but not by itself to effect it; and it was therefore impossible that so it should do. (2.) It was impossible from the nature of the things themselves, inasmuch as there was not a condecency unto the holy perfections of the divine nature that sin should be expiated and the church perfected by the blood of bulls and goats. For,[1. There would not have been so unto his infinite wisdom. For God having declared his severity against sin, with the necessity of its punishment unto the glory of his righteousness and sovereign rule over his creatures, what condecency could there have been herein unto infinite wisdom? what consistency between the severity of that declaration and the taking away of sin by such an inferior, beggarly means, as that of the blood of bulls and goats? A great appearance was made of infinite displeasure against sin, in the giving of the fiery law, in the curse of it, in the threatening of eternal death; but should all have ended in an outward show, there would have been no manner of proportion to be discerned between the demerit of sin and the means of its expiation. So that, [2. It had no condecency unto divine justice. For, 1st. As I have elsewhere proved at large,[3] sin could not be taken away without a price, a ransom, a compensation and satisfaction made unto justice for the injuries it received by sin. In satisfaction unto justice, by way of compensation for injuries or crimes, there must be a proportion between the injury and the reparation of it, that justice may be as much exalted and glorified in the one as it was depressed and debased in the ether. But there could be no such thing between the demerit of sin and the affront put on the righteousness of God on the one hand, and a reparation by the blood of bulls and goats on the other. No man living can apprehend wherein any such proportion should lie or consist. Nor was it possible that the conscience of any man could be freed from a sense of the guilt of sin, who had nothing to trust unto but this blood to make compensation or atonement for it. 2dly. The apprehension of it (namely, a suitableness unto divine justice in the expiation of sins by the blood of bulls and goats) must needs be a great incentive unto profane persons unto the commission of sin. For if there be no more in sin and the guilt of it but what may be expiated and taken away at so low a price, but what may have atonement made for it by the blood of beasts, why should they not give satisfaction unto their lusts by living in sin? [3] Dissertation on Divine Justice, vol. 10 p. 481. — ED. 3dly. It would have had no consistency with the sentence and sanction of the law of nature, “In the day thou eatest thou shalt die.” For although God reserved unto himself the liberty and right of substituting a surety in the room of a sinner, to die for him, — namely, such an one as should by his suffering and dying bring more glory unto the righteousness, holiness, and law of God, than either was derogated from them by the sin of man, or could be restored unto them by his eternal ruin, — yet was it not consistent with the veracity of God in that sanction of the law that this substitution should be of a nature no way cognate, but ineffably inferior unto the nature of him that was to be delivered. For these, and other reasons of the same kind, which I have handled at large elsewhere, “it was impossible,” as the apostle assures us, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” And we may observe, —Obs. 1. It is possible that things may usefully represent what it is impossible that, in and by themselves, they should effect. — This is the fundamental rule of all institutions of the old testament. Wherefore, —Obs. 2. There may be great and eminent uses of divine ordinances and institutions, although it be impossible that by themselves, in their most exact and diligent use, they should work out our acceptance with God. — And it belongs unto the wisdom of faith to use them unto their proper end, not to trust unto them as unto what they cannot of themselves effect.Obs. 3. It was utterly impossible that sin should be taken away before God, and from the conscience of the sinner, but by the blood of Christ. — Other ways men are apt to betake themselves unto for this end, but in vain. It is the blood of Jesus Christ alone that cleanseth us from all our sins; for he alone was the propitiation for them. Obs. 4. The declaration of the insufficiency of all other ways for the expiation of sin is an evidence of the holiness, righteousness, and severity of God against sin, with the unavoidable ruin of all unbelievers.Obs. 5. Herein also consists the great demonstration of the love, grace, and mercy of God, with an encouragement unto faith, in that when the old sacrifices neither would nor could perfectly expiate sin, he would not suffer the work itself to fail, but provided a way that should be infallibly effective of it, as is declared in the following verses. The provision that God made to supply the defect and insufficiency of legal sacrifices, as unto the expiation of sin, peace of conscience with himself, and the sanctification of the souls of the worshippers, is declared in this context; for the words contain the blessed undertaking of our Lord Jesus Christ to do, fulfill, perform, and suffer, all things required in the will, and by the wisdom, holiness, righteousness, and authority of God, unto the complete salvation of the church, with the reasons of the efficacy of what he so did and suffered unto that end. And we must consider both the words themselves, so far especially as they consist in a quotation out of the Old Testament, and the validity of his inferences from the testimony which he chooseth to insist on unto this purpose. Hebrews 10:5-10. — Διὸεἰσερχόμενοςεἰςτὸνκόσμον, λέγει, Θυσίανκαὶπροσφοράνοὐκἠθέλησας, σῶμαδὲκατηρτίσωμοι·ὁλοκαυτώματακαὶπερὶὑμαρτίαςοὐκεὐδόκησας. Τότεει῏πον, ᾿Ιδοὺἥχω (ἐνκεφαλίδιβιβλίουγέγραπταιτερὶἐμοῦ) τοῦποιῆσαι, ὁΘεὸς, τὸθέλημάσου. ᾿Ανώτερονλέγων, Οτιθυσίανκαὶπροσφορὰνκαὶὁλοκαυτώματακαὶπερὶἁμαρτίαςοὐκἠθέλησας, οὐδὲεὐδόκησας· (αἱτινεσκατὰτὸννόμονπροσφέρονται) τότεεἴρηκεν, ᾿Ιδοὺἥκωτοῦποιῆσαι, ὁΘεὸς, τὸθέλημάσου·ἀναιρεῖτὸπρῶτον, ἵνατὸδεύτερονστήσῃ·ἐνᾧθελήματιἡγιασμένοιἐσμὲνδιὰτῆςπροσφορᾶςτοῦσώματοςτοῦ᾿ΙησοῦΧριστοῦἐφάπαξ.Some few differences may be observed in the ancient and best translations. Διὸ. Vulg. Lat., “ideo quapropter.” Syr., ξֶ ?θεּ ?μδָ ?πָ ?ΰ, “for this, for this cause.”Θυσίανκαὶπροσφοράν, “hostiam et oblationem,” “sacrificium, victimam.” The Syriac renders the words in the plural number, “sacrifices and offerings.”Σῶμαδὲκατηρτίσωμοι, “aptasti,” “adaptasti mihi,” “praeparasti,” “perfecisti.” “A body hast thou prepared;” that is, ‘fitted for me, wherein I may do thy will.’Syr., τַ ?βְ ?ιָ ?ΰγֵּ ?ιοΰַ ?μְ ?αֶּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊָּ ?πִ ?ι, “but thou hast clothed me with a body;” very significantly, as unto the thing intended, which is the incarnation of the Son of God. The Ethiopic renders this verse somewhat strangely: “And when he entered into the world, he saith, Sacrifices and offerings! would not; thy body he hath purified unto me;” making them, as I suppose, the words of the Father. Οὐκεὐδόκησας. Vulg., “non tibi placuerant;” reading the preceding words in the nominative case, altering the person and number of the verb Syr., ωֵׁ ?ΰμְ ?ϊְ μָ ?ΰ, “thou didst not require,” “non approbasti;” that is, “they were not well pleasing,” nor “accepted with God,” as unto the end of the expiation of sin.᾿Ιὸοὺἥκω. “Ecce adsum,” “venio.”Οὐκἠθέλησας, οὐδὲεὐδόκησας. The Syriac omitteth the last word, which yet is emphatical in the discourse.Τότεεἵρηκεν. Vulg., “tunc dixi,” “then I said;” that is, ει῏πον, for “he said” for the apostle doth not speak these words, but repeats the words of the psalmist.The reading of the words out of the Hebrew by the apostle shall be considered in our passage.[4] [4] . — Five views have been taken in regard to the difference between the Hebrew original and the LXX. rendering, as given in verse 5. 1. Even before the days of Kennicott some resolved the difficulty on the hypothesis of a corruption of the Hebrew text. Kennicott conjectured that ΰָ ?ζְ ?πַ ?ιִ ?νλָּ ?ιִ ?ιϊָ ?was a corruption for ΰָ ?ζβֵ ?εָ ?δπָ ?ϊַ ?ϊָּ, — “Then a body thou hast given.” Since ΰָ ?ζ, however, is an adverb of time, it cannot be taken in the sense of “therefore.” Pierce adopts the emendation so far, but leaves the verb as it stands. Pye Smith inclines to this view, and holds that . λָ ?ιָ ?δsignifies “to prepare.” 2. Bleek supposes a corruption in the LXX., — σῶμα, instead of ω῏τα, or ὤτια originally. 3. Rosenmuller, with Owen, a synecdoche, “Thou hast opened mine ears;” — ‘given a capacity to hear, and therefore to obey thy commands.’4. Michaelis, Storr, Kuinoel, Hengstenberg, and Stuart, paraphrase it somewhat thus, “Thou hast opened, i.e., spoken closely and effectually into mine ears;” — ‘I have ears to hear, and I understand the secret meaning of the laws concerning sacrifices. I know that that requires not oxen and goats, but a BETTER ; and for that purpose I present myself.’5. Olshausen and Ebrard adhere to the explanation derived from the boring of the servant’s ear, Exodus 21:6. All agree that the meaning is substantially conveyed by the LXX. — ED. Hebrews 10:5-10. — Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared [fitted for] me: in burnt-offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God; [that I should do thy will.] Above when he said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and [offerings] for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein,] which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified,, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all.] A blessed and divine context this is, summarily representing unto us the love, grace, and wisdom of the Father; the love, obedience, and suffering of the Son; the federal agreement between the Father and the Son as unto the work of the redemption and salvation of the church; with the blessed harmony between the Old and New Testament in the declaration of these things. The divine authority and wisdom that evidence themselves herein are ineffable, and do cast contempt on all those by whom this epistle hath been called in question; as sundry other passages in it do in a peculiar manner. And it is our duty to inquire with diligence into the mind of the Holy Spirit herein. As unto the general nature of the arguing of the apostle, it consists in two parts: First, The introduction of a pregnant testimony out of the Old Testament unto his purpose, Hebrews 10:5-8, and part of the 9th. Secondly, Inferences from that testimony, asserting and confirming all that he had pleaded for.In the testimony he produceth we may consider, 1. The manner of its introduction, respecting the reason of what is asserted; “Wherefore.”2. Who it was by whom the words insisted on were spoken; “He saith.”3. When he spake them; “When he came into the world.”4. The things spoken by him in general; which consist in a double antithesis:(1.) Between the legal sacrifices and the obedience of Christ in his body, Hebrews 10:5;(2.) Between God’s acceptance of the one and the other, with their efficacy unto the end treated of, which must be particularly spoken unto.FIRST, The introduction of this testimony is by the word “wherefore,” — “for which cause,” “for which end.” It doth not give an account why the words following were spoken, but why the things themselves were so ordered and disposed. And we are directed in this word unto the due consideration of what is designed to be proved: and this is, that there was such an insufficiency in all legal sacrifices, as unto the expiation of sin, that God would remove them and take them out of the way, to introduce that which was better, to do that which the law could not do. ‘Wherefore,’saith the apostle, ‘because it was so with the law, things are thus disposed of in the wisdom and counsel of God as is declared in this testimony.’ , Who spake the words contained in the testimony: “He saith.” The words may have a three-fold respect: —1. As they were given out by inspiration, and are recorded in the Scripture. So they were the words of the Holy Ghost, as the apostle expressly affirms of the like words, Hebrews 10:15-16, of this chapter.2. As they were used by the penman of the psalm, who speaks by inspiration. So they were the words of David, by whom the psalm was composed. But although David spoke or wrote these words, yet is not he himself the person spoken of, nor can any passage in the whole context be applied unto him, as we shall see in particular afterwards. Or if they may be said to be spoken of him, it was only as he bare the person of another, or was a type of Christ. For although God himself doth frequently prefer moral obedience before the sacrifices of the law, when they were hypocritically performed, and trusted unto as a righteousness, unto the neglect of diligence in moral duties; yet David did not, would not, ought not, in his own name and person, to reject the worship of God, and present himself with his obedience in the room thereof, especially as unto the end of sacrifices in the expiation of sin. Wherefore, — 3. The words are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “When he cometh into the world, he saith.” And it is a vain inquiry, when in particular he spake these words; unto whom or where any mention is made of them in the story of him. It is no way needful that they should be literally or verbally pronounced by him. But the Holy Ghost useth these words in his name, as his, because they declare, express, and represent his mind, design, and resolution, in His coming into the world; which is the sole end and use of words. On the consideration of the insufficiency of legal sacrifices (the only appearing means unto that purpose) for the expiation of sin and the making of reconciliation with God, that all mankind might not eternally perish under the guilt of sin, the Lord Christ represents his readiness and willingness to undertake that work, with the frame of his heart and mind therein.The ascription of these words unto the Lord Christ on the reason mentioned, gives us a prospect into, 1. The love of his undertaking for us, when all other ways of our recovery failed, and were disallowed as insufficient; 2. Into the foundation of his undertaking for us, which was the declaration of the will of God concerning the insufficiency of these sacrifices;3. Into his readiness to undertake the work of redemption, notwithstanding the difficulties that lay in the way of it, and what he was to undergo in the stead of the legal sacrifices.Obs. 1. We have the solemn word of Christ, in the declaration he made of his readiness and willingness to undertake the work of the expiation of sin, proposed unto our faith, and engaged as a sure anchor of our souls.THIRDLY, The season of his speaking these words in the manner declared, was on his coming into the world: “Wherefore, coming (or “when he cometh”) “into the world, he saith.” Εἱσερχόμενος, “veniens,” or “venturus;” when he was to enter into the world, when the design of his future coming into the world was declared. So ὁἐρχόμενος is, “he that is to come,” Matthew 11:3; and ἔρχεται, John 4:25. That, therefore, may be the sense of the words: — upon the first prediction of the future coming of the Son of God into the world, the design, mind, and will wherewith he came, was declared.Refer the words unto some actual coming of the person spoken of into the world, and various interpretations are given of them. “When he came in sacrifices, typically,” say some. But this seems not to be a word accompanying the first institution of sacrifices; namely, “Sacrifices thou wouldest not have.” “His coming into the world, was his appearance and public showing of himself unto the world, in the beginning of his ministry, as David came out of the wilderness and caves to show himself unto the people as king of Israel,” saith Grotius. But the respect unto David herein is frivolous; nor are those words used with respect unto the kingly office of Christ, but merely as unto the offering himself in sacrifice to God. The Socinians contend earnestly, that this his coming into the world is his entrance into heaven after his resurrection. And they embrace this uncouth interpretation of the words to give countenance unto their pernicious error, that Christ offered not himself in sacrifice to God in his death, or whilst he was in this world. For his sacrifice they suppose to be metaphorically only so called, consisting in the representation of himself unto God in heaven, after his obedience and suffering. Wherefore they say, that by “the world” which he came into, “the world to come,” mentioned Hebrews 2:5, is intended. But there is nothing sound, nothing probable or specious in this wresting of the words and sense of the Scripture. For, 1. The words in the places compared are not the same. This is κόσμος only; those are οἰκουμένη, and are not absolutely to be taken in the same sense, though the same things may be intended in various respects.2. Οἰκουμένη is the habitable part of the earth, and can on no pretense be applied unto heaven.3. I have fully proved on that place, that the apostle in that expression intendeth only the days and times of the Messiah, or of the gospel, commonly called ,among the Jews, ςεμνδςϊιγ, “the world to come;” that new heaven and earth wherein righteousness should dwell But they add, that κόσμος itself is used for heaven, Romans 4:13, Τὸκληρονόμον, — that “he should be the heir of the world;” ‘that is, of heaven, the world above.’But this imagination is vain also. For Abraham’s being “heir of the world” is no more but his being the “father of many nations;” nor was there ever any other promise which the apostle should refer unto of his being heir of the world, but only that of his being the father of many nations, not of the Jews on]y, but of the Gentiles also; as the apostle explains it, Romans 4:8-12. Respect also may be had unto the promised Seed proceeding from him, who was to be the “heir of all things.”That which they intend by his coming into the world, is what himself constantly calleth his leaving of the world, and going out of it. See John 13:1; John 16:28; John 17:11; John 17:13 : “I leave the world; I am no more in the world, but these are in the world.” This, therefore, cannot be his coming into the world. And this imagination is contrary, as unto the express words, so to the open design of the apostle; for as he declares his coming into the world to be the season wherein a body was fitted for him, so that which he had to do herein was what he had to do in this world, before his departure out of it, verse 12. Wherefore this figment is contrary unto common sense, the meaning of the words, the design of the place, and other express testimonies of Scripture; and is of no use, but to be an instance how men of corrupt minds can wrest the Scripture for their ends, unto their own destruction.The general sense of the best expositors, ancient and modern, is, that by the coming of Christ into the world his incarnation is intended. See John 1:11; John 3:16-17; John 3:19; John 6:14; John 9:4; John 9:39; John 11:27; John 12:46; John 16:28. The same with his “coming in the flesh,” his being “made flesh,” his being “manifest in the flesh;” for therein and thereby he came into the world.Neither is there any weight in the objection of the Socinians unto this exposition of the words; namely, that the Lord Christ at his first coming in the flesh, and in his infancy, could not do the will of God, nor could these words be used of him. For, 1. His coming into the world, in the act of the assumption of our nature, was in obedience unto, and for the fulfilling of the word of God. For God sent him into the world, John 3:16. And “he came not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him,” John 6:38.2. His doing the will of God is not confined unto any one single act or duty, but extends itself unto all the degrees and whole progress of what he did and suffered in compliance with the will of God, the foundation of the whole being laid in his incarnation.But as these words were not verbally and literally spoken by him, being only a real declaration of his design and intention; so this expression of his coming into the world is not to be confined unto any one single act or duty, so as to exclude all others from being concerned therein. It hath respect unto all the solemn acts of the susception and discharge of his mediatory office for the salvation of the church. But if any shall rather judge that in this expression some single season and act of Christ is intended, it can be no other but his incarnation, and his coming into the world thereby; for this was the foundation of all that he did afterwards, and that whereby he was fitted for his whole work of mediation, as is immediately declared. And we may observe, — Obs. 2. The Lord Christ had an infinite prospect of all that he yeas to do and suffer in the world, in the discharge of his office and undertaking. — He declared from the beginning his willingness unto the whole of it. And an eternal evidence it is of his love, as also of the justice of God in laying all our sins on him, seeing it was done by his own will and consent. , The fourth thing in the words is, what he said. The substance of it is laid down, Hebrews 10:5. Unto which the further explication is added, Hebrews 10:6-7; and the application of it unto the intention of the apostle in those that follow. The words are recorded, Psalms 40:6-8, being indited by the Holy Ghost in the name of Christ, as declarative of his will.Of the first thing proposed there are two parts: First, What concerneth the sacrifices of the law. Secondly, What concerneth himself.1. The expression of the subject spoken of, that is, ζֶ ?αַ ?ηεּ ?ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ; which the apostle renders by θυσία, “sacrifice and offering.” In the next verse, the one of them, namely θυσία, is distributed into ςεֹ ?μָ ?δεַ ?ηֲ ?ξָ ?ΰָ ?δ; which the apostle renders by ὁλοκαυτώματακαὶπερὶἁμαρτίας, “burnt- offerings,” or “whole burnt-offerings” and “sacrifices for sin.” It is evident that the Holy Ghost in this variety of expressions compriseth all the sacrifices of the law that had respect unto the expiation of sin. And as unto all of them, their order, especial nature, and use, I have treated at large in my exercitations before the first volume of this Exposition (Exerc. 24), whither the reader is referred.2. Of these sacrifices it is affirmed, that “God would them not,” Hebrews 10:5; and that “he had no pleasure in them,” Hebrews 10:6. The first in the original is μֹ ?ΰηָ ?τַ ?φְ ?ϊָּ ?which the apostle renders by οὐκἐθέλησας, “thou wouldest not.” We render it in the psalm, “thou didst not desire.” ηָ ?τַ ?φis “to will,” but always with desire, complacency, and delight. Psalms 51:8, “Behold, ηָ ?τַ ?φְ ?ϊָּ,” “thou desirest, thou wilt,” or “art delighted with truth in the hidden part.” Verse 18, μֹ ?ΰΰּ ?ϊַ ?ηְ ?τֹ ?φ, “thou wouldest not,” “thou desirest not sacrifice.” Genesis 34:19, “He had delight in Jacob’s daughter.” Psalms 147:10. So ηֵ ?τֶ ?φ, the noun, is “delight,” Psalms 1:2. The LXX. render it generally by ἐθέλω, and θέλω, “to will;” as also the noun by θέλημα. And they are of the same signification, “to will freely, voluntarily, and with delight.” But this sense the apostle doth transfer unto the other word, which he renders by εὐδόκησας, verse 6. In the psalm it is ωָׁ ?ΰָ ?μְ ?ϊָּ, “thou hast not required.” Εὐδοκέω is “to rest in,” “to approve, “to delight in,” “to be pleased with.” So is it always used in the New Testament, whether spoken of God or men. See Matthew 3:17; Matthew 12:18; Matthew 17:5; Luke 3:22; Luke 12:32; Romans 15:26-27; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 10:5; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Colossians 1:19, etc. Wherefore if we shall grant that the words used by the apostle be not exact versions of those used in the psalmist, as they are applied the one unto the other, yet it is evident that in both of them the full and exact meaning of both those used by the psalmist is declared; which is sufficient unto his purpose. All the difficulty in the words may be reduced unto these two inquiries: (1.) In what sense it is affirmed that “God would not have those sacrifices,” that he “had no pleasure in them,” that “he rested not in them.”(2.) How was this made known, so as that it might be declared, as it is in this place.(1.) As unto the first of these we may observe, —[1. That this is not spoken of the will of God as unto the institution and appointment of these sacrifices; for the apostle affirms that they were “offered according unto the law,” verse 8; namely, which God gave unto the people. God says, indeed, by the prophet unto the people, that “he spake not unto their fathers, nor commanded them in the day that he brought them out. of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices,” Jeremiah 7:22. But he speaks not absolutely as unto the things themselves, but unto their manner of the observance of them.[2. It is not with respect unto the obedience of the people in their attendance unto them during the economy of the law; for God both required it strictly of them and approved of it in them, when duly performed. The whole law and prophets bear testimony hereunto. And it was the great injunction which he left with the people, when he ceased to grant any more immediate revelations of his will unto the church, Malachi 4:4. And the Lord Christ himself under the Judaical church did observe them.[3. God doth frequently reject or disallow them in the people, as they were attended unto and performed by them. But this he did only in the case of their gross hypocrisy, and the two great evils wherewith it was accompanied. The first was, that they did not only prefer the outward observation of them before internal moral obedience, but trusted unto them unto the total neglect of that obedience. See Isaiah 1:12-17. And theother was, that they put their trust in them for righteousness and acceptance with God; about which he deals, Jeremiah 7. Yet neither was this the case under consideration in the psalm; for there is no respect had unto any miscarriages of the people about these sacrifices, but unto the sacrifices themselves. Wherefore some say that the words are prophetical, and declare what the will of God would be after the coming of Christ in the flesh, and the offering of his sacrifice once for all. Then God would no more require them nor accept them. But yet neither is this suited unto the mind of the Holy Ghost. For, [1. The apostle doth not prove by this testimony that they were to cease, but that they could not take away sin whilst they were in force. [2. The reason given by the Lord Christ of his undertaking, is their insufficiency during their continuance according to the law. [3. This revelation of the will of God made unto the church was actually true when it was made and given, or it was suited to lead them into a great mistake. The mind of the Holy Ghost is plain enough, both in the testimony itself and in the improvement of it by the apostle. For the legal sacrifices are spoken of only with respect unto that end which the Lord Christ undertook to accomplish by his mediation. And this was the perfect, real expiation of sin, and the justification, sanctification, and eternal salvation of the church, with that perfect state of spiritual worship which was-ordained for it in this world. All these things these sacrifices were appointed to prefigure and represent. But the nature and design of this prefiguration being dark and obscure, and the things signified being utterly hid from them, as unto their especial nature and the manner of their efficacy, many in all ages of the church expected them from these sacrifices; and they had a great appearance of being divinely ordained unto that end and purpose. Wherefore this is that, and that alone, with respect whereunto they are here rejected. God never appointed them unto this end, he never took pleasure in them with reference hereunto; they were insufficient, in the wisdom, holiness, and righteousness of God, unto any such purpose. Wherefore the sense of God concerning them as unto this end, is, that they were not appointed, not approved, not accepted for it. (2.) It may be inquired, how this mind and will of God concerning the refusal of these sacrifices unto this end might be known, so as that it should be here spoken of, as of a truth unquestionable in the church. For the words, “Thou wouldest not,” “Thou tookest no pleasure,’” do not express a mere internal act of the divine will, but a declaration also of what is not well-pleasing unto God. How then was this declaration made? how came it to be known? I answer, — [1. The words are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, considered as to be incarnate for the redemption of the church. As such, he was always in the bosom of the Father, participant of his counsels, especially of those which concerned the church, the children of men, Proverbs 8:22-24, etc. He was therefore always acquainted with all the thoughts and counsels of God concerning the ways and means of the expiation of sin, and so declared what he knew.[2. As unto the penman of the psalm, the words were dictated unto him by immediate revelation: which if nothing had been spoken of it or intimated before, had been sufficient for the declaration of the will of God therein; for all revelations of that nature have a beginning when they were first made. But, — [3. In, by, and together with the institution of all these legal sacrifices, God had from the beginning intimated unto the church that they were not the absolute, ultimate way for the expiation of sin, that he designed or would approve of. And this he did partly in the nature of the sacrifices themselves, which were no way competent or suited in themselves unto this end, it being “impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin;” partly in giving various intimations first, and then express declaration of his will, that they were only prescribed for a season, and that a time would come when their observance should utterly cease, which the apostle proves, chapters 7 and 8; and partly by evidencing that they were all but types and figures of good things to come, as we have at large declared. By these, and sundry other ways of the like kind, God had, in the institution and command of these sacrifices themselves, sufficiently manifested that he did neither design them, nor require them, nor approve of them, as unto this end of the expiation of sin. Wherefore there is in the words no new revelation absolutely, but only a more express declaration of that will and counsel of God which he had by various ways given intimation of before. And we may observe, — Obs. 3. No sacrifices of the law, not all of them together, were a means for the expiation of sin, suited unto the glory of God or necessities of the souls of men. — From the first appointment of sacrifices, immediately after the entrance of sin and the giving of the promise, the observation of them in one kind or another spread itself over the whole earth. The Gentiles retained them by tradition, helped on by some conviction on a guilty conscience that by some way or other atonement must be made for sin. On the Jews they were imposed by law. There are no footsteps of light or testimony that those of the former sort, namely, the Gentiles, did ever retain any sense of the true reason and end of their original institution, and the practice of mankind thereon; which was only the confirmation of the first promise by a prefiguration of the means and way of its accomplishment. The church of Israel being carnal also, had very much lost the understanding and knowledge hereof. Hence both sorts looked for the real expiation of sin, the pardon of it, and the taking away of its punishment, by the offering of those sacrifices. As for the Gentiles, “God suffered them to walk in their own ways, and winked at the time of their ignorance.” But as unto the Jews, he had before variously intimated his mind concerning them, and at length by the mouth of David, in the person of Christ, absolutely declared their insufficiency, with his disapprobation of them, as unto the end which they in their minds applied them unto. Obs. 4. Our utmost diligence, with the most sedulous improvement of the light and wisdom of faith, is necessary in our search into and inquiry after the mind and will of God, in the revelation he makes of them. — The apostle in this epistle proves by all sorts of arguments, taken from the scriptures of the Old Testament, from many other things that God had done and spoken, and from the nature of these institutions themselves, as here also by the express words of the Holy Ghost, that these sacrifices of the law, which were of God’s own appointment, were never designed nor approved by him as the way and means of the eternal expiation of sin. And he doth not deal herein with these Hebrews on his apostolical authority, and by new evangelical revelation, as he did with the church of the Gentiles; but pleads the undeniable truth of what he asserts from those direct records and testimonies which themselves owned and embraced. Howbeit, although the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, were read unto them and among them continually, as they are unto this day, they neither understood nor do yet understand the things that are so plainly revealed in them. And as the great reason hereof is the veil of blindness and darkness that is on their minds, 2 Corinthians 3:13-14; so in all their search into the Scripture they are indeed supinely slothful and negligent. For they cleave alone unto the outward husk or shell of the letter, utterly despising the mysteries of truth contained therein. And so it is at present with the most of men, whose search into the mind of God, especially as unto what concerns his worship, keeps them in ignorance and contempt of it all their days. Obs. 5. The constant use of sacrifices to signify those things which they could not effect or really exhibit unto the worshippers, was a great part of the bondage that the church was kept in under the old testament. — And hereon, as those who were carnal bowed down their backs unto the burden, and their necks unto the yoke, so those who had received the Spirit of adoption, did continually pant and groan after the coming of him in and by whom all was to be fulfilled. So was the law their schoolmaster unto Christ.Obs. 6. God may in his wisdom appoint and accept of ordinances and duties unto one end, which he will refuse and reject when they are applied unto another. — So he doth plainly in these words those sacrifices which in other places he most strictly enjoins. How express, how multiplied are his commands for good works, and our abounding in them! yet when they are made the matter of our righteousness before him, they are as unto that end, namely, of our justification, rejected and disapproved. Secondly, The first part of verse 5 declares the will of God concerning the sacrifices of the law. The latter contains the supply that God in his wisdom and grace made of the defect and insufficiency of these sacrifices. And this is not any thing that should help, assist, or make them effectual, but somewhat brought in, in opposition unto them, and for their removal. This he expresseth in the last clause of this verse: “But a body hast thou prepared me.” The adversative δέ, “but,” declares that the way designed of God for this end was of another nature than those sacrifices were. But yet this way must be such as should not render those sacrifices utterly useless from their first institution; which would reflect on the wisdom of God by whom they were appointed. For if God did never approve of them, never delight in them, unto what end were they ordained? Wherefore, although the real way of the expiation of sin be in itself of another nature than those sacrifices were, yet was it such as those sacrifices were meet to prefigure and represent unto the faith of the church. The church was taught by them that without a sacrifice there could be no atonement made for sin; wherefore the way of our deliverance must be by a sacrifice. ‘It is so,’saith the Lord Christ; ‘and therefore the first thing God did in the preparation of this new way, was the preparation of a body for me, which was to be offered in sacrifice.’And in the antithesis, intimated in this adversative conjunction, respect is had unto the will of God. As sacrifices were that which he would not unto this end, so this preparation of the body of Christ was that which he would, which he delighted in and was well pleased withal. So the whole of the work of Christ and the effects of it are expressly referred unto this will of God, Hebrews 10:9-10. And we must first speak unto the apostle’s rendering of these words out of the psalmist. They are in the original, ΰַ ?ζְ ?πַ ?ιִ ?νλָּ ?ψִ ?ιϊָ μִּ ?ι, “mine ears hast thou digged,” “bored,” “prepared.” All sorts of critical writers and expositors have so labored in the resolution of this difficulty, that there is little to be added unto the industry of some, and it were endless to confute the mistakes of others. I shall therefore only speak briefly unto it, so as to manifest the oneness of the sense in both places. And some things must be premised thereunto: — 1. That the reading of the words in the psalm is incorrupt, and they are the precise words of the Holy Ghost. Though of late years sundry persons have used an unwarrantable boldness in feigning various lections in the Hebrew text, yet none of any judgment has attempted to conjecture at any word that might be thought to be used in the room of any one of them. And as for those which some have thought the LXX. might possibly mistake, that signify “a body,” as πִ ?γְ ?πδֶ, — which sometimes signifies “a body” in the Chaldee dialect, — or βְּ ?εִ ?ιָּ ?δ, there is in neither of them any the least analogy unto ΰַ ?ζְ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν, so that they are ridiculously suggested.2. It doth not seem probable unto me that the LXX. did ever translate these words as they are now extant in all the copies of that translation, Σῶμαδὲκατηρτίσωμοι. For,(1.) It is not a translation of the original words, but an interpretation and exposition of the sense and meaning of them; which was no part of their design. (2.) If they made this exposition, they did so either by chance, as it were, or from a right understanding of the mystery contained in them. That they should be cast upon it by a mere conjecture, is altogether improbable; and that they understood the mystery couched in that metaphorical expression (without which no account can be given of the version of the words) will not be granted by them who know any thing of those translators or their translation.(3.) There was of old a different reading in that translation. For instead of σῶμα, “a body,” some copies have ὠτία, “the ears;” which the Vulgar Latin follows: an evidence that a change had been made in that translation, to comply with the words used by the apostle.8. The words, therefore, in this place are the words whereby the apostle expressed the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those used in the psalmist, or that which was intended in them. He did not take them from the translation of the LXX., but used them himself, to express the sense of the Hebrew text. For although we should not adhere precisely unto the opinion that all the quotations out of the Old Testament in the-New, which agree in words with the present translation of the LXX., were by the scribes of that translation transferred out of the New Testament into it, — which yet is far more probable than the contrary opinion, that the words of the translation are made use of in the New Testament, even when they differ from the original, — yet sundry things herein are certain and acknowledged; as,(1.) That the penmen of the New Testament do not oblige themselves unto that translation, but in many places do precisely render the words of the original text, where that translation differs from it.(2.) That they do oftentimes express the sense of the testimony which they quote in words of their own, neither agreeing with that translation nor exactly answering the original Hebrew.(3.) That sundry passages have been unquestionably taken out of the New Testament, and inserted into that translation; which I have elsewhere proved by undeniable instances. And I no way doubt but it hath so fallen out in this place, where no account can be given of the translation of the LXX. as the words now are in it. Wherefore, — 4. This is certain, that the sense intended by the psalmist and that expressed by the apostle are the same, or unto the same purpose. And their agreement is both plain and evident. That which is spoken of is an act of God the Father towards the Son. The end of it is, that the Son might be fit and meet to do the will of God in the way of obedience. So it is expressed in the text, “Mine ears hast thou bored,” or, “A body hast thou prepared me ...... Then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” This is the sole end why God so acted towards him. What this was, is so expressed in the psalmist, “Mine ears hast thou bored,” with a double figure: (1.) A metaphor from the ear, wherewith we hear the commands we are to obey. Obedience being our compliance with the outward commands of God, and the ear being the only means of our receiving those commands, there is nothing more frequent in the Scripture than to express obedience by “hearing” and “hearkening,” as is known. Wherefore the ascription of ears unto the Lord Christ by an act of God, is the preparation of such a state and nature for him as wherein he should be meet to yield obedience unto him.(2.) By a synecdoche, wherein the part is put for the whole. In his divine nature alone it was impossible that the Lord Christ should come to do the will of God in the way whereby he was to do it. Wherefore God prepared another nature for him, which is expressed synecdochically, by the ears for the whole body; and that significantly, because as it is impossible that any one should have ears of any use but by virtue of his having a body, so the ears are that part of the body by which alone instruction unto obedience, the thing aimed at, is received. This is that which is directly expressed of Isa 50:4-5, “He wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious;” or, ‘I was obedient.’And so it is all one in what sense you take the word λָּ ?ψָ ?δ; whether in the more common and usual, to “dig” or “bore, or in that whereunto it is sometimes applied, to “fit and perfect.” For I do not judge there is any allusion in the expression unto the law of boring the ear of the servant that refused to make use of his liberty at the year of release. Nor is the word used in that case λָּ ?ψָ ?δ, but ψָ ?φַ ?ς, Exodus 21:6. But it respects the framing of the organ of hearing, which is as it were bored; and the internal sense, in readiness unto obedience, is expressed by the framing of the outward instrument of hearing, that we may learn to obey thereby. Wherefore this is, and no other can be, the sense of the words in the psalmist, namely, that God the Father did so order things towards Jesus Christ, that he should have a nature wherein he might be free and able to yield obedience unto the will of God; with an intimation of the quality of it, in having ears to hear, which belong only unto a body. This sense the apostle expresseth in more plain terms now, after the accomplishment of what before was only declared in prophecy; and thereby the veil which was upon divine revelations under the old testament is taken away. There is therefore nothing remaining but that we give an exposition of these words of the apostle, as they contain the sense of the Holy Ghost in the psalm. And two things we must inquire into: 1. What is meant by this “body.”2. How God “prepared” it.1. A “body” is here a synecdochical expression of the human nature of Christ. So is the “flesh” taken, where he is said to be “made flesh;” and the “flesh and blood” whereof he was partaker. For the general end of his having this body was, that he might therein and thereby yield obedience, or do the will of God; and the especial end of it was, that he might have somewhat to offer in sacrifice unto God. But neither of these can be confined unto his body alone. For it is the soul, the other essential part of human nature, that is the principle of obedience. Nor was the body of Christ alone offered in sacrifice unto God. He “made his soul an offering for sin,” Isaiah 53:10; which was typified by the life that was in the blood of the sacrifice. Wherefore it is said that “he offered himself unto God,” Hebrews 9:14, Ephesians 5:2; that is, his whole entire human nature, soul and body, in their substance, in all their faculties and powers. But the apostle both here and verse 10 mentions only the body itself, for the reasons ensuing: (1.) To manifest that this offering of Christ was to be by death, as was that of the sacrifices of old; and this the body alone was subject unto.(2.) Because, as the covenant was to be confirmed by this offering, it was to be by blood, which is contained in the body alone, and the separation of it from the body carries the life along with it. (3.) To testify that his sacrifice was visible and substantial; not an outward appearance of things, as some have fancied, but such as truly answered the real bloody sacrifices of the law.(4.) To show the alliance and cognation between him that sanctifieth by his offering, and them that are sanctified thereby: or that because “the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also took part of the same,” that he might taste of death for them. For these and the like reasons doth the apostle mention the human nature of Christ under the name of a “body” only, as also to comply with the figurative expression of it in the psalm. And they do what lies in them to overthrow the principal foundation of the faith of the church, who would wrest these words unto a new ethereal body given him after his ascension, as do the Socinians. 2. Concerning this body, it is affirmed that God prepared it for him, “Thou hast prepared for me:” that is, God hath done it, even God the Father; for unto him are these words spoken, “I come to do thy will, O God; a body hast thou prepared me.” The coming of Christ, the Son of God, into the world, his coming in the flesh by the assuming of our nature, was the effect of the mutual counsel of the Father and the Son. The Father proposed to him what was his will, what was his design, what he would have done. This proposal is here repeated, as unto what was negative in it, which includes the opposite positive: “Sacrifices and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not have;” but that which he would, was the obedience of the Son unto his will. This proposal the Son closeth withal: “Lo,” saith he, “I come.” But all things being originally in the hand of the Father, the provision of things necessary unto the fulfilling of the will of God is left unto him. Among those the principal was, that the Son should have a body prepared for him, that so he might have somewhat of his own to offer. Wherefore the preparation of it is in a peculiar manner assigned unto the Father: “A body hast thou prepared me.” And we may observe, that, — Obs. 7. The supreme contrivance of the salvation of the church is in a peculiar manner ascribed unto the person of the Father. — His will, his grace, his wisdom, his good pleasure, the purpose that he purposed in himself, his love, his sending of his Son, are everywhere proposed as the eternal springs of all acts of power, grace and goodness, tending unto the salvation of the church. And therefore doth the Lord Christ on all occasions declare that he came to do his will, to seek his glory, to make known his name, that the praise of his grace might be exalted. And we through Christ do believe in God, even the Father, when we assign unto him the glory of all the holy properties of his nature, as acting originally in the contrivance and for the effecting of our salvation. Obs. 8. The furniture of the Lord Christ (though he was the Son, and in his divine person the Lord of all) unto the discharge of his work of mediation was the peculiar act of the Father. — He prepared him a body; he anointed him with the Spirit; it pleased him that all fullness should dwell in him. From him he received all grace, power, consolation. Although the human nature was the nature of the Son of God, not of the Father, (a body prepared for him, not for the Father,) yet was it the Father who prepared that nature, who filled it with grace, who strengthened, acted, and supported it in its whole course of obedience. Obs. 9. Whatever God designs, appoints, and calls any unto, he will provide for them all that is needful unto the duties of obedience whereunto they are so appointed and called. — As he prepared a body for Christ, so he will provide gifts, abilities, and faculties suitable unto their work, for those whom he calleth unto it. Others must provide as well as they can for themselves.But we must yet inquire more particularly into the nature of this preparation of the body of Christ, here ascribed unto the Father. And it may he considered two ways: — (1.) In the designation and contrivance of it. So “preparation” is sometimes used for “predestination,” or the resolution for the effecting any thing that is future in its proper season, Isaiah 30:33; Matthew 20:33; Romans 9:23; 1 Corinthians 2:9. In this sense of the word God had prepared a body for Christ; he had in the eternal counsel of his will determined that he should have it in the appointed time. So he was “foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for us,” 1 Peter 1:20.(2.) In the actual effecting, ordering, and creating of it, that it might be fitted and suited unto the work that it was ordained unto.In the former sense the body itself is alone the object of this preparation. “A body hast thou prepared me;” that is, ‘designed for me.’The latter sense compriseth the use of the body also; it is fitted for its work. This latter sense it is that is proper unto this place; only it is spoken of by the psalmist in a prophetical style, wherein things certainly future are expressed as already, performed. For the word signifies such a preparation as whereby it is made actually fit and meet for the end it is designed unto. And therefore it is variously rendered, “to fit, to adapt, to perfect, to adorn, to make meet,” with respect unto some especial end. ‘Thou hast adapted a body unto my work; fitted and suited a human nature unto that I have to perform in it and by it.’A body it must be; yet not every body, nay, not any body brought forth by carnal generation, according to the course of nature, could effect or was fit for the work designed unto it. But God prepared, provided such a body for Christ, as was fitted and adapted ‘unto all that he had to do in it. And this especial manner of its preparation was an act of infinite wisdom and grace. Some instances thereof may be mentioned; as, — [1. He prepared him such a body, such a human nature, as might be of the same nature with ours, for whom he was to accomplish his work therein. For it was necessary that it should be cognate and allied unto ours, that he might be meet to act on our behalf, and to suffer in our stead. He did not form him a body out of the dust of the earth, as he did that of Adam, whereby he could not have been of the same race of mankind with us; nor merely out of nothing, as he created the angels, whom he was not to save. See Hebrews 2:14-16, and the exposition thereon. He took our flesh and blood, proceeding from the loins of Abraham.[2. He so prepared it as that it should be no way subject unto that depravation and pollution that came on our whole nature by sin. This could not have been done had his body been prepared by carnal generation, the way and means of conveying the taint of original sin which befell our nature, unto all individual persons; for this would have rendered him every way unmeet for his whole work of mediation. See Luke 1:35; Hebrews 7:26.[3. He prepared him a body consisting of flesh and blood, which might be offered as a real substantial sacrifice, and wherein he might suffer for sin, in his offering to make atonement for it. Nor could the sacrifices of old, which were real, bloody, and substantial, prefigure that which should be only metaphorical and in appearance. The whole evidence of the wisdom of God in the institution of the sacrifices of the law depends on this, that Christ was to have a body consisting of flesh and blood, wherein he might answer all that was prefigured by them. [4. It was such a body as was animated with a living, rational soul. Had it been only a body, it might have suffered as did the beasts under the law, — from which no act of obedience was required, only they were to suffer what was done unto them. But in the sacrifice of the body of Christ, that which was principally respected, and whereon the whole efficacy of it did depend, was his obedience unto God. For he was not to be offered by others, but he was to offer himself, in obedience unto the will of God, Hebrews 9:14; Ephesians 5:2. And the principles of all obedience lie alone in the powers and faculties of the rational soul.[5. This body and soul were obnoxious unto all the sorrows and sufferings which our nature is liable unto, and we had deserved, as they were penal, tending unto death. Hence was he meet to suffer in our stead the same things which we should have done. Had they been exempted by special privilege from what our nature is liable unto, the whole work of our redemption by his blood had been frustrated. [6. This body or human nature, thus prepared for Christ, was exposed unto all sorts of temptations from outward causes. But yet it was so sanctified by the perfection of grace, and fortified by the fullness of the Spirit dwelling therein, as that it was not possible it should be touched with the least taint or guilt of sin. And this also was absolutely necessary unto the work whereunto it was designed, 1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 7:26.[7. This body was liable unto death; which being the sentence and sanction of the law with respect unto the first and all following sins, (all and every one of them,) was to be undergone actually by him who was to be our deliverer, Hebrews 2:14-15. Had it not died, death would have borne rule over all unto eternity; but in the death thereof it was swallowed up in victory, 1 Corinthians 15:55-57.[8. As it was subject unto death, and died actually, so it was meet to be raised again from death. And herein consisted the great pledge and evidence that our dead bodies may be and shall be raised again unto a blessed immortality. So it became the foundation of all our faith, as unto things eternal, 1 Corinthians 15:17-23. [9. This body and soul being capable of a real separation, and being actually separated by death, though not for any long continuance, yet no less truly and really than they who have been dead a thousand years, a demonstration was given therein of an active subsistence of the soul in a state of separation from the body. As it was with the soul of Christ when he was dead, so shall it be with our souls in the same state. He was alive with God and unto God when his body was in the grave; and so shall our souls be. [10. This body was visibly taken up into heaven, and there resides; which, considering the ends thereof, is the great encouragement of faith, and the life of our hope. These are but some of the many instances that may be given of the divine wisdom in so preparing a body for Christ as that it might be fitted and adapted unto the work which he had to do therein. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 10. Not only the love and grace of God in sending his Son are continually to be admired and glorified, but the acting of this infinite wisdom in fitting and preparing his human nature so as to render it every way meet unto the work which it was designed for, ought to be the especial object of our holy contemplation. — But having treated hereof distinctly in a peculiar discourse unto that purpose, I shall not here again insist upon it. The last thing observable in this verse is, that this preparation of the body of Christ is ascribed unto God, even the Father, unto whom he speaks these words, “A body hast thou prepared me.” As unto the operation in the production of the substance of it, and the forming its structure, it was the peculiar and immediate work of the Holy Ghost, Luke 1:35. This work I have at large elsewhere declared.[5] Wherefore it is an article of faith, that the formation of the human nature of Christ in the womb of the Virgin was the peculiar act of the Holy Ghost. The holy taking of this nature unto himself, the assumption of it to be his own nature by a subsistence in his person, the divine nature assuming the human in the person of the Son, was his own act alone. Yet was the preparation of this body the work of the Father in a peculiar manner; it was so in the infinitely wise, authoritative contrivance and ordering of it, his counsel and will therein being acted by the immediate power of the Holy Ghost. The Father prepared it in the authoritative disposition of all things; the Holy Ghost actually wrought it; and he himself assumed it. There was no distinction of time in these distinct actings of the holy persons of the Trinity in this matter, but only a disposition of order in their operation. For in the same instant of time, this body was prepared by the Father, wrought by the Holy Ghost, and assumed by himself to be his own. And the actings of the distinct persons being all the actings of the same divine nature, understanding, love, and power, they differ not fundamentally and radically, but only terminatively, with respect unto the work wrought and effected. And we may observe, that, — [5] On the Holy Spirit, miscellaneous works, vol. 3, b. 2, ch. 3,4. — Ed. Obs. 11. The ineffable but yet distinct operations of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in, about, and towards the human nature assumed by the Son, are, as an uncontrollable evidence of their distinct subsistence in the same individual divine essence, so a guidance unto faith as unto all their distinct actings towards us in the application of the work of redemption unto our souls. — For their actings towards the members is in all things conform unto their actings towards the Head; and our faith is to be directed towards them according as they act their love and grace distinctly towards us. Hebrews 10:6-7. — “In burnt-offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.”1. The rejection of sacrifices for the end of the complete expiation of sin;2. The provision of a new way or means for the accomplishment of that end. Both these things are spoken unto apart and more distinctly in these two verses; the former, verse 6; the latter, verse 7: which we must also open, that they may not appear a needless repetition of what was before spoken.Hebrews 10:6. He resumes and further declares what was in general before affirmed, verse 5, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not.” Hereof we have yet a further confirmation and explication; which it stood in need of. For notwithstanding that general assertion, two things may yet be inquired about: 1. What were those “sacrifices and offerings which God would not?” for they being of various sorts, some of them only may be intended, seeing they are only mentioned in general.2. What is meant by that expression, that “God would them not,” seeing it is certain that they were appointed and commanded by him?Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ, whose words in the psalm these are, doth not only reassert what was spoken before in general, but also gives a more particular account of what sacrifices they were which he intended. And two things he declares concerning them: — 1. That they were not such sacrifices as men had found out and appointed. Such the world was filled withal; which were offered unto devils, and which the people of Israel themselves were addicted unto. Such were their sacrifices unto Baal and Moloch, which God so often complaineth against and detesteth. But they were such sacrifices as were appointed and commanded by the law. Hence he expresseth them by their legal names, as the apostle immediately takes notice, — they were “offered by the law,” verse 8.2. He shows what were those sacrifices appointed by the law which in an especial manner he intended; and they were those which were appointed for the legal and typical expiation of sin. The general names of them in the original are ζֶ ?αַ ?ηεּ ?ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ. The first was the general name of all victims or sacrifices by blood; the other of all offerings of the fruits of the earth, as flour, oil, wine, and the like. For herein respect is had unto the general design of the context, which is the removal of all legal sacrifices and offerings, of what sort soever, by the coming and office of Christ. In compliance therewith they are expressed under these two general names, which comprehend them all. But as unto the especial argument in hand, it concerns only the bloody sacrifices offered for the atonement of sin, which were of the first sort only, or ζֶ ?αָ ?ηִ ?ιν. And this kind of sacrifices, whose incompetency to expiate sin he declares, is referred unto two heads: —(1.) “Burnt-offerings.” In the Hebrew it is ςεֹ ?μָ ?δ, in the singular number; which is usually rendered by ὁλοκαυτώματα, in the plural. And sacrifices of this kind were called ςֹ ?μεֹ ?ϊ, or “ascensions,” from their adjunct, the rising up or ascending of the smoke of the sacrifices in their burning on the altar; a pledge of that sweet savor which should arise unto God above from the sacrifice of Christ here below. And sometimes they are called ΰִ ?ωִּׁ ?ιν, or “firings,” from the way and means of their consumption on the altar, which was by fire. And this respects both the ϊַּ ?ξִ ?ιγ, or the continual sacrifice, morning and evening, for the whole congregation, which was a burnt- offering, and all those which on especial occasions were offered with respect unto the expiation of sin.(2.) The other sort is expressed by ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰϊ; which the Greek renders by περὶἁμαρτίας, “for” or “concerning sin.” For ηָ ?θָ ?ΰ the verb in Kal, signifieth “to sin;” and in Piel, “to expiate sin.” Hence the substantive, ηַ ?θָ ?ΰָ ?δ, is used in both these senses; and where it is to be taken in either of them, the circumstances of the text do openly declare. Where it is taken in the latter sense, the Greek renders it by περὶἁυαρτίας, “a sacrifice for sin;” which expression is retained by the apostle, Romans 8:3, and in this place. And the sacrifices of this kind were of two sorts, or this kind of sacrifices had a double use. For,[1. The great anniversary sacrifice of expiation for the sins of the whole congregation, Leviticus 16, was a ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰָ ?δ, or περὶἁμαρτίας, “a sin offering.”[2. The same kind of offering was also appointed unto and for particular persons, who had contracted the guilt of particular sins, Leviticus 4. This sacrifice, therefore, was appointed both for the sins of the whole congregation, namely, all their sins, of what sort soever, Leviticus 16:21, and the especial sins of particular persons. The one offering of Christ was really to effect what by all of them was represented. Concerning all these sacrifices it is added, Οὐκεὐδόκησας, — “Thou hadst no pleasure.” In opposition hereunto, God gives testimony from heaven concerning the Lord Christ and his undertaking, “This is my beloved Son, ἐνᾧεὐδόκησα,” — “in whom I am well pleased,” Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5. See Isaiah 42:1; Ephesians 1:6. This is the great antithesis between the law and the gospel: “Sacrifices and offerings for sin οὐκεὐδόκησας:” “This is my beloved Son, ἐνᾧεὐδόκησα.” The word signifies “to approve of with delight,” “to rest in with satisfaction;” the exercise of εὐδοκία, the divine good-will. The original word in the psalm is ωָׁ ?ΰָ ?μְ ?ϊָּ ?which signifies “to ask, to seek, to inquire, to require.” Wherefore, as we observed before, although the apostle doth directly express the mind and sense of the Holy Ghost in the whole testimony, yet he doth not exactly render the words in their precise signification, word for word. Thus he renders ηָ ?τַ ?φְ ?ϊָּ ?by ἠθέλησας, and ωָׁ ?ΰָ ?μְ ?ϊָּ ?by εὐδόκησας, when an exact translation would have required the contrary application of the words But the meaning is the same, and the two words used by the psalmist are exactly represented in these used by the apostle.There are two reasons of this seeming repetition, “Thou wouldest not,” “Thou hadst no pleasure:” 1. A repetition of the same words, or words almost of the same signification, about the same subject, signifies the determinate certainty of the removal of these sacrifices, with the disappointment and ruin of them who should continue to put their trust in them.2. Whereas there were two things pretended unto in the behalf of these sacrifices and offerings; first, their institution by God himself; and, secondly, his acceptance of them, or being well pleased with them; one of these words is peculiarly applied unto the former, the other unto the latter. God did neither institute them, nor ever accepted of them, unto this end of the expiation of sin, and the salvation of the church thereby. And we may observe, —Obs. 12. It is the will of God that the church should take especial notice of this sacred truth, that nothing can expiate or take away sin but the blood of Christ alone. — Hence is the vehemency of the rejection of all other means in the repetition of these words. And it is necessary for us so to apprehend his mind, considering how prone we are to look after other ways of the expiation of sin and justification before God. See Romans 10:3-4.Obs. 13. Whatever may be the use or efficacy of any ordinances of worship, yet if they are employed or trusted unto for such ends as God hath not designed them unto, he accepts not of our persons in them, nor approves of the things themselves. — Thus he declares himself concerning the most solemn institutions of the old testament. And those under the new have been no less abused in this way than those of old. Hebrews 10:7. — “Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.”This is the close of the testimony used by the apostle out of the psalmist, which in the next verses he interprets and makes application of unto his purpose. And it contains the second branch of the antithesis that he insists on. The Lord Christ having declared the will of God, and what God said unto him concerning legal sacrifices, and their insufficiency unto the expiation of sin and the salvation of the church, he expresseth his own mind, will, and design, unto God the Father thereon. For it was the will and grace of God that this great work should be wrought, however he disapproved of legal sacrifices as the means thereof. For there is herein represented unto us as it were a consultation between the Father and the Son with respect unto the way and means of the expiation of sin, and the salvation of the church. In the words we may consider, 1. How the Son expressed his mind in this matter: “He saith,” “I said.” 2. When or on what consideration he so expressed himself; it was then: “Then I said.” 3. A remark put upon what he said, in the word “Behold.”4. What he undertakes, or tenders himself to do in what he said; it was to do the will of God: “I come to do thy will,” as unto that work and end with respect whereunto sacrifices were rejected.5. The warranty that he had for this undertaking; it was no more than what the Holy Ghost had before left on record in the Scripture: “In the volume of the book it is written of me;” for these words do represent the mind and will of Christ upon his actual undertaking of his work, or his coming into the world, when many prophecies and divine predictions had gone before concerning it. 1. The expression of his mind is in that word ει῏πον, “I said.” There is no necessity, as was before observed, that these very words should at any one season have been spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ. The meaning is, ‘This is my resolution, this is the frame of my mind and will.’The representation of our mind, will, and desires, unto God, is our speaking to him. He needs not our words unto that end; nor absolutely do we so ourselves, upon the account of his omniscience. However, this is the work that the Lord Christ engaged his truth and faithfulness to undertake. And in these words, “I said,” he engageth himself in the work now proposed unto him. Hereon, whatever difficulties afterwards arose, whatever he was to do or suffer, there was nothing in it but what he had before solemnly engaged unto God. And we ought, in like manner, to be faithful in all the engagements that we make to him and for him. “Surely,” saith he, they are my people, children that will not lie.” 2. There is the season wherein he thus said: τότε, “then,” or “thereon.” For it may respect either the order of the time, or the stating of the case in hand. First, it may respect an order of time. He said, “Sacrifices and burnt- offerings thou wouldest not have. Then said I.” But it is, as I judge, better extended unto the whole case in hand. When things were come to this pass; when all the church of God’s elect were under the guilt of sin, and the curse of the law thereon; when there was no hope for them in themselves, nor in or by any divine institution; when all things were at a loss, as unto our recovery and salvation; then did Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in infinite wisdom, love, and grace, interpose himself in our behalf, in our stead, to do, answer, and perform, all that God, in infinite wisdom, holiness, and righteousness, required unto that end. And we may observe, that — Obs. 14. There is a signal glory put upon the undertaking of Christ to make reconciliation for the church by the sacrifice of himself.3. This undertaking of Christ is signalized by the remark that is put on the declaration of it, ᾿Ιδού, “Behold.” A glorious spectacle it was, to God, to angels, and to men. To God, as it was filled with the highest effects of infinite goodness, wisdom, and grace; which all shone forth in their greatest elevation and were glorified therein. It was so unto angels, as that whereon their confirmation and establishment in glory did depend, Ephesians 1:10; which therefore they endeavored with fear and reverence to look into, 1 Peter 1:12. “And as unto men, that is, the church of the elect, nothing could be so glorious in their sight, nothing so desirable. By this call of Christ, “Behold, I come,” the eyes of all creatures in heaven and earth ought to be fixed on him, to behold the glorious work he had undertaken, and the accomplishment of it. 4. There is what he thus proposed himself for, saying, “Behold me.”(1.) This in general is expressed by himself, “I come.” This coming of Christ, what it was and wherein it did consist, was declared before. It was by assuming the body that was prepared for him. This was the foundation of the whole work he had to do, wherein he came forth like the rising sun, with light in his wings, or as a giant rejoicing to run a race.The faith of the old testament was, that he was thus to come: and this is the life of the new, that he is come. They by whom this is denied do overthrow the faith of the gospel. This is the spirit of antichrist, 1 John 4:1-3. And this may be done two ways:[1. Directly and expressly; [2. By just consequence. Directly it is done by them who deny the reality of his human nature, as many did of old, affirming that he had only an ethereal, aerial, or phantastical body; for if he came not in the flesh, he is not come at all. So also it is by them who deny the divine person of Christ, and his pre- existence therein, before the assumption of the human nature; for they deny that these are the words of him when resolved, and spoken before his coming. He that did not exist before in the divine nature, could not promise to come in the human. And indirectly it is denied by all those who, either in doctrines or practices, deny the ends of his coming; and they are many, — which I shall not now mention. It may be objected against this fundamental truth, ‘That if the Son of God would undertake this work of reconciliation between God and man, why did he not do the will of God by his mighty power and grace, and not by this way of coming in the flesh, which was attended with all dishonor, reproaches, sufferings, and death itself.’But besides what I have at large elsewhere discoursed concerning the necessity and suitableness of this way of his coming unto the manifestation of all the glorious properties of the nature of God, I shall only say, that God, and he alone, knew what was necessary unto the accomplishment of his will; and if it might have been otherwise effected, he would have spared his only Son, and not have given him up unto death. (2.) The end for which he thus promiseth to come, is to do the will of God: “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” The will of God is taken two ways: First, for his eternal purpose and design, called “the counsel of his will,” Ephesians 1:11; and most commonly his “will” itself, — the will of God as unto what he will do, or cause to be done. Secondly, for the declaration of his will and pleasure as unto what he will have us to do in a way of duty and obedience; that is, the rule of our obedience. It is the will of God in the former sense that is here intended; as is evident from the next verse, where it is said that “by this will of God we are sanctified;” that is, our sins were expiated according to the will of God. But neither is the other sense absolutely excluded; for the Lord Christ came so to fulfill the will of God’s purpose, as that we may be enabled to fulfill the will of his command. Yea, and he himself had a command from God to lay down his life for the accomplishment of this work. Wherefore this will of God, which Christ came to fulfill, is that which elsewhere is expressed by εὐδοκία, πρόθεσις, βουλὴτοῦθελήματος, Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:11 etc.; — his “good pleasure,” his” purpose, the “counsel of his will,” his “good pleasure which he purposed in himself;” that is, freely, without any cause or reason taken from us, to call, justify, sanctify, and save to the uttermost, or to bring them unto eternal glory. This he had purposed from eternity, to the praise of the glory of his grace. How this might be effected and accomplished, God had hid in his own bosom from the beginning of the world, Ephesians 3:8-9; so as that it was beyond the wisdom and indagation of all angels and men to make a discovery of. Howbeit, even from the beginning he declared that such a work he had graciously designed; and he gave in the first promise, and otherwise, some obscure intimations of the nature of it, for a foundation of the faith in them that were called. Afterwards God was pleased, in his sovereign authority over the church, for their good, and unto his own glory, to make a representation of this whole work in the institutions of the law, especially in the sacrifices thereof. But hereon the church began to think (at least many of them did so) that those sacrifices themselves were to be the only means of accomplishing this will of God, in the expiation of sin, with the salvation of the church. But God had now, by various ways and means, witnessed unto the church that indeed he never appointed them unto any such end, nor would rest in them; and the church itself found by experience that they would never pacify conscience, and that the strict performance of them was a yoke and burden. In this state of things, when the fullness of time was come, the glorious counsels of God, namely, of the Father, Son, and Spirit, brake forth with light, like the sun in its strength from under a cloud, in the tender made of himself by Jesus Christ unto the Father, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” This, this is the way, the only way, whereby the will of God might be accomplished. Herein were all the riches of divine wisdom displayed, all the treasures of grace laid open, all shadows and clouds dispelled, and the open door of salvation evidenced unto all. (3.) This will of God Christ came to do, τοῦποιῆσαι, to effect, “to establish and perfectly to fulfill it.” How he did so the apostle fully declareth in this epistle. He did it in the whole work of his mediation, from the susception of our nature in the womb, unto what he doth in his supreme agency in heaven at the right hand of God. He did all things to accomplish this eternal purpose of the will of God.This seems to me the first sense of the place. Howbeit I would not, as I said before, exclude the former mentioned also; for our Lord in all that he did was the servant of the Father, and received especial command for all that he did. “This commandment,” saith he, “have I received of my Father.” Hence in this sense also he came to do the will of God. He fulfilled the will of his purpose, by obedience unto the will of his command. Hence it is added in the psalm, that he “delighted to do the will of God;” and that “his law was in the midst of his bowels.” His delight in the will of God, as unto the laying down of his life at the command of God, was necessary unto this doing of his will. And we may observe, — Obs. 15. The foundation of the whole glorious work of the salvation of the church was laid in the sovereign will, pleasure, and grace of God, even the Father. Christ came only to do his will.Obs. 16. The coming of Christ in the flesh was, in the wisdom, righteousness, and holiness of God, necessary to fulfill his will, that we might be saved unto his glory.Obs. 17. The fundamental motive unto the Lord Christ, in his undertaking the work of mediation, was the will and glory of God: “Lo, I come to do thy will.”5. The last thing in this context is the ground and rule of this undertaking of the Lord Christ and this is the glory of the truth of God in his promises recorded in the Word: “In the volume of the book it is written of me, that I should fulfill thy will, O God.” There is a difficulty in these words, both as to the translation of the original text and as unto the application of them. And therefore critical observations have been multiplied about them; which it is not my way or work to repeat. Those that are learned know where to find them, and those that are not so will not be edified by them. What is the true meaning and intention of the Holy Spirit in them is what we are to inquire into. The Socinian expositors have a peculiar conceit on this place. They suppose the apostle useth this expression, ἐνκεφαλίδι, to denote some especial chapter or place in the law. This they conjecture to be that of Deu 17:18-19 : “And it shall be, when he” (the king to be chosen) “sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.” David, they say, spoke those words in the psalm; and it is nowhere said that he should come to do the will of God but in this place of Deuteronomy, as he was to be the king of that people. But there can be nothing more fond than this empty conjecture. For, — (1.) David is not at all intended in these words of the psalmist, any otherwise but as he was the penman of the Holy Ghost, and a type of Christ, on which account he speaks in his name. They are the words of Christ, which David was inspired by the Holy Ghost to declare and utter. Neither would David speak these words concerning himself; because he that speaks doth absolutely prefer his own obedience, as unto worth and efficacy, before all God’s holy institutions: he presents it unto God, as that which is more useful unto the church than all the sacrifices which God had ordained. This David could not do justly.(2.) There is nothing spoken in this place of Deuteronomy concerning the sacerdotal office, but only of the regal. And in this place of the psalmist there is no respect unto the kingly office, but only unto the priesthood; for comparison is made with the sacrifices of the law. But the offering of these sacrifices was expressly forbidden unto the kings; as is manifest in the instance of king Uzziah, 2 Chronicles 26:18-20. Besides, there is in that place of Deuteronomy no more respect had unto David than unto Saul, or Jeroboam, or any other that was to be king of that people. There is nothing in it that belongs unto David in a peculiar manner. (3.) The words there recorded contain a mere prescription of duty, no prediction of the event; which for the most part was contrary unto what is required. But the words of the psalmist are a prophecy, a divine prediction and promise, which must be actually accomplished. Nor doth our Lord Christ in them declare what was prescribed unto him, but what he did undertake to do, and the record that was made of that undertaking of his.(4.) There is not one word in that place of Moses concerning the removal of sacrifices and burnt-offerings; which, as the apostle declares, is the principal thing intended in those of the psalmist. Yea, the contrary, as unto the season intended, is expressly asserted; for the king was to read in the book of the law continually, that he might observe and do all that is written therein, a great part whereof consists in the institution and observation of sacrifices.(5.) This interpretation of the words utterly overthrows what they dispute for immediately before; that is, that the entrance mentioned of Christ into the world, was not indeed his coming into this world, but his going out of it, and entering into heaven. For it cannot be denied but that the obedience of reading the law continually, and doing of it, is to be attended unto in this world, and not in heaven; and this they seem to acknowledge, so as to recall their own exposition. Other absurdities, which are very many in this place, I shall not insist upon. ᾿Ενκεφαλίδι, we with many others render, in answer unto the Hebrew, “in the volume” or “roll.” Ribera contends that this translation of the word, “the volume” or “roll of the book,” is absurd ‘“Because,” saith he, “the book itself was a volume or a roll; and so it is as if he had said, in the roll of the roll.” But ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψ, which we translate a “book,” doth not signify a book as written in a roll, but only an enunciation or declaration of any thing. We now call any book of greater quantity a volume. But ξְ ?βִ ?μָּ ?δis properly a “roll;” and the words used by the psalmist do signify that the declaration of the will of God made in this matter was written in a roll, the roll which contains all the revelations of his mind. And the word used by the apostle is not remote from this signification, as may be seen in sundry classic authors; — κεφαλίς, “volumen;” because a roll is made round, after the fashion of the head of a man. As the book itself was one roll, so the head of it, the beginning of it, amongst the first things written in it, is this recorded concerning the coming of Christ to do the will of God. This includeth both senses of the word; in the head, in the beginning of the roll, namely, of that part of the Scripture which was written when David penned this psalm. Now this can be no other but the first promise, which is recorded, Genesis 3:15. Then it was first declared, then it was first written and enrolled, that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, should be made of the seed of the woman, and in our nature come to do the will of God, and to deliver the church from that woful estate whereinto it was brought by the craft of Satan. In this promise, and the writing of it in the head of the volume, lies the verification of the psalmist’s assertion, “In the volume of the book it is written.” Howbeit the following declarations of the will of God herein are not excluded, nor ought so to be. Hence are we herein directed unto the whole volume of the Law; for indeed it is nothing but a prediction of the coming, of Christ, and a presignification of what he had to do. ‘That book which God has given to the church as the only guide of its faith, — the Bible; (that is, the book, all other books being of no consideration in comparison of it;) that book wherein all divine precepts and promises are enrolled or recorded: in this book, in the volume of it, this is the principal subject, especially in the head of the roll, or the beginning of it, namely, in the first promise, it is so written of me.’God commanded this great truth of the coming of Christ to be so enrolled, for the encouragement of the faith of them that should believe. And we may observe, that, —Obs. 18. God’s records in the roll of his book are the foundation and warranty of the faith of the church, in the Head and members.Obs. 19. The Lord Christ, in all that he did and suffered, had continual respect unto what was written of him. See Matthew 26:24. Obs. 20. In the record of these words,(1.) God was glorified in his truth and faithfulness,(2.) Christ was secured in his work, and the undertaking of it.(3.) A testimony was given unto his person and office.(4.) Direction is given unto the church, in all wherein they have to do with God, what they should attend unto, — namely, what is written. (5.) The things which concern Christ, the mediator, are the head of what is contained in the same records. Hebrews 10:8-10. — “Above when he said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and [offerings] for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein]; (which are offered by the law;) then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].”The use and signification of most of the words of these verses have already in our passage been spoken unto. There are two things in these three verses: 1. The application of the testimony taken out of the psalmist unto the present argument of the apostle, Hebrews 10:8-9.2. An inference from the whole, unto the proof of the only cause and means of the sanctification of the church, the argument he was now engaged in, Hebrews 10:10.As to the first of these, or the application of the testimony of the psalmist, and his resuming it, we may consider, — 1. What he designed to prove thereby: and this was, that by the introduction and establishment of the sacrifice of Christ in the church there was an end put to all legal sacrifices. And he adds thereunto, that the ground and reason of this great alteration of things in the church, by the will of God, was the utter insufficiency of those legal sacrifices in themselves for the expiation of sin and sanctification of the church. In verse 9 he gives us this sum of his design, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” 2. The apostle doth not here directly argue from the matter or substance of the testimony itself, but from the order of the words, and the regard they have in their order unto one another. For there is in them a twofold proposition; one concerning the rejection of legal sacrifices, and the other an introduction and tender of Christ and his mediation. And he declares, from the order of the words in the psalmist, that these things are inseparable; namely, the taking away of legal sacrifices, and the establishment of that of Christ. 3. This order in the words of the apostle is declared in that distribution of ἀνώτερον and τότε, “above” and “then.” ᾿Ανώτερον, “above;” — that is, in the first place, — these his words or sayings, recorded in the first place.4. There are in the words themselves these three things: —(1.) There is a distribution made of the legal sacrifices into their general heads, with respect unto the will of God concerning them all: “Sacrifices and offering, and whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifice for sin.” And in that distribution he adds another property of them, namely, they were required according to the law.[1. He had respect not only unto the removal of the sacrifices, but also of the law itself, whereby they were retained; so he enters on his present disputation with the imperfection of the law itself, verse 1. [2. Allowing these sacrifices and offerings all that they could pretend unto, namely, that they were established by the law, yet notwithstanding this, God rejects them as unto the expiation of sin and the salvation of the church. For he excludes the consideration of all other things which were not appointed by the law, as those which God abhorred in themselves, and so could have no place in this matter And we may observe, that, — Obs. 21. Whereas the apostle doth plainly distinguish and distribute all sacrifices and offerings into those on the one side which were offered by the law, and that one offering of the body of Christ on the other side, the pretended sacrifice of the mass is utterly rejected from any place in the worship of God. Obs. 22. God, as the sovereign lawgiver, had always power and authority to make what alteration he pleased in the orders and institutions of his worship.Obs. 23. That sovereign authority is that; alone which our faith and obedience respect in all ordinances of worship.(2.) After this was stated and delivered, when the mind of God was expressly declared as unto his rejection of legal sacrifices and offerings, τότε, “then he said;” — after that, in order thereon, upon the grounds before mentioned, “he said, Sacrifice,” etc. In the former words he declared the mind- of God, and in the latter his own intention and resolution to comply with his will, in order unto another way of atonement for sin: “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God;” — which words have been opened before. (3.) In the last place, he declares what was intimated and signified in this order, or in those things being thus spoken unto; sacrifices, on the one hand, which was the first; and the coming of Christ, which was the second, in this order and opposition. It is evident, —[1. That these words, ᾿Αναιρεῖτὸπρῶτον, “He taketh away the first,” do intend sacrifices and offerings. But he did not so do it immediately at the speaking of these words, for they continued for the space of some hundreds of years afterwards; but he did so declaratively, as unto the indication of the time, namely, when the “second” should be introduced.[2. The end of this removal of the “first,” was “the establishment of the second.” This “second,” say some, is the will of God; but the opposition made before is not between the will of God and the legal sacrifices, but between those sacrifices and the coming of Christ to do the will of God. Wherefore it is the way of the expiation of sin, and of the complete sanctification of the church by the coming, and mediation, and sacrifice of Christ., that is this “second,” the thing spoken of in the second place; this God would “establish,” approve, confirm, and render unchangeable. Obs. 24. As all things from the beginning made way for the coming of Christ in the minds of them that did believe, so every thing was to be removed out of the way that would hinder his coming, and the discharge of the work he had undertaken law, temple, sacrifices, must all be removed to give way unto his coming. So is it testified by his forerunner, Luke 3:4-6, “As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” So it must be in our own hearts; all things must give way unto him, or he will not come and make his habitation in them. Hebrews 10:10. — “By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all.]” From the whole context the apostle makes an inference, which is comprehensive of the substance of the gospel, and the description of the grace of God which is established thereby. Having affirmed, in Christ’s own words, that he came to do the will of God, he shows what was that will of God which he came to do, what was the design of God in it and the effect of it, and by what means it was accomplished; which things are to be inquired into: as, 1. What is the will of God which he intends; “By the which will.”2. What was the design of it, what God aimed at in this act of his will, and what is accomplished thereby; “We are sanctified.”3. The way and means whereby this effect proceedeth from the will of God; namely, “Through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ,” in opposition to legal sacrifices. 4. The manner of it, in opposition unto their repetition; it was “once for all.” But the sense of the whole will be more clear, if we consider, —1. The end aimed at in the first place, namely, the sanctification of the church. And sundry things must be observed concerning it: —(1.) That the apostle changeth his phrase of speech into the first person, “We are sanctified;” that is, all those believers whereof the gospel church- state was constituted, in opposition unto the church-state of the Hebrews and those that did adhere unto it: so he speaks before, as also Hebrews 4:3, “We who have believed do enter into rest.” For it might be asked of him, ‘You who thus overthrow the efficacy of legal sacrifices, what have you yourselves attained in your relinquishment of them?’‘We have,’saith he, ‘that sanctification, that dedication unto God, that peace with him, and that expiation of sin, that all those sacrifices could not effect.’And observe, — Obs. 25. Truth is never so effectually declared, as when it is confirmed by the experience of its power in them that believe it and make profession of it. This was that which gave them the confidence which the apostle exhorts them to hold fast and firm unto the end.Obs. 26. It is a holy glorying in God, and no unlawful boasting, for men openly to profess what they are made partakers of by the grace of God and blood of Christ. Yea, it is a necessary duty for men so to do, when any thing is set up in competition with them or opposition unto them. Obs. 27. It is the best security in differences in and about religion, (such as these wherein the apostle is engaged, the greatest and highest that ever were,) when men have an internal experience of the truth which they do profess.(2.) The words he useth are in the preterperfect tense, ἡγιασμένοιἐσμέν, and relate not only unto the things, but the time of the offering of the body of Christ. For although all that is intended herein did not immediately follow on the death of Christ, yet were they all in it, as the effects in their proper cause, to be produced by virtue of it in their times and seasons; and the principal effect intended was the immediate consequent thereof. (3.) This end of God, through the offering of the body of Christ, was the sanctification of the church: “We are sanctified.” The principal notion of sanctification in the New Testament, is the effecting of real, internal holiness in the persons of them that do believe, by the change of their hearts and lives. But the word is not here so to be restrained, nor is it used in that sense by our apostle in this epistle, or very rarely. It is here plainly comprehensive of all that he hath denied unto the law, priesthood, and sacrifices of the old testament, with the whole church-state of the Hebrews under it, and the effects of their ordinances and services; as, [1. A complete dedication unto God, in opposition unto the typical one which the people were partakers of by the sprinkling of the blood of calves and goats upon them, Exodus 24. [2. A complete church-state for the celebration of the spiritual worship of God, by the administration of the Spirit, wherein the law could make nothing perfect. [3. Peace with God upon a full and perfect expiation of sin; which he denies unto the sacrifices of the law, verses [4. Real, internal purification or sanctification of our natures and persons from all inward filth and defilement of them; which he proves at large that the carnal ordinances of the law could not effect of themselves, reaching no farther than the purification of the flesh. [5. Hereunto also belong the privileges of the gospel, in liberty, boldness, immediate access unto God, the means of that access, by Christ our high priest, and confidence therein; in opposition unto that fear, bondage, distance, and exclusion from the holy place of the presence of God, which they of old were kept under. All these things are comprised in this expression of the apostle, “We are sanctified.” The designation of such a state for the church, and the present introduction of it by the preaching of the gospel, is that whose confirmation the apostle principally designs in this whole discourse; the sum whereof he gives us, Hebrews 11:40, “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.”2. The whole fountain and principal cause of this state, this grace, is the will of God, even that will which our Savior tendered to accomplish, “By the which will we are sanctified.” In the original it is, “In which will;” “in” for “by,” which is usual. Wherefore we say properly, “by which will;” for it is the supreme efficient cause of our sanctification that is intended. And in that expression of our Savior, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” it is evident,(1.) That it was the will, that is, the counsel, the purpose, the decree of God, that the church should be sanctified. (2.) That our Lord Christ knew that this was the will of God, the will of the Father, in whose bosom he was. And, (3.) That God had determined (which he also knew and declared) that legal sacrifices could not accomplish and make effectual this his will, so as the church might be sanctified thereon. Wherefore the will of God here intended (as was intimated before) is nothing but the eternal, gracious, free act or purpose of his will, whereby he determined or purposed in himself to recover a church out of lost mankind, to sanctify them unto himself, and to bring them unto the enjoyment of himself hereafter, See Ephesians 1:4-9. And this act of the will of God was, (1.) Free and sovereign, without any meritorious cause, or any thing that should dispose him thereunto without himself: “He purposed in himself.” There are everywhere blessed effects ascribed to it, but no cause anywhere. All that is designed unto us in it, as unto the communication of it in its effects, were its effects, not its cause. See Ephesians 1:4, and this place. The whole mediation of Christ, especially his death and suffering, was the means of its accomplishment, and not the procuring cause of it.(2.) It was accompanied with infinite wisdom, whereby provision was made for his own glory, and the means and way of the accomplishment of his will. He would not admit the legal sacrifices as the means and way of its accomplishment, because they could not provide for those ends; for “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”(3.) It was immutable and irrevocable, it depended not upon any condition in any thing or person without himself: “He purposed in himself.” Nor was it capable of any change or alteration from oppositions or interveniencies.(4.) It follows hereon that it must be infallibly effectual, in the actual accomplishment of what was designed in it, — every thing in its order and season; it cannot in any thing be frustrated or disappointed. The whole church in every age shall be sanctified by it. This will of God some would have not to be any internal act of his will, but only the thing willed by him, name]y, the sacrifice of Christ; and that for this reason, because it is opposed to legal sacrifices, which the act of God’s will cannot be. But the mistake is evident; for the will of God here intended is not at all opposed unto the legal sacrifices, but only as to the means of the accomplishment of it, which they were not, nor could be.Obs. 28. The sovereign will and pleasure of God, acting itself in infinite wisdom and grace, is the sole, supreme, original cause of the salvation of the church, Romans 9:10-11.3. The means of accomplishment and making effectual of this will of God, is the “offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” Some copies after ἡγιασμένοιἐσμέν read οἱ, and then the sense must be supplied by the repetition of ἡγιασμένοι in the close of that verse, “who by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ were once sanctified.” But there is no color for this supply, for the word “once” doth directly respect the offering of Christ, as the following verses, wherein it is explained, and the dignity of this sacrifice thence demonstrated, do prove. Wherefore this article belongs not unto the text, for it is not in the best copies, nor is taken notice of in our translation. Why and in what sense the sacrifice of Christ is called the “offering of his body,” was before declared. And “by which,” διὰτῆς, refers not to the cause of our sanctification, which is the will of God, but unto the effect itself. Our sanctification is wrought, effected, accomplished by the offering of the body of Christ, (1.) In that the expiation of our sin and reconciliation with God were perfectly wrought thereby:(2.) In that the whole church of the elect was thereby dedicated unto God; which privilege they are called into the actual participation of through faith in the blood of Christ:(3.) In that thereby all the old legal sacrifices, and all that yoke, and burden, and bondage wherewith they were accompanied, are taken out of the way, Ephesians 2:15-16 :(4.) In that he redeemed us thereby from the whole curse of the law, as given originally in the law of nature, and also renewed in the covenant of Sinai:(5.) In that thereby he ratified and confirmed the new covenant, and all the promises of it, and all the grace contained in them, to be effectually communicated unto us:(6.) In that he thereby procured for us, and received into his own disposition, in the behalf of the church, effectually to communicate all grace and mercy unto our souls and consciences. In brief, whatever was prepared in the will of God for the good of the church, it is all communicated unto us through the offering of the body of Christ, in such a way as tendeth unto the glory of God and the assured salvation of the church. This “offering of the body of Jesus Christ” is the glorious center of all the counsels of the wisdom of God, of all the purposes of his will for the sanctification of the church. For, (1.) No other way or means could effect it:(2.) This will do it infallibly; for Christ crucified is the wisdom of God and the power of God unto this end. This is the anchor of our faith, whereon alone it rests.4. The last thing in the words gives us the manner of the offering of the body of Christ. It was done ἐφάπαξ: “once for all,” say we, — once only; it was never before that one time, nor shall ever be afterwards, — “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” And this demonstrates both the dignity and efficacy of his sacrifice. Of such worth and dignity it was, that God absolutely acquiesced therein, and smelled a savor of eternal rest in it: and of such efficacy, that the sanctification of the church was perfected by it, so that it needed no repetition. It also made way for the following state of Christ himself, which was to be a state of glory, absolute and perfect, inconsistent with the repetition of the same sacrifice of himself. For, as the apostle shows, verses 12, 13, after this sacrifice offered, he had no more to do but to enter into glory. So absurd is that imagination of the Socinians, that he offered his expiatory sacrifice in heaven, that he did not, he could not enter into glory, until he had completely offered his sacrifice, the memorial whereof he carried into the holy place. And the apostle lays great weight on this consideration, as that which is the foundation of the faith of the church. He mentions it often, and argues from it as the principal argument to prove its excellency above the sacrifices of the law. And this very foundation is destroyed by those who fancy unto themselves a renewed offering of the body of Christ every day in the mass. Nothing can be more directly contrary unto this assertion of the apostle, whatever color they may put upon their practice, or whatever pretense they may give unto it. Wherefore the apostle in the next verses argues from the dignity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, by its difference from and opposition unto the legal sacrifices, which were often repeated. Καὶπᾶςμὲνἰερεὺςἔστηκεκαθ᾿ἡμέρανλειτουργῶν, καὶτὰςαὐτὰςπολλάκιςπροσφέρωνθυσίας, αἵτινεςοὐδέποτεδύνανταιπεριελεῖνἁμαρτίας·αὐτὸςδὲμίανὑπὲρἁμαρτιῶνπροσενέγκαςθυσίαν, εἰςτὸδιηςεκὲςἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦΘεοῦ, τὸλοιπὸνἐκδεχόμενοςἕωςτεθῶσινοἱἐχθροὶαὐτοῦὑποπόδιοντῶνποδῶναὐτοῦ·μιᾷγὰρπροσφορᾷτετελείωκενεἰςτὸδιηνεκὲςτοὺςἁγιαζομένους.[6] [6] VARIOUS READING. — Scholz and Lachmann, and several other critics, prefer οὗτος, verse 12. Tischendorf retains αὐτός in his text. — ED. Hebrews 10:11-14. — And every priest standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.These words are an entrance into the close of that long blessed discourse of the apostle concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, their dignity and efficacy, which he shuts up and finisheth in the following verses, confirming the whole with the testimony of the Holy Ghost before produced by him. Four things doth he here instruct us in, by way of recapitulation of what he had declared and proved before: 1. The state of the legal priests and sacrifices, as unto the repetition of them; by which he had proved before their utter insufficiency to take away sin, Hebrews 10:11.2. In that one offering of Christ, and that once offered, in opposition thereunto, Hebrews 10:12.3. The consequence thereof on the part of Christ; whereof there are two parts:(1.) His state and condition immediately ensuing thereon, Hebrews 10:12, manifesting the dignity, efficacy, and absolute perfection of his offering;(2.) As unto the continuance of his state and condition afterwards, Hebrews 10:13. 4. The absolute effect of his sacrifice, which was the sanctification of the church, Hebrews 10:14.In the first of these we have, 1. The note of its introduction, καί, “and.”2. The subject of the proposition in it, “every priest.”3. What is ascribed unto them in the discharge of their office; which is expressed,(1.) Generally, they “stood ministering day by day;”(2.) Particularly, as unto that part of their office which is now under consideration; “they often” (that is, every day) “offered the same sacrifices.”4. The inefficacy of those sacrifices, though often offered; “they could not take away sin.” Besides this work of daily offering the same sacrifices, winch could not take away sin, there was nothing ensued on them of glory and dignity unto themselves, or benefit unto the church. This the apostle insinuates, although it be left out in the comparison, insisting especially on the contrary in the opposite sacrifice of Christ, both as unto his own glory and the eternal salvation of the church.First, The introduction is by καί, mostly a copulative, sometimes redditive, as it is here taken by us and rendered. In this latter way it gives a further reason of what was before declared of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, by a comparison of it with those of the priests, which were often repeated. In the other sense it denotes a progress in the same argument, by a repetition of the consideration of the old sacrifices, and a new comparison of them with that of Christ. Both come to the same, and either may be allowed. Secondly, The subject spoken of, that is πᾶςἱερεύς, “every priest.”‘That is,’say some, ‘every high priest;’and so they interpret the words, “standeth daily,” by ‘a certain day once a-year,’referring the whole unto the anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation. And it is not denied but that the apostle hath a special regard thereunto, and mentioneth it expressly, as we have showed on Hebrews 9:7; Hebrews 9:25. But it cannot be here so restrained: for he makes application herein of what he had spoken before of all the sacrifices of the law; and therein he reckons up all sorts of them, as we have seen, some of which, as the whole burnt-offerings, and all offerings in distinction from bloody sacrifices, were not offered by the high priest on that day, but by other priests on all occasions. And the following expression, ἕστηκεκαθ᾿ἡμέρανλειτουργῶν, “standeth ministering every day,” declares the constant discharge of the priestly office in every daily ministration. This was the work that all the priests were designed unto in their courses. Wherefore the words, as they do not exclude the annual sacrifice of the high priest, so they include the daily and occasional sacrifices of all the other priests; for these offerings of blood were also types of the sacrifice and offering of Christ. For all sacrifices by blood were to make atonement for sin, Leviticus 17:11; and they were of no use but by virtue of their typical representation of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore all the priests, and their whole office, as unto all that belonged unto the offering of sacrifices, are comprised in this assertion. And it was necessary to extend the comparison unto them all, that there might be no exception unto the argument from it. And the following words, which give a description of the general way of their ministration, do enforce this interpretation, which is the third thing in them. Thirdly, “Standeth daily ministering,” — ἕστηκε, “standeth,” or rather “stood.” They did so while their office was in force; it was their duty by the law so to do. For the apostle respecteth not what was their present acting as to matter of fact, but speaks of the whole service of the priests indistinctly, as past or present, with regard unto what was to be done by virtue of the first institution of them and the service which the tabernacle was erected for. 1. “Stood,” or “standeth,” ready for and employed in the work of their office, — λειτουργῶν, “ministering;” a general name of employment about all sacred duties, services, and offices whatever, and therefore it compriseth all the service of the priests about the tabernacle and altar, wherein they ministered unto God according to his appointment. And this extends unto all that were partakers of the priesthood, and was not confined unto the high priest. See Hebrews 9:1. This they did καθ᾿ἡμέραν, — that is, “day by day,” as occasion did require, according to the appointment of the law. Not only the daily sacrifice morning and evening is intended, nor yet the doubling of them on the Sabbath and other festivals, but all the occasional offerings for the people, as their necessities did require. For any man might bring his sin-offering, and trespass-offering, his peace-offering, his vow, or free-will-offering, unto the priest at any time, to be offered on the altar. For this cause they came to be always in a readiness to stand ministering daily, and hereunto was their office confined. There was no end of their work, after which they should enter into another and better state, as the apostle shows it of the LORD Christ in the next verse. And this is a high argument for the imperfection of their sacrifices, they were never brought unto that state by them as that the high priest might cease from ministering, and enter into a condition of rest. 2. Their general ministry is described by the especial duty which is under present consideration, — they “offered oftentimes the same sacrifices.” They were the same sacrifices that were offered, of the same general nature and kind. They were, indeed, distributed into several sorts, according unto their occasions and institutions, as, whole burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and the like; but their general nature was one and the same, falling all under the same censure, that they could not take away sin. They had not any one peculiar service that could effect this end. And they offered them often, daily, monthly, occasionally, annually, according unto divine institution. In this defect as unto the efficacy and frequency in the repetition, is the sacrifice of Christ directly opposed unto them. Hence, —Fourthly, In the last place, the apostle passeth that sentence concerning them all, whose truth he had before sufficiently confirmed, “They cannot,” they never could, “take away sins.” They could not περιελεῖν, “take them out of the way;” that is, absolutely, perfectly, as the word denotes. They could not do it before God, the judge, by making a sufficient atonement for them, verse 4; they could not do it as unto the conscience of the sinner, giving him assured peace with God thereon. ‘It may be they could not do it at any one time, but in the constant continuance in the use and observation of them they might do it; if they were multiplied, if they were costly, if they were observed in an extraordinary manner, they might effect this end?’No, saith the apostle, “they could not do it,” — οὐδέποτεδύνανται. The defect was in their own nature and lower, — “ they cannot do it.” They could not do it by any means, nor at any time. The word is a vehement negation, respecting all the powers of those sacrifices, and all the times wherein they were used. And therefore, as unto those things which might seem to give them their efficacy, as their multiplication, their constancy, their cost, extraordinary care about them, God doth reject them in a peculiar manner, when trusted unto for the taking away of sin, Isaiah 1:11; Micah 6:6-7. Obs. 1. If all those divine institutions, in the diligent observation of them, could not take away sin, how much less can any thing do so that we can betake ourselves unto for that end! — There are innumerable things invented in the Papacy to take away sin and its guilt, especially of those sins which they are pleased to call venial. And all men, on the conviction of sin, are apt to entertain thoughts that by some endeavors of their own they may so take them away. To comply with this presumption are all the papal inventions of confession, absolution, indulgences, masses, penances, purgatory, and the like, accommodated. Others trust solely unto their own repentance and following duties, as do the Socinians, and all men in their unrenewed estate. But certainly if the apostle proveth this assertion beyond contradiction, that none of them could ever take away any sin, that their legal institutions of divine worship and their observations could not do it; how much less can the inventions of men effect that great end! This account he gives us of the inefficacy of the sacrifices of the priests, notwithstanding their diligent attendance on their offerings, Hebrews 10:11. Hebrews 10:12-14. — In these verses the apostle opposeth that one sacrifice of Christ unto the legal offerings that the priests attended unto; and that in three things:1. In the nature of it, and its perfection, Hebrews 10:12. 2. The consequence on the part of Christ, by whom it was offered, Hebrews 10:12-13. 3. In the effect of it towards the church, Hebrews 10:14.Hebrews 10:12. — “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.”First, There is a note of opposition, answering the καί, “and,” in the verse foregoing; δέ, “but.” It is not exceptive, but alternative.Secondly, The person spoken of, αὐτός, “he;” that is, ‘he of whom we speak,’he whose body was offered once for all, Jesus Christ, the high priest of the new testament. “But this man,” say we.Thirdly, What is ascribed unto him in these words, ἀμαρτιῶνπροσενέγκαςθυσίαν, — “After he had offered one sacrifice for sins.” lie offered as the priests did; he offered for sin as they did also: so far there was an agreement. But, 1. He offered only one sacrifice, not many. And what is included therein? — that this sacrifice was of himself, and not the blood of bulls and goats. 2. It was but once offered; and it is principally called:’one sacrifice” because it was but once offered. And the time when he offered this sacrifice is also proposed, not absolutely, but with respect unto what ensued: it was before he “sat down on the right hand of God;” that is, before his entrance into glory, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin. And the way of mentioning these things doth manifest that the principal intention of the apostle is to speak unto the different consequences of this offering of the priests of old and of Christ. And this observation, of his offering “one sacrifice” only for sin, is mentioned in opposition unto the frequent repetition of their sacrifices; but he mentioneth it only transiently, to make a way for the great ensuing differences in the consequents of them. Howbeit in these words, thus transiently mentioned, he judgeth and condemneth the two grand oppositions that at this day are made against that one sacrifice of Christ, and efficacy of it. The first is that of the Papists, who in the mass pretend to multiply the sacrifices of him every day, whereas he offered but “once;” so as that the repetition of it is destructive unto it. The other is that of the Socinians, who would have the offering and sacrifice of Christ to be only his appearance before God to receive power to keep us from the punishment of sin, upon his doing of the will of God in the world. But the words are express as unto the order of these things; namely, that he offered his sacrifice for sins before his exaltation in glory, or his sitting down on the right hand of God. And herein doth the apostle give glory unto that offering of Christ for sins, in that it perfectly accomplished what all legal sacrifices could not effect. This, therefore, is the only repose of troubled souls. Fourthly, The consequent hereof on the part of Christ is twofold:1. What immediately ensued on this offering of his body, Hebrews 10:12;2. What continueth to be his state with respect thereunto, Hebrews 10:13 : both of them evidencing God’s high approbation and acceptance of his person, and what he had done; as also the glory and efficacy of his office and sacrifice above those of the law, wherein no such privilege nor testimony was given unto them upon the discharge of their office. 1. The immediate consequent of his offering was, ἐκάθισενἐνδεξιᾷτοῦΘεοῦ, — that “he sat down on the right hand of God.” This glorious exaltation of Christ hath been spoken unto and opened before, on Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1. Here it includes a double opposition unto and preference above the state of the legal priests upon their oblations. For although the high priest, in his anniversary sacrifice for the expiation of sin, did enter into the most holy place, where were the visible pledges of the presence of God, yet he stood in a posture of humble ministration; he sat not down with any appearance of dignity or honor. Again, his abode in the typical holy place was for a short season only; but Christ sat down at the right hand of God “for ever,” — εἰςτὸδιηνεκές, “in perpetuum;” in an unalterable state and condition. Hw sat down, never to offer sacrifice any more. And this is the highest pledge, the highest assurance of these two things, which are the pillars and principal foundations of the faith of the church:(1.) That God was absolutely pleased, satisfied, and highly glorified, in and by the offering of Christ; for had it not been so, the human nature of Christ had not been immediately exalted into the highest glory that it was capable of. See Ephesians 5:1-2; Philippians 2:7-9.(2.) That he had by his offering perfectly expiated the sin of the world, so as that there is no need for ever of any other offering or sacrifice unto this end.Obs. 2. Faith in Christ doth jointly respect both his oblation of himself by death and the glorious exaltation that ensued thereon. — He so offered one sacrifice for sin, as that thereon he sat down on the right hand of God for ever. Neither of these separately is a full object for faith to find rest in; both in conjunction are a rock to fix it on. And, —Obs. 3. Christ in this order of things is the great exemplar of the church. He suffered, and then entered into glory. “If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.”Hebrews 10:13. — “From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” 2. The state and condition of Christ after his sitting down at the right hand of God, not absolutely, but with respect unto his enemies, is declared in these words. The whole testimony is taken from Psalms 110:1, and here explained in these verses. It is produced in the confirmation of what the apostle asserts concerning the impossibility as well as the needlessness of the repetition of his sacrifice. For as it is no way necessary, as in the verses following he declares, so it is impossible in his present state and condition, which was ordained for him from the beginning: this was, that he should sit at the right hand of God, expecting his enemies to be made his footstool; that is, in a state of majesty and glory. But offer himself he could not, without suffering and dying, whereof in this state he is no way capable. And besides, as was before observed, it is an evidence both of the dignity and eternal efficacy of his one sacrifice, whereon at once his exaltation did ensue. I acknowledge my thoughts are inclined unto a peculiar interpretation of this place, though I will not oppose absolutely that which is commonly received; though in my judgment I prefer this other before it. The assertion is introduced by τὸλοιπόν: “henceforth,” say we: “as unto what remains;” that is, of the dispensation of the personal ministry of Christ. He was here below, he came unto his own, he dwelt amongst them; that is, in the church of the Hebrews. Some very few believed on him, but the generality of the people, the rulers, priests, guides of the church, engaged against him, persecuted him, falsely accused him, killed him, hanged him on a tree. Under the veil of their rage and cruelty he carried on his work of “making his soul an offering for sin,” or “taking away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” having fulfilled this work, and thereby wrought out the eternal salvation of the church, he sits down on the right hand of God. In the meantime those stubborn enemies of his, who hated, rejected, and slew him, continued raging in the fierceness of their implacable tumults against him and them that believed in him. They hated his person, his office, his work, his gospel; many of them expressly sinning against the Holy Ghost. Yet did they triumph that they had prevailed against him, and destroyed him; as some of their accursed posterity do to this day. It was the judgment of God, that those his obstinate enemies should by his power be utterly destroyed in this world, as a pledge of the eternal destruction of those who will not believe the gospel. That this was the end whereunto they were designed himself declares, Matthew 22:7; Luke 19:27, “Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” After our Lord Christ left this world, there was a mighty contest between the dying apostate church of the Jews and the rising gospel church of believers. The Jews boasted of their success, in that by fraud and cruelty they had destroyed him as a malefactor; the apostles and the church with them gave testimony unto his resurrection and glory in heaven. Great expectation there was what would be the end of these things, which way the scale would turn. After a while, a visible and glorious determination was made of this controversy; God sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, burning up their city. Those enemies of the King, which would not have him to reign over them, were brought forth and slain before his face. So were all his enemies made his footstool. I do judge that these are the enemies of Christ, and the making of them his footstool, which are peculiarly here intended, namely, the destruction of the hardened, unbelieving Jews, who had obstinately rejected his ministry, and opposed it unto the end. Then were those his enemies who so refused him slain and destroyed thereon. For, — (1.) This description of his enemies, as his enemies peculiarly, directs us unto this sense, the enemies of his person, doctrine, and glory, with whom he had so many contests, whose blasphemies and contradictions he underwent. They were his enemies in a peculiar manner.(2.) This the word ἐκδεχόμενος, “expecting,” better answers unto than unto the other sense. For the glorious visible propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ thereon, began and was carried on gloriously upon and after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the church of the Jews, his enemies. With reference hereunto, expectation may be no less distinctly ascribed unto him than if we extend the word unto the whole time unto the end of the world. (3.) The act of vengeance on these his enemies is not said to be his own, but is peculiarly assigned unto God the Father, and those employed by him. In the original promise, the words of God the Father to him are, “I will make thine enemies thy footstool;” — ‘I take it upon me (vengeance is mine) to revenge the injuries done unto thee, and the obstinacy of those unbelievers.’Here in this place respect is had unto the means that God used in the work of their destruction, which was the Roman army, by whom they were, as the footstool of Christ, absolutely trodden under his feet, with respect unto this special act of God the Father; who in the execution of it proclaims that “vengeance is his.” For in the following words the Lord Christ is said only to “expect” it, as that wherein his own cause was vindicated, and revenged, as it were, by another hand, while he pleaded it himself in the world by that mild and gentle means of sending his Spirit to convince them of sin, righteousness, and judgment. (4.) This is that which the apostle constantly threatens the obstinate Hebrews and apostate professors of the gospel withal, throughout this epistle, the time of their destruction being now at hand. So he doth, Hebrews 6:5-8; and in this chapter, verses 26-31, where it must be spoken to.(5.) This was that τὸλοιπόν, or “what remained,” as unto the personal ministry of Christ in this world.Obs. 4. The horrible destruction of the stubborn, obstinate enemies of the person and office of Christ, which befell the nation of the Jews, is a standing security of the endless destruction of all who remain his obstinate adversaries.I leave this interpretation of the words unto the thoughts of them that are judicious, and shall open the mind of the Holy Ghost in them according unto the generally received opinion of their sense. And to this end, — (1.) The subject spoken of is the enemies of Christ, — οἱἐχθροί, “his enemies.” He hath had many enemies ever since his exaltation; and so shall have unto the consummation of all things, when they shall all of them be triumphed over.For his enemies are of two sorts: first, Such as are so immediately and directly unto his person; secondly, Such as are so to his office and work, with the benefits of the salvation of the church. Those of the first sort are either devils or men. All the devils are in a combination, as sworn enemies unto the person of Christ and his kingdom. And for men, the whole world of unbelieving Jews, Mohammedans, and Pagans, are all his enemies, and do put forth all their power in opposition unto him. The enemies unto his office, grace, and work, and the benefits of it, are either persons or things. [1. The head of this opposition and enmity unto his office is Antichrist, with all his adherents; and in a special manner, all worldly power, authority, and rule, acting themselves in subserviency unto the antichristian interest. [2. All pernicious heresies against his person and grace; [3. All others which make profession of the gospel, and live not as becomes the gospel, they are all enemies of Christ and his office. The things which rise up in enmity and opposition to him and the work of his grace, are, sin, death, the grave, and hell. All these endeavor to obstruct and frustrate all the ends of Christ’s mediation, and are therein his enemies. (2.) There is the disposal of this subject, of these enemies of Christ. They shall be made his footstool. ῞Εωςτεθῶσιν — “until they be put” and “placed” in this condition. It is a state which they would not be in; but they shall be made, put, and placed in it, whether they will or no, as the word signifies. ῾ψποπόδιοντῶνποδῶναὐτοῦ. A footstool is used in a threefold sense in the Scripture: —[1. For the visible pledge of God’s presence and his worship. God’s throne, as we have showed, was represented by the ark, mercy-seat, and cherubim, in the most holy place; wherein the sanctuary itself was his footstool, 1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalms 99:5; Psalms 132:7. So it is applied unto God, and his presence in the church; as the ark was his throne, so the sanctuary was his footstool.[2. It is applied unto God and his presence in the world. So heaven above is called his throne, and this lower part of the creation is his footstool, Isaiah 66:1.In neither of these senses are the enemies of Christ to be his footstool; therefore it is taken, — [3. For a despised, conquered condition; a state of a mean, subjected people, deprived of all power and benefit, and brought into absolute subjection. In no other sense can it be applied unto the enemies of Christ, as here it is. Yet doth it not signify the same condition absolutely as unto all persons and things that are his enemies; for they are not of one nature, and their subjection to him is such as their natures are capable of. But these things are intended in it: 1st. The deprivation of all power, authority, and glory. They sat on thrones, but now are under the seat of him who is the only potentate. 2dly. An utter defeat of their design, in opposing either his person or the work of his grace in the eternal salvation of his church. They shall not hurt nor destroy any more in the mountain of the Lord.3dly. Their eternal disposal by the will of Christ, according as his glory shall be manifested therein. Sin, death, the grave, and hell, as unto their opposition to the church, shall be utterly destroyed, 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; and “there shall be no more death.” Satan and Antichrist shall be destroyed two ways: (1st.) Initially and gradually.(2dly.) Absolutely and completely.The first they are in all ages of the church, from the time of Christ’s glorious ascension into heaven. They were then immediately put in subjection to him, all of them, because that they should not defeat any one end of his mediation. And he maketh continual instances, as he pleases, of his power over them, in the visible destruction of some of his principal and most implacable enemies. And secondly, it will be complete at the last day, when all these enemies shall be utterly destroyed. (3.) The word ἕως, “until,” here hath respect unto both these, the gradual and final destruction of all the enemies of Christ.(4.) This Christ is said to expect; “henceforth expecting.” Expectation and waiting are improperly ascribed to Christ, as they are in the Scripture unto God himself, so far as they include hope or uncertainty of the event, or a desire of any thing, either as to matter, manner, or time, otherwise than as they are foreknown and determined. But it is the rest and complacency of Christ in the faithfulness of God’s promises, and his infinite wisdom as unto the season of their accomplishment, that is intended. He doth not so expect these things, as though there were any thing wanting to his own blessedness, glory, power, or authority, until it be actually and completely finished; but saith the apostle, ‘As to what remains to the Lord Christ in the discharge of his office, he henceforth is no more to offer, to suffer, no more to die, no more to do any thing for the expiation of sin or by way of sacrifice; all this being absolutely and completely perfected, he is for ever in the enjoyment of the glory that was set before him; satisfied in the promises, the power, and wisdom of God, for the complete effecting of his mediatory office, in the eternal salvation of the church, and by the conquest and destruction of all his and their enemies in the proper times and seasons for it.’And from this interpretation of the words we may take these observations: — Obs. 5. It was the entrance of sin which raised up all our enemies against us. From thence took they their rise and beginning; as death, the grave, and hell. Some that were friendly before became our enemies thereon; as the law: and some that had a radical enmity, got power thereby to execute it; as the devil. The state in which we were created was a state of universal peace; all the strife and contention rose from sin.Obs. 6. The Lord Christ, in his ineffable love and grace, put himself between us and all our enemies; and took into his breast all their swords, wherewith they were armed against us: so they are his enemies.Obs. 7. The Lord Christ, by the offering of himself, making peace with God, ruined all the enmity against the church, and all the enemies of it. For all their power arose from the just displeasure of God, and the curse of his law.Obs. 8. It is the foundation of all consolation to the church, that the Lord Christ, even now in heaven, takes all our enemies to be his; in whose destruction he is infinitely more concerned than we are.Obs. 9. Let us never esteem any thing, or any person, to be our enemy, but only so far and in what they are the enemies of Christ.Obs. 10. It is our duty to conform ourselves to the Lord Christ, in a quiet expectancy of the ruin of all our spiritual adversaries.Obs. 11. Envy not the condition of the most proud and cruel adversaries of the church; for they are absolutely in his power, and shall be cast under his footstool at the appointed season.Hebrews 10:14. — “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”The apostle, 1. Gives the great reason of this state of things with reference unto the Lord Christ in the discharge of his office, namely, that he did not repeat his offering, as the priests under the law did theirs, every year, and every day; and that he is set down at the right hand of God, expecting his enemies to be made his footstool, — wherein they had no share after their oblations: and this is, because “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” This being done, there is no need of any daily sacrifice, nothing that should detain the Lord Jesus out of the possession of his glory. So the particle γάρ “for,” infers a reason in these words of all that was assigned before unto him, in opposition unto what was done by the priests of the law: it was “by one offering.”2. What he did so effect, which rendered all future offerings and sacrifices impossible: “he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”1. for the first, what he did of the nature of the thing spoken of, was μιᾷπροσφορᾷ, “by one offering;” as what the priests of old did was also by offerings and sacrifices. The eminency of this offering the apostle had before declared, which here he refers unto. It was not of bulls or goats, but of himself, — he “offered himself to God;” of his body, — that is, his whole human nature. And this offering, as he had observed before, was only “once offered;” in the mention whereof the apostle includes all the opposition he had made before between the offering of Christ and those of the priests, as to its worth and dignity. 2. That which is effected hereby is, that “he perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Those on whom his work is effected are thereby “sanctified.” They that are dedicated unto God, those who are sanctified or purged by virtue of this sacrifice, unto them all the other effects are confined. First to sanctify them, then to perfect them, was the design of Christ in offering of himself; which he purposed not for all men universally. So in the foundation of the church of Israel, they were first sanctified and dedicated unto God in and by the sacrifices wherewith the covenant was confirmed, Exodus 24; and afterwards were perfected, so far as their condition was capable thereof, in the prescription of laws and ordinances for their church-state and worship. The word here, τετελείωκεν, was used before.He hath brought them into the most perfect and consummate church-state and relation unto God, as unto all his worship, that the church is capable of in this world. It is not an absolute, subjective, virtual, internal perfection of grace, that is intended; the word signifies not such a perfection, “made perfect,” nor is ever used to that purpose; nor is it the perfection of glory, for he treats of the present church-state of the gospel in this world: but it is a state and condition of that grace and those privileges which the law, priests, and sacrifices, could never bring them unto. He hath by his “one offering” wrought and procured for them the complete pardon of sin, and peace before God thereon, that they should have no more need of the repetition of sacrifices; he hath freed them from the yoke of carnal ordinances, and the bondage which they were kept in by them, prescribing unto them a holy worship, to be performed with boldness in the presence of God, by an entrance into the holy place; he hath brought them into the last and best church-state, the highest and nearest relation unto God that the church is capable of in this world, or the glory of his wisdom and grace hath assigned unto it. And this he hath done εἰςτὸδιηνεκές, “for ever,” so as that there shall never be any alteration in that estate whereunto he hath brought them, nor any addition of privilege or advantage be ever made unto it. Obs. 12. There was a glorious efficacy in the one offering of Christ.Obs. 13. The end of it must be effectually accomplished towards all for whom it was offered; or else it is inferior unto the legal sacrifices, for they attained their proper end.Obs. 14. The sanctification and perfection of the church being the end designed in the death and sacrifice of Christ, all things necessary unto that end must be included therein, that it be not frustrated. ΜαρτυρεῖδὲἡμῖνκαὶτὸΠνεῦματὸἅγιον·μετὰγὰρτὸπροειρηκέναι·Αὕτηἡδιαθήκηἣνδιαθήσομαιπρὸςαὐτοὺςμετὰτὰςἡμέραςἐκείνας, λέγειΚύριος, διδοὺςνόμουςμουἐπὶκαρδίαςαὐτῶν, καὶἐπὶτῶνδιανοιῶναὐτῶνἐπιγράψωαὐτούς·καὶ, Τῶνἀμαρτιῶναὐτῶνκαὶτῶνἀνομιῶναὐτῶνοὐμὴμνησθᾶἔτι. Οπουδὲἄφεσιςτούτων, οὐκἔτιπροσφορὰπερὶἀμαρτίας.[7] [7] VARIOUS READING. — Instead of μνησθῶ Lachmann and Tisehendorf read μνησθήσομαι.—— Ed. Hebrews 10:15-18. — [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them: And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.The foundation of the whole preceding discourse of the apostle, concerning the glory of the priesthood of Christ, and the efficacy of his sacrifice, was laid in the description of the new covenant, whereof he was the mediator; which was confirmed and ratified by his sacrifice, as the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, Hebrews 8:10-13. Having now abundantly proved and demonstrated what he designed concerning them both, his priesthood and his sacrifice, he gives us a confirmation of the whole from the testimony of the Holy Ghost, in the description of that covenant which he had given before. And because the crisis which he had brought his argument and disputation unto was, that the Lord Christ, by reason of the dignity of his person and office, with the everlasting efficacy of his sacrifice, was to offer himself but “once,” — which virtually includes all that he had before taught and declared, including in it an immediate demonstration of the insufficiency of all those sacrifices which were often repeated, and consequently their removal out of the church, — he returns unto those words of the Holy Ghost, for the proof of this particular also. And he doth it from the order of the words used by the Holy Ghost, as he had argued before from the order of the words in the psalmist, Hebrews 10:8-9.Wherefore there is an ellipsis in the words, which must have a supplement, to render the sense perfect. For unto that proposition, “After he had said before,” Hebrews 10:15, with what follows, Hebrews 10:16, there must be added in the beginning of the 17th verse, “he said;” after he had said or spoken of the internal grace of the covenant, he said this also, that “their sins and iniquities he would remember no more.” For from these words doth he make his conclusive inference, Hebrews 10:18, which is the sum of all that he designed to prove. There is in the words, first, the introduction of the testimony insisted on, “The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us.” The Hebrews might object unto him, as they were ready enough to do it, that all those things were but his own conclusions and arguings; which they would not acquiesce in, unless they were confirmed by testimonies of the Scripture. And therefore I did observe, in my first discourses on this epistle, that the apostle dealt not with these Hebrews as with the churches of the Gentiles, namely, by his apostolical authority (for which cause he prefixed not his name and title unto it); but upon their own acknowledged principles and testimonies of the Old Testament; so manifesting that there was nothing now proposed unto them in the gospel but that which was foretold, promised, and represented in the Old Testament, and was therefore the object of the faith of their forefathers. The same way doth he here proceed in, and calls in the testimony of the Holy Ghost, bearing witness unto the things that he had taught and delivered. And there is in the words, — 1. The author of this testimony; that is, “the Holy Ghost.” And it is ascribed unto him, as all that is written in the Scripture is so, not only because holy men of old wrote as they were acted by him, and so he was the author of the whole Scripture; but because also of his presence and authority in it and with it continually. Hence whatever is spoken in the Scripture is, and ought to be unto us, as the immediate word of the Holy Ghost. He continues therein to speak unto us; and this gives the reason of2. The manner of his speaking in this testimony; μαρτυρεῖ, “he beareth witness to us.” He doth it actually and constantly in the Scriptures, by his authority therein. And he doth so unto us; that is, not unto us only who preach and teach those things, not unto the apostles and other Christian teachers of the gospel, but unto all of us of the church of Israel, who acknowledge the truth of the Scriptures, and own them as the rule of our faith and obedience. So doth he often join himself unto them to whom he wrote and spake of, by reason of the common alliance between them as Hebrews. See Hebrews 2:3, and the exposition of that place: ‘This is that which the Holy Ghost in the Scripture testifies unto us all; which should put an end unto all controversies about these things. Nothing else is taught you but what is testified beforehand by God himself.’ Obs. 1. It is the authority of the Holy Ghost alone, speaking unto us in the Scripture, whereinto all our faith is to be resolved.Obs. 2. We are to propose nothing in the preaching and worship of the gospel but what is testified unto by the Holy Ghost: not traditions, not our own reasons and inventions.Obs. 3. When an important truth consonant unto the Scripture is declared, it is useful and expedient to confirm it with some express testimony of Scripture.3. Lastly, the manner of the expression is emphatical: ΚαὶτὸΠνεῦματὸἄγιον, — “Even also the Holy Spirit himself.” For herein we are directed unto his holy divine person, and not to an external operation of divine power, as the Socinians dream. It is that Holy Spirit himself that continueth to speak to us in the Scripture.This is the first thing, or the introduction of the testimony. Secondly, There are two things in this testimony of the Holy Ghost; the first is the matter or substance of it; the second, the order of the things contained in it, or spoken by him. The introduction of the former is in the words we have spoken unto; that of the latter, in the close of the verse, in these words, “For after he had spoken before.” Of the testimony itself, which is declarative of the nature of the new covenant made with Christ and confirmed in him, there are two general parts: First, that which concerns the sanctification of the elect, by the communication of effectual grace unto them for their conversion and obedience. The second is concerning the complete pardon of their sins, and the casting them into everlasting oblivion. The first of these the Holy Ghost witnesseth in the first place. But he stays not there; afterwards he adds the latter, concerning the pardon of sins and iniquities. This being that alone wherein at present the apostle is concerned, and from whence he confirms his present argument, he distinguisheth it from the other, as that which was of particular use in itself. And therefore verse 17 is to be supplied by, “he said,” or “thereon also, Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” The words themselves have, in both parts of them, been explained at large on Hebrews 8, where they are first produced as the great foundation of the ensuing discourses of the apostle, so that they are not here again to be opened. We are only to consider the argument of the apostle from the latter part of them; and this is, that the covenant being confirmed and established, that is, in the blood and by the one sacrifice of Christ, there can be no more offering for sin. For God will never appoint nor accept of any thing that is needless and useless in his service, least of all in things of so great importance as is the offering for sin. Yea, the continuation of such sacrifices would overthrow the faith of the church, and all the grace of the new covenant. For, saith the apostle, in the new covenant, and by it, the Holy Ghost testifieth, that, as it was confirmed by the one sacrifice of Christ, perfect pardon and forgiveness of sin is prepared for and tendered unto the whole church, and every one that believes. To what purpose, then, should there be any more offerings for sin? Yea, they who look for and trust unto any other, they fall into that sin for which there is no remission provided in this covenant, nor shall any other offering be accepted for them for ever; for they despise both the wisdom and grace of God, the blood of Christ, and the witness of the Holy Ghost; whereof there is no remission: so he disputes, Hebrews 10:28-29, of this chapter. And here we are come unto a full end of the dogmatical part of this epistle, a portion of Scripture filled with heavenly and glorious mysteries, — the light of the church of the Gentiles, the glory of the people Israel, the foundation and bulwark of faith evangelical. I do therefore here, with all humility, and sense of my own weakness and utter disability for so great a work, thankfully own the guidance and assistance which have been given me in the interpretation of it, so far as it is or may be of use unto the church, as a mere effect of sovereign and undeserved grace. From that alone it is, that, having many and many a time been at an utter loss as to the mind of the Holy Ghost, and finding no relief in the worthy labors of others, he hath graciously answered my poor weak supplications, in supplies of the light and evidence of truth. ῎Εχοντεςου῏ν, ἀδελφοί, παῤῥησίανεἰςτὴνεἴ῞σοδοντῶνἁγίωνἐντῷαἵματι᾿Ιησοῦ, ἣνἐνεκαίνισενἡμῖνὁδὸνπρόσφατονκαὶζῶσαν, διὰτοῦκαταπετάσματος, τοῦτ᾿ἔστιτὴςσαρκὸςαὐτοῦ, καὶἰερέαμέγανἐπὶτὸνοι῏κοντοῦΘεοῦ, προσερχώμεθαμετὰἀληθινῆ; καρδίαςἐνπληροφορίᾳπίστεως, ἐῤῥαντισμένοιτὰςκαρδίαςἀπὸσυνειδήσεωςπονηρᾶς·καὶλελουμένοιτὸσῶμαὕδατικαθαρῷ, κατέχωμεντὴνὁμολογίαντῆςἐλπίδοςἀκλινῆ· (πιστὸςγὰρὁἐπαγγειλάμενος.)Hebrews 10:19-23. — Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and [having] an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering: (for he [is] faithful that promised.) In these words the apostle enters on the last part of the epistle, which is wholly parenetical, or hortatory. For though there be some occasional intermixtures of doctrines consonant unto them before insisted on, yet the professed design of the whole remainder of the epistle is to propose unto and press on the Hebrews such duties, of various sorts, as the truths he had insisted upon do direct unto and make necessary unto all that believe. And in all his exhortations there is a mixture of the ground of the duties exhorted unto, of their necessity, and of the privilege which we have in being admitted unto them and accepted with them; all taken from the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, with the effects of them, and the benefits which we receive thereby. In these words there are three things: — 1. The ground and reason of the duty exhorted unto, with the foundation of it, as the special privilege of the gospel, Hebrews 10:19-21. 2. The way and manner of our using this privilege unto that end, Hebrews 10:22. 3. The special duty exhorted unto, which is, perseverance and constancy in believing, Hebrews 10:23.In the first we have, 1. A note of inference, or deduction of the following exhortation from what was before discoursed; ου῏ν, “therefore.”2. A friendly compellation of them to whom he spake, used formerly, but now repeated after a long interruption; ἀδελφοί, “brethren.”3. The privilege itself, which is the foundation of the exhortation; ἔχοντεςπαῤῥησίανεἰςτὴνεἴσοδοντῶνἁίων, “having boldness to enter into the holiest.”4. The means whereby we attain the privilege which fits us for this duty; ἐντῷαἵματι᾿Ιησοῦ, “by the blood of Jesus,” Hebrews 10:19. 5. The means of using and exercising it as a privilege in a way of duty; “the way is consecrated for us,” Hebrews 10:20. 6. A further encouragement unto it, from the consideration of our high priest; “having an high priest,” Hebrews 10:21.1. The apostle repeats his obliging compellation, “Brethren.” And herein he hath a peculiar respect unto those among the Hebrews who had received the gospel in sincerity. For although there was a natural brotherhood between him and the whole people of Israel, and they were always wont to call themselves, “brethren” in general, on the account of their original stock and separation from the rest of the world, as Acts 28:21, yet this word and name is used by the apostle on the account of that spiritual relation which was between them “which believe in God through Jesus Christ.” See Hebrews 3:1, and the exposition of it. And the apostle by the use of it here testifies unto two things:(1.) That although they had not as yet a full understanding of the nature and use of all legal institutions and sacrifices, nor of their abolishing by the coming of Christ, and the discharge of his office, yet this had not forfeited their interest in the heavenly calling; on account whereof he dealt with them as with brethren.(2.) That this difference, so far as it had yet continued, had no way alienated his mind and affections from them, though he knew how great their mistake was, and what danger, even of eternal ruin, it exposed them unto. Hereby were the minds of those Hebrews secured from prejudice against his person and his doctrine, and inclined unto a compliance with his exhortation. Had he called them heretics and schismatics, and I know not what other names of reproach, — which are the terms in use upon the like occasions amongst us, — he had, in all probability, turned that which was lame quite out of the way. But he had another Spirit, was under another conduct of wisdom and grace, than most men are now acquainted withal. Obs. 1. It is not every mistake, every error, though it be in things of great importance, while it overthrows not the foundation, that can divest men of a fraternal interest with others in the heavenly calling.2. There is a note of inference from the preceding discourse, declaring it the ground of the present exhortation; ου῏ν, “therefore:” ‘Seeing that these things are now made manifest unto you, — seeing it is so evidently testified unto that the old covenant, sacrifices, and worship, could not make us perfect, nor give us an access unto God, whereon they are removed and taken away, which the Scripture fully testifies unto; and seeing all this is effected or accomplished in the office and by the sacrifice of Christ, which they could not effect, and privileges are thereon granted unto believers which they were not before made partakers of; let us make use of them unto the glory of God and our own salvation, in the duties which they necessarily require.’And we may observe, that the apostle applies this inference from his discourse unto the use and improvement of the liberty and privileges granted unto us in Christ, with the holy worship belonging thereunto, as we shall see in opening of the words, Howbeit there is another conclusion implied in the words, though not expressed by him; and this is, that they should cease and give over their attendance unto the legal worship and sacrifices, as those which now were altogether useless, being indeed abolished. This is the principal design of the apostle in the whole epistle, namely, to call off the believing Hebrews from all adherence unto and conjunction in Mosaical institutions; for he knew the danger, both spiritual and temporal, which would accompany and arise from such an adherence. For, — (1.) It would insensibly weaken their faith in Christ, and give them a disregard of evangelical worship; which did indeed prove unto many of them a cause of that apostasy and final destruction which he so frequently warns them against. (2.) Whereas God had determined now speedily to put an utter end unto the city, temple, and all its worship, by a universal desolation, for the sins of the people, if they did obstinately adhere unto the observance of that worship, it was justly to be feared that they would perish in that destruction that was approaching; which probably many of them did. To instruct-them in that light and knowledge of the truth that might deliver them from these evils, was the first design of the apostle in the doctrinal part of this epistle: yet doth he not plainly and in terms express it anywhere in this epistle, not even in this place, where it was most properly and naturally to be introduced; yet he doth that which evidently includes it, namely, exhort them unto those duties which, on the principles he hath declared, are utterly inconsistent with Mosaical worship, — and this is, our free entrance into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. For an entrance, in any sense, with our worship into the most holy place, is inconsistent with, and destructive of all Mosaical institutions. And this was an effect of the singular wisdom wherewith the apostle was furnished to write this epistle. For had he directly and in terms opposed their observation, no small tumult and outcry would have been made against it, and great provocation had been given unto the unbelieving Jews. But, notwithstanding, he doth the same thing no less effectually in these words, wherein there is scarce a word which that application of his discourse doth not follow upon. And his wisdom herein ought to be an instructive example unto all those that are called unto the instruction of others in the dispensation of the gospel, especially such as through any mistakes do oppose themselves unto the truth. Such things as will give exasperation unto the spirits, or advantage unto the temptations of men, ought to be avoided, or treated on with that wisdom, gentleness, and meekness, as may be no prejudice unto them. This way of procedure doth the same apostle expressly prescribe unto all ministers of the gospel, 2 Timothy 2:23-26.3. There is in the words the privilege which is the foundation of the duty exhorted unto: “Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest,” — for a regular entrance into or of the most holy. The privilege intended is directly opposed unto the state of things under the law; and from the consideration of it is the nature of it to be learned. For the entrance into the holiest, in the tabernacle, belonged unto the worship of the church, it was the principal part thereof; but it had many imperfections attending it: (1.) It was not into the special presence of God, but only into a place made with hands, filled with some representations of things that could not be seen. (2.) None might ever enter into it but the high priest alone, and that only once a-year.(3.) The body of the people, the whole congregation, were therefore jointly and severally utterly excluded from any entrance into it.(4.) The prohibition of entrance into this holy place belonged unto that bondage wherein they were kept under the law, which hath been before declared.The privilege here mentioned being opposed to this state of things among them, which respected their present worship, it is certain that it doth concern the present worship of God by Christ under the gospel. And they are therefore utterly mistaken who suppose the entrance into the most holy to be an entrance into heaven after this life for all believers; for the apostle doth not here oppose the glorious state of heaven unto the church of the Hebrews and their legal services, but the privileges of the gospel-state and worship only. Nor would it have been to his purpose so to have done; for the Hebrews might have said, that although the glory of heaven after this life doth exceed the glories of the services of the tabernacle, which none ever questioned, yet the benefit, use, and efficacy of their present ordinances and worship might be more excellent than any thing that they could obtain by the gospel. Neither were believers then also excluded from heaven after death, any more than now. Therefore the privilege mentioned is that which belongs unto the gospel church in its perfect state in this world. And the exercise and use of it doth consist in our drawing nigh unto God in holy services and worship through Christ, as the apostle declares, verse 22. There is, then, a twofold opposition in these words unto the state of the people under the law: (1.) As unto the spirit and frame of mind in the worshippers; and, (2.) As unto the place of the worship, from whence they were excluded, and whereunto we are admitted.(1.) The first is in the word παῤῥησίαν, “boldness.” There were two things with respect unto those worshippers in this matter: [1. A legal prohibition from entering into the holy place; whereon they had no liberty or freedom so to do, because they were forbidden on several penalties; [2. Dread and fear, which deprived them of all boldness or holy confidence in their approaches unto God: therefore the apostle expresseth the contrary frame of believers under the new testament by a word that signifieth both liberty, or freedom from any prohibition, and boldness with confidence in the exercise of that liberty. I have spoken before of the various use and signification of this word παῤῥησία, which the apostle both in this and other epistles useth frequently to express both the right, and liberty, and confidence, unto and in their access unto God, of believers under the new testament, in opposition to the state of them under the old. We have a right unto it, we have liberty without restraint by any prohibition, we have confidence and assurance without dread or fear.(2.) This liberty we have εἰςτὴνεἴσοδον, προσαγωγή, “aditus,” “introitus,” τῶνἁγίων, — that is, the true sanctuary, the holy place not made with hands; the immediate gracious presence of God himself in Christ Jesus. See Hebrews 9:11-12. Whatever was typically represented in the most holy place of old, we have access unto; that is, unto God himself we have an access in one Spirit by ChristObs. 2. This is the great fundamental privilege of the gospel, that believers, in all their holy worship, have liberty, boldness, and confidence, to enter with it and by it into the gracious presence of God.(1.) They are not hindered by any prohibition. God set bounds unto mount Sinai, that none should pass or break through into his presence in the giving of the law. He hath set none to mount Zion, but all believers have right, title, and liberty to approach unto him, even unto his throne. There is no such order now, that he who draws nigh shall be cut off; but on the contrary, that he that doth not so do shall be destroyed. (2.) Hence there is no dread, fear, or terror in their minds, hearts, or consciences, when they make their approaches unto God. This was a consequent of the same interdict of the law, which is now taken away. They have not received the spirit of bondage unto fear, but the Spirit of the Son, whereby with holy boldness they cry, “Abba, Father;” for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,” — they have freedom unto, and confidence in their duties: and therein consists the greatest evidence of our interest in the gospel and privileges thereof. (3.) The nature of gospel worship consists in this, that it is an entrance with boldness into the presence of God. However men may multiply duties, of what sort or nature soever they be, if they design not in and by them to enter into the presence of God, if they have not some experience that so they do, if they are taken up with other thoughts, and rest in the outward performance of them, they belong not unto evangelical worship. The only exercise of faith in them is in an entrance into the presence of God.(4.) Our approach unto God in gospel worship, is unto him as evidencing himself in a way of grace and mercy. Hence it is said to be an “entrance into the holiest;” for in the holy place were all the pledges and tokens of God’s grace and favor, as we have manifested upon the foregoing chapter. And as the taking off of the old prohibition gives us liberty, and the institution of the worship of the gospel gives us title unto this privilege, so the consideration of the nature of that presence of God whereunto we approach gives us boldness thereunto.4. The procuring cause of this privilege is in the next place expressed; we have it ἐντῷαἵματι᾿Ιησοῦ: “by the blood of Jesus,” say we. It is the procuring cause of this privilege that is intended, which is often so proposed. “The blood of Jesus Christ” is the same with his “sacrifice,” the “offering of himself,” or “the offering of his body once for all.” For he offered himself in and by the effusion of his blood, whereby he made atonement for sin; which could not be otherwise effected. And it is here opposed, as also in the whole preceding discourse, unto the blood of the legal sacrifices. They could not procure, they did not effect any such liberty of access unto God in the holy place. This was done by the blood of Jesus only; whereby he accomplished what the sacrifices of the law could not do. And it is a cause of this privilege on a twofold account:(1.) In its respect unto God, in its oblation.(2.) In respect unto the consciences of believers, in its application.(1.) By its oblation it removed and took away all causes of distance between God and believers. It made atonement for them, answered the law, removed the curse, broke down the partition wall, or “the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” wherein were all the prohibitions of approaching unto God with boldness. Hereby also he rent the veil which interposed and hid the gracious presence of God from us. And these things being removed out of the way by the blood of the oblation or offering of Christ, peace being thereby made with God, he procured him to be reconciled unto us, inviting us to accept and make use of that reconciliation by receiving the atonement. Hence believers have boldness to appear before him, and approach unto his presence. See Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; Ephesians 2:13-18. Hereon was it the procuring, the purchasing cause of this privilege.(2.) It is the cause of it with respect unto the consciences of believers, in the application of it unto their souls. There are not only all the hinderances mentioned, on the part of God, lying in the way of our access unto him, but also the consciences of men, from a sense of the guilt of sin, were filled with fear and dread of God, and durst not so much as desire an immediate access unto him. The efficacy of the blood of Christ being through believing communicated unto them, takes away all this dread and fear. And this is done principally by his bestowing on them the Holy Spirit, which is a Spirit of liberty, as our apostle shows at large, 2 Corinthians 3. Wherefore “we have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” on these three accounts: — [1. In that atonement is made thereby for sin, and peace made with God, so as that he is reconciled unto us; all that anger being turned away that did deter us from any such approach. [2. Fear, dread, and bondage, are taken away, so that the acting of faith on God through the blood of Jesus doth expel them, and remove them out of our mind. [3. We receive the Holy Spirit therewithal; who is a Spirit of liberty, power, holy boldness, enabling us to cry, “Abba, Father.” Obs. 3. Nothing but the blood of Jesus could have given this boldness; nothing that stood in the way of it could otherwise have been removed; nothing else could have set our souls at liberty from that bondage that was come upon them by sin.Obs. 4. Rightly esteem and duly improve the blessed privilege which was purchased for us at so dear a rate. What shall we render unto him? How unspeakable are our obligations unto faith and love! Obs. 5. Confidence in an access unto God not built on, not resolved into the blood of Christ, is but a daring presumption, which God abhors.Hebrews 10:20. — Having told us that we have τὴνεἴσοδον, “an entrance” into the holiest, he now declares what the way is whereby we may do so. The way into the holiest under the tabernacle was a passage with blood through the sanctuary, and then a turning aside of the veil, as we have declared before. But the whole church was forbidden the use of this way; and it was appointed for no other end but to signify that in due time there should be a way opened unto believers into the presence of God, which was not yet prepared. And this the apostle describes, 1. From the preparation of it; “which he hath consecrated.”2. From the properties of it; it was “a new and living way.”3. From the tendency of it; which he expresseth,(1.) Typically, or with respect unto the old way under the tabernacle, it was “through the veil;” (2.) In an exposition of that type, “that is, his flesh.” In the whole, there is a description of the exercise of faith in our access unto God by Christ Jesus: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”1. The preparation of this way is by an ἐγχαίνισμος, by a “dedication.” The word hath a double signification, one in things natural, the other in things sacred; which yet are of no affinity unto one another. In things natural, it is to new make, so as to be ready for use; in things sacred, it is to dedicate or consecrate any thing, at the first erection or making of it, unto sacred services. The latter sense of the word, which we receive in our translation, is here to be embraced, yet so as it includes the former also. For it is spoken in opposition unto the dedication of the tabernacle, and way into the most holy place, by the blood of sacrifices, whereof we have treated in the ninth chapter. So was this way into the holy place consecrated, dedicated, and set apart sacredly for the use of believers, so as that there neither is, nor ever can be, any other way but by the blood of Jesus. Or there is this also in it, that the way itself was new prepared and made, not being extant before. Obs. 6. The way of our entrance into the holiest is solemnly dedicated and consecrated for us, so as that with boldness we may make use of it. He hath done it “for us,” for our use, our benefit, and advantage.2. The properties of this way are two: —(1.) That it is πρόσφατος, “new:”[1. Because it was but newly made and prepared; [2. Because it belongs unto the new covenant;[3. Because it admits of no decays, but is always new, as unto its efficacy and use, as in the day of its first preparation. Whereas that of the tabernacle waxed old, and so was prepared for a removal, this way shall never be altered nor changed, never decay, — it is always new. (2.) Ζῶσαν, it is “living.” This epithet is placed by apposition, without any note of distinction or conjunction. And it is said to be living,[1. In opposition unto the way into the holiest under the tabernacle, which was, 1st. By death. Nothing could be done in it without the blood of the sacrifices. 2dly. It was the cause of death unto any one that should make use of it, the high priest only excepted, and he but once a-year.[2. It is living as unto its efficacy; it is not a dead thing, it is that which hath a spiritual, vital efficacy in our access unto God. [3. It is living from its effects; it leads to life, and effectually brings us thereunto, and is the only way of entering into everlasting life. Obs. 7. All the privileges we have by Christ are great, glorious, and efficacious; all tending and leading unto life. This new and living way of our approach unto God, is nothing but the exercise of faith for acceptance with God by the sacrifice of Christ, according unto the revelation made in the gospel3. He shows which way it thus leads to the holiest, or what is the tendency of it: it is “through the veil.” The apostle shows here expressly what he alludeth unto in the declaration he makes of our entrance into the holiest. The veil here intended by him was that between the sanctuary and the most holy place, whose description we have given on Hebrews 9; for there was no possible entrance thereinto but through that veil, which was turned aside when the high priest entered. What this veil was unto the high priest in his entrance into that holy place, that is the flesh of Christ unto us in ours; as in the last place is described in exposition of this type, “that is, his flesh.” For the opening of these words, and the vindication of the apostle’s application of this type, we may observe, — (1.) The flesh of Christ, the body of Christ, the blood of Christ, Christ himself, are all mentioned distinctly, as the matter of his sacrifice. See Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 9:28; Hebrews 10:10.(2.) This is done on various respects, to express either the dignity or the efficacy of the nature and manner of his offering.(3.) In the sacrifice of Christ, the flesh was that which suffered peculiarly, as the great token and evidence of his real sufferings.(4.) The whole efficacy of his sacrifice is ascribed unto every essential part of the human nature of Christ, in that which either acted or suffered therein; — to his soul, Isaiah 53:10; his blood, Hebrews 9:14; his body, verse 10; his flesh, as in this place. For these things were not distinctly operative, one in one effect, another in another, but all of them concurred in his nature and person, which he offered once wholly to God. So that where any of them is mentioned, the whole human nature of Christ, as unto the efficacy of it in his sacrifice, is intended. (5.) Yet were these things distinctly typified and foresignified in the sacrifices and service of old. So was the flesh of Christ by the veil, as his whole nature by the tabernacle, his soul by the scapegoat, his body and blood by the sin-offering on the day of expiation, when the sacrifice was burnt without the camp.(6.) Herein in an especial manner was the whole a type of the flesh of Christ, in that there was no entrance to be laid open into the holy place but by the rending of the veil. The time when the high priest entered into it, it was indeed turned aside; whereon it immediately closed again, and forbade an entrance and a prospect unto others. Wherefore there could be no entrance into that holy place abiding, unless the veil was rent and torn in pieces, so that it could close no more. For it came to pans on the death of the Lord Jesus, that “the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom.” And that which is signified hereby is only this, that by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, wherein his flesh was torn and rent, we have a full entrance into the holy place, such as would have been of old upon the rending of the veil. This, therefore, is the genuine interpretation of this place, ‘We enter with boldness into the most holy place through the veil; that is to say, his flesh:’we do so by virtue of the sacrifice of himself, wherein his flesh was rent, and all hinderances thereby taken away from us; of all which hinderances the veil was an emblem, and principal instance, until it was rent and removed. The sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ unto all the ends of the perfection of the church, in all duties and privileges, is that which the apostle instructs us unto herein. And there is great instruction given us, in this comparison of the type and antitype, into the way and nature of our access unto God in all our solemn worship. It is God as he was represented in the holy place to whom we address ourselves peculiarly; that is, God the Father as on a throne of grace: the manner of our access is with holy confidence, grounded solely on the efficacy of the blood or sacrifice of Christ. The way is by faith, as to the removal of the obstacles, and the view of God as reconciled. This is given us by the suffering of Christ in the flesh, which laid open the entrance into the holy place. Wherefore the apostle says not, that the veil was the flesh of Christ, as some pretend who have hence cavilled at the authority of this epistle on no other ground but because they could not apprehend the spiritual light and wisdom that is therein; only he says, we have our entrance into the holy place by virtue of the flesh of Christ, which was rent in his sacrifice, as through the rending of the veil a way was laid open into the holiest. This is the first encouragement unto the duty exhorted unto, from the benefit and privilege we have by the blood of Christ. Another to the same purpose follows. Hebrews 10:21. — “And [having] a great high priest over the house of God.” “Having,” is understood from Hebrews 10:19; — the word whereby the apostle expresseth our relation unto Christ, Hebrews 4:15. He is our priest, he exerciseth that office on our behalf; and our duty it is in all things to be such as becometh this great high priest to own in the discharge of his office. What became him that he might be our high priest, as it is expressed, Hebrews 7:26, shows what we ought to be in our measure that belong unto his care, and that we may say with boldness, “We have an high priest;” which is another encouragement unto the diligent attendance to the duties we are here exhorted unto. For it may be said, ‘That notwithstanding the provision of a new way into the holiest, and boldness given us to enter thereinto, yet in ourselves we know not how to do it, unless we are under the conduct of a priest, as the church of old was in their worship. All those priests being removed, how shall we do now to draw nigh unto God, without such a conduct, such a countenance?’The apostle removes this from them, and gives encouragement for what he had proved to be a duty before, namely, that “we have a great high priest.”Three things are in the words: 1. That we have a priest; 2. That he is a great priest; 3. That part of his office wherein in this duty we are concerned, which is, that he is over the house of God.The first hath been spoken unto on many occasions: only the apostle calls him not here, “our high priest,” which he doth most frequently; but “a priest,” with the addition of great, “a great priest,” which answers directly to the Hebrew expression, λֹּ ?δֵ ?οδַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, as the high priest was called: yet the apostle hath a respect unto his eminency above all other priests whatsoever. He is great in his person, God and man, as he had described him, Hebrews 1:2-3; great in his glorious exaltation, Hebrews 8:1-2; great in his power and the efficacy of his office, Hebrews 7:25; great in honor, dignity, and authority; — the consideration whereof leads both unto the confirmation of our faith and the ingenerating of a due reverence in our hearts towards him. For as he is so great as that he can save us unto the uttermost, or give us acceptance before God as unto our persons and our duties; so he is so glorious that we ought to apply ourselves to him with reverence and godly fear. That which, unto the particular end designed in this place, we ought to consider in his office, is, that he is “over the house of God.” The apostle doth not herein consider the sacrifice of himself, which he proposed as the foundation of the privilege whence the ensuing duty is inferred, but what he is and doth after his sacrifice, now he is exalted in heaven; for this was the second part of the office of the high priest. The first was, to offer sacrifice for the people; the other was, to take the oversight of the house of God: for so it is particularly expressed with respect unto Joshua, who was an eminent type of Christ, Zechariah 3:6-7. The whole care of ordering all things in the house of God was committed to the high priest: so is it now in the hand of Christ; he is over the house of God, to order all things unto the glory of God and the salvation of the church. “The house of God;” that is, the whole house of God, the family of heaven and earth, — that part of the church above and that here below, which make up but one house of God. The church here below is comprised in the first place; for unto them it is that this encouragement is given, unto whom this motive of drawing nigh is proposed, namely, as they have a high priest. And it is in the heavenly sanctuary wherein he administereth, or in the house of God above; into which also we do enter by our prayers and sacred worship; so is he for ever over his own house. Obs. 8. The Lord Christ doth peculiarly preside over all the persons, duties, and worship of believers in the church of God:1. In that all their worship is of his appointment, and what is not so belongs not to the house of God;2. In that he assists the worshippers by his Spirit or the performance of this duty;3. That he makes their services accepted with God;4. In rendering their worship glorious by the administration of his Spirit, and effectual through the addition of the incense of his intercession. For other things that may be hence educed, see our exposition of Heb 4:14-16. Hebrews 10:22. — “Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”The duty is here expressed whereunto these encouragements and privileges do direct and lead. And this duty is described, 1. By the nature of it; “Let us draw near.”2. The qualification of the persons by whom it is to be performed; “With a true heart.” 3. The manner of its performance; “In full assurance of faith.”4. The preparation for it: which is twofold;(1.) That “our hearts be sprinkled from an evil conscience;”(2.) That “our bodies be washed with pure water.”1. The duty itself is expressed by προσερχώμεθα, the word whereby the whole performance of all divine, solemn worship was constantly expressed.For God having fixed the residence of the signs of his presence unto a certain place, namely, that of the tabernacle and altar, none could worship him but it was by an approach, an access, a drawing nigh unto that place, the means of their worship, and the pledges of God’s presence therein. So were they to bring their gifts, their offerings, their sacrifices; every thing wherewith they worshipped in it was an approximation unto God. Now all these things, tabernacle, temple, altar, as we have showed, were types of Christ and the gracious presence of God in him; and they were appointed only unto this end, to teach the church to look for an access to God in and by him alone. Wherefore the apostle tells the Hebrews, that as they had under the old testament an approach unto God, and were then οἱπροσερχόμενοι, “those that came and drew nigh unto him,” yet it was defective in three things:(1.) That it was by carnal means, “the blood of bulls and goats” (2.) That it was not unto God himself, but only some outward pledges of his presence.(3.) That in this access they were always excluded from an entrance into the holiest. This way being now removed, there is that appointed in the room thereof which is liable to none of these defects For,(1.) It is not by things carnal, but in a holy, spiritual way and manner, as the ensuing description of it doth manifest.(2.) It is not unto any outward pledges of the divine presence, but immediately unto God himself, even the Father.(3.) It is into the most holy place itself, the special residence of God, and of our high priest, Christ Jesus. Wherefore this drawing near containeth all the holy worship of the church, both public and private, all the ways of our access unto God by Christ. And the charge given for this duty is the first inference the apostle maketh from the consideration of the benefits we receive by the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. 2. The principal qualification of the persons exhorted unto this duty, is “a true heart.” God in an especial manner requireth “truth in the inward parts” in all that come unto him, Psalms 51:6. Especially he doth so in his worship, John 4:24. Now truth respects either the mind, and is opposed unto falsehood; or respects the heart and affections, and is opposed to hypocrisy. In the first way all false worship is rejected, all means of the worship of God not of his own institution. But the truth of the heart here intended, is the sincerity of heart which is opposed unto all hypocrisy. Two things are therefore comprised in this qualification: —Obs. 9. That the heart is that which God principally respects in our access unto him. — The Hebrews, in their degenerate condition, rested in the outward performance of duties: so as they made their access outwardly according to the institutions and directions of the law, they were regardless of themselves and of the inner man, and of the frame thereof. But it is the heart that God requires; and accordingly, that it be under the conduct of doctrinal truth in the light of the mind, and not only that it be true and free from hypocrisy in the acts of worship that it goes about, but also that in its habitual frame it be holy, and throughout leavened with sincerity. Thence it is denominated “a true heart.” If men be sincere in the acts of worship, but fail of it in point of walking and conversation, they will not be accepted in it. Obs. 10. Universal, internal sincerity of heart is required of all those that draw nigh unto God in his holy worship. — It is so,(1.) From the nature of God;(2.) From the nature of the worship itself;(3.) From the conscience of the worshippers, which can have neither boldness nor confidence without it. What is required unto that sincerity, or “true heart,” without which we cannot freely draw nigh unto God in any duty of his worship, I cannot now declare.3. There is the way and manner, together with the principle to be acted in all our accesses unto God: ᾿Ενπληροφορίατῆςπίστεως, — “In the full assurance of faith.” (1.) “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Wherefore faith is required in this access on a twofold account:[1. Of the qualification of the person. He must be a true believer who hath this access, all others are utterly excluded from it: [2. Of its actual exercise in every particular duty of access. Abel by faith offered his sacrifice; and there is no duty acceptable unto God which is not quickened and enlivened by faith. (2.) As unto this access unto God by Christ, the apostle requires that there be “a full assurance of faith.” Many have disputed wherein this assurance of faith doth consist, what it is that belongs thereunto. We must consider the design of the apostle and scope of the place, and what they do require. The word is used only in this place, though the verb, πληροφορέω, be used elsewhere, Romans 4:21; Romans 14:5, to signify a full satisfaction of mind in what we are persuaded of. Here two things seem to be included in it.[1. That which in other places the apostle expresseth by παῤῥησία which is the word constantly used to declare the frame of mind which is or ought to be in gospel worshippers, in opposition unto that of the law. And it hath two things in it:1st. An open view of the spiritual glories, of the way and end of our approach unto God; which they had not.2dly. Liberty and confidence, — liberty of speech, and confidence of being accepted; which in their bondage condition they had not.Therefore the apostle thus expresseth the way and manner of our approaching to God by Christ, in opposition unto that under the law, and affirms it to be in the full assurance and spiritual boldness of faith. This is the “plerophory” of it; which frame of mind is plainly directed unto. [2. A firm and unmovable persuasion concerning the priesthood of Christ, whereby we have this access unto God, with the glory and efficacy of it; faith without wavering. For many of the Hebrews who had received in general the faith of the gospel, yet wavered up and down in their minds about this office of Christ, and the glorious things related of it by the apostle; supposing that there might some place be yet left for the administration of the legal high priest. This frame the apostle confutes; and shows that under it men could have no access to God, nor acceptance with him. Wherefore the “full assurance of faith” here, respects not the assurance that any have of their own salvation, nor any degree of such an assurance; it is only the full satisfaction of our souls and consciences in the reality and efficacy of the priesthood of Christ to give us acceptance with God, in opposition unto all other ways and means thereof, that is intended. But withal this persuasion is accompanied with an assured trust of our own acceptance with God in and by him, with an acquiescence of our souls therein. Obs. 11. The actual exercise of faith is required in all our approaches unto God, in every particular duty of his worship. Without this no outward solemnity of worship, no exercise of it will avail us.Obs. 12. It is faith in Christ alone that gives us boldness of access unto God.Obs. 13. The person and office of Christ are to be rested in with full assurance in all our accesses to the throne of grace.4. There is a twofold preparation prescribed unto us for the right discharge of this duty:(1.) That “our hearts be sprinkled from an evil conscience.”(2.) That “our bodies be washed with pure water.”It is plain that the apostle in these expressions alludeth unto the necessary preparations for divine service under the law. For whereas there were various ways whereby men were legally defiled, so there were means appointed for their legal purification, which we have declared on Hebrews 9. Without the use and application of those purifications, if any of them that were so defiled did draw nigh unto the worship of God, he was to die, or be “cut off.” These institutions the apostle doth not only allude unto, and make application of things outward and carnal unto things inward and spiritual, but withal declares what was their nature and typical administration. They were not appointed for their own sakes, but to typify and represent the spiritual grace, and its efficacy, which we receive by the sacrifice of Christ. The subject spoken of is twofold: (1.) The heart;(2.) The body; — that is, the inward and outward man.(1.) As unto the first, it is required that, with respect unto it, it be separated from an evil conscience. There is no doubt but in this place, as in many others, the “heart” is taken for all the faculties of our souls, with our affections; for it is that wherein conscience is seated, wherein it acts its power, which it doth especially in the practical understanding, as the affections are ruled and guided thereby.This conscience is affirmed to be “evil,” antecedently unto the means proposed for the taking it away. Conscience, as conscience, is not to be separated from the heart; but as it is evil, it must be so. Conscience may be said to be evil on two accounts: [1. As it disquieteth, perplexeth, judgeth, and condemneth for sin. In this sense the apostle speaks of conscience, verse 2, a conscience condemning us for sin, which the sacrifices of the law could not take away. So a heart with an evil conscience, is a heart terrified and condemning for sin. [2. On account of a vitiated principle in the conscience, — not performing its duty, but secure when it is filled with all unclean, vicious habits. And hereon it signifies also all those secret, latent sins in the heart, which are known only to a man’s own conscience; opposed unto the “body,” or external, known sins, which he speaks of afterwards. I take it here in the latter sense: 1st. Because it is said to be “evil,” which it cannot be with respect unto its former acts and power, for it doth therein but perform its duty, and is evil not in itself, but unto them in whom it is. And,2dly. The way of its removal is by, “sprinkling,” and not by an oblation or offering; now sprinkling is the efficacious application of the blood of atonement unto sanctification, or internal purification.And this is the first thing in particular, namely, the way or means of the removal of this evil conscience; which is by sprinkling of our hearts. The expression is taken from the sprinkling of blood upon the offering of the sacrifices, Exodus 29:16; Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 4:17; Leviticus 14:7 : the spiritual interpretation and application whereof is given us, Ezekiel 36:25. And whereas this sprinkling from sin, and cleansing thereby, is in Ezekiel ascribed unto pure water, and whereas it was in the type the blood of the sacrifice that was sprinkled, it gives us the sense of the whole. For as the blood of the sacrifice was a type of the blood and sacrifice of Christ as offered unto God, so it is the Holy Spirit and his efficacious work that are denoted by “pure water,” as is frequently promised. Wherefore, this sprinkling of our hearts is an act of the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost, by virtue of the blood and sacrifice of Christ, in making of that application of them unto our souls wherein the blood of Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth us from all our sins. Hereby are “our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience;” [1. Originally, in the communication of regenerating, sanctifying grace; [2. Continually, in fresh applications of the virtue of the blood of Christ, for the taking away of the defilement by internal, actual sin. Obs. 14. Although that worship whereby we draw nigh unto God be performed with respect to institution and rule, yet without internal sanctification of heart we are not accepted in it.Obs. 15. Due preparation, by fresh applications of our souls unto the efficacy of the blood of Christ for the purification of our hearts, that we may be meet to draw nigh to God, is required of us. This the apostle hath especial respect unto; and the want of it is the bane of public worship. Where this is not, there is no due reverence of God, no sanctification of his name, nor any benefit to be expected unto our own souls.Obs. 16. In all wherein we have to do with God, we are principally to regard those internal sins we are conscious of unto ourselves, but which are hidden from all others. (2.) The last thing required of us in order to the duty exhorted unto, is, that “our bodies be washed with pure water.” This at first view would seem to refer unto the outward administration of the ordinance of baptism, required of all antecedently unto their orderly conjunction unto a church-state in the causes of it; and so it is carried by many expositors. But,[1. The apostle Peter tells us that saving baptism doth not consist in the washing away of the filth of the body, 1 Peter 3:21; therefore the expression here must be figurative, and not proper. [2. Although the sprinkling and washing spoken of do principally respect our habitual, internal qualification, by regenerating, sanctifying grace, yet they include also the actual, gracious, renewed preparation of our hearts and minds, with respect unto all our solemn approaches unto God; but baptism cannot be repeated. [3. Whereas the sprinkling of the heart from an evil conscience respects the internal and unknown sins of the mind; so this of washing the body doth the sins that are outwardly acted and perpetrated. And the body is said to be washed from them, 1st. Because they are outward, in opposition unto those that are only inherent, in the mind.2dly. Because the body is the instrument of the perpetration of them; hence are they called “deeds of the body;” the “members of the body;” our “earthly members,” Romans 3:13-15; Romans 8:13, Colossians 3:3-5.3dly. Because the body is defiled by them, by some of them in an especial manner, 1 Corinthians 6.Pure water, wherewith the body is to be washed, is that which is promised, Ezekiel 36:25-26; — the assistance of the sanctifying Spirit, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ. Hereby all those sins which cleave unto our outward conversation are removed and washed away; for we are sanctified thereby in our whole spirits, souls, and bodies. And that scripture respects the deeds of sin; as unto a continuation of their commission, he shall keep and preserve us. We are so by the grace of Christ, and thereby we keep and preserve ourselves from all outward and actual sins, that nothing may appear upon us, as the bodies of them who, having wallowed in the mire, are now washed with pure water; for the body is placed as the instrument of the defilement of the soul in such sins. Obs. 17. Universal sanctification, upon our whole persons, and the mortification in an especial manner of outward sins, are required of us in our drawing nigh unto God.Obs. 18. These are the ornaments wherewith we are to prepare our souls for it, and not the gaiety of outward apparel. Obs. 19. It is a great work to draw nigh unto God, so as to “worship him in spirit and in truth.” Hebrews 10:23. — “Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised.)”This is the second exhortation which the apostle educeth by way of inference from the principles of truth which he had before declared and confirmed. And it is the substance or end of the whole parenetical or hortatory part of the epistle; that for the obtaining whereof the whole doctrinal part of it was written, which gives life and efficacy unto it. Wherefore he spends the whole remainder of the epistle in the pressing and confirming of this exhortation; on a compliance wherewith the eternal condition of our souls doth depend. And this he doth, partly by declaring the means whereby we may be helped in the discharge of this duty; partly by denouncing the eternal ruin and sure destruction that will follow the neglect of it; partly by encouragements from our own former experiences, and the strength of our faith; and partly by evidencing unto us in a multitude of examples, how we may overcome the difficulty that would occur unto us in this way, with other various cogent reasonings; as we. shall see, if God pleaseth, in our progress. In these words there is a duty prescribed, and an encouragement added unto it. First, As unto the duty itself, we must inquire,1. What is meant by “the profession of our faith.”2. What is meant by “holding it fast.”3. What it is to “hold it fast without wavering.”1. Some copies read τῆνὁμολογίαντῆςἐλπίδος, the “profession of our hope;” which the Vulgar follows, “the profession of the hope that is in us:” and so it may have a respect unto the exhortation used by the apostle, Hebrews 3:6. And it will come unto the same with our reading of it; for on our faith our hope is built, and is an eminent fruit thereof. Wherefore holding fast our hope, includes in it the holding fast of our faith, as the cause is in the effect, and the building in the foundation. But I prefer the other reading, as that which is more suited unto the design of the apostle, and his following discourse; and which his following confirmations of this exhortation do directly require, and which is the proper subject of our ὁμολογία, or “profession.” See Hebrews 3:1.“Faith” is here taken in both the principal acceptations of it, namely, that faith whereby we believe, and the faith or doctrine which we do believe. Of both which we make the same profession; of one as the inward principle, of the other as the outward rule. Of the meaning of the word itself, ὁμολογία, or joint profession, I have treated largely, Hebrews 3:1. This solemn profession of our faith is twofold:(1.) Initial.(2.) By the way of continuation, in all the acts and duties required thereunto.(1.) The first is a solemn giving up of ourselves unto Christ, in a professed subjection unto the gospel, and the ordinances of divine worship therein contained. This of old was done by all men, at their first accession unto God, in the assemblies of the church. The apostle calls it “the beginning of our confidence,” or subsistence in Christ and the church, Hebrews 3:14. And it was ordinarily, in the primitive times, accompanied with excellent graces and privileges. For, — [1. God usually gave them hereon great joy and exultation, with peace in their own minds: 1 Peter 2:9, “Hath translated us out of darkness into his marvellous light.” The glorious, marvellous light whereinto they were newly translated out of darkness, the evidence which they had of the truth and reality of the things that they believed and professed, the value they had for the grace of God in their high and heavenly calling, the greatness and excellency of the things made known unto them, and believed by them, were the means whereby they were “filled with joy unspeakable and full of glory.” And respect is had unto this frame of heart in this exhortation. For it is apt on many accounts to decay and be lost; but when it is so we lose much of the glory of our profession. [2. They had hereon some such communication of the Spirit in gifts or graces, as was a seal unto them of the promised inheritance, Ephesians 1:13. And although what was extraordinary herein is ceased, and not to be looked after, yet if Christians, in their initial dedication of themselves unto Christ and the gospel, did attend unto their duty in a due manner, or were affected with their privileges as they ought, they would have experience of this grace, and advantage in ways suitable unto their own state and condition. (2.) The continuation of their profession first solemnly made, in avowing the faith on all just occasions, in attendance on all duties of worship required in the gospel, in professing their faith in the promises of God by Christ, and thereon cheerfully undergoing afflictions, troubles, and persecutions, on the account thereof, is this “profession of our faith” that is exhorted unto.2. What is it to “hold fast this profession?” The words we so render are κατέχω, κρατέω, and sometimes ἔχω singly, as 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Κατέχω and κρατέω are indefinitely used to this end, Hebrews 3:6, Revelation 2:25; Revelation 3:11. So that which is here κατέχωμεντὴνὁμολογίαν, is κρατῶμεντῆςὁμολογίας, Hebrews 4:14. And there is included in the sense of either of these words, —(1.) A supposition of great difficulty, with danger and opposition, against this holding the profession of our faith.(2.) The putting forth of the utmost of our strength and endeavors in the defense of it.(3.) A constant perseverance in it, denoted in the word keep; — possess it with constancy.3. This is to be done “without wavering;” that is, the profession must be immovable and constant. The frame of .mind which this is opposed unto is expressed, James 1:6, διακρινόμενος, — “one that is always disputing,” and tossed up and down with various thoughts in his mind, not coming to a fixed resolution or determination. He is like a wave of the sea, which sometimes subsides and is quiet, and sometimes is tossed one way or another, as it receives impressions from the wind. There were many in those days who did hesitate in the profession of the doctrine of the gospel; sometimes they inclined unto it and embraced it; sometimes they returned again unto Judaism; and sometimes they would reconcile and compound the two covenants, the two religions, the two churches together, — with which sort of men our apostle had great contention. As men’s minds waver in these things, so their profession wavers; which the apostle here condemneth, and opposeth unto that “full assurance of faith” which he requireth in us. ᾿Ακλινής is, “not to be bent one way or another,” by impressions made from any things or causes; but to abide firm, fixed, stable, in opposition to them. And it is opposed unto, — (1.) A halting between two opinions, God or Baal, Judaism or Christianity, truth or error. This is to waver doctrinally.(2.) Unto a weakness or irresolution of mind as unto a continuance in the profession of faith against difficulties and oppositions.(3.) To a yielding in the way of compliance, on any point of doctrine or worship contrary unto or inconsistent with the faith we have professed. In which sense the apostle would not give place, “no, not for an hour,” unto them that taught circumcision.(4.) To final apostasy from the truth, which this wavering up and down, as the apostle intimates in his following discourse, brings unto.Wherefore it includes positively, — (1.) A firm persuasion of mind as to the truth of the faith whereof we have made profession.(2.) A constant resolution to abide therein and adhere thereunto, against all oppositions.(3.) Constancy and diligence in the performance of all the duties which are required unto the continuation of this profession. This is the sum and substance of that duty which the apostle with all sorts of arguments presseth on the Hebrews in this epistle, as that which was indispensably necessary unto their salvation.Obs. 20. There is an internal principle of saving faith required unto our profession of the doctrine of the gospel, without which it will not avail.Obs. 21. All that believe ought solemnly to give themselves up unto Christ and his rule, in an express profession of the faith that is in them and required of them. Obs. 22. There will great difficulties arise in, and opposition be made unto, a sincere profession of the faith. Obs. 23. Firmness and constancy of mind, with our utmost diligent endeavors, are required unto an acceptable continuance in the profession of the faith.Obs. 24. Uncertainty and wavering of mind as to the truth and doctrine we profess, or neglect of the duties wherein it doth consist, or compliance with errors for fear of persecution and sufferings, doth overthrow our profession, and render it useless.Obs. 25. As we ought not on any account to decline our profession, so to abate of the degrees of fervency of spirit therein is dangerous unto our souls. Secondly, Upon the proposal of this duty, the apostle in his passage interposeth an encouragement unto it, taken from the assured benefit and advantage that should be obtained thereby: “For,” saith he, “he is faithful that hath promised.” And we may observe, in the opening of these words, the nature of the encouragement given us in them.1. It is God alone who promiseth. He alone is the author of all gospel promises; by him are they given unto us, 2 Peter 1:4, Titus 1:2. Hence in the sense of the gospel, this is a just periphrasis of God, “He who hath promised.”2. The promises of God are of that nature in themselves, as are suited unto the encouragement of all believers unto constancy and final perseverance in the profession of the faith. They are so, whether we respect them as they contain and exhibit present grace, mercy, and consolation; or as those which propose unto us things eternal in the future glorious reward. 3. The efficacy of the promises unto this end depends upon the faithfulness of God who gives them. “With him is neither variableness nor shadow of turning.” “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent.” God’s faithfulness is the unchangeableness of his purpose and the counsel of his will, proceeding from the immutability of his nature, as accompanied with almighty power for their accomplishment, as declared in the word. See Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2.This, therefore, is the sense of the apostle’s reason unto the end he aims at: ‘Consider,’saith he, ‘the promises of the gospel, their incomparable greatness and glory: in their enjoyment consists our eternal blessedness; and they will all of them be in all things accomplished towards those who hold fast their profession, seeing he who hath promised them is absolutely faithful and unchangeable.’ Obs. 26. The faithfulness of God in his promises is the great encouragement and supportment, under our continual profession of our faith against all oppositions. Καὶκατανοῶμενἀλλήλουςεἰςπαροξυσμὸνἀγάπησκαὶκαλῶνἔργων.Hebrews 10:24. — And let us consider one another, to provoke unto love and good works.Love and good works are the fruits, effects, and evidences, of the sincere profession of saving faith; wherefore a diligent attendance unto them is an effectual means of our constancy in our profession. This, therefore, the apostle in the next place exhorts unto, and thence declares the manner whereby we may be excited and enabled unto them. And there is in the words, 1. A profession of a duty, as a means unto another end. 2. The declaration of that end, namely, by and upon that consideration, to “provoke one another to love and good works.”1. Κατανοῶμενἀλλήλους. The word hath been opened on Hebrews 3:1. A diligent inspection into, a heedful consideration of mind, intent ripen it, in opposition unto common, careless, transient thoughts about it, is intended. The object of it here is not things, but persons; “one another.” And herein the apostle supposeth, — (1.) That those unto whom he wrote had a deep concernment in one another, their present temporal and future eternal state. Without this, the mere consideration of one another would only be a fruitless effect of curiosity, and tend unto many evils.(2.) That they had also communion together about those things without which this duty could not be rightly discharged. For it was not then in the world as it is now; but all Christians, who were joined in church societies, did meet together for mutual communion in those things wherein their edification was concerned, as is declared in the next verse.(3.) That they judged themselves obliged to watch over one another as unto steadfastness in profession and fruitfulness in love and good works. Hence they knew it to be their duty to admonish, to exhort, to provoke, to encourage one another. Without this, the mere consideration of one another is of no use. On these suppositions, this consideration respects the gifts, the graces, the temptations, the dangers, the seasons and opportunities for duty, the manner of the walking of one another in the church, and in the world. For this consideration is the foundation of all those mutual duties of warning, or admonition and exhorting, which tend to the encouragement and strengthening of one another. But these duties are now generally lost among us; and with them is the glory of the Christian religion departed. 2. The special kind of this duty, as here pressed by the apostle, is, that it is used εἰςπαροξυσμὸνἀγάπηςκαὶκαλῶνἔργων, — “unto the provocation of love and good works;” that is, as we have rendered the words, “to provoke” (that is, “one another”) “unto love and good works.” “Provocation” is commonly used in an ill sense, namely, for the imbittering of the spirit of another, moving anger, sorrow, and disquietment and impatience of mind. So 1 Samuel 1:6-7. To provoke one, is to imbitter his spirit, and to stir him up unto anger. And when any provocation is high, we render it “strife,” or “contention,” such as whereby the spirits of men are imbittered one towards another, Acts 15:39. Howbeit it is used sometimes for an earnest and diligent excitation of the minds or spirits of men unto that which is good. See Romans 11:14. So it is here used, And there is more in it than a bare mutual exhortation; there is an excitation of spirit, by exhortation, example, rebuke, until it be warmed unto a duty. This is the great end of the communion that is among Christians in the mutual consideration of one another: considering the circumstances, conditions, walkings, abilities for usefulness, of one another, they do excite one another unto love and good works; which is called the provocation of them, or the stirring up of the minds of men unto them. This was the way and practice of the Christians of old, but is now generally lost, with most of the principles of practical obedience, especially those which concern our mutual edification, as if they had never been prescribed in the gospel. The duties themselves which they are thus mutually to provoke one another unto, are, “love and good works.” And they are placed by the apostle in their proper order; for love is the spring and fountain of all acceptable good works. Of mutual love among believers, which is that here intended, as unto the nature and causes of it, and motives unto it, I have treated at large, Hebrews 6. The “good works” intended are called here καλά; usually they are ἀγαθά. Those which are most commendable and praiseworthy are intended, such as are most useful unto others, such as whereby the gospel is most exalted; works proceeding from the shining light of truth, wherein God is glorified.Obs. 1. The mutual watch of Christians, in the particular societies whereof they are members, is a duty necessary unto the preservation of the profession of the faith.Obs. 2. A due consideration of the circumstances, abilities, temptations, and opportunities for duties, in one another, is required hereunto.Obs. 3. Diligence in mutual exhortation unto gospel duties, that men on all grounds of reason and example may be provoked unto them, is required of us, and is a most excellent duty, which in an especial manner we ought to attend unto. Μὴἐγκαταλείποντεςτὴνἐπισυναγωγἡνἑαυτῶν, καθὼςἔθοστισὶν, ἀλλὰπαρακαλοῦντες, καὶτοσούτῳμᾶλλονὅσῳβλέπετεἐγγίζουσαντὴνἡμέραν.Hebrews 10:25. — Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is;] but exhorting [one another:] and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.The words contain an enforcement of the preceding exhortation, in a caution against what is contrary thereunto, or the neglect of the general duty, which is the principal means to further us in all the things that we are exhorted unto, and without which some of them cannot at all be performed. And there is in the words, 1. The neglect and evil which they are cautioned against; that is, “forsaking the assembling of ourselves.” 2. This is exemplified, (1.) In an instance of some that were guilty of it; “As is the manner of some.”(2.) By the contrary duty; “But exhorting one another.”(3.) The degree of this duty; “So much the more.”(4.) The motive unto that degree; “As ye see the day approaching.” In the FIRST there is,—1. The thing spoken of, ἐπισυναγωγὴνἑαυτῶν, well rendered by us, “the assembling of ourselves together;” for it is not the church-state absolutely, but the actual assemblies of believers, walking together in that state, which the apostle intends. For as the church itself is originally the seat and subject of all divine worship, so the actual assemblies of it are the only way and means for the exercise and performance of it. These assemblies were of two sorts: (1.) Stated, on the Lord’s day, or first day of the week, 1 Corinthians 16:2; Acts 20:7.(2.) Occasional, as the duties or occasions of the church did require, 1 Corinthians 5:4. (1.) The due performance of all solemn stated, orderly, evangelical worship, in prayer, preaching of the word, singing of psalms, and the administration of the sacraments.(2.) The exercise of discipline, or the watch of the church over its members, with respect unto their walking and conversation, that in all things it be such as becomes the gospel, and give no offense: so to admonish, exhort, and “provoke one another to love and good works;” to comfort, establish, and encourage them that were afflicted or persecuted; to relieve the poor, etc. Such assemblies were constantly observed in the first churches. How they came to be lost is not unknown, though how they may and ought to be revived is difficult. Two things are evident herein: — (1.) That those assemblies, those comings together in one place, were the only way whereby the church, as a church, made its profession of subjection unto the authority of Christ in the performance of all those duties of sacred worship whereby God was to be glorified under the gospel. Wherefore a voluntary neglect and relinquishment of those assemblies destroys any church-state, if it be persisted in.(2.) That those assemblies were the life, the food, the nourishment of their souls; without which they could neither attend unto the discipline of Christ, nor yield obedience unto his commands, nor make profession of his name as they ought, nor enjoy the benefit of evangelical institutions: whereas in a due observance of them consisted the trial of their faith in the sight of God and man. For as unto God, whatever reserves men may have in their minds, that they would still continue to believe in Christ though they attended not unto his discipline in these assemblies, he regards it not; because therein men do openly prefer their own temporal safety before his glory. And as unto men, it is not so much faith itself, as the profession of it in those assemblies that they hate, oppose, and persecute. Wherefore believers in all ages have constantly ventured their lives in the observance of them through a thousand difficulties and dangers, esteeming them always aliens from their communion by whom they were neglected. 2. Wherefore, secondly, the apostle’s charge concerning those assemblies is, that we should not forsake them. There is a twofold forsaking of these assemblies: (1.) That which is total, which is the fruit and evidence of absolute apostasy.(2.) That which is so partially only, in want of diligence and conscientious care in a constant attendance unto them according as the rule and their institution do require. It is the latter that the apostle here intends, as the word in part signifies; and of the former he speaks in the following verses. And this is usually done on some of these accounts: —[1. From fear of suffering. These assemblies were those which exposed them unto sufferings, as those whereby they made their profession visible, and evidenced their subjection unto the authority of Christ; whereby the unbelieving world is enraged. This in all ages hath prevailed on many, in the times of trial and persecution, to withdraw themselves from those assemblies; and those who have done so are those “fearful and unbelieving” ones who in the first place are excluded from the new Jerusalem, Revelation 21:8. In such a season, all the arguings of flesh and blood will arise in the minds of men, and be promoted with many specious pretences: life, liberty, enjoyment in this world, will all put in to be heard; reserves concerning their state in this frame, with resolutions to return unto their duty when the storm is over; pleas and arguments that these assemblies are not so necessary, but that God will be merciful unto them in this thing. All which, and the like false reasonings, do carry them away to ruin. For notwithstanding all these vain pleas, the rule is peremptory against these persons. Those who, as to their houses, lands, possessions, relations, liberty, life, prefer them before Christ, and the duties which they owe to him, and his glory, have no interest in gospel promises. Whatever men pretend that they believe, if they confess him not before men, he will deny them before his Father which is in heaven. [2. Spiritual sloth, with the occasions of this life, is the cause in many of this sinful neglect. Other things will offer themselves in competition with the diligent attendance unto these assemblies, If men stir not up themselves, and shake off the weight that lies upon them, they will fall under a woful neglect as unto this and all other important duties. Such persons as are influenced by them will make use of many specious pleas, taken for the most part from their occasions and necessities. These things they will plead with men, and there is no contending with them. But let them go to Christ and plead them immediately unto himself, and then ask of themselves how they suppose they are accepted. He requires that we should attend unto these assemblies diligently, as the principal way and means of doing that and observing that which he commands us, — the certain, indispensable rule of our obedience unto him. Will it be accepted with him, if, in a neglect of that, we should say unto him, we would have done so indeed, but that one thing or other, this business, this diversion, this or that attendance in our callings, would not suffer us so to do? This may, indeed, fall out sometimes where the heart is sincere; but then it will be troubled at it, and watch for the future against the like occasions. But where this is frequent, and every trivial diversion is embraced unto a neglect of this duty, the heart is not upright before God, — the man draws back in the way unto perdition. [3. Unbelief working gradually towards the forsaking of all profession.This is the first way, for the most part, whereby “an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” doth evidence itself; which the apostle on this consideration warns the Hebrews of, Hebrews 3. I say, hereby usually it first evidenceth itself. It hath unquestionably put forth its power before, within, and in a neglect of private duties, but hereby it first evidenceth itself unto others And if this course, from this principle, be persisted in, total apostasy lies at the door; whereof we have multiplied instances. Obs. 1. Great diligence is required of us in a due attendance unto the assemblies of the church for the ends of them, as they are instituted and appointed by Jesus Christ. — The benefit we receive by them, the danger of their neglect, sense of the authority of Christ, concernment of his glory in them, with the vanity of the pretences for their neglect, call aloud for this diligence.Obs. 2. The neglect of the authority and love of Christ in the appointment of the means of our edification, will always tend to great and ruinous evils.3. The apostle exemplifies the sin which he warns them against, in an instance of those who are guilty of it: “As the manner of some is.” The church of the Hebrews, especially that at Jerusalem, had been exposed to great trials and persecutions, as the apostle declares verses 32, 33. During this state, some of the members of it, even in those early days, began so far to decline from their profession as not to frequent the assemblies of the church. They were afraid to be taken at a meeting, or that their known persecuting neighbors should take notice of them as they went unto or came from their assemblies. And it should seem they were not a few who were fallen into this sinful neglect; for the apostle speaks of it as a thing which was well known among themselves Again, there were among the Hebrews at that time great disputes about the continuance of the temple- worship, with the rites and ceremonies of it, which many were entangled withal; and as that error prevailed in their minds, so did they begin gradually to neglect and forsake the worship and duties of the gospel; which ended with many in fatal apostasy. To prevent the effects of these two evils was the principal design of the apostle in writing this epistle, which is filled with cogent arguments against them. This was the later cause of their declension, before intimated, namely, unbelief secretly inclining unto a-departure from the living God. And this is marked here as the ordinary beginning of an entrance into final apostasy, namely, that men do forsake the assemblies of the saints. Only observe, that it is not an occasional dereliction of them, but that which they accustomed themselves unto; it was ἔθος, their “manner,” — it was an ordinary way and manner of walking, which they accustomed themselves unto.Obs. 3. No church-order, no outward profession, can secure men from apostasy. — Persons were guilty of this crime in the first, the best, the purest churches.Obs. 4. Perfection, freedom from offense, scandal, and ruinous evils, is not to be expected in any church in this world.Obs. 5. Men that begin to decline their duty in church relations ought to be marked, and their ways avoided.Obs. 6. Forsaking of church assemblies is usually an entrance into apostasy., The apostle illustrates this great evil by the contrary duty: ᾿Αλλὰπαρακαλοῦντες. All the duties of these assemblies, especially those which are useful and needful to prevent backsliding and preserve from apostasy, are proposed under this one, which is the head and chief of them all.The nature of this mutual exhortation among Christian believers in church societies hath been discoursed on Hebrews 3 : Here it is opposed unto the evil dehorted from, “Forsake not, ...... but exhort one another.” Wherefore it is comprehensive of the general nature of all the duties of believers in church societies, and it hath a special respect unto constancy and perseverance in the profession of the faith, and diligent attendance unto the duties of gospel-worship, as is evident from the whole context This is the duty of all professors of the gospel, namely, to persuade, to encourage, to exhort one another unto constancy in profession, with resolution and fortitude of mind against difficulties, dangers, and oppositions; — a duty which a state of persecution will teach them, who intend not to leave any thing of Christ’s. And it is never the more inconsiderable because the practice of it is almost lost out of the world, as we said before. The motive unto these duties is, “the approach of the day.” Wherein we have, 1. A degree added unto the performance of these duties from this motive, Τοσούτῳμᾶλλον, — “So much the more.”2. The motive itself, which is, “The approach of the day.”3. The evidence they had of it, “Ye see.”1. There is from this motive an especial degree to be added unto the performance of the duties before mentioned. ‘They are such as ought always to be attended unto, howbeit this is a season wherein it is our duty to double our diligence about them.’For this, “so much the rather,” refers distinctly unto all the duties before mentioned, being to be repeated, ἀπὸτοῦκοινοῦ. Wherefore, although the word of Christ, in his institutions and commands, doth make duties constantly in their performance necessary unto us, yet there are warnings and works of Christ whose consideration ought to excite us unto a peculiar diligence in attendance unto them. And, — (1.) Such warnings of Christ there are unto his church, both by his word and by his providence. For although he speaks not now immediately unto them by revelations, yet he speaks unto them mediately in his word. All the warnings he hath left on record in the Scripture, given unto his churches in the various conditions wherein they were, — as, for instance, those in the second and third of the Revelation, — are given likewise unto all the churches now that are in the same state or condition wherein they were. And he doth it by his providence, in threatenings, efficacious trials, and persecutions, 1 Corinthians 11:30-32.(2.) The principal end of these warnings is, to stir us up unto more diligence in attendance unto the duties of his worship in the assemblies of the church; as is manifest in all his dealings with the seven churches, as types of all others. For, [1. Our neglect therein is the cause of that displeasure which he in his warnings and trials calls us unto: “For this cause many are weak and sickly, and many sleep.” “Because thou art lukewarm, I will do so and so.” [2. Because without a diligent care we cannot pass through trials of any nature, in persecution, in public calamities, unto his glory and our own safety; for by a neglect of these duties all graces will decay, carnal fears will prevail, counsel and help will be wanting, and the soul will be betrayed into innumerable dangers and perplexities. [3. Without it, it will not be to the glory of Christ to evidence his presence amongst them in their trials, or give deliverance to them. Wherefore we may consider what belongs unto this, “and so much the rather,” what additions unto our performance of those duties is required from this motive: — (1.) A recovery of ourselves from outward neglects in attendance upon church-assemblies. Such there have been amongst us, on various pretences: which if, on renewed warnings, we recover not ourselves from, we are in danger of eternal ruin; for so the case is stated in this place.(2.) A diligent inquiry into all the duties which belong to the assemblies of believers is comprised here by the apostle, under the general head of mutual consideration, provocation, and exhortation, that we be not found defective through our ignorance and unacquaintedness with what he doth require.(3.) Spiritual diligence in stirring up our hearts and minds unto sincerity, zeal, and delight in the performance of them; in all laboring after a recovery from our decays and backslidings: which is the design of most of the epistles of Christ unto the seven churches. Wherefore, —Obs. 7. When especial warnings do not excite us unto renewed diligence in known duties, our condition is dangerous as unto the continuance of the presence of Christ amongst us.2. The motive itself is, “the approach of the day.” Concerning which we must inquire, (1.) What day it is that is intended.(2.) How it did approach. And then, how it did evidence itself so to be, as they saw it.(1.) The day, τὴνἡμέραν, “an eminent day.” The rule whereby we may determine what day is intended is this: It was such a day as was a peculiar motive unto the Hebrews, in their present circumstances, to attend diligently unto the due performance of gospel duties. It is not such a day, such a motive, as is always common to all, but only unto those who are in some measure in the same circumstances with them. Wherefore it is neither the day of death personally unto them, nor the day of the future judgment absolutely that is intended: for these are common unto all equally, and at all times, and are a powerful motive in general unto the performance of gospel duties; but not an especial, peculiar motive at some time unto peculiar diligence. Wherefore this day was no other but that fearful and tremendous day, a season four the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, city, and nation of the Jews, which our Savior had forewarned his disciples of, and which they had in continual expectation. But it may be said, ‘How should the approach of this day, wherein all things seem to be dissolved, the church to be scattered, the whole nation to be consumed with blood and fire, be a motive unto redoubled diligence in attendance unto the duties of Christian assemblies? It should now seem rather to have been a time for every one to shift for himself and his family, than to leave all at uncertainties, and unto ruin, whilst they looked after those assemblies.’ Ans. [1. Whatever desolations and destructions may be approaching, our best and wisest frame will be to trust unto God, in the discharge of our duty. All other contrivances will prove not only vain and foolish, but destructive unto our souls. The day here intended was coming on the city and nation for their neglect and contempt of the gospel; it was the revenge of their murder, unbelief, and obstinacy against Christ: wherefore if any that made profession of the gospel were now negligent and careless in the known duties of it, they could have no evidence or satisfaction in their own minds that they should not fall in the fire of that day. They who will in any degree partake of men’s sins, must in some degree or other par take of their plagues. [2. It is impossible that men should go or be carried through a day of public calamity, a destructive day, comfortably and cheerfully, without a diligent attendance unto those known duties of the gospel.. For, 1st. The guilt of this neglect will seize upon them when their trial shall come; and they will wish, when it is too late, that they had kept at a distance from it.2dly. Let men pretend what they will, this decay in those duties argues and evidenceth a decay in all graces, which they will find weak, and unfit to carry them through their trials; which will bring them unto an unspeakable loss in their own minds.3dly. The Lord Christ requireth this from us in a way of testimony unto him, that we are found faithful in our adherence unto his institutions upon the approach of such a day; for hereby do we evidence both the subjection of our souls unto him, as also that we value and esteem the privilege of the gospel above all other things.4thly. Because the duties prescribed, in a right discharge of them, are the great means for the strengthening and supporting of our souls in that part of the trial which we are to undergo.For such a day as that intended hath fire in it, to try every man’s work of what sort it is, and every man’s grace both as to its sincerity and power. Therefore all ways and means whereby our works may be tried and our graces exercised are required of us in such a season. Wherefore, — Obs. 8. Approaching judgments ought to influence unto especial diligence in all evangelical duties.(2.) How did this day approach? It was approaching, coming, drawing nigh, it was “in procinctu,” — gradually coming upon them: warnings of it, dispositions towards it, intimations of its coming, were given them every day. This I have before given an account of, and how the drawings nigh of this day were upon them when this epistle was written, and how in a short time it brake forth upon them in all its severity. 3. And these things were so evident, as that, in the last place, the apostle takes it for granted that they themselves did see openly and evidently the approaching day. And it did so in these five things: (1.) In the accomplishment of the signs of its coming foretold by our Savior. Compare Matthew 24:9, etc., with verses 32-34 of this chapter. And besides, all the other signs mentioned by our Savior were entering on their accomplishment.(2.) In that things were at a great stand as unto the progress of the gospel among the Hebrews. At the first preaching of it “multitudes” were converted unto Christ, and the word continued in efficacy towards them for some season afterwards; but now, as our apostle plainly declares in this epistle, the case was changed among them. “The elect obtained, the rest were hardened,” Romans 11:7. The number of the elect among that people was now gathered in; few additions were made unto the church, — not “daily,” nor in “multitudes,” as formerly. And believers knew full well that when their work was all accomplished, God would not leave the people in their obstinacy, but that “wrath should come upon them unto the uttermost.”(3.) They saw it approaching in all the causes of it. For the body of the people, having now refused the gospel, were given up unto all wickedness, and hatred unto Christ; an account whereof is given at large by the historian of their own nation.(4.) The time and season did manifest itself unto them. For whereas the body of that people were to be “cut off,” and “cast off,” as the apostle expressly declares, Romans 9-11, this could not be done until a sufficient tender of the gospel and of grace by Christ Jesus were first made unto them. Notwithstanding all their other wickednesses, God would not surprise them with an overturning destruction. He had before, as types of his dealing with them, warned the old world by Noah, and Sodom by Lot, before the one was destroyed by water and the other by fire. He would also give them their day, and make them a sufficient tender of mercy; which he had now done towards forty years. In this space, through the ministry of the apostles, and other faithful dispensers of the word, the gospel had been proposed unto all persons of that nation throughout the world, Romans 10:16-20. This being now accomplished, they might evidently see that the day was approaching. (5.) In the preparations for it. For at this time all things began to be filled with confusions, disorders, tumults, seditions, and slaughters, in the whole nation, being all of them entrances of that woful day, whose coming was declared in them and by them. Obs. 9. If men will shut their eyes against evident signs and tokens of approaching judgments, they will never stir up themselves nor engage into the due performance of present duties.Obs. 10. In the approach of great and final judgments, God by his word and providence gives such intimations of their coming as that wise men may discern them. “Whoso is wise, he will consider these things,” and “they shall understand the loving-kindness of the LORD .” “The prudent foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself.” “How is it that ye discern not the signs of the times?” Obs. 11. To see evidently such a day approaching, and not to be sedulous and diligent in the duties of divine worship, is a token of a backsliding frame tending unto final apostasy. ῾εκουσίωςγὰρἁμαρτανόντωνἡμῶνμετὰτὸλαβεῖντὴνἐπίγνωσιντῆςἀληθείας, οὐκἔτιπερὶἁμαρτιῶνἀπολείπεταιθυσία, φοβερὰδέτιςἐκδοχὴκρίσεως, καὶπυρὸςζῆλοςἐσθίεινμέλλοντοςτοὺςὑπεναντίους.Hebrews 10:26-27. — For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.In these rinses the apostle gives a vehement enforcement of his preceding exhortation, from the dreadful consequences of a total neglect of it, or uncompliance with it. And this he doth, 1. By expressing the nature of the sin which lies therein. 2. By an impossibility of deliverance from the guilt of it. 3. The punishment that would unavoidably follow upon it.Interpreters have greatly perplexed themselves and others in the interpretation and exposition of these verses, and those that follow. Their conjectures in great variety have proceeded principally from a want of a due attendance unto the scope of the apostle, the argument he had in hand, the circumstances of the people unto whom he wrote, and the present state of God’s providence towards them. Shall not trouble the reader with their various conjectures, and censures of them; but I shall give such an evident sense of the words as themselves and the context do evince to be the mind of the Holy Ghost in them. 1. As unto the words wherein the sin and state of such men is expressed, “If we sin wilfully,” he puts himself among them, as is his manner in comminations: both to show that there is no respect of persons in this matter, but those who have equally sinned shall be equally punished; and to take off all appearance of severity towards them, seeing he speaks nothing of this nature but on such suppositions as wherein, if he himself were concerned, he pronounceth it against himself also. “We sinning,” or, “if we sin ἑκουσίως “wilfully,” say we: our former translations, “willingly;” which we have now avoided, lest we should give countenance unto a supposition that there is no recovery after any voluntary sin. “If we sin wilfully;” that is, obstinately, maliciously, and with despite; which is the nature of the sin itself, as is declared verse 29: but the word doth not require, nor will scarce bear any such sense. “Willingly,” is of choice, without surprisal, compulsion, or fear; and this is all that the word will bear. The season and circumstance which state the sin intended is, “after we have received the knowledge of the truth.” There is no question but that by “the truth,” the apostle intends the doctrine of the gospel; and the “receiving” of it is, upon the conviction of its being truth, to take on us the outward profession of it. Only there is an emphasis in that word, τὴνἐπίγνωσιν. This word is not used anywhere to express the mere conceptions or notions of the mind about truth, but such an acknowledgment of it as ariseth from some sense of its power and excellency. This, therefore, is the description of the persons concerning whom this sin is supposed: They were such as unto whom the gospel had been preached; who, upon conviction of its truth, and sense of its power, had taken upon them the public profession of it. And this is all that is required to the constitution of this state. And what is so required may be reduced to one of these two heads: (1.) The solemn dedication of themselves unto Christ in and by their baptism.(2.) Their solemn joining themselves unto the church, and continuance in the duties of its worship, Acts 2:41-42.On this opening of the words, it is evident what sin it is that is intended, against which this heavy doom is denounced; and that on these two considerations: (1.) That the head of the precedent exhortation is, that we should “hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering,” Hebrews 10:23; and the means of continuing in that profession, Hebrews 10:24-25. Wherefore the sin against this exhortation is, the relinquishment and renouncing of the profession of the faith, with all acts and duties thereunto belonging. (2.) The state opposite unto this sin, that which is contrary unto it, is “receiving the knowledge of the truth;” which what is required thereunto we have now declared. Wherefore the sin here intended, is plainly a relinquishment and renunciation of the truth of the gospel and the promises thereof, with all duties thereunto belonging, after we have been convinced of its truth, and avowed its power and excellency. There is no more required but that this be done ἑκοσοίως, “willingly;” as,(1.) Not upon a sudden surprisal and temptation, as Peter denied Christ;(2.) Not on those compulsions and fears which may work a present dissimulation, without an internal rejection of the gospel;(3.) Not through darkness, ignorance making an impression for a season on the minds and reasonings of men: which things, though exceedingly evil and dangerous, may befall them who yet contract not the guilt of this crime. But it is required thereunto, that men who thus sin, do it, (1.) By choice, and of their own accord, from the internal pravity of their own minds, and an evil heart of unbelief to depart from the living God.(2.) That they do it by and with the preference of another way of religion, and a resting therein, before or above the gospel.(3.) That whereas there were two things which were the foundation of the profession of the gospel;[1. The blood of the covenant, or the blood of the sacrifice of Christ, with the atonement made thereby; and [2. The dispensation of the Spirit of grace; these they did openly renounce, and declared that there was nothing of God in them, as we shall see on verse 29. Such were they who fell off from the gospel unto Judaism in’those days. Such are they whom the apostle here describeth, as is evident in the context. I will say no more unto the sin at present, because I must treat of it under its aggravations on verse 29. Obs. 1. If a voluntary relinquishment of the profession of the gospel and the duties of it be the highest sin, and be attended with the height of wrath and punishment, we ought earnestly to watch against every thing that inclineth or disposeth us thereunto.Obs. 2. Every declension in or from the profession of the gospel hath a proportion of the guilt of this great sin, according unto the proportion that it bears unto the sin itself. Hereof there may be various degrees. Obs. 3. There are sins and times wherein God doth absolutely refuse to hear any more from men in order unto their salvation.2. The first thing which the apostle chargeth as an aggravation of this sin is, that it cannot be expiated, “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins;” — words not unlike those of God concerning the house of Eli, 1 Samuel 3:14, “I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.” An allusion is had herein unto the sacrifices of the law. As there were certain sins which — from their nature, as murder, adultery, blasphemy; or from the manner of their commission, with obstinacy and a high hand — had no sacrifice allowed for them, but those that were so guilty were to be “cut off” from the people of God, and to “die without mercy,” as the apostle declares his own mind, verse 28: so is it with them that thus “sin willingly;” there is no relief appointed for them, no means for the expiation of their sin. But yet there is an especial reason of this severity under the gospel, which the apostle hath principal respect unto. And this is, that there is now no multiplication or repetition of sacrifices for sin. That of Christ, our high priest, was “offered once for all;” henceforth “he dieth no more,’” he is offered no more, nor can there be any other sacrifice offered for ever. This the words express, Οὐκἔτιἀπολείπεται, “There remaineth not;” there is not, in the counsel, purpose, or institution of God, any other sacrifice yet left, to be offered in this, or any other case. To suppose there is yet any such left, it must be on one of these two accounts:(1.) That God would change the whole dispensation of himself and his grace by Christ, because of its weakness and insufficiency. But it may be said, ‘Whereas God did thus deal with the Mosaical law and all its sacrifices to bring in that of Christ, why may not therefore there be another way of expiation of sin yet remaining, whereby they may be purged and purified who are guilty of apostasy from the gospel?’ (2.) ‘Although men have justly forfeited all their interest and benefit by the one offering of Christ, why may he not appoint another for them, or cause himself to be offered again for their recovery?’But both these suppositions are not only false, but highly blasphemous; for it is certain “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”Θυσίαπερὶἁμαρτιῶν compriseth all sorts of offerings and sacrifices whereby sin might be expiated. Wherefore the apostle plainly expresseth, that as persons, by a voluntary relinquishment of the gospel, did forfeit all their interest in the sacrifice of Christ, as he further declares, verse 29, so there was no way appointed for the relief of them by the expiation of their sin for ever. Further to clear the mind of the Holy Ghost herein, I should answer some inquiries that may arise on this interpretation of the words, but in this place I shall only propose them: — 1. Whether this commination may be extended to all ages, times, and seasons? or whether it were confined unto the present state of the Hebrews, with the circumstances they were in? The reasons of the inquiry are,(1.) Because their circumstances were eminently peculiar, and such as cannot befall others in any season.(2.) Because there was a temporal destruction then impendent over them, ready to devour apostates; which cannot be applied unto them who fall into the same sin at other seasons.2. Whether the sin intended may include great actual sins after the profession of the gospel, answering such as under the law were said to be committed “with an high hand?”3. Whether there may be hopes for the persons here intended, though no express provision be made in the covenant for the expiation of this sin?4. Whether there be any defect in the priesthood of Christ, that it hath but one sacrifice for sins, which if it be neglected and despised can never be repeated, nor can any other sacrifice be added unto it?5. If a person who hath voluntarily forsaken and renounced the gospel, with a great appearance of all the circumstances that concur unto the state of the sin here mentioned, should make profession of repentance, what may be conceived concerning his eternal condition? what is the duty of the church concerning such an one?These things shall be spoken unto elsewhere. Obs. 4. The loss of an interest in the sacrifice of Christ, on what account or by what means soever it fall out, is absolutely ruinous unto the souls of men. Hebrews 10:27. — “But a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”When a man under the law had contracted the guilt of any such sin as was indispensably capital in its punishment, for the legal expiation whereof no sacrifice was appointed or allowed, such as murder, adultery, blasphemy, he had nothing remaining but a fearful expectation of the execution of the sentence of the law against him. And it is evident that in this context the apostle argues from the less unto the greater: ‘If it was so, that this was the case of him who so sinned against Moses’law, how much more must it be so with them that sin against the gospel, whose sin is incomparably greater, and the punishment more severe?’ The connection of the words with those foregoing, by the adversative δέ for ἀλλά, includes or brings along with it the verb ἀπολείπεται, “there remaineth:” ‘No sacrifice for sin is left or remains; but there doth remain or abide for such persons a fearful expectation of judgment.’There are two things in these words: 1. The punishment due unto the sins of apostates, which is three ways expressed:(1.) By the general nature of it, it is “judgment;”(2.) By the special nature of that judgment, it is “fiery indignation;”(3.) By the efficacy of it unto its end, it “devours the adversaries.”2. The certain approach of this judgment, “there remaineth a fearful expectation.”1. This last lies first in the words. And, —(1.) That which we render “certain,” is in the original only τίς. It doth not denote an assured expectation, nor the certainty of the punishment; but only a certain kind of expectation, “a kind of fearful expectation.” Nor is this spoken in the way of diminution, but to intimate something that is inexpressible, such as no heart can conceive or tongue express. 1 Peter 4:17-18, “What shall be the end of them who obey not the gospel? … Where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (2.) ᾿Εκδοχή, an “expectation,” is the frame of mind with respect, unto any thing that is future, good or bad, wherein we are concerned, that we are to look for, whatever it be, — which we have reason and grounds to think will come unto us or befall us. (3.) This expectation is said to be φοβερά “fearful,” tremendous, which men can neither conflict withal nor avoid, as we shall see further, Hebrews 10:31; — that which fills the mind with dread and horror, depriving it of all comfort and relief. An expectation of this dreadful and terrible nature may be taken two ways: [1. For the certain relation that is between the sin and punishment spoken of; the punishment is unavoidable, as any thing is which upon the most certain grounds is looked for. So they are said only metaphorically to look for that which will certainly ensue. [2. As it expresseth the frame of the minds of them concerning it. And though the assertion may be used in the former sense, yet I doubt not but this latter also is included in it; and that also on two accounts: 1st. Because if they did set themselves unto the consideration of the event of their apostasy, nothing else could befall their minds, nothing could present itself unto them for their relief; their minds will not admit of other thoughts but what belongs to this dreadful expectation.2ndly. On the account of that dread and terror that God sends at times into the minds and consciences of such persons.They may bear it high, and with an ostentation of satisfaction in what they have done, yea, commonly they proclaim a self-justification, and prove desperate persecutors of them who sacredly adhere unto the truth; but as he said of old of tyrants, that if their breasts were opened, it would appear what tortures they have within, I am persuaded it is probable that God very seldom lets them pass in this world without tormenting fear and dread of approaching judgments, — which is a broad entrance into hell. Obs. 5. There is an inseparable concatenation between apostasy and eternal ruin.Obs. 6. God oftentimes visits the minds of cursed apostates with dreadful expectations of approaching wrath.Obs. 7. When men have hardened themselves in sin, no fear of punishment will either rouse or stir them up to seek after relief. Obs. 8. A dreadful expectation of future wrath, without hope of relief, is an open entrance into hell itself.2. This dreadful punishment is described by the general nature of it.(1.) It is κρίοις, “judgment.” It is not a thing that is dubious, that may fall out, or may not do so. It is not an unaccountable severity that they are threatened withal; but it is a just and righteous sentence, denouncing punishment proportionate unto their sin and crime. “Judgment” is taken sometimes for punishment itself, Psalms 9:16; James 2:13; 1 Peter 4:17; 2 Peter 2:3. But most commonly it is used for the sentence of judicial condemnation and trial, determining the offender unto punishment; and so it is most commonly used to express the general judgment that shall pass on all mankind at the last day, Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:22; Matthew 11:24; Matthew 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 John 4:17. I doubt not but that in the word as here used both these are included, namely, the righteous sentence of God judging and determining on the guilt of this sin, and the punishment itself which ensues thereon, as it is immediately described. And although respect be had herein principally to the judgment of the great day, yet is it not exclusive of any previous judgments that are preparatory unto it and pledges of it; such was that dreadful judgment which was then coming on the apostate church of the Hebrews. Obs. 9. The expectation of future judgment in guilty persons is, or will be at one time or another, dreadful and tremendous.(2.) The punishment and destruction of those sinners is described by its particular nature; it is a “fiery indiguation,” — πυρὸςζῆλος. For these words do not relate unto ἐκδοχή, as κρίσεως doth, nor are regulated by it, (it is not the expectation of fiery indignation,) but refer immediately unto ἀπολείπεται. As there remains an expectation of judgment, so there is a fiery indignation that remains. And so the words following, “which shall,” μέλλοντος, refer to “fire,” πυρός, and not to “indignation,” ζῆλος; — the indignation, the vehemency, the power of fire.What is this fire? and what is this indignation of it? God himself is in the Scripture said to be “a consuming fire,” Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 9:3; Isaiah 33:14; Hebrews 12:29. What is intended thereby is declared in a word, Deuteronomy 4:24, ζηλότυπος, as here ζῆλοςπυρός. The essential holiness and righteousness of God, whereby he cannot bear with the iniquities and provocations of men who betake not themselves unto the only atonement, and that “he will by no means quit the guilty,” are intended in this metaphorical expression.The judgment of God concerning the punishment of sin, as an effect of his will in a way consonant unto the holiness of his nature and the exigence of his righteousness, is called “fire,” 1 Corinthians 3:13. But that is not the fire that is here intended. It is devouring, consuming, destroying, such as answereth the severity of God’s justice unto the utmost, as Isaiah 9:5; Isaiah 30:33; Isaiah 66:15; Amos 7:4; Matthew 18:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Psalms 11:6; Deuteronomy 32:22. Therefore this “indignation,” or”fervor of fire,” hath respect unto three things: [1. The holiness of the nature of God; from whence originally this judgment doth proceed, as that which is most suitable thereunto. [2. The righteous act of the will of God; sometimes called his wrath and anger from the effects of it, being suitable unto the holiness of his nature. [3. The dreadful severity of the judgment in itself, in its nature and effects, as it is declared in the next words. I doubt not but respect is had unto the final judgment at the last day, and the eternal destruction of apostates. But yet also it evidently includeth that sore and fiery judgment which God was bringing on the obstinate, apostate Jews, in the total destruction of them and their church-state by fire and sword. For as such judgments are compared to and called “fire” in the Scripture, so this was so singular, so unparalleled in any people of the world, as that it might well be called “fiery indignation,” or “fervor of fire.” Besides, it was an eminent pledge and token of the future judgment, and the severity of God therein. Wherefore it is foretold in expressions that are applicable unto the last judgment. See Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Peter 3:10-12. (3.) This indignation, to be executed by fire, is described in the last place by its efficacy and effects. It is the fire that shall “devour” or eat up “the adversaries.” The expression is taken from Isaiah 26:11. For, “the fire of thine enemies,” is there, not that which the enemies burn with, but wherewith they shall be burned. Concerning the efficacy and effect of this fire we may consider, [1. The season of its application unto this effect, μέλλοντος.[2. The object of it, “the adversaries.” [3. The way of its operation, “it shall devour them.” [1. It “shall” do so; it is not yet come to the effect, it is future. Hence many of them despised it, as that which would never be, 2 Peter 3:3-6. But there are three things intimated in this word:1st. That it is “in procinctu,” in readiness; not yet come, but ready to come: so is the word used to express that which is future, but ready to make its entrance.2dly. That it is certain, it shall and will be; whatever appearances there are of its turning aside, and men’s avoiding of it, it will come in its proper season: so speaks the prophet in a like case: Habakkuk 2:3.3dly. The foundation of the certainty of the coming of this fiery indignation, is the irreversible decree of God, accompanied with righteousness, and the measures which infinite wisdom gave unto his patience. This was the unavoidable season that was approaching, when the adversaries had filled up the measure of their sin, and God’s providence had saved the elect from this wrath to come.Obs. 10. There is a determinate time for the accomplishment of all divine threatenings, and the infliction of the severest judgments, which no man can abide or avoid. He hath “appointed a day wherein he will judge the world.” So at present there is a sort of men “whose damnation slumbereth not,” concerning whom he hath sworn that “time shall be no more;” which is the present state of the antichristian world. Obs. 11. The certain determination of divine vengeance on the enemies of the gospel is a motive unto holiness, and a supportment under sufferings, in them that believe. “Lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.” “What manner of persons ought we to be?” See 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.[2. There is a description of those on whom this fiery indignation shall have its effect, and it is “the adversaries,” — τοὺςὑπεναντίους. He doth not say, those that believe not, and obey not the gospel, as he doth elsewhere, when he treats absolutely of the day of judgment, as in that place, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, now mentioned; but it confines them unto those that are “adversaries,” — who, from a contrary principle, set themselves against the Lord Christ and the gospel. This is the peculiar description of the unbelieving Jews at that time. They did not only refuse the gospel through unbelief, but were acted by a principle of opposition thereunto; not only as unto themselves, but as unto others, even the whole world. So is their state described, 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary unto all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them unto the uttermost.” They laid the foundation of this enmity in killing the Lord Jesus; but they rested not therein, they continued in their unbelief, adhering to their old Judaism, and their sins therein. Nor did they rest there, but persecuted the apostles, drove them out from amongst them, and all that preached the gospel; and this not only with respect unto themselves alone, and those of their own nation, but they set themselves with fury all the world over against the preaching of the gospel unto the Gentiles, and that of cursed malice, that they might not be saved. See instances of this rage, Acts 13:45; Acts 22:22-23. They were properly “the adversaries” whom the apostle intends; and therefore the judgment which was peculiar unto them and their sins, in that fearful temporal destruction which did then approach, is intended herein, as well as the equity of the sentence as extended to the general destruction of all unbelievers at the last day. Obs. 12. The highest aggravation for the greatest sin, is, when men, out of a contrary principle of superstition and error, do set themselves maliciously to oppose the doctrine and truth of the gospel, with respect unto themselves and others.Obs. 13. There is a time when God will make such demonstrations of his wrath and displeasure, against all adversaries of the gospel, as shall be pledges of his eternal indignation. He will one day deal so with the antichristian, persecuting world.[3. What is the effect of this fiery indignation against those adversaries? “It shall eat them up,” or “devour them.” The expression is metaphorical, taken from the nature and efficacious operation of fire; it eats, devours, swallows up and consumes, all combustible matter that it is applied unto, or is put into it. That intended is destruction, inevitable, unavoidable, and terrible in the manner of it. See Malachi 4:1, whence those expressions are taken. Only the similitude is not to be extended beyond the proper intention of it. For fire doth so consume and devour what is put into it, as that it destroys the substance and being thereof, that it shall be no more. It is not so with the “fiery indignation” that “shall consume” or “devour the adversaries” at the last day. It shall devour them as to all happiness, all blessedness, all hopes, comforts, and relief at once; but it shall not at once utterly consume their being. This is that which this fire shall eternally prey upon, and never utterly consume. But if we make the application of it unto the temporal destruction that came upon them, the similitude holds throughout, for it utterly consumed them, and devoured them, and all that belonged unto them in this world: they were devoured by it.Obs. 14. The dread and terror of God’s final judgments against the enemies of the gospel is in itself inconceivable, and only shadowed out by things of the greatest dread and terror in the world. Whence it is so, I shall now declare. ᾿ΑθετήσαςτιςνόμονΜωϋσέως, χωρὶςοἰκτιρμῶνἐπὶδυσὶνἣτρισὶμάρτυσινἀποθνήσκει·πόσῳ, δοκεῖτε, χείρονοςἀξιωθήσεταιτιμωρίαςὁτὸνΥἱὸντοῦΘεοῦκαταπατήσας, καὶτὸαἷματῆςδιαθήκηςκοινὸνἡγησάμενοςἐνᾧἡγιάσθη, καὶτὸΠνεῦματῆςχάριτοςἐνυβρίσας; ?Hebrews 10:28-29. — He that despised Moses’law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? The apostle confirms what he had spoken of the sore and certain destruction of apostates from the gospel, by an argument “A comparatis,” and “a minori ad majus;” that is, by the consideration of the two states of the church, which he had all along compared and expressed. Wherefore, to convince the Hebrews not only of the certainty and severity of the judgment declared, but also of the equity and righteousness of it, he proposeth unto them the consideration of God’s constitution of punishment under the old testament with respect unto the law of Moses, which they could not deny to be just and equal. In verse 28 he lays down the matter of fact as it was stated under the law; wherein there are three things: 1. The sin whereunto that of apostasy from the gospel is compared, “He that despised Moses’law.”2. The punishment of that sin according to the law; he that was guilty of it “died without mercy.” 3. The way whereby according unto the law his sin was to be charged on him; it was “under two or three witnesses.”FIRST, Unto the first, two things did concur: —1. It was such a sin as by the law was capital; as murder, adultery, incest, idolatry, blasphemy, and some others. Concerning them it was provided in the law that those who were guilty of them should be put to death. God alone, by virtue of his sovereignty, could dispense with the execution of this sentence of the law, as he did in the case of David, 2 Samuel 12:13; but as unto the people, they were prohibited on any account to dispense with it, or forbear the execution of it, Numbers 35:31.2. It was required that he did it “presumptuously,” or with an high hand, Exodus 21:14; Numbers 15:30-31; Deuteronomy 17:12.He that was thus guilty of sin, in sinning is said to “despise Moses’law;” ἀθετεῖν, to “abolish” it, to render it useless, — that is, in himself; by contempt of the authority of it, or the authority of God in it. And it is called a contempt and abolishing of the law, as the word signifies, —1. Because of God’s indulgence unto them therein. For although the general sentence of the law was a curse, wherein death was contained, against every transgression thereof, Deuteronomy 27, yet God had ordained and appointed, that for all their sins of ignorance, infirmity, or surprisals by temptations, an atonement should be made by sacrifice; whereon the guilty were freed as unto the terms of the covenant, and restored to a right unto all the promises of it. Wherein they would not abide in those terms and conditions of the covenant, but transgress the bounds annexed to them, it was a contempt of the whole law, with the wisdom, goodness, and authority of God therein.2. They rejected all the promises of it which were given exclusively unto such sins; nor was there any way appointed of God for their recovery unto an interest in them. Hereby they made themselves lawless persons, contemning the threatenings and despising the promises of the law; which God would not bear in any of them, Deuteronomy 29:18-21.Obs. 1. It is the contempt of God and his authority in his law that is the gall and poison of sin. — This may be said in some measure of all voluntary sins; and the more there is of it in any sin, the greater is their guilt and the higher is their aggravation who have contracted it. But there is a degree hereof which God will not bear with; namely, when this presumptuous contempt hath such an influence into any sin, as that no ignorance, no infirmity, no special temptation can be pleaded, unto the extenuation of it. “I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief,” 1 Timothy 1:13. And sundry things are required hereunto: 1. That it be known unto the sinner, both in point of right and fact, to be such a sin as whereunto the penalty of death without dispensation was annexed.2. That therefore the sense of God in the law be suggested unto the soul in and by the ordinary means of it.3. That the resolution of continuing in it, and the perpetration of it, doth prevail against all convictions and fear of punishment.4. That motives unto the contrary, with reluctancies of conscience, be stifled or overcome. These things rendered a sinner “presumptuous,” or caused him to “sin with an high hand,” under the law; whereunto the apostle adds in the next verse the peculiar aggravations of sin against the gospel. This it is to despise the law of Moses, as it is explained, Numbers 15:30-31., The punishment of this sin, or of him that was guilty of it, was, that “he died without mercy.” He “died,” — that is, he was put to death; not always, it may be, “de facto,” but such was the constitution of the law, he was to be put to death without mercy. There were several ways of inflicting capital punishments appointed by the law, as hanging on a tree, burning, and stoning. Of all which, and the application of them unto particular cases, I have given a description in the Exercitations unto the first volume of these commentaries. And it is said that he “died without mercy,” not only because there was no allowance for any such mercy as should save and deliver him, but God had expressly forbidden that either mercy or compassion should be showed in such cases, Deuteronomy 13:6-10; Deuteronomy 19:13. This is expressly added unto the highest instance of despising the law, namely, the decalogue in the foundation of it, whereon all other precepts of the law were built; and that which comprised a total apostasy from the whole law. Wherefore I doubt not but the apostle had an especial respect unto that sin in its punishment, which had a complete parallel with that whose heinousness he would represent. However, — Obs. 2. When the God of mercies will have men show no mercy, as in temporal punishment, he can and will, upon repentance, show mercy as to eternal punishment; for we dare not condemn all unto hell which the law condemned as unto temporal punishment. THIRDLY, The way of execution of this judgment: it was to be done “under two or three witnesses;” that is, that were so of the fact and crime. The law is express in this case, Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:13; Numbers 35:30. Although God was very severe in the prescription of these judgments, yet he would give no advantage thereby unto wicked and malicious persons to take away the lives of innocent men. He rather chose that those who were guilty should, through our weakness, go free for want of evidence against them, than that innocence should be exposed unto the malice of one single testimony or witness. And such abhorrency God had of false witnesses in criminal causes, as that which is most contrary unto his righteousness in the government of the world, as that he established a “lex talionis” in this case alone; — that a false witness should suffer the utmost of what he thought and contrived to bring on another. The equity of which law is still continued in force, as suitable to the law of nature, and ought to be more observed than it is, Deuteronomy 19:16-21.On this proposition of the state of things under the law, by God’s appointment, as to sin and punishment, the apostle makes his inference unto the certainty and equity of the punishment he had declared with respect unto sins against the gospel, verse 29, “Of how much sorer punishment,” etc. And there is in these words three things: 1. The nature of the sin unto which the punishment is annexed.2. The punishment itself, expressed comparatively with and unto that of the transgression of Moses’law.3. The evidence of the inference which he makes; for this is such as he refers it unto themselves to judge upon, “Suppose ye shall he be thought worthy.”The sin itself is described by a threefold aggravation of it, each instance having its especial aggravation: 1. From the object sinned against; 2. From the act of the minds of men in sinning against it.1. The first aggravation of the sin intended is from the object of it, the person of Christ, — “the Son of God;” and that included in it is the act of their minds towards him, “they trod,” or “trampled upon him.” 2. The second is against the office of Christ, especially his sacerdotal office, and the sacrifice of his blood which he offered therein, — “the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified;” and the aggravation included therein from the act of their minds towards it is, that “they accounted it an unholy thing.”3. A third aggravation as unto the object, is the Spirit of Christ, or “the Spirit of grace;” and the aggravation included therein is, that “they do despite unto him.”In general, the nature and aggravation of the sin intended may be reduced unto these heads: — 1. The object of it, which is the sum and substance, a divine constellation of all the blessed effects of infinite wisdom, goodness, and grace, yea, the whole divine wisdom, goodness, and grace of God, in the most glorious manifestation of them. All these things are comprised in the person, office, and glory of the Son of God, as the Savior and Redeemer of the church.2. The actings of the minds of men towards this object, which is in and by all the vilest affections that human nature is capable of. Contempt, scorn, and malice, are ascribed unto such sin; they “trample on,” they “despise,” and “do despite.” Wherefore, if it be possible that any thing, any sin of men, can provoke the heat of divine indignation; if any can contract such a guilt, as that the holiness, righteousness, truth, and faithfulness of God, shall be engaged unto its eternal punishment, the sin here intended must do it. FIRST, We shall therefore consider it in its nature and distinct aggravations.The sin in general is that which we have spoken to before, namely, sinning wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of the truth, and in an absolutely total relinquishment and rejection of the gospel. 1. In the description of the special object of this sin, that which is first expressed is the person of Christ, — “the Son of God.” I have on sundry occasions before showed how the apostle doth vary in his expression of Christ. Here he calls him “the Son of God;” and he maketh use of this name to give a sense of the glorious greatness of the person with whom they had to do, against whom this sin was committed. For although he is a man also, who had blood to shed, and did shed it in the sacrifice of himself, and notwithstanding what cursed, blasphemous thoughts they might have of him, yet indeed he is and will appear to be, the eternal Son of the living God. But how comes this “Son of God” to be concerned herein? what injury is done him by apostates from the gospel? I answer, that as the Lord Christ in his own person was the special author of the gospel; as his authority is the special object of our faith in it; as his office with all the fruits of it is the subject, sum, and substance of the gospel: so there is no reception of it in a due manner, unto salvation, no rejection of it unto final condemnation, but what is all of it originally, fundamentally, and virtually contained in the reception or rejection of the person of Christ. This is the life, the soul, and foundation of all gospel truth; without which it is of no power or efficacy unto the souls of men. But I have treated at large of these things elsewhere.[8] I cannot but observe, that, as whosoever rejects, refuses, forsakes the gospel, rejecteth and forsaketh the person of Christ; so on what account soever men take up the profession of it, and perform the duties of it, if the foundation be not laid in a reception of Christ himself, of the person of Christ, all their profession will be in vain. [8] See on Person of Christ, vol. 1 of miscellaneous works. — ED. This is the first aggravation of this sin, it is committed immediately against the person of the Son of God, and therein his authority, goodness, and love. But it may be thought, if the person of Christ be concerned herein, yet it is indirectly or consequently only, and in some small degree. ‘No,’saith the apostle; ‘but he that is guilty of this sin doth trample on the Son of God, or tread him under foot.’The word is rendered with great variety, but that of our translation is proper; and it is the highest expression of scorn, contempt, and malice amongst men. To “tread under foot,” is to despise and insult over, as is plain in the metaphor. And this contempt respects both the person of Christ and his authority. He is proposed in the gospel, was professed by this sort of sinners for a while to be the Son of God, the true Messiah, the Savior of the world. Hereon faith in him and all holy reverence unto him are required of us, as on him whom God had exalted above all principalities and powers; and whom therefore we ought to exalt and adore in our souls. But now by this sort of persons he was esteemed an evildoer, a seducer, one not at all sent of God, but one that justly suffered for his crimes. Herein they “trod under foot the Son of God” with all contempt and scorn. Again, it respects his authority. This the gospel declared; and those who had come unto any profession of it, — as those had done whereof he speaks in this place, and all must have done who contract the guilt of this sin, — did avow, and submit themselves unto. The profession they made was, to observe and do all that he had commanded them, because all power was given unto him in heaven and earth. This they now utterly rejected and despised; as unto the outward observance of his commands, ordinances, and institutions of divine worship, they openly rejected them, betaking themselves unto other modes and rites of divine service, in opposition and contradiction unto them, even those of the law. Neither did they retain any regard in their minds unto his authority. Obs. 3. Though there may be sometimes an appearance of great severity in God’s judgments against sinners, yet when the nature of their sins and the aggravations of them shall be discovered, they will be manifest to have been righteous, and within due measure.Obs. 4. Take we heed of every neglect of the person of Christ or of his authority, lest we enter into some degree or other of the guilt of this great offense.Obs. 5. The sins of men can really reach neither the person nor authority of Christ; they only do that in desire which in effect they cannot accomplish. — This doth not take off or extenuate their sin; the guilt of it is no less than if they did actually trample upon the Son of God.2. The second aggravation of the sin spoken of, is its opposition to the office of Christ, especially his priestly office, and the sacrifice that he offered thereby, called here “the blood of the covenant.” And that included in it, is the frame of their minds in that opposition, “they counted it an unholy thing;” both which have a third aggravation from the use and efficacy of that blood, — it is that “wherein he was sanctified.”For the first, in what sense the blood of Christ was “the blood of the covenant,” hath been fully declared on Hebrews 9; — that whereby the new covenant was ratified, confirmed, and made effectual as unto all the grace of it unto them that do believe; and it was the foundation of all the following actings of God towards him in his exaltation, and of his intercession. See Hebrews 13:20. The “blood of the covenant” was the great expression of the grace of God, and of the love of Christ himself, as well as the cause of all good unto us; the center of divine wisdom in all the mediatory actings of Christ, the life and soul of the gospel. Of this blood of the covenant it is said, that they who were guilty of the sin intended, “counted it an unholy thing;” they judged it so, and dealt with it accordingly. Both the judgment of the mind, and practice thereupon are intended. Κοινόν is “common,” and opposed unto any thing that is dedicated and consecrated unto God, and made sacred. Hence it is used for “profane” and “unholy,” — that which no way belongs unto divine worship. They did no longer esteem it as that blood wherewith the new covenant was sealed, confirmed, established; but as the blood of an ordinary man shed for his crimes, which is common and unholy, not sacred, — not of so much use unto the glory of God as the blood of bulls and goats in legal sacrifices: which is the height of impiety. And there are many degrees of this sin, some doctrinal, some practical; which though they arise not unto the degree here intended, yet are they perilous unto the souls of men. Those by whom the efficacy of his blood unto the expiation of sin, by making satisfaction and atonement, is denied, as it is by the Socinians, will never be able to free themselves from making this blood in some sense a common thing. Yea, the contempt which hath been cast on the blood of Christ by that sort of men will not be expiated with any other sacrifices for ever. Others do manifest what slight thoughts they have of it, in that they place the whole of their religion within themselves, and value their own light as unto spiritual’advantages above the blood of Christ. And practically there are but few who trust unto it for their justification, for pardon, righteousness, and acceptance with God; which is in a great measure to account it a common thing, — not absolutely, but in comparison of that life, excellency, and efficacy that are in it indeed. But as Christ is precious unto them that believe, 1 Peter 2:7, so is his blood also, wherewith they are redeemed, 1 Peter 1:19.Obs. 6. Every thing that takes off from a high and glorious esteem of the blood of Christ as “the blood of the covenant,” is a dangerous entrance into apostasy: such is the pretended sacrifice of the mass, with all things of the like nature. The last aggravation of this sin with respect unto the blood of Christ, is the nature, use, and efficacy of it; it is that “wherewith he was sanctified.” It is not real or internal sanctification that is here intended, but it is a separation and dedication unto God; in which sense the word is often used. And all the disputes concerning the total and final apostasy from the faith of them who have been really and internally sanctified, from this place, are altogether vain; though that may be said of a man, in aggravation of his sin, which he professeth concerning himself. But the difficulty of this text is, concerning whom these words are spoken: for they may be referred unto the person that is guilty of the sin insisted on; he counts the blood of the covenant, wherewith he himself was sanctified, an unholy thing. For as at the giving of the law, or the establishing of the covenant at Sinai, the people being sprinkled with the blood of the beasts that were offered in sacrifice, were sanctified, or dedicated unto Gel in a peculiar manner; so those who by baptism, and confession of faith in the church of Christ, were separated from all others, were peculiarly dedicated to God thereby. And therefore in this case apostates are said to “deny the Lord that bought them,” or vindicated them from their slavery unto the law by his word and truth for a season, 2 Peter 2:1. But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, — to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:7; Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 9:11-12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office.Obs. 7. However men may esteem of any of the mediatory actings of Christ, yet are they in themselves glorious and excellent. — So was the sacrifice of his own blood, even that whereby not only the church was sanctified, but himself also was dedicated as our high priest for ever. 3. The third aggravation of this sin is taken from its opposition unto the Spirit of Christ; they “do despite unto the Spirit of grace.” And as in the former instances, so it is here, there are two parts of this aggravation; the first taken from the object of their sin, “the Spirit of grace;” the second taken from the manner of their opposition unto him, “they do him despite.” The Holy Spirit of God, promised and communicated under the gospel by Jesus Christ from the Father, as the author and cause, actually communicating and applying of all grace unto the souls of them that believe, is this Spirit of grace. And this carries in it innumerable aggravations of this sin. This person, the Holy Spirit of God, God himself, his communication of grace and mercy, in the accomplishment of the most glorious promises of the Old Testament, was he whom these apostates renounced. But there is a peculiar notion or consideration of the Spirit, with respect whereunto he is sinned against; and that is this, that he was peculiarly sent, given, and bestowed to bear witness unto the person, doctrine, death, and sacrifice of Christ, with the glory that ensued thereon, John 16:14; 1 Peter 1:12. And this he did various ways. For by him the souls of multitudes were converted unto God, — their eyes enlightened, their minds sanctified, their lives changed. By him did those who believe come to understand the Scriptures, which before were as a sealed book unto them; they were directed, encouraged, supported, and comforted, in all that they had to do and suffer for the name of Christ. By him were all those mighty works, wonders, signs, and miracles wrought, which accompanied the apostles and other preachers of the gospel at the beginning. Now all these things, and the like effects of his grace and power on all who made profession of the gospel, were owned, believed, and avowed to be the works of the Holy Spirit, as promised in the days of the Messiah; and they pleaded the evidence of them unto the confusion of all their adversaries. This, therefore, was done also by these apostates before their apostasy. But now, being fully fallen off from Christ and the gospel, they openly declared that there was no testimony in them unto the truth, but all these things were either diabolical delusions or fanatical misapprehensions; that indeed there was nothing of truth, reality, or power in them, and therefore no argument to be taken from them unto the confirmation of the truth of Christ in the gospel. Now this proceeding from them who had once themselves made the same profession with others of their truth and reality, gave the deepest wound that could be given unto the gospel. For all the adversaries of it, who were silenced with this public testimony of the Holy Spirit, and knew not what to say, considering the many miracles that were wrought, did now strengthen themselves by the confession of these apostates, ‘That there was nothing in it but pretense: and who should better know than those who had been of that society?’ Obs. 8. There are no such cursed, pernicious enemies unto religion as apostates.Hence are they said to “do despite unto the Spirit of grace,” — ἐνυβρίσας. They do injure him so far as they are able. The word includes wrong with contempt. And this they did upon a twofold account. For, (1.) The works, many of them which he then wrought, were eminent and evident effects of divine power; and to ascribe such works unto another cause is to do despite unto him.(2.) They did so principally, in that by all his works, and in the whole dispensation of him, he gave testimony unto Christ in the gospel; and what greater despite and wrong could be done unto him, than to question his truth and the veracity of his testimony? No greater despite can be done unto a man of any reputation, than to question his truth and credit in that wherein he engageth himself as a witness. And if lying unto the Holy Ghost is so great a sin, what is it to make the Holy Ghost a liar? Herein did such persons do him despite. For notwithstanding the public testimony he gave in, with, and by the preaching of the gospel, they rejected it as a fable, in despising his person and authority. All these great and terrible aggravations are inseparable from this sin of apostasy from the gospel, above those of any sin against the law of Moses whatever. They were none of them in the vilest sin prohibited by the law under capital punishment. , Hence, therefore, the apostle proposeth it unto the judgment of the Hebrews, “of how much sorer punishment” they suppose a sinner guilty of this sin shall be judged worthy, above what was inflicted on the wilful transgressor of the law. And there is included herein,1. That such a sinner shall be punished. Apostates may flatter themselves with impunity, but in due time punishment will overtake them. How shall they escape who neglect so great salvation? Much less shall they not do so by whom it is thus despised in all the causes of it. 2. That this shall be a sore, a great, and an evil punishment; which is included in the note of comparison, “far greater punishment,” — such as men shall be able neither to abide nor to avoid.3. Comparatively, it shall be a sorer punishment than that which was appointed for wilful transgressors of the law, which was death without mercy.4. That the degree of its exceeding that punishment is inexpressible: “Of how much sorer?”None can declare it, as the Holy Ghost expresseth himself when he would intimate unto our minds that which we cannot absolutely conceive and apprehend, 1 Peter 4:17-18. ‘But whereas that punishment was death without mercy, wherein could this exceed it?’I answer, Because that was a temporal death only; for though such sinners under the law might and did many of them perish eternally, yet they did not so by virtue of the constitution of the law of Moses, which reached only unto temporal punishments: but this punishment is eternal (that is constantly proposed in the first place unto all impenitent unbelievers and despisers of the gospel, see 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, Mark 16:16, etc.); yet so as not to exclude any other temporal judgments, in spirituals or naturals, that may precede it; such was that whereunto the temporal destruction that was ready to come on these despisers did belong.THIRDLY, The way whereby they are made obnoxious unto it is, that they are “counted worthy of it,” — ἀξιωθήσεται. They shall receive neither more nor less than their due. The judge in this case is God himself, as the apostle declares in the next verse. He alone knows, he alone can justly determine, what such apostates are worthy of. But in general, that this shall unspeakably exceed that annexed unto the transgression of the law is left unto themselves to judge, — “Suppose ye.” ‘Ye know and take it for granted, that the punishments under the law to be inflicted on its transgressors, by the constitution and sanction of it, were all of them righteous, for God was the judge of this in them all. Consider now what aggravations this sin is accompanied withal above all sins whatever against the law, and be yourselves judges of what will follow hereon. What do you think in your own hearts will be the judgment of God concerning these sinners?’This argument the apostle doth frequently insist upon, as Hebrews 2:2-4; Hebrews 12:25; and it had a peculiar cogency towards the Hebrews, who had lived under the terror of those legal punishments all their days. Obs. 9. The inevitable certainty of the eternal punishment of gospel-despisers depends on the essential holiness and righteousness of God, as the ruler and judge of all. It is nothing but what he in his just judgment, which is “according unto truth,” accounteth them worthy of, Romans 1:32.Obs. 10. It is a righteous thing with God thus to deal with men. Wherefore all hopes of mercy, or the least relaxation of punishment unto all eternity, are vain and false unto apostates: “they shall have judgment without mercy.”Obs. 11. God hath allotted different degrees of punishment unto the different degrees and aggravations of sin. “The wages,” indeed, of every “sin is death;” but there is unto such persons as these “a savor of death unto death,” and there shall he different degrees of eternal punishment. Obs. 12. The apostasy from the gospel, here described, being the absolute height of all sin and impiety that the nature of man is capable of, it renders them unto eternity obnoxious unto all punishment that the same nature is capable of. The greatest sin must have the greatest judgment.Obs. 13. It is our duty diligently to inquire into the nature of sin, lest we be overtaken in the great offense. Such persons as they in the text, it may be, little thought what it was that they should principally be charged withal, namely, for their apostasy; and how dreadful was it when it came upon them in an evident conviction!Obs. 14. Sinning against the testimony given by the Holy Ghost unto the truth and power of the gospel, whereof men have had experience, is the most dangerous symptom of a perishing condition.Obs. 15. Threatenings of future eternal judgments unto gospel- despisers belong unto the preaching and declaration of the gospel.Obs. 16. The equity and righteousness of the most severe judgments of God, in eternal punishments against gospel-despisers, is so evident, that it may be referred to the judgment of men not obstinate in their blindness. Obs. 17. It is our duty to justify and bear witness unto God in the righteousness of his judgments against gospel-despisers. Οἴδαμενγὰρτὸνεἰπόντα, ᾿Εμοὶἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼἀνταποδώσω, λέγειΚύριος. Καὶπάλιν, Κύριονκρινεῖτὸςλαὸναὑτοῦ. ΦοβερὸντὸἐμπεσεῖνεἰςχεῖραςΘεοῦζῶντος.Hebrews 10:30-31. — For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people, [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.There is in these verses the confirmation of all that was spoken before, by the consideration of what God is in himself, with whom alone we have to do in this matter, and what he assumeth unto himself in this and the like cases; as if the apostle had said, ‘In the severe sentence which we have denounced against apostates, we have spoken nothing but what is suitable unto the holiness of God, and what, indeed, in such cases he hath declared that he will do.’ The conjunction γάρ denotes the introduction of a reason of what was spoken before; but this is not all which he had discoursed on, on this subject, but more particularly the reference he had made unto their own judgments of what sore punishment was due unto apostates: ‘Thus it will be with them, thus you must needs determine concerning them in your own minds; for we know him with whom we have to do in these things. Wherefore the apostle confirms the truth of his discourse, or rather illustrates the evidence of it, by a double consideration: 1. Of the person of him who is, and is to be the sole judge in this case, who is God alone: “For we know him.” And,2. What he hath assumed unto himself, and affirmed concerning himself in the like cases; which he expresseth in a double testimony of Scripture. And then, lastly, there is the way whereby our minds are influenced from this person and what he hath said; which is, that “we know him.”The first consideration confirming the evidence and certainty of the truth asserted, is the person of Him who is the only judge in this case. I confess the pronoun herein is not expressed in the original, but as it is included in the participle and article prefixed, τὸνεἰπόντα, “him that saith,” who expresseth himself in the words ensuing; but it is evident that the apostle directeth unto a special consideration of God himself, both in the manner of the expression and in the addition of these words, λέγειΚύριος, to the testimony which he writes immediately: ‘If you will be convinced of the righteousness and certainty of this dreadful destruction of apostates, consider in the first place the Author of this judgment, the only judge in the case: “We know him that hath said.”’Obs. 1. There can be no right judgment made of the nature and demerit of sin, without a due consideration of the nature and holiness of God, against whom it is committed. — “Fools make a mock of sin;” they have no sense of its guilt, nor dread of its punishment. Others have slight thoughts of it, measuring it only either by outward effects, or by presumptions which they have been accustomed unto. Some have general notions of its guilt, as it is prohibited by the divine law, but never search into the nature of that law with respect unto its author. Such false measures of sin ruin the souls of men. Nothing, therefore, will state our thoughts aright concerning the guilt and demerit of sin, but a deep consideration of the infinite greatness, holiness, righteousness, and power of God, against whom it is committed.And hereunto this also is to be added, that God acts not in the effect of any of these properties of his nature, but on a preceding contempt of his goodness, bounty, grace, and mercy; as it is impossible that sin should come into the world but by the contempt of these things. Antecedently unto all possibility of sinning, God communicates the effects of his goodness and bounty unto the creation; and in those sins which are against the gospel, he doth so also of his grace and mercy. This is that which will give us a due measure of the guilt and demerit of sin: look upon it as a contempt of infinite goodness, bounty, grace, and mercy, and to rise up against infinite greatness, holiness, righteousness, and power, and we shall have a view of it as it is in itself. Obs. 2. Under apprehensions of great severities of divine judgments, the consideration of God, the author of them, will both relieve our faith and quiet our hearts. — Such instances are given in the eternal casting off of multitudes of angels, on their guilt in one sin; the woful sin of Adam, and the ruin of his posterity, even of those who had not sinned after the similitude of his transgression; the destruction of the old world by a universal flood; as in the fire and brimstone that God rained from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah; in the final rejection of the Jews, and the dreadful overthrow of the city and temple by fire; in the eternity of the torments of impenitent sinners. In all these things, and others that seem to have any thing of the same kind with them, we shall need nothing to give the most full satisfaction unto our souls, if “we know him who hath said, Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” Secondly, This consideration is confirmed by a double testimony, wherein God assumeth unto himself that which will give assurance of the punishment of apostates. And we may consider, concerning these testimonies,1. The apostle’s application of them unto his purpose; 2. The force that is in them unto that end.1. They are both of them taken from Deuteronomy 32:35-36. ‘But in that place they seem absolutely to intend vengeance and judgment on the adversaries of his people, to make a way for their deliverance; but here they are applied unto the final destruction of that same people, namely, the Jews, without hope of deliverance.’ I answer, (1.) That it is usual with the apostle in this epistle, and all other writers of the New Testament, to make use of testimonies out of the Old without respect unto the particular cases and designs which they were originally applied unto, but with regard unto the truth and equity contained in them; whereon they are equally applicable unto all cases of a like nature. ‘Thus,’ saith he, ‘God declares himself with respect unto his stubborn enemies; whence a rule is established, that he will deal so with all that are so, who are in the same circumstances with them of whom we speak.’(2.) What God speaks concerning his enemies, and the enemies of his people in covenant with him, is applicable unto that people itself when they absolutely break and reject the covenant. So was it done by these apostates, who thereon came into the room and place of the most cursed enemies of God and his people. And therefore God will be unto them what he was unto the worst of those his adversaries. (3.) That which God properly in that place assumeth this title unto himself upon, is the cruelty and rage of those adversaries in the persecution and destruction of his people: and shall he not act in like manner towards them who murdered the Lord Jesus, and persecuted all his followers?Wherefore, whatever frame of mind in God is represented in the Scripture, as unto his indignation against the worst of sinners and his adversaries, is fully applicable unto these degenerate apostates. 2. The first testimony in the original is, μִ ?ιπָ ?χָ ?νεְ ?ωִׁ ?μֵּ ?ν, “to me vengeance and recompence;” which the apostle renders” by ἔνδικοςμισθαποδοσία, to the same purpose. Recompence is the actual exercise of vengeance. Δική, ἐκδίκησις, “vengeance,” is the actual execution of judgment on sinners according unto their desert, without mitigation or mercy. It is an act of judgment; and wherever mention is made of it, God is still proposed as a judge, it being a just retribution, on the consideration of the demerit of sin as sin. (1.) This vengeance God appropriateth the right of unto himself in a peculiar manner, as that which no creature, in its full latitude, hath any interest in. See Psalms 94:1-2. For it respects only sin in its own formal nature, as sin against God.[1. Though men may inflict punishment on it, yet they do it principally on other accounts. Whatever is of vengeance in punishment is merely an emanation from divine constitution. [2. No creature can have the just measures of the desert of sin, so as to give it a just and due recompence. [3. The power of the creature cannot extend to the just execution of vengeance, sin deserving eternal punishment. [4. Pure vengeance, as vengeance, is not to be intrusted with our nature; nor would any man be able to manage it, but would fall into one excess or other, unto the ruin of his own soul. Wherefore God hath reserved and included all vengeance unto himself, and all just, final retribution for and unto sin. Although he hath allowed infliction of punishment on offenders, in order unto the government and peace of the world, in magistrates and public persons, yet as unto vengeance, as it denotes giving satisfaction to ourselves in the punishment of others, it is forbidden unto all persons, both private and public. God, in executing vengeance, gives satisfaction unto his own infinite holiness and righteousness; which makes it holy and just. Men cannot give satisfaction unto themselves in punishment but it is unto their evil affections; which makes it useless and unjust. Hence David blessed God that he had kept him from avenging himself on Nabal. For there is no vengeance but what is exerted by a man’s self, in his own case and cause: the judgment unto punishment is for others. Wherefore the formal reason of the appropriation of all vengeance unto God is, that God alone can judge and punish in his own case, and unto his own satisfaction. “He hath made all things for himself, and the wicked for the day of evil.” (2.) In this appropriation of vengeance unto God, there is supposed and included that indeed there is vengeance with God, which in due time he will execute: “I will repay, saith the Lord.” He doth oftentimes exercise great patience and forbearance, even then when vengeance might justly be expected and is called for: “How long dost thou not avenge our blood?” This commonly adds unto the security of wicked men, and they learn to despise the threatening of all the judgments of God which they have deserved, 2 Peter 3:3-7; Ecclesiastes 8:11. They are ready to conclude that either vengeance doth not belong unto God; or that it shall be executed when and where they are not concerned. But in all these cases God hath fixed a determinate time and season for the execution of deserved vengeance. Hence he calls it “the year of vengeance,” and “the day of recompence;” so here, “I will repay it, saith the Lord.” This being so, God having said that vengeance belongeth unto him, and that it is due unto provoking sins and sinners; that it is in his power, and his alone, to inflict it when and how he pleaseth, and that he will certainly do so, — in the assurance whereof the apostle adds that word, “saith the Lord,” he will repay it; — it evidently follows, that in his appointed season, the day and year of vengeance, such horrible provoking sinners as were those treated of must fall under the most severe punishment, and that for evermore. The second testimony, taken from the same place, is of the same importance with this, “The Lord shall judge his people.” In Deuteronomy it is applied unto such a judgment of them as tends unto their deliverance. But the general truth of the words is, that God is the supreme judge, “he is judge himself,” Psalms 50:6. This the apostle makes use of, concluding that the righteousness of God, as the supreme judge of all, obligeth him unto this severe destruction of apostates: for “shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” shall not he who is judge in a peculiar manner of those that profess themselves to be his people, punish them for their iniquities, especially such as break off all covenant-relation between him and them. Obs. 3. A due consideration of the nature of God, his office, that he is “the judge of all,” especially of his people, and that enclosure he hath made of vengeance unto himself, under an irrevocable purpose for its execution, gives indubitable assurance of the certain, unavoidable destruction of all wilful apostates. All their security, all their presumptions, all their hopes, will vanish before this consideration, as darkness before the light of the sun.Obs. 4. Although those who are the peculiar people of God do stand in many relations unto him that are full of refreshment and comfort, yet is it their duty constantly to remember that he is the holy and righteous judge, even towards his own people.Lastly, The ground of the application of these testimonies unto the present case, is that knowledge of God which they had unto whom he spoke: “For we know him.” ‘You have the same sense of God, his holiness and truth, as I have; and therefore it cannot be strange unto you that he will deal thus severely with apostates: you know who he is, how infinite in holiness, righteousness, and power; you know what he hath said in cases like unto this, namely, that “vengeance is his, and he will repay:” wherefore it must be evident unto you that these things will be as they are now declared.’Obs. 5. The knowledge of God in some good measure, both what he is in himself and what he hath taken on himself to do, is necessary to render either his promises or threatenings effectual unto the minds of men.Hebrews 10:31. — “[It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”The apostle in these words winds up his whole argument against the wilful despisers of the gospel, taken from the nature and aggravations of that sin, with the severity of the punishment that will certainly befall them that are guilty thereof. And these words are, as an inference from them that go immediately before, so a recapitulation of all that he had spoken to this purpose. ‘Let men look to it, look to themselves, consider what they do; “for it is a fearful thing,” etc.’ There are three things in the words: 1. The description given of God with respect unto the present case; he is “the living God.” 2. The event of their sin with respect unto him; it is a “falling into his hands.”3. The nature hereof in general, “it is a fearful thing.”First, In what sense God is called the “living God,” and with respect unto what ends, have been declared on Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 9:14. In brief, this title is ascribed unto God principally on two accounts:1. By way of opposition unto all dead and dumb idols, those which the heathen worshipped; and which are graphically described by the psalmist, Psalms 115:4-8; as also by the prophet, Isaiah 44:9-11, etc. And,2. This is to impress upon our minds a due sense of his glory and eternal power, according as we are called to trust in him or to fear him. Life is the foundation of power. He who hath life in himself, who is the cause of all life in all other things that are partakers of it, must be the only spring of infinite power. But God is here called “the living God” with respect unto his eternal power, whereby he is able to avenge the sins of men. Indeed, it calls to mind all the other holy properties of his nature, which are suited to impress dread or terror on the minds of presumptuous sinners; whose punishment is thence demonstrated to be unavoidable. He sees and knows all the evil and malice that are in their sin, and the circumstances of it. He is the “God that liveth and seeth,” Genesis 16:14. And as he seeth, so he judgeth, because he is the living God; which also is the ground of holy trust in him, 1 Timothy 4:10.Obs. 6. This name, “the living God,” is full of terror or comfort unto the souls of men.Secondly, The event of the sin spoken against, as unto its demerit, with respect unto God, is called “falling into his hands.” The assertion is general, but is particularly applied unto this case by the apostle. To “fall into the hands,” is a common expression with reference unto any one falling into and under the power of his enemies. None can be said to fall into the hands of God, as though they were not before in his power. But to fall into the hands of God absolutely, as it is here intended, is to be obnoxious to the power and judgment of God, when and where there is nothing in God himself, nothing in his word, promises, laws, institutions, that should oblige him to mercy or a mitigation of punishment. So when a man falls into the hands of his enemies, between whom and him there is no law, no love, he can expect nothing but death. Such is this falling into the hands of the living God; there is nothing in the law, nothing in the gospel, that can be pleaded for the least abatement of punishment. There is no property of God that can be implored. It is the destruction of the sinner alone whereby they will all be glorified. There is a falling into the hands of God that respects temporal things only, and that is spoken of comparatively. When David knew that an affliction or temporal punishment was unavoidable, he chose rather to fall into the hands of God as unto the immediate infliction of it, than to have the wrath of men used as the instrument thereof, 2 Samuel 24:14. But this appertains not unto our present purpose.Thirdly, Hereof the apostle affirms in general, that it is φοβερόν, a “fearful, dreadful thing;” that which no heart can conceive, nor tongue express. Men are apt to put off thoughts of it, to have slight thoughts about it; but it is, and will be, dreadful, terrible, and eternally destructive of every thing that is good, and inflictive of every thing that is evil, or that our nature is capable of. Obs. 7. There is an apprehension of “the terror of the Lord “ in the final judgment, which is of great use unto the souls of men, 2 Corinthians 5:11. It is so to them who are not yet irrecoverably engaged into the effects of it. Obs. 8. When there is nothing left but judgment, nothing remains but the expectation of it, its fore-apprehension will be filled with dread and terror.Obs. 9. The dread of the final judgment, where there shall be no mixture of ease, is altogether inexpressible.Obs. 10. That man is lost for ever who hath nothing in God that he can appeal unto, nothing in the law or gospel which he can plead for himself; which is the state of all wilful apostates. Obs. 11. Those properties of God which are the principal delight of believers, the chief object, of their faith, hope, and trust, are an eternal spring of dread and terror unto all impenitent sinners: “The living God.”Obs. 12. The glory and horror of the future state of blessedness and misery are inconceivable either to believers or sinners.Obs. 13. The fear and dread of God, in the description of his wrath, ought continually to be on the hearts of all who profess the gospel.Herein, by this general assertion, the apostle sums up and closeth his blessed discourse concerning the greatest sin that men can make themselves guilty of, and the greatest punishment that the righteousness of God will inflict on any sinners. Nor is there any reaching of either part of this divine discourse unto the utmost. When he treats of this sin and its aggravations, no mind is able to search into, no heart is able truly to apprehend the evil and guilt which he chargeth it withal. No one can express or declare the least part of the evil which is comprised in every aggravation which he gives us of this sin. And in like manner concerning the punishment of it, he plainly intimates it shall be accompanied with an incomprehensible severity, dread, and terror. This, therefore, is a passage of holy writ which is much to be considered, especially in these days wherein we live, wherein men are apt to grow cold and careless in their profession, and to decline gradually from what they had attained unto. To be useful in such a season it was first written; and it belongs unto us no less than unto them unto whom it was originally sent. And we live in days wherein the security and contempt of God, the despite of the Lord Christ and his Spirit, are come to the full, so as to justify the truth that we have insisted on. ᾿Αναμιμνήσκεσθεδὲτὰςπρότερονἡμέρας, ἐναἷςφωτισθέντες, πολλὴνἄθλησινὑπεμείνατεπαθημάτων, τοῦτομὲν, ὀνειδισμοῖςτεκαὶθλίψεσιθεατριζόμενοι, τοῦτοδὲ, κοινωνοὶτῶνοὕτωςἀναστρεφομένωνγενηθέντες·Καὶγὰρτοῖςδεσμοῖςμουσυνεπαθήσατε, καὶτὴνἁρπαγὴντῶνὑπαρχόντωνὑμῶνμετὰχαρᾶςπροσεδέξασθε, γινώσκοντεςἔχεινἐνἑαυτοῖςχρείττοναὕπαρξινἐνμοὐρανοῖς, καὶμένουσαν.[9] [9] VARIOUS . — Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, agree in reading δεσμίοις, prisoners, instead of δεσμοὶςμον, my bonds. See Hebrews 13:3. ᾿Ενοὐρανοῖς, inserted in the textus receptus, and deemed a very probable omission by Griesbach, is rejected by Lachmann and Tisehendorf. The authority for it is D*** E J K, and both the Syriac versions. — ED. Hebrews 10:32-34. — But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; partly whilst ye were made a gazing-stock, both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly whilst ye became companions of them that were so used. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.The words in their coherence, intimated in the adversative δέ, “but,” have respect unto the exhortation laid down verse 25. All the verses interposed contain a dehortation from the evil which they are warned of. Hence the apostle returns unto his former exhortation unto the duties recommended unto them, and perseverance therein against all the difficulties which they might meet withal, wherewith others were turned unto destruction. And the present argument which he makes use of unto this purpose is this now mentioned. And there are in the words,1. A direction unto a means useful unto the end of his exhortation: “Call to remembrance the former days.”2. A description of those days which he would have them to call to mind:(1.) From the season of them, and their state therein, “after they were enlightened;”(2.) From what they suffered in them, “a great fight of afflictions,” which are enumerated in sundry instances, verse 33; (3.) From what they did in them, verso 34, with respect unto themselves and others;(4.) From the ground and reason whereon they were carried cheerfully through what they suffered and did, “knowing in yourselves.”FIRST, There is first the prescription of the means of this duty, ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε, which we have well rendered, “call to remembrance.” It is not a bare remembrance he intends, for it is impossible men should absolutely forget such a season. Men are apt enough to remember the times of their sufferings, especially such as are here mentioned, accompanied with all sorts of injurious treatment from men. But the apostle would have them so call to mind, as to consider withal what supportment they had under their sufferings, what satisfaction in them, what deliverance from them, that they might not despond upon the approach of the like evils and trials on the same account. If we remember our sufferings only as unto what is evil and afflictive in them, what we lose, what we endure and undergo; such a remembrance will weaken and dispirit us, as unto our future trials. Hereon many cast about to deliver themselves for the future by undue means and sinful compliances, in a desertion of their profession; the thing the apostle was jealous of concerning these Hebrews But if withal we call to mind what was the cause for which we suffered, the honor that is in such sufferings outbalancing all the contempt and reproaches of the world; the presence of God enjoyed in them; and the reward proposed unto us: the calling them to mind will greatly strengthen us against future trials; provided we retain the same love unto and valuation of the things for which we suffered as we had in those former days. And these various events we find exemplified every day. Some who have endured trials, and come off from them, do grow immediately more wary, as they suppose, and more cold really as unto the causes of their sufferings. The remembrance of what was afflictive in their trials fills them with fear of the like exercise again. Hence they grow timorous and cautious as to all duties of religion and the worship of God, which may expose them unto new sufferings: and then some of them by degrees fall absolutely off from attendance unto them; as it was with some of these Hebrews. Such as these call to mind only that which is evil and afflictive in their sufferings; and taking the measure thereof in the counsel or representation made of it by flesh and blood, it proves unto their damage, and ofttimes unto their eternal ruin. Others who call to mind, with their sufferings, the causes of them, and the presence of God with them therein, are encouraged, emboldened, and strengthened unto duty with zeal and constancy. Obs. 1. A wise management of former experiences is a great direction and encouragement unto future obedience.Secondly, As to the object of this duty, the apostle so expresseth it, “Call to mind the former days.” It is uncertain what times or seasons the apostle doth peculiarly intend. Besides those continual hazards they were in from their adversaries, and the occasional sufferings that they were exposed unto, they seem to have had some special seasons of persecution before the writing of this epistle. The first was in the stoning of Stephen, when a great persecution rose against all the church, and extended itself unto all the churches of Christ in that nation; wherein our holy apostle himself was highly concerned, Acts 8:1; Acts 9:1; Acts 22:19; Acts 26:10-11. And the other was on the occasion of this apostle himself; for upon his last coming to Jerusalem, after his great successes in preaching the gospel among the Gentiles, the whole body of the people was filled with rage and madness against him and all the other disciples. There is no doubt, although express mention be not made of it, but that at that time the rage and cruelty of the priests and the multitude did put forth themselves unto a general persecution of the church. And this season he seems to reflect upon in particular, because he mentions his own bonds at that time, and their compassion on him. However, certain it is that all the churches of Judea had suffered those things here mentioned from their countrymen, as the apostle himself declares, 1 Thessalonians 2:14. At this present time they seem to have had some outward peace. The occasion whereof was the tumults and disorders which were then growing in their whole nation. Their own intestine discords, and the fear of outward enemies, by which they were shortly utterly destroyed, diverted them from prosecuting their rage for a season against the church. And it may be some began to grow careless and secure hereon; as we are generally apt to do, supposing that all will be serene when one or another storm is over. These, therefore, the apostle doth press unto such a remembrance of former trials as might prepare for those they were to expect; for, as he tells them, they had still “need of patience,” Hebrews 10:36. , There is a description of those “former days,” — First, From their state and condition in them, — “the days in which they were enlightened,” or rather, “in which having been enlightened” The mention of this their illumination being in a tense of the time past, manifests that their enlightening did precede those days of their sufferings. But yet the expression is such as argues a nearer conjunctionor concurrence between these two things, their illumination and these days of affliction; the one followed as it were immediately on the other? This enlightening was that work of God’s grace mentioned 1 Peter 2:9, their “translation out of darkness into his marvellous light.” They were naturally blind, as are all men; and peculiarly blinded with prejudices against the truth of the gospel. Therefore when God by his effectual call delivered them out of that state of darkness, by the renovation of their understandings, and the removal of their prejudices, the light of the knowledge of God shining into their hearts is this illumination, — the saving, sanctifying light which they received at their first effectual call, and conversion to God. This spiritual change was presently followed with days of affliction, trouble, and persecution. In itself it is, for the most part, accompanied with joy, delight, zeal, and vigorous actings of faith and love, 1 Peter 1:8. For,1. God did usually grant unto believers some secret pledge and sealing of his Spirit, which filled them with joy and zeal, Ephesians 1:13.2. Their own hearts are exceedingly affected with the excellency, glory, and beauty of the things revealed unto them, of what they now see perfectly, whereunto they were before in darkness; that is, the love and grace of Christ Jesus in the revelation of himself unto them. 3. All graces are new and fresh, not yet burdened, Clogged, or wearied by temptations, but are active in their several places. Hence frequent mention is made of and commendation given unto the “first love” of persons and churches.This was the state and condition of those Hebrews when the days of trial and affliction came upon them; it was immediately after their first conversion unto God. And it is usual with God thus to deal with his people in all ages. He no sooner calls persons to himself, but he leads them into the wilderness. He no sooner plants them, but he shakes them with storms, that they may be more firmly rooted. He doth it, 1. Utterly to take off their expectations from this world, or any thing therein. They shall find that they are so far from bettering their outward estate in this world by cleaving unto Christ and the church, as that the whole rage of it will be stirred up against them upon that account, and all the things enjoyed in it be exposed unto ruin. This the Lord Christ everywhere warned his disciples of, affirming that those who are not willing to renounce the world, and to take up the cross, do not belong unto him. 2. For the trial of their faith, 1 Peter 1:6-7,3. For the glory and propagation of the gospel.4. For the exercise of all graces.5. To breed us up into the military discipline of Christ, as he is the captain of our salvation. They who pass through their first trials, are Christ’s veterans on new attempts.Obs. 3. Saving illumination is the first-fruit of effectual vocation.Obs. 4. Spiritual light in its first communication puts the soul on the diligent exercise of all graces.Obs. 5. It is suited unto the wisdom and goodness of God, to suffer persons on their first conversion to fall into manifold trials and temptations.This was the state of the Hebrews in those days which the apostle would have them “call to mind.” But the words have respect unto what follows immediately, “Which ye endured.” The description of their state and condition, namely, that they were enlightened, is interposed for the ends we have spoken unto. Wherefore the season he would have them call to remembrance is described, — Secondly, By what they suffered therein. This, as was observed, he expresseth two ways: first, In general; secondly, In particular instances.The First is in these words, “Ye endured a great fight of afflictions.” 1. That which he would have them to mind is “affliction.”2. The aggravation of it, it was “a great fight of afflictions.”3. Their deportment under it, in that they “endured them.” 1. We render this word by “afflictions,” although, by the particulars mentioned afterwards, it appears it was “persecutions” from men that the apostle only intended.And if we take “afflictions” in the ordinary sense of the word, for chastisements, corrections, and trials from God, it is true that men’s persecutions are also God’s afflictions, with the special end of them in our trials; we are “chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” God used them as his furnace and fining pot, “for the trial of their faith; which is more precious than gold.” And under all persecutions we are to have a special regard unto the immediate hand of God in such afflictive trials. This will keep us humble, and in a constant subjection of our souls unto God, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 12. But the word in the original is παθήματα, which is properly “sufferings;” — the same word that the apostle useth to express the sufferings of Christ, Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:8. It is a general name for every thing that is hard and afflictive unto our nature, from what cause or occasion soever it doth arise. Even what wicked men undergo justly for their crimes is what they suffer, as well as what believers undergo for the truth and profession of the gospel. Materially they are the same, 1 Peter 4:14-16. It is therefore the general name of all the evils, troubles, hardships, distresses, that may befall men upon the account of their profession of the truth of the gospel. This is that which we are called unto, which we are not to think strange of. Our LORD Jesus requires of all his disciples that they “take up their cross;” to be in a continual readiness to bear it, and actually so to do as they are called. And there is no kind of suffering but is included in the cross. He calls us, indeed, unto his eternal glory; but we must suffer with him, if we desire to reign also with him. 2. Of these trials, afflictions, persecutions, they had πολλὴνἄθλησιν. That labor and contention of spirit which they had in their profession, with sin and sufferings, is expressed by these words; which set forth the greatest, most earnest, vehement actings and endeavors of spirit that our nature can arise unto. It is expressed by ἄθλησις in this place, and by ἀγών, 2 Timothy 4:7, ᾿Αγωνίζομαι, ἀνταγωνίζομαι. See 2 Timothy 2:5; 1 Corinthians 9:25. The allusion is taken from their striving, wrestling, fighting, who contended publicly for a prize, victory, and reward, with the glory and honor attending it. The customs of the nations as then observed are frequently alluded unto in the New Testament. Now there was never any way of life wherein men voluntarily or of their own accord engaged themselves into such hardships, difficulties, and dangers, as that, when they contended in their games and strivings for mastery. Their preparation for it was a “universal temperance,” as the apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 9:25, and an abstinence from all sensual pleasures; wherein they offered no small violence unto their natural inclinations and lusts. In the conflicts themselves, in wrestling and fighting, with the like dangerous exercises in skill and strength, they endured all pains, sometimes death itself. And if they failed, or gave over through weariness, they lost the whole reward that lay before them. And with words which signify all this contest, doth the Holy Ghost express the fight or contention which believers have with sufferings. There is a reward proposed unto all such persons in the promises of the gospel, infinitely above all the crowns, honors, and rewards proposed unto them in the Olympic games. No man is compelled to enter into the way or course of obtaining it, but they must make it an act of their own wills and choice; but unto the obtaining of it they must undergo a great strife, contention, and dangerous conflict. In order hereunto three things are required: (1.) That they prepare themselves for it, 1 Corinthians 9:25. Self-denial and readiness for the cross, contempt of the world and the enjoyments of it, are this preparation; without this we shall never be able to go through with this conflict. (2.) A vigorous acting of all graces in the conflict itself, in opposition unto and destruction of our spiritual and worldly adversaries, Ephesians 6:10-18; Hebrews 12:3. He could never prevail nor overcome in the public contests of old who did not strive mightily, putting forth his strength and skill both to preserve himself and oppose his enemy. Nor is it possible that we should go successfully through with our conflict, unless we stir up all graces, as faith, hope, trust, unto their most vigorous exercise.(3.) That we endure the hardship and the evils of the conflict with patience and perseverance; which is that the apostle here specially intends.3. This is that which he commends in the Hebrews, with respect unto their first trials and sufferings, ὑπεμείνατε, ‘“ ye endured,” and bare patiently, so as not to faint or despond, or to turn away from your profession.’They came off conquerors, having failed in no point of their conflict. This is that which they were called unto, that which God by his grace enabled them to, and through which they had that success which the apostle would have them to “call to remembrance,” that they might be strengthened and encouraged unto what yet remained of the same kind. This hath been the lot and portion of sincere professors of the gospel in most ages. And we are not to think it a strange thing if it come to be ours in a higher degree than what as yet we have had experience of. How many ways God is glorified in the sufferings of his people, what advantages they receive thereby, the prevailing testimony that is given thereby unto the truth and honor of the gospel, are commonly spoken to, and therefore shall not be insisted on. Hebrews 10:33. — “Partly whilst ye were made a gazing-stock, both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.”Secondly, Having mentioned their sufferings and their deportment under them in general, he distributes them into two heads in this verse. The first is what immediately concerned their own persons; and the second, their concernment in the sufferings of others, and their participations of them. This distribution is expressed by τοῦτομέν and τοῦτοδέ, “on this hand, and on that.” The whole of their sufferings was made up of various parts, many things concurred thereunto; they did not consist in any one trouble or affliction, ‘but a confluence of many of various sorts did meet in them. And this, indeed, is for the most part the greatest difficulty in sufferings: many of them come at once upon us, so that we shall have no rest from their assaults. For it is the design of Satan and the world on these occasions to destroy both soul and body; and unto that end he will assault us inwardly by temptations and fears, outwardly in our names and reputations, and all that we are or have. But he that knows how to account all such things “but loss and dung, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus,” is prepared for them all. 1. What refers unto the first part is their suffering in their own persons; and herein he declares both what they suffered, and the manner how. That which they suffered was “reproaches and afflictions;” and for the manner of it, “they were made a gazing-stock” unto other men. (1.) The first thing wherein they suffered was “reproaches,” ὀνειδισμοῖς, — a great aggravation of sufferings unto ingenuous minds. The psalmist, in the person of the Lord Christ himself, complains that “reproach had broken his heart,” Psalms 69:20; and elsewhere frequently he complaineth of it as one of the greatest evils he had to conflict withal. It is that kind of reproach which proceeds from malicious hatred, and is accompanied with contempt and scorn, and vents itself in all manner of obloquies or hard speeches, such as those mentioned Jude 1:15. And the nature of it is fully declared by the prophet Jeremiah, Jeremiah 20:8-10. And there are two branches of reproaches:[1. False accusations, or charging of men with things vile and contemptible, such as will expose them unto public scorn and rage: “They shall say all manner of evil against you falsely;” “They speak evil of you, as of evil-doers.” So they reproached the person of Jesus Christ himself. They said he was “a malefactor, an evil-doer, a seditious person, a glutton, a wine-bibber, a seducer, one that had a devil;” and thereby stirred up the rage, hatred, and contempt of the people against him. So they reproached the primitive Christians among the Pagans, namely, that they were atheists, confederating themselves for adultery, incest, murder, and sedition; under which notion they slaughtered them as beasts of the field. And the like reproaches have been cast on the professors of the gospel in all ages. [2. Those reproaches consist in the contempt that is east upon what is true, and what in itself is holy, just, good, and praiseworthy. They reproached them with their faith in Christ, with their worship of him, in owning his authority. This in itself was their honor and their crown. But as it was managed with hatred and blasphemy, as it was confirmed by the common consent of all, as it received strength and countenance from their sufferings, wherein they esteemed them punished for their sins and impieties, it added unto their distress. For men thus to be traduced, aspersed, and charged, partly with things infamous, base, vile; partly by contempt and scorn cast on what they do own and profess; by their friends, neighbors, relations, and the multitude of the people; in order to their further hurt and ruin, that they may be looked on and judged as persons meet to be destroyed, not suffered to live on the face of the earth: it is a great suffering, and difficultly to be endured and undergone. Therefore all those that make profession of the name of Christ and the gospel ought to look and provide for such things. [1. Take heed of so much softness and tenderness of nature, that may give too deep a sense of reproach, scorn, and shame, which may give too deep an entrance unto these things into your minds; being such as will weaken them in their duties. This ordinarily is a frame and disposition of mind that lies at the next door to virtue, to modesty, to humility, and the like; but in this case it lies at the next door to diffidence, despondency, and carnal fear. We are in this case to harden our countenances, and to set our faces as a flint and adamant, so as to despise all reproaches and scorns on the account of our profession. [2. It is required that we do not put too much value on our names and reputations in the world. “A good name is better than precious ointment,” it yields a good savor; but it is so only with these two limitations: 1st. That it be obtained by things that are really good and praiseworthy; for some have made their names famous and acceptable to the multitude by ways and actions that have really nothing praiseworthy in them. And,2dly. That they be good men who esteem their name to be good. “Laudari volo,” said one; “sod a viro laudato.” To have a good report amongst an evil multitude is of no advantage. Yet are some men very tender herein: they would be praised and spoken well of by the many; at least they would not be spoken evilly or contemptuously of. But if we have not an under- valuation of our names and reputations universally, in respect unto Christ and the gospel, if we are not contented to be made “as the filth and offscouring of all things,” it will greatly disadvantage us in the time of sufferings And therefore in the providence of God frequently it falls out, that if there be any thing that is unto us as the apple of our eye, of all we should be tender of our names and reputations in, this shall he peculiarly attempted and reproached.[3. That they do not think that any new thing befalls them when they are reproached; no, not when the reproaches are new, and such as never were cast on any that went before them; for the stores of reproaches and false accusations in the treasury of Satan and hearts of wicked men will never be exhausted. [4. Know that where reproach goes before, persecution will follow after, in the course of the world. It thunders in reproaches, and falls in a storm of persecution. These sufferings consisted in afflictions; these afflictions did partly ensue upon and partly accompany these reproaches. For those who endeavor to bring men under contempt by reproaches, will not fail to reproach them under their sufferings Therefore do we render the particle δέ by “both,” referring both the “reproaches” and “afflictions” unto their being made “a gazing-stock.’And the word is o£ a large signification, denoting every thing that is evil and grievous to us in any kind. But as it is distinguished from “reproaches,” it denotes suffering in their persons or enjoyments; an instance whereof he gives in the next verse, in the “spoiling of their goods.” (2.) The manner of their suffering of these things: it is said “they were made a gazing-stock,” — θεατριζόμενοι. It is properly spoken of them who were brought on the public stage or theater in any city, and there exposed unto all sorts of evils and punishments And it was the way of the highest and most capital punishment. For when guilty persons were east unto beasts to be devoured, it was in the theater, where they were made a spectacle unto the people, or a “gazing-stock.” But the apostle limits the suffering of the Hebrews unto “reproaches and afflictions;’they had not yet “resisted unto blood.” So at Ephesus they drew Gaius and Aristarchus into the theater, with an intention to destroy them, Acts 19:29.But yet neither doth it necessarily follow that those spoken of were actually or solemnly carried into any theater, there to be reproached, then destroyed. But because the theater was the place where persons were publicly exposed to be looked upon with scorn and contempt, the word θεατρίζομαι is used to signify men’s being so exposed and made a spectacle, in any place, on any occasion. And this is the meaning of the phrase used by the apostle, 1 Corinthians 4:9. No more is required hereunto but that they were publicly, and in the sight of all that had occasion or opportunity to behold them, exposed unto these things. So was it with them, when they haled men and women out of their meetings; who being dragged or driven in the streets, were committed some of them into prisons, Acts 8:3 : then were they loaded with all manner of reproaches, and made a gazing-stock to all that were about them. This way and manner of their suffering was a great addition to it and an aggravation of it. It requireth excellent actings of faith and spiritual courage to carry ingenuous persons above this public contest. But their cause and their Example were sufficient to support them, and enable them unto this duty.Obs. 6. All temporary sufferings, in all their aggravating circumstances, in their most dreadful preparation, dress, and appearance, are but light things in comparison of the gospel and the promises thereof.Obs. 7. There is not any thing in the whole nature of temporary sufferings, or any circumstance of them, that we can claim an exemption from, after we have undertaken the profession of the gospel. This was the first part of the contention with sufferings which those Hebrews had undergone. 2. The other part of their sufferings was, that “they became the companions of them that were so used.” They not only suffered in themselves, in what they gave occasion unto by their own profession of the gospel, and practice of its worship, but also came into a fellowship of sufferings with them that were so used as they were. And we may consider,(1.) Who those were that were so used.(2.) How they became their companions in that condition.(1.) Τῶνοὕτωςἀναστρεφομένων. The word signifies the way, manner, and course of our conversation in the world. And in that sense the sufferings of these persons is included as the effect in the cause. They so walked in the world as to be exposed to sufferings, We take the word in a passive sense, and render it “so used,” — ‘used after the same manner which you were.’It is also used for “to be tossed, overturned, oppressed;” which is the sense of it in this place. But the apostle writing unto the whole church of the Hebrews, we may inquire who they were who were used in this manner with them; for they seem to be distinguished from them unto whom he wrote. And,[1. It is not impossible but the apostle might have respect unto those that were sober and moderate amongst the Jews themselves. For things were now come unto that confusion in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, that all such persons were continually exposed unto the violence and rage of robbers, oppressors, and seditious villains. The Christians, being of the same conversation with them, were not known by the multitude, nor distinguished from them. It is not therefore unlikely that they might suffer with them in those public violences; which being not immediately for the profession of the gospel, they are said in what they so underwent, to be “made the companions” of others. Or, [2. Respect may be had unto the sufferings of Christians in other places up and down the world, which they heard of, and were in no small measure affected with. But this was not peculiar unto the church of the Hebrews, and so not likely to be peculiarly ascribed unto them. Or, [3. It may be respect is had unto some that had suffered amongst themselves at Jerusalem, or in other places of Judea, who were their countrymen, yet belonged not unto the stated church of Christ in the place unto which he wrote at present. And this hath countenance given it from the next verse, where it seems to be given as an instance of their being made companions of them that suffered, in that they had compassion of the apostle himself in his bonds, and such was the condition of others. But I am rather inclined unto a double distribution of things and persons in the text, both included in the τοῦτομέν and the τοῦτοδέ. That of things is actual suffering, and a participation of the sufferings of others. That of persons is this, that all those unto whom he wrote did not actually in their own persons suffer the things which he speaks of, but some of them did so suffer, and the rest of them were companions with them that did so suffer. And for the most part it so falls out in the fiercest persecution of the gospel. All individual persons are not called forth unto the same actual sufferings; some in the providence of God, and through the rage of men, are singled out for trials; some are hid or do escape, at least for a season, and it may be are reserved for the same trials at another time. So it may be said of the whole church, that they “endured a great fight of afflictions,” while some of them were “a gazing-stock,” etc., and others of them “were companions of them that were so used.”Obs. 8. It is reserved unto the sovereign pleasure of God to measure out unto all professors of the gospel their especial lot and portion as unto trials and sufferings, so as that none ought to complain, none to envy one another.(2.) Hence it appears in what sense those who suffered not in their own persons were made companions of them who did so, whereby the whole church partook of the same troubles. Κοινωνοὶγενηθέντες:[1. They were made so by their common interest in the same cause for which they suffered; [2. By their apprehension that the same sufferings would reach unto themselves, seeing there was the same cause in them as in others; [3. By their sorrow, trouble, and compassion, for the suffering of the members of the same Head and body with them; [4. By all duties of love and affection which they discharged in owning and visiting of them; [5. By the communication of their goods and outward enjoyments unto them, who had suffered the loss of their own: so were they made their companions. Hebrews 10:34. — “For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.”Thirdly, Having distributed the παθήματα of believers into two heads; 1. What they underwent, some of them at least, in their own persons; and, 2. What befell them with respect unto others suffering in the same cause with themselves; in this verse the apostle gives an especial instance of each kind, only he inverts the order wherein he had before laid them down. For whereas he first mentioned what they suffered in themselves, and then what they accompanied others in, here he insisteth on the latter of them in the first place, “they had compassion of him in his bonds;” and of the former in the second place, “and took joyfully the spoiling of their goods.” But he adds unto both the frame of their minds in what they did and suffered: as unto others, they were their “companions” in sympathy and compassion; and as unto their own losses, “they them took joyfully.”Of the First the apostle gives, 1. An instance in himself, “Ye had compassion of me in my bonds.” And this he affirms as a proof and confirmation of what he had spoken before concerning their being made companions of them that suffered. This is expressed in the introductive particles καὶγάρ, ‘“for even you had,” as for example’s sake.’I have proved before the apostle Paul was the author of this epistle, and this very passage is sufficient to confirm it. For who else could there be whose bonds for the gospel were so known, so famous among the believers of the Jews, as his own? For the other persons whom some would needs fancy to be writers of this epistle, as Luke, Barnabas, and Clemens, there is nothing in the Scripture or ecclesiastical story of any of their bonds in Judea, whereof it is plain that he here speaketh. But the sufferings of our apostle in this kind of bonds and imprisonment were peculiar above any other apostle’s whatsoever. Hence he styles himself in particular, Philemon 1:1, the “bondman for Christ;” and gloried in his bonds as his peculiar honor, Acts 26:29. “An ambassador in bonds,” Ephesians 6:20. So Philippians 1:7; Philippians 1:12-16; Colossians 4:3, which he desired the church to remember him in, Colossians 4:18; 2 Timothy 2:9. Wherefore, his bonds being singularly and above all others so known, so famous, so useful, such a subject of the church’s prayers, and of their faith, having been begun and long continued among those Hebrews, and being spoken of by him as a matter known unto them all, it is unreasonable to suppose that any other is intended. Obs. 9. Of what sort or kind the sufferings of any that God employs in the ministry of the gospel shall be, is in his sovereign disposal alone. — And in this apostle, unto whom, as being the apostle of the Gentiles, God had designed more work, and travelling up and down the world, than unto any of the others, it may be unto them all; yet God was pleased that much of his time should be spent in bonds and imprisonments. But although the principal reason hereof must be left hid in the wisdom and sovereign good pleasure of God, yet we may see that two inestimable advantages did redound unto the church thereby. For,(1.) His bonds being first at Jerusalem, and afterwards at Rome, as Acts 23:11, the two capital cities and seats of the Jews and Gentiles, and he being called out to plead the cause of the gospel openly and publicly, the report of it was carded all the world over, and occasion given unto all sorts of men to inquire what it was that a man remote from the suspicion of any crime did suffer such things for. I no way doubt but that multitudes by this means were brought to make inquiry after and into the doctrine of the gospel, which otherwise would have taken no notice of it. See Philippians 1:12-16. And,(2.) During his confinement under those bonds, the Holy Ghost was pleased to make use of him in writing sundry of those blessed epistles which have been the light and glory of the gospel in all ages. Wherefore, let every one of us be content and rejoice in what way soever God shall be pleased to call us to suffer for the truth of the gospel For although it may seem outwardly to be of the greatest advantage thereunto, which is the only thing we would desire, that we might enjoy our liberty, yet God can and will make them subservient unto his own glory; wherein we ought to acquiesce. 2. He expresseth the concernment of these Hebrews in those bonds of his:συνεπαθήσατε, they suffered together with him therein. They were not unconcerned in his sufferings, as being satisfied with their own freedom, as is the manner of some. Now, compassion consists in these things. (1.) A real condolency, grief, and trouble of mind, for the bonds of others, as if we ourselves were bound.(2.) Continual prayers for their relief, supportment, and deliverance; as it was with the church in the case of Peter in his bonds, Acts 12.(3.) A ministration unto them, as unto the things that may be outwardly wanting; as many did to Paul, Acts 24:23.(4.) The owning and avowing of them, as not being ashamed of their chains, bonds, or sufferings, 2 Timothy 1:16-17.(5.) A readiness to undergo hazards, difficulties, and dangers, for them who are called thereunto, Romans 16:4. It is not a heartless, fruitless, ineffectual pity that the apostle intends, but such a frame of mind as hath a real concernment in the sufferings of others, and is operative in these and the like duties towards their good. These things are required in us towards all those who suffer for the gospel, according as we have opportunity for their exercise. Where this is wanting, we can have no solid evidence of our being one with them in the same mystical body. The remembrance of this frame, and the discharge of all those duties towards them who have suffered, are of singular use to prepare our minds for, and to confirm our hearts in our own sufferings, when they do approach.Secondly, He minds them of their deportment under their own sufferings: “they took joyfully.” 1. That which they suffered in was their μ῾πάρχοντα, “their outward substance,” and present enjoyments It is extended unto houses, lands, possessions, whatever rightfully belongs unto men and is enjoyed by them. But it is especially applied unto things of present use, as the goods of a man’s house, his money, corn, or cattle, which are more subject to present rapine and spoil than other real possessions, lands or inheritances These are the things of men’s present supportment, without which ordinarily they cannot live nor subsist. And therefore, in persecutions, the enemies of the gospel do usually fall on these in the first place; as supposing that the loss of them will reduce their owners unto all sorts of extremity, especially when they have no pretense or warranty as yet to destroy their persona They will take from them the bread that they should eat, the clothes that they should wear, the beds whereon they should lie, — whatever is of use unto them and their families And this must needs be a sore trial unto men, when not only themselves, but their relations also, their wives and children, some perhaps in their infant age, are reduced unto all extremities. 2. The way whereby they were deprived of their goods was ἁρπαγή, — it was by “rapine and spoil.” What pretense of law or constitution of the rulers they who did it had for what they did, I know not, but the way of execution was with savage rapine and spoil, as the word signifies They violently tare away from them what they did enjoy: not aiming to take all the spoil merely unto their own advantage, — wherewith yet the minds of some cursed enemies are influenced, — but at the satisfaction of their rage and malice in the ruin of the saints of Christ. This, it seems, had been the state of things with these Hebrews, which had now passed over for that season, but in all probability would quickly again return, as the warning here given them by the apostle did plainly intimate. And it is the way of the world in such persecutions, after they have vented their rage and malice for a while, and satisfied themselves with their own cruelty, to give over until some new cause, pretense, or new instigation of the devil, sets them at work again. 3. The frame of mind in the Hebrews as unto this part of their suffering is, that they took their losses and spoils “with joy.” Nothing doth usually more affect the minds of men than the sudden spoiling of their goods, what they have labored for, what they have use for, what they have provided for themselves and their families. We see in ordinary cases what wailings and lamentations do accompany such occasions. But these Hebrews received and accepted of this rapine of their goods, not only patiently and cheerfully, but with a certain peculiar joy. 4. The ground hereof the apostle declares in the close of this verse, “Knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.”Some copies of the original, and some ancient translations, as the Vulgar Latin, read the words οὐρανοῖς. And I suppose the difference arose from the order of the words in the text, or the placing of ἐνἑαυτοῖς not immediately after γινώσκοντες, but interposing ἔχειν between them. Hence the words may be rendered as we do, “knowing in yourselves that ye have a better substance;” or as they lie in the original, “knowing that ye have a better substance in yourselves.” In this latter way it is evident that there is no place for that addition, “in heaven,” which is necessary in the former. For it is not proper to say, “knowing that ye have in yourselves in heaven;” though it be most proper to say, “knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven.” I confess I should absolutely embrace the latter reading, “knowing that ye have in yourselves,” and so leave out that, “in heaven,” for evident reasons, did not the authority of the most ancient copies and translations of the best note require the retaining of it. However, I shall open the words according to both readings. (1.) “Knowing that we have in ourselves.” The things which they had lost were their “goods,” or their “substance,” as they are called, Luke 15:13. Unto these he opposeth the “substance;” which of what nature it is he declares in comparison with those other goods. Those other “goods” were so theirs as that they were without them, things liable unto rapine and spoil, — such as they might be, such as they were deprived of; men could and men did take them away. But this “substance” is “in themselves,” which none could take away from them, none could spoil them of. Such is the peace and joy that our Lord Jesus Christ gives unto his church here below, John 14:27; John 16:22. And if the “substance” here intended be that which was “in themselves,” in opposition unto those external “goods,” which they might be and were deprived of; then it is that subsistence in the soul and unto the experience of believers which faith gives unto the grace and love of God in Christ Jesus, with all the consequents of it here and for evermore. This is that which comforts believers under all their troubles; this fills them with “joy unspeakable and full of glory,” even in their sufferings. This will make them to “take joyfully the spoiling of their goods,” when they lay it in the balance against them. In this sense γιναώσκοντες expresseth an assurance arising from experience, as the word is often used. They knew they had it in themselves, from the powerful experience which faith gave them of it. So the whole of it is intended and at large explained by the apostle, Romans 5:1-5. Faith gives us justification before God, access unto him, and acceptance with him; and therewithal gives joy and rejoicing unto the soul And this it doth in an especial manner under tribulations and sufferings, enabling men to “take joyfully the spoiling of their goods;” for it stirreth up all graces in such a condition unto their due exercise, issuing in a blessed experience of the excellency of the love of God, and of his glory in Christ, with a firm and stable hope of future glory. Yea, and by these things doth the Holy Ghost shed abroad the love of God in our hearts; which will give joy in any condition. And this “substance” hath both the qualifications here assigned unto it. [1. It is κρείττων, “better,” “more excellent,” incomparably so, than the outward goods that are subject to rapine and spoil. And,[2. It is μένουσα, “abiding,” — that which will not leave them in whom it is, can never be taken from them. “My joy shall no man take from you.”Obs. 10. Faith giving an experience of the excellency of the love of God in Christ, and of the grace received thereby, with its incomparable preference above all outward, perishing things, will give joy and satisfaction in the loss of them all, upon the account of an interest in these better things.(2.) If we follow the ordinary reading, and retain those words, “in heaven,”the whole must be somewhat otherwise expounded; for it is not the grace of faith, but hope, that is expressed. And, — [1. That expression, “knowing in yourselves,” declares the evidence they had of the grounds whereon they rejoiced in the spoiling of their goods It was manifest and evident unto themselves. The world looked on them under another notion. They took them and declared them to be persons who deserved all manner of evil in this world, and such as would perish for ever in that which is to come. So they did to Christ himself, when they reproached him with his trust in God when he was on the cross. In this case the apostle doth not direct them unto any outward defense of themselves, but only unto the uncontrollable evidence which they had in themselves of future glory. And this they had, 1st. From the promises of Christ; 2dly. From the testimony and witness of the Holy Ghost 3dly. From the experience which they had of the beginnings and first-fruits of this glory in themselves.Faith in and by these means will give an infallible evidence of heavenly things, secure against all opposition; and in all these things it works by hope, because it respects things that are future. [2. This “substance” is said to be “in heaven.” It is there prepared, there laid up, there to be enjoyed. Wherefore it compriseth the whole of the future state of blessedness. And it is well called “substance,” as it is also “riches,” and an “inheritance,” and a “weight of glory;” for in comparison of it, all other things temporary have no substance in them. [3. They are said ἔχειν, to “have” this substance; not in present possession, but in right, title, and evidence. They knew in themselves that they had an undeniable title unto it, which none could deprive them of, but that they should certainly enjoy it in the appointed season. Wherefore they are said to “have” it,1st. Because it is prepared for them in the will, pleasure, and grace of God. “It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”2dly. Because it is purchased for them by the blood of Christ; he hath “purchased,” or “obtained eternal redemption.”3dly. It is promised unto them in the gospel. 4thly. It is secured for them in the intercession of Christ. 5thly. Granted unto them in the first-fruits. 6thly. All this is confirmed unto them by the oath of God. The first-fruits they had in possession and use, the whole in right and title; and continual application of it was made unto their souls by the hope which will not make ashamed.[4. How this “substance” is “better” than outward enjoyments, and “abiding,” needs not to be explained, they are things in themselves so plain and evident. This twofold interpretation of the words is so far coincident and agreeing in the same sense in general, that we may draw our observations from both or either of them; as, — Obs. 11. It is the glory of the gospel, that it will on a just account, from a sense of an interest in it, give satisfaction and joy unto the souls of men in the worst of sufferings for it.Obs. 12. It is our duty to take care that we be not surprised with outward sufferings, when we are in the dark as unto our interest in these things. — This may often fall out through our carelessness, negligence, and want of keeping our garments about us in our walk before God: they rejoiced, as knowing they had in themselves; which otherwise they could not have done. Obs. 13. Internal evidences of the beginnings of glory in grace, a sense of God’s love, and assured pledges of our adoption, will give insuperable joy unto the minds of men under the greatest outward sufferings.Obs. 14. It is our interest in this world, as well as with respect unto eternity, to preserve our evidences for heaven clear and unstained, so that we may “know in ourselves;” which is the ground of this great duty.Obs. 15. There is a “substance” in spiritual and eternal things, whereunto faith gives a subsistence in the souls of believers. See Hebrews 11:1.Obs. 16. There is no rule of proportion between eternal and temporal things. Hence the enjoyment of the one will give joy in the loss of the other. Μὴἀποβάλητεου῏ντὴνπαῤῥησίανὑμῶν, ἥτιςἔχειμισθυποδοσίανμεγάλην῾Υπομονῆςγὰρἔχετεχρείαν·ἵνατὸθέληματοῦΘεοῦποιήσαντες, κομίσησθετὴνἐπαγγελίαν.Hebrews 10:35-36. — Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.In these two verses there is an inference from his former argument, and a confirmation of it from the necessity of what is required thereunto. The first is in verse 35, wherein the apostle gives us the peculiar design, use, and force of the preceding exhortation unto the consideration of what they had suffered in and for the profession of the gospel. And there are in the words, 1. A note of inference from the foregoing discourse, ου῏ν, “therefore.”2. A grace and duty which in this inference he exhorts them to retain; and that is παῤῥησίαν. 3. The manner of their retaining it; “cast not away.”4. The reason of the exhortation not to cast it away; because “it hath great recompence of reward.”1. The inference is plain: ‘Seeing you have suffered so many things in your persons and goods, seeing God by the power of his grace bath carried you through with satisfaction and joy, do not now despond and faint upon the approach of the same difficulties, or those of a like nature.’The especial force of the inference the words themselves do declare.2. That which he exhorts them thus unto by this argument, is the preservation and continuance of their “confidence.” This παῤῥησία, whatever it be, was that which engaged them in and carried them through their sufferings; which alone was praiseworthy in them. For merely to suffer is ἐκτῶνμέσων, and may be good or evil, as its causes and occasions and circumstances are. Now, this was absolutely neither their faith nor profession; but, as we have had occasion to mention several times, it is a fruit and effect of faith, whereby the minds of believers are made prompt, ready, free unto all duties of profession, against all difficulties and discouragements. It is a boldness of mind, with freedom from bondage and fear, in the duties of religion towards God and man, from a prevailing persuasion of our acceptance with God therein. In this frame of spirit, by this fruit and effect of faith, these Hebrews were carried cheerfully through all their sufferings for the gospel And indeed without it, it is impossible that we should undergo any great sufferings unto the glory of God, or our own advantage. For if we are made diffident of our cause by unbelief; if the helps and succours tendered in the gospel and promises thereof be betrayed by fear; if the shame of outward sufferings and scorns do enfeeble the mind; if we have not an evidence of “better things” to lay in the balance against present evils; it is impossible to endure any “great fight of afflictions” in a clue manner. Unto all these evil habits of the mind is this “confidence” opposed. This was that grace, that exercise of faith, which was once admired in Peter and John, Acts 4:13. And there can be no better account given of it, than what is evident in the behavior of those two apostles in that season. Being in bonds, under the power of their enraged enemies, for preaching the gospel, yet without fear, tergiversation, or hesitation; without at, all questioning what would be the issue, and how they would deal with them whom they charged to have murdered the Lord Jesus; with all boldness and plainness of speech they gave an account of their faith, and testified unto the truth. Wherefore those things that I have mentioned are plainly included in this confidence, as to invincible constancy of mind and boldness in the profession of the gospel, in the face of all difficulties, through a trust in God and a valuation of the eternal reward, which are the foundation of it. This frame of spirit they ought to labor to confirm in themselves, who are or may be called unto sufferings for the gospel. If they are unprepared, they will be shaken and cast down from their stability. 3. This confidence, which had been of such use unto them, the apostle exhorts them now “not to cast away;” μήἀποβάλητε. He doth not say, leave it not, forego it not; but, “cast it not away.” For where any graces have been stirred up unto their due exercise, and have had success, they will not fail not be lost without some positive act of the mind in rejecting of them, and the refusal of the succours which they tender unto us. And this rejection may be only as unto its actual exercise, not as unto its radical inbeing in the soul. For as I look on this confidence as a grace, so it is not the root, but a branch from it: faith is the root, and confidence is a branch springing out of it. Wherefore it may, at least for a season, be cast away, while faith abides firm. Sometimes failing in faith makes this confidence to fail; and sometimes failing in this confidence weakens and impairs faith. When faith on any occasion is impaired and ensnared, this confidence will not abide; and so soon as we begin to fail in our confidence, it will reflect weakness on faith itself. Now unto the casting away of this confidence these things do concur: (1.) That it do, as it were, offer itself unto us for our assistance, as in former times. This it doth in the reasonings and arguings of faith for boldness and constancy in profession; which are great and many, and will arise in the minds of them that are spiritually enlightened.(2.) Arguments against the use of it, especially at the present season when it is called for, are required in this case. And they are of two sorts:[1. Such as are suggested by carnal wisdom,, urging men unto this or that course, whereby they may spare themselves, save their lives, and keep their goods, by rejecting this confidence, although they continue firm in the faith; [2. From carnal fears, representing the greatness, difficulties, and dangers that lie in the way of an open profession with boldness and confidence. (3.) A resolution to forego this confidence, upon the urgency of these arguings.(4.) An application unto other ways and means inconsistent with the exercise of this grace in the discharge of this duty.And hence it appears how great is the evil here dehorted from, and what a certain entrance it will prove into the apostasy itself so judged as before, if not timely prevented. And it is that which we ought continually to watch against; for he that was constant in this grace yet did once make a forfeiture of it unto his unutterable sorrow, namely, the apostle Peter. And it is not lost but upon the corrupt reasonings which we have now mentioned, that aggravate its guilt. He that casts away his confidence as unto his present profession, and the duties thereof, doth what lies in him cast away his interest in future salvation. Men in such cases have a thousand pretences to relieve themselves; but the present duty is as indispensably required as future happiness is faithfully promised. Wherefore the apostle adds, — 4. The reason why they should be careful in the preservation of this confidence; which is, that it hath a “great recompence of reward.”That which the apostle as unto the matter of it calls here “a recompence of reward,” in the end of the next verse, from the formal cause of it he calls “the promise,” and that promise which we receive “after we have done the will of God.” Wherefore the recompence of reward here intended is the glory of heaven, proposed as a “crown,” a reward in way of recompence unto them that overcome in their sufferings for the gospel. And the future glory, which, as unto its original cause, is the fruit of the good pleasure and sovereign grace of God, whose pleasure it is to give us the kingdom; and as unto its procuring cause, is the sole purchase of the blood of Christ, who obtained for us eternal redemption; and on both accounts a free gift of God, for “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ,” so as it can be no way merited nor procured by ourselves, by virtue of any proportion by the rules of justice between what we do or suffer and what is promised; is yet constantly promised unto suffering believers under the name of a “recompence” and “reward.” For it doth not become the greatness and goodness of God to call his own people unto sufferings for his name, and unto his glory, and therein the loss of their lives many times, with all enjoyments here below, and not propose unto them, nor provide for them, that which shall be infinitely better than all that they so undergo. See Hebrews 6:11-12, and the exposition of that place; Revelation 3:3. Wherefore it is added, —That this confidence hath this “recompence of reward,” — that is, it gives a right and title unto the future reward of glory; it hath it in the promise and constitution of God. Whoever abides in its exercise shall be no loser in the issue. They are as sure in divine promises as in our own possession. And although they are yet future, faith gives them a present subsistence in the soul, as unto their power and efficacy. Obs. 1. In the times of suffering, and in the approaches of them, it is the duty of believers to look on the glory of heaven under the notion of a refreshing, all-sufficient reward.Hebrews 10:36. — “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.” The apostle in these words confirms the necessity of the exhortation he had insisted on. He had pressed them unto nothing but what was needful for them. For whereas there were two things proposed unto them; one in the way of duty, namely, that they should do the will of God; the other in the way of reward, or what they should receive upon their so doing; things were so ordered in the sovereign pleasure and will of God that they could believe neither of them, not only without the duty which he exhorted them unto, but without a continuance therein. And indeed the exhortation not to cast away their confidence, — that is, to abide in it, and to improve it against all difficulties and dangers, — doth include in it that patience which he affirms that they stand in need of. Wherefore there are three things in the words: 1. The confirmation of the preceding exhortation by this reason, that “they had need of patience.”2. The time and season wherein that patience was so needful as unto them; and that was whilst they were doing the will of God. 3. The end whereunto it was necessary; which is the receiving of the promise.1. The rational enforcement is introduced by the redditive γάρ, “for.” ‘This is that which you must apply your minds unto, or you cannot attain your end.’ 2. That which he asserts in this reason is, that “they had need of patience.” He doth not charge them with want of patience, but declares the necessity of it as unto its continual exercise. ῾Υπομονή, is “a bearing of evils with quietness and complacency of mind, without raging, fretting, despondency, or inclination unto compliance with undue ways of deliverance.” “In patience possess your souls.” Παῤῥησία, or “confidence,” will engage men into troubles and difficulties in a way of duty; but if patience take not up the work and carry it on, confidence will flag and fail See Hebrews 6:11-12, and our exposition thereon. Patience is the perfecting grace of suffering Christians, James 1:4-5; and that which all tribulations do excite in the first place unto its proper actings, whereon the exercise of other graces doth depend, Romans 5:4-5.‘This,’saith the apostle, ‘you have need of.’He speaks not absolutely of the grace itself, as though they had it not; but of its continual exercise in the condition wherein they were, or whereinto they were entering. Men for the most part desire such a state wherein they may have as little need and use of this grace as possible; for it supposeth things hard and difficult, about which alone it is conversant. But this is seldom the estate of the professors of the gospel; for besides the troubles and afflictions which are common unto, and almost inseparable from this life, they are for the most part continually exposed unto all sorts of troubles and miseries, on the account of their profession. He that will be the disciple of Christ must take up his cross. The necessity here intimated of patience is grounded on these two suppositions: (1.) That those who profess the gospel in sincerity shall ordinarily meet with trials, tribulations, and sufferings, upon the account of that profession. This the Scripture and the experience of all ages do abundantly testify; and in particular, it was the condition of these Hebrews, as it was of all the primitive churches. (2.) That without the constant exercise of patience, none can pass through those tribulations unto the glory of God, and their own advantage, as unto the great end of the obtaining the promise of eternal life. For without it men will either faint and give way to temptations that shall turn them aside from their profession; or will misbehave themselves under their sufferings, unto the dishonor of God and the ruin of their own souls. Patience is not a mere endurance of trouble, but it is indeed the due exercise of all graces under sufferings; nor can any grace be acted in that condition where patience is wanting. The exercise of faith, love, and delight in God; the resignation of ourselves to his sovereign will and pleasure; the valuation of things eternal above all things of this present life; whereby the soul is kept quiet and composed, free from distractions, fortified against temptations, resolved for perseverance to the end: this is patience. It is therefore indispensably necessary unto this condition.Obs. 2. He that would abide faithful in difficult seasons, must fortify his soul with an unconquerable patience. —(1.) Then pray for it.(2.) Give it its due exercise in the approaches of troubles, that it be not pressed and overwhelmed by thoughts contrary unto it(3.) Take care to keep faith vigorous and active; it will grow on no other root but that of faith. (4.) Especially exercise faith unto a view of eternal things; which will engage the aid of hope, and administer the food that patience lives upon. Wherefore in this case,(5.) Remember,[1. That the want of it lays the soul open unto the power and efficacy of all sorts of temptations, for this is the only armor of proof against the assaults of Satan and the world in a suffering season. [2. It is that alone which will assuage the pain of sufferings, ease the burden of them, rebate their edge, and make them easy to be borne. All other things will fall before the sharpness of them, or give relief that shall end in ruin. [3. It is this alone whereby God is glorified in our sufferings, and honor given to Jesus Christ in the gospel. 3. The next thing in the words is the season of the necessity of the continuance of the exercise of this grace and obedience; — until we have done the will of God. There is no dismission from the discharge of this duty until we have done the whole will of God. The will of God is twofold: (1.) The will of his purpose and good pleasure, the eternal act of his counsel, which is accompanied with infinite wisdom, concerning all things that shall come to pass.(2.) The will of his command, presenting unto us our duty, or what it is that he requireth of us. Respect may be, and I judge is had, unto the will of God in both these senses in this place. For respect is had unto the will of God disposing the state of the church and all believers therein into troubles, sufferings, and temptations, 1 Peter 3:17. He could, if it had seemed good unto him, have placed the church in such a condition in the world as that it should have been free from all outward troubles and distresses; but it is his will that it should be otherwise, and it is for the ends of his own glory, as also the good of the church in that state wherein they are to continue in this world. This, therefore, is that which we are to acquiesce in, as unto all the sufferings we may be exposed unto in this world: It is the will of God that it should be so. And he seldom leaves us destitute, without a prospect into those holy reasons and ends of it for which it is necessary that it should be so. But whereas this principally respects sufferings, it will be said, ‘How can we do this will of God, when nothing is required of us but patiently to endure what we do undergo?’I answer, (1.) Though sufferings be principally intended in this place, yet they are not so only. The whole state and condition of our lives in this world depends on this will of God: the time of our doing and suffering, of living and dying, with all our circumstances, is resolved into his will concerning them. And it is weariness of the effects ,of this will of God that is ha the most the cause of their departure from their profession. Wherefore this sense is not to be excluded. See Acts 13:36. But,(2.) The will of God is that whereby our whole duty is presented unto us, as unto our faith, obedience, and worship; as our Lord Christ “came to do the will of him that sent him,” according to the commandment he received of him. The whole of our duty is resolved into the will of God, — that is, the will of his command; and so, to “do the will of God” in this sense, is to abide constant in all the duties of faith and obedience, worship and profession, which he requireth of us. And there is no release in this matter whilst we are .in this world. Wherefore says the apostle, ‘You have need of patience, during the whole course of obedience presented unto you, as that without which you cannot pass through it, so as thereon to inherit the promises.’4. What is meant here by “the promise” is evident from the context. All the promises of grace and mercy in the covenant they had already received; God had not only given them the promises of all these things, but he had given them the good things themselves that were promised, as to the degrees and measures of their enjoyment in this world. And as unto the promise of eternal life and glory, they had received that also, and did mix it with faith; but the thing promised itself they had not received. This different notion of the promises the apostle declares Hebrews 11, as we shall see, God willing. Obs. 3. The glory of heaven is an abundant recompence for all we shall undergo in our way towards it.Obs. 4. Believers ought to sustain themselves in their sufferings with the promise of future glory.Obs. 5. The future blessedness is given unto us by the promise, and is therefore free and undeserved.Obs. 6. The consideration of eternal life as the free effect of the grace of God and Christ, and as proposed in a gracious promise, is a thousand times more full of spiritual refreshment unto a believer, than if he should conceive of it or look upon it merely as a reward proposed unto our own doings or merits. ῎Ετιγὰρμικρόνὅσον, ὁἐρχόμενοςἥξει, καὶοὐχρονιεῖ. ῾Οδὲδίκαιοςἐκπίστεωςζήσεται·καὶἐὰνὑποστείληται, οὐκεὐδοκεῖἡψυχήμουἐναὐτῷ. ᾿Ημεῖςδὲοὐκἐσμὲνὑποστολῆςεἰςἀπώλειαν, ἀλλὰπίστεωςεἰςπεριποίησινψυχῆς. [10] [10] VARIOUS READING. — Lachmann and Tischendorf read δίκαιόςμον — ED. Hebrews 10:37-39. — For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.The substance of the apostolical exhortation) as hath been often observed, is the constancy of the Hebrews in their profession, against persecutions and temptations. Unto this end he commends unto them the necessary use of confidence and patience, as those graces which would carry them through their difficulties and support them under them. But these graces are not the root whereon constancy and perseverance do grow; they are all branches of it. They do not give strength unto the soul to do and suffer according to the mind of God; but they are the way whereby it doth exercise its strength, which it hath from another grace. It is faith from whence alone all these things do spring. This the apostle knowing, he reserves the declaration of its nature, efficacy, and power, unto the close of his argument. And such an enarration of the nature and efficacy of it he intends as will certainly effect the great work of carrying them through their difficulties, even all that they may be called unto, because it hath done the same in all true believers from the foundation of the world. Wherefore, as is usual with him, in these verses he makes a transition unto the consideration of faith itself, whereinto he resolves the whole exhortation unto constancy in profession. And there are three things in these three verses: 1. A proposal of the object of faith; which is the coming of Christ, with the circumstances of it, Hebrews 10:37. 2. The necessity and efficacy of faith on that proposal, with the certain ruin of them that are strangers unto it, confirmed by prophetical testimony, Hebrews 10:38.3. The judgment of the apostle concerning these Hebrews, as unto their faith, and the sincerity of it; from whence he proceeds to declare its nature, and confirm its efficacy, Hebrews 10:39.Hebrews 10:37. — “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.”It might arise in the minds of these Hebrews, weakening and discouraging them from a compliance with this exhortation of the apostle, that it was a long time that they were to be exposed unto and exercised with these troubles, so as that they might justly fear that they should be worn out by them. And indeed there is nothing doth more press upon and try the minds of men in their sufferings, than that they can see no issue out of them; for we are all naturally inclined to desire some rest and peace, if it may stand with the will of God, whilst we are in this world. To encourage them against the influence of this temptation, the apostle accommodates a testimony out of the prophet Habakkuk, which leads him directly unto the consideration of the power and efficacy of faith, which he had designed: Hebrews 2:3-4, “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; for it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up, is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” He speaks of a “vision;” that is, a prophetical vision of good things which God would effect in due time. And there is the same reason in genera] of all the promises of God: wherefore what is spoken of one, namely, of the deliverance of the people, may be accommodated unto another, namely, the coming of Christ, whereby that deliverance is to be wrought. There is in the prophet a supposition that it seems to be delayed, and the accomplishment of it to be retarded. “Though it tarry,” saith he; that is, ‘seem to you so to do.’For believers are apt to think long under their sufferings of the seeming delays of the accomplishment of God’s promises, and long for the time of it; as wicked men and scoffers harden themselves in their sins and impieties on the same account with respect to God’s threatenings, 2 Peter 3:1-4. But saith he, “It will not tarry;” that is, ‘although it seem to you so to do, and you are dejected thereon about it, yet there is an appointed time for it, and that in itself no long time, beyond which it shall not be deferred one moment,’ Isaiah 60:22; 2 Peter 3. This whole sense the apostle compriseth in this verse, though he doth not peculiarly render the words of the prophet.1. He respects in this verse the season of the accomplishment of what he now proposeth unto them. And there are three things therein: —(1.) An acknowledgment that it is not immediately to be looked for. ,For it is a thing yet to be waited for, — ‘Yet there remains some time for its accomplishment.’And this is that which renders their confidence and patience in sufferings so necessary, as he had before observed.Obs. 1. The delay of the accomplishment of promises is a great exercise of faith and patience; whence are all the exhortations not to faint in our minds, nor to be weary.(2.) There is a limitation of the time for the accomplishment of what seems so to be delayed; it is μικρόν, “a little space.” ‘Though it seem to tarry, wait for it; it will come, and that ere long,’or ‘after a short space of time.’(3.) A further declaration of the nature of this season in these words, ὅσονὅσον, “quantum quantum,” or “quantillum quantillum.” The reduplication of the word may yield a double sense:[1. A limitation of the time; ‘a very little,’a short space, not to be feared or reckoned on. [2. On the other side, a supposition of some duration; ‘how long soever it be, yet it is but a “little while.”’According unto either sense the design of the apostle is the same; which is, to satisfy the Hebrews that there shall be no such delay in what they looked after and expected as should be a just cause of despondency or weariness in them. As if he had said, ‘My brethren, faint not, be not wearied nor discouraged, keep up confidence and patience; you know what you wait for and expect, which will be an abundant recompence unto you for all your sufferings. And whatever appearances there may be of its tarrying or delay, whatever it may seem to you, yet if you have but a prospect into eternity, be it what it will, it is but a very little while; and so is to be esteemed by you.’ 2. That which is proposed unto them under this limitation is this, that “he who shall come will come, and will not tarry.” What the prophet spake of the vision he saw, the apostle applies unto the person of Christ, for the reason before mentioned. ἐρχόμενος, “he that shall come,” is a periphrasis of Christ, frequently used and applied unto him. Once it is used to express his eternity, Revelation 1:8; but generally it hath respect unto the promise of him. The foundation of the church was laid in the promise that he should come; and he came in his Spirit unto them from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:11; 1 Peter 3:18-20 : yet this was he that should come, as is expressed John 1, — this was his coming in the flesh. After his incarnation and ministry, he was now, with respect unto them, he that was come; yea, to deny him to be come in answer unto that promise, is anti- Christian, 1 John 4:3. Yet after this he was to come again, on a double account: —(1.) In the power of his Spirit and the exercise of his royal authority, for the setting up and settling his church in the world; whereof there are two parts: —[1. The assistance of his Spirit, with his miraculous operations, unto the ministers of the gospel; which were “the powers of the world to come.” John 16:7-8. This was an illustrious advent of Christ, not in his own person, but in that of his vicar and substitute, whom he promised to send in his stead. Hereby he was acquitted from all that dishonor, contempt, and reproach, that were cast on him in the world.[2. He was to come for the punishment and destruction of his stubborn and inveterate adversaries. And these also were of three sorts: 1st. Those that were so directly unto his own person, and by consequence unto his gospel 2dly. Such as were directly enemies unto his gospel, and by consequence unto his person. 3dly. Such as were declared enemies to them both.1st. Of the first sort were the Jews, who slew him, who murdered him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and thereon continued their hatred against the gospel and all that made profession thereof. He was to come to “destroy those murderers, and to burn their city;” which fell out not long after the writing of this epistle, and is properly intended in this place. See Matthew 24:3; Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:30; 2 Peter 3:4; Jude 1:14; Revelation 1:7; Mark 14:62; James 5:7-8. For hereon ensued the deliverance of the church from the rage and persecution of the Jews, with the illustrious propagation of the gospel throughout the world. 2dly. The Pagan Roman Empire was the second sort of his adversaries, who were immediate enemies unto his gospel, and consequently to his person. These, after the destruction of the former sort, raged with all blood and cruelty against the church for sundry ages. These, therefore, he promised he would come and destroy; and the faith of the church concerning this his coming was, that “he that should come would come, and would not tarry.” The description of this coming of Christ is given us, Revelation 6:7-10.3dly. After this arose a third sort of enemies, who in words owning his person and gospel, opposed all his offices, and persecuted all that Would yield obedience unto him in the exercise of them, and were thereby consequentially enemies both to his person and gospel. This was the apostate Christian Church of Rome, or the New Testament Babylon. And in respect of these enemies of his, Christ is still “he that is to come;” and as such is believed in, and his coming prayed for by all the saints. For he is to destroy the man of sin, the head of that apostasy, “by the brightness of his coming.” For as the opposition made unto him did not arise suddenly and at once, as those forementioned did, especially that of the Jews, whose destruction was therefore speedy and at once, but in a long tract of time grew up gradually unto its height; so he will destroy it in like manner. And therefore, although he hath set his hand unto that work, and begun the execution of his judgments on the antichristian state in some degree, yet as to the utter destruction of it by those plagues which shall befall it “in one day;’he is still ὁἐρχόμενος, he that is looked for, “he that is to come.”(2.) Christ is ὁἐρχόμενος with respect unto his coming at the last day unto judgment. This is known and confessed, and the business of his coming therein is the prayer of the whole church, Revelation 22:20. And it is an article of faith, whose nature we have described on Hebrews 6:2.It may be now inquired, with respect unto whether of these comings it is said here “he shall come,” that he is ὁἐρχόμενος. It is generally referred by interpreters unto his last advent, at the day of judgment. I doubt not but that also is included, but I dare not exclude the other comings mentioned, as things which were principally suited unto the relief of the church under its distress. For unto every state of the church there is a coming of Christ suited and accommodated unto their condition, whereby their faith is kept in continual exercise of desires after it. This was the life of faith under the old testament, as to his coming in the flesh, until it was accomplished. This faith, after his resurrection, they lived on, though but for a short season, until he came in the power of his Spirit, and his miraculous operations, so to “convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.” Nor do I understand how “the just can live by faith,” without a continual expectation of the coming of Christ in a way suited to the sufferings and deliverance of his church in that season. For instance, the state was such now with those Hebrews, that if an end were not put unto it, or the days were not shortened, no flesh among them could have been saved, as our Savior speaks, Matthew 24:22. In this state the church looked for such a coming of Christ as should work out their deliverance; and he came accordingly, as we have showed. Afterwards, the earth was filled with the blood of saints and martyrs, by the power of the Roman empire. In this state those that were slain, and those that were alive, appointed unto death, cried, “How long, O Lord , holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” They exercised faith also in this word, that it was but “a little while, and he that shall come will come;” which he did accordingly. And the case is the same with those that suffer under the antichristian apostasy: they live, pray, and believe, in the expectation of the appearance of the brightness of that coming of Christ wherewith the man of sin shall be consumed; and although it seems to tarry, they wait for it. This is “the faith and patience of the saints.” Wherefore, the end for which this coming of Christ is proposed unto the church being the supportment and encouragement of their souls unto faith and patience, a respect must be had unto such a coming as is suited to their relief in their present state and condition. And this unto these Hebrews was then ἔτιμικρὸνὅσον in a literal sense. So it is to be accommodated unto all other states of the church. And therein the consideration of the coming of Christ at the last day, unto the final and eternal judgment, ought not to be omitted. This is that anchor and great reserve of believers in all their distresses and sufferings, when all appearance of deliverance in the world absolutely ceaseth, to betake themselves unto this, that there is a day approaching “wherein God will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained.” That the Lord Christ shall assuredly come unto that judgment is that which they principally resolve their satisfaction into. See 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. Obs. 2. It is essential unto faith to be acted on the promised coming of Christ, to all that look for his appearance.Obs. 3. There is a promise of the coming of Christ suited unto the state and condition of the church in all ages.Obs. 4. The appearing delay of the accomplishment of any of these promises requires an exercise of the faith and patience of the saints,Obs. 5. Every such coming of Christ hath its appointed season, beyond which it shall not tarry.Obs. 6. This divine disposition of things gives a necessity unto the continual exercise of faith, prayer, and patience, about the coming of Christ.Obs. 7. Although we may not know the especial dispensations and moments of time that are passing over us, yet all believers may know the state in general of the church under which they are, and what coming of Christ they are to look for and expect. So is it with us who live under the antichristian state, which Christ in his appointed time will come and destroy.Obs. 8. Faith in any church satisfies the souls of men with what is the good and deliverance of that state, although a man do know or is persuaded that personally he shall not see it himself, nor enjoy it. The faith of this kind is for the church, and not for men’s individual persons.Obs. 9. Under despondencies as to particular appearances or comings of Christ, it is the duty of believers to fix and exercise their faith on his illustrious appearance at the last day.Obs. 10. Every particular coming of Christ in a way suited unto the present deliverance of the church, is an infallible pledge of his coming at the last unto judgment,Obs. 11. Every promised coming of Christ is certain, and shall not be delayed beyond its appointed season, when no difficulties shall be able to stand before it.Hebrews 10:38-39. — “Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” The apostle proceedeth in the allegation of the testimony taken out of the prophet, and the application of it unto his present purpose. And he observeth not herein the order of the words, but keeps unto the sense and meaning of them. And two things he designeth in these two verses: First, To declare the event of the proposal made unto them of the coming of Christ, whereby he confirmeth his exhortation unto faith and patience in their suffering condition, verse 38. Secondly, An application of the different events mentioned by the prophet unto these Hebrews, verse 39. In the first there are two different events expressed of the proposal and exhortation before given and made, with the means of them; the one is, that “the just shall live by his faith;” and the other (which is built on the supposition, “if any man draw back”) is, then “my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” 1. In the first there are to be considered,(1.) The note of connection, in the adversative particle δέ;(2.) There is the qualification of the person spoken of, he is “the just;”(3.) The means of his being so, or of his obtaining the event mentioned, which is “by faith;”(4.) What is the event itself, “he shall live.”Three times doth the apostle in his epistles make use of this prophetical testimony, Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and in this place.(1.) The note of inference in the exceptive particle καί, we render “now;” as afterwards we render δέ, “but.” The first, proper sense might as well have been retained; “but” in the first place, and “and” afterwards. But the difference is of no importance; δέ is here taken for εin the prophet, which is ofttimes exceptive, εְ ?φַ ?γִּ ?ιχ. And in the prophet the expression is plain, because it followeth the description of the contrary frame unto what is here asserted, “he whose heart is lifted up:” but δέ, in the transposition of the words used by the apostle (for he first repeats the last clause of the words, and then the former afterwards, which was more accommodate unto his purpose), doth not seem to have the force of an exceptive;, nor hath it so hath so unto the difficulties supposed in the case under consideration, which are the sufferings and temptations which professors of the gospel should in common meet withal, and in the appearance of a delay as unto their deliverance out of them, “But,” saith the apostle, ‘however, notwithstanding these things, “the just shall live by faith.”’ (2.) The person spoken of is ὁδίκαιος, “a just person,” a man really made just, or justified by faith, every one that is realty and truly so. I doubt not but this is included in the word, and the state of justification is intended in it; to which purpose the words are elsewhere cited by the apostle. But yet that which is here principally intended, is that qualification of a righteous man which is opposed to pride and haste of spirit through unbelief, whereon men draw back from God in the profession of the gospel. The “just man,” he who is humble, meek, sincere, subdued unto the will of God, waiting for his pleasure, as all justified persons are in their several degrees, “he shall live;” for he is free from that principle of pride and unbelief which ruins the souls of men in times of trial. Obs. 12. There are especial qualifications of grace required unto steadfastness in profession in times of persecution and long- continued trials.(3.) “Shall live by faith;” so we. ᾿Εκπίστεως may be joined with δίκαιος, and so express the instrumental cause, way, and means, whereby a man comes to be δίκαιος, “just,” — that is, δικαιωθείς, “justified;” which is by faith. For it is by faith both that a man is justified, and also those gracious qualifications are wrought in him which enable him to persevere in his profession. It purifieth the heart of that leaven of pride which destroyeth all who are infected with it. Or it may denote the way and means whereby a just man doth abide and persevere in his profession unto life. And this sense I embrace, because it is the entrance of the apostle into his demonstration of the mighty things which faith will do, and which have been done and suffered through faith by believers, which he declares here in general, namely, whatever difficulties and oppositions a just man meets withal in the way to things eternal, faith will carry him through them with safety and success. (4.) “He shall live.” Life in both the principal senses of it is here intended.[1. He shall not die in and from his profession; he shall not perish as trees plucked up by the roots, twice dead; he shall maintain a spiritual life, the life of God, as the psalmist speaks, “I shall not die, but live, and declare the loving-kindness of the LORD .” [2. He shall live, or attain the promise of eternal life; so is the word expounded in the close of the next verse, “Believe unto the saving of the soul.” Obs. 13. Many things are required to secure the success of our profession in times of difficulties and trials: as,(1.) That our persons be righteous, or justified by grace;(2.) That we be furnished with those graces that are appointed unto that end;Obs. 14. The continuance of the spiritual life and eternal salvation of true believers is secured from all oppositions whatever. As it is confessed there is in these words a prescription of the way and means whereby they may be so, so there is a faithful promise of God that so they shall be.2. In the latter part of the verse there is a description of others, on a supposition of a contrary state, frame, and event. In the former, the person is righteous; the way of his acting in the present case is by faith; and the event is life, “he shall live.” On the other hand, there is a supposition made of a person not so qualified, not so acting, not so living, not having the same success, but contrary in all these things. Wherefore they do greatly deceive themselves and others who suppose it the same person who is thus spoken of, and countenance themselves by the defect of the pronoun τίς, which is naturally and necessarily supplied in our translation. For this reading and sense of the words, “The just shall live by faith, and if any draw back,” etc., is contrary to the order of the words both in the prophet and the apostle, and the express declaration of the mind of the apostle in the next verse. For as the words lie in the prophet, this of the just living by faith is a direct exception unto and removal of them whose souls are lifted up so as to depart from God. ‘But,’saith he, ‘the just, it shall not be so with him;’that is, “the just shall live by his faith;” which is a direct opposition unto the other sort of persons. And although the order of the words be changed by the apostle, yet the opposition between the two sorts of persons is evidently continued. Wherefore in the next verse the apostle makes an express distinction of those unto whom he spake, or concerning whom he speaks in the two states, the one ὑποστολῆς, the other πίστεως. Of the latter he had spoken in the first words, and of the former in those that are now to be spoken unto. I shall therefore retain the supplement in our translation, “if any man, or “any one draw back,” — if there be in any an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God. There is an appearance of a great change in the words of the prophet, δִ ?πֵּ ?δςֻ ?τְּ ?μָ ?δμֹ ?ΰΰּ ?ιָ ?ωְׁ ?ψָּ ?δπַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ For “his soul, which in the prophet is referred unto the person offending, is in the apostle referred unto God who is offended. For indeed the word πַ ?τְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ may be so referred in the original, if we suppose a change of speech, and that the prophet having spoken before in the name of God, doth here speak of God, and the .respect he had unto proud unbelievers. But the word ιָ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?δ is scarce reconcilable unto this interpretation. Wherefore it is enough that the apostle gives us the plain general sense and meaning of the words, with an exposition of them, as he hath done, since he seldom keeps unto the proper words of the testimonies he quotes, but always gives the mind of the Holy Ghost in them.There are two things in the words: (1.) A crime supposed with reference unto the case under consideration, which is perseverance under trials and temptations; (2.) A sentence pronounced upon that crime.(1.) The first is expressed by ὑποστείληται. The word in the prophet denotes the cause of the sin intended; herein, its nature and effect. The original of all defection from the gospel is in the sinful elation of heart, not submitting unto, not acquiescing in the will of God, not satisfied with the condition of temporal sufferings on the account of the eternal reward. When men are under the power of this evil frame of heart, they will “draw back,” subduct themselves out of that state and condition wherein they are exposed to these inconveniencies. ᾿᾿Εὰνὑποστείληται, — ‘“ If any man” who hath made or doth make profession of faith in Christ and of the gospel, upon the invasion and long continuance of trials, temptations, and sufferings for them, do, through want of submission unto and acquiescence in the will of God, “withdraw” himself from that profession, and from communion therein with them who persist faithful in it, “my heart shall not,” etc.’This is the evil which the great design of the whole epistle is to obviate and prevent, which the apostle applies himself unto with all manner of arguments, motives, exhortations, and threatenings, to make effectual For this was that sin which, by reason of their sufferings and persecutions, professors were exposed unto, and which was absolutely ruinous unto the souls of them that fell under the power of it. Obs. 15. No persons whatever ought to be, on any consideration, secure against those sins which present circumstances give an efficacy unto.Obs. 16. It is an effect of spiritual wisdom, to discern what is the dangerous and prevailing temptation of any season, and vigorously to set ourselves in opposition unto it.Obs. 17. It is much to be feared that in great trials some will draw back from that profession of the gospel wherein they are engaged.Obs. 18. This defection is commonly durable, continued by various pretences. This is included in the word ὑποστείληται, — gradually and covertly to subduct himself. (2.) The sentence denounced against this sin is οὐκεὐδοκεῖἡψυχήμουἐναὐτῷ. The “soul” of God, is God himself; but he so speaks of himself to affect us with a due apprehension of his concernment in what he so speaks, as we are with that which our souls, that is, our minds, with all our affections, are engaged in. So God promises to the church, that he will “rejoice over them with his whole heart, and with his whole soul.” So is it here. What God thus affirms of himself is, that he hath no delight in such a person, he is not pleased with him, he shall not live before him. There is a μείωσις in the words, “he shall have no delight in him;” that is, he will abhor him, despise him, and in the end utterly destroy him. But I suppose it may be thus expressed also to obviate a pretense of the Hebrews against the apostle at that season, namely, that by deserting the truth of the gospel, and returning unto their Judaism, they did that which was pleasing unto God, and wherein they should find acceptance with him. For, as they supposed, they returned again unto those institutions of worship which he had been pleased withal, and which were of his own appointment. So all apostates have some pretense for what they do, wherewith they justify themselves, until their iniquity be found out to be hateful. Wherefore, to deprive them of this pretense, the apostle declares that the soul of God takes no pleasure in them. And in this negation all positive evils are included. When God will not, doth not delight in any persons, the consequent is, that he will utterly destroy them. See Jeremiah 15:1. Obs. 19. It is our great duty to look diligently that we are of that holy frame of mind, that due exercise of faith, as that the soul of God may take pleasure in us.Obs. 20. Though there appear as yet no outward tokens or evidences of the anger and displeasure of God against our ways, yet if we are in that state wherein God hath no pleasure in us, we are entering into certain ruin.Obs. 21. Backsliders from the gospel are in a peculiar manner the abhorrency of the soul of God.Obs. 22. When the soul of God is not delighted in any, nothing can preserve them from utter destruction.Hebrews 10:39. — “But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”An application is made in these words unto the state and condition of these Hebrews at present, at least unto them whom the apostle designs in an especial manner; as also, a transition is made unto that which now lay in his eye, namely, the full demonstration of the power and efficacy of faith to make us accepted with God, and to carry us through in the course of our greatest trials and temptations with success and victory. The application he makes unto the believing Hebrews, is of the same nature and kind with that which on the same occasion he had made unto them before, Hebrews 6, 9. In both places, having treated of the danger of apostasy and the woful state of apostates, he relieves the minds of believers by letting them know, that although, for their awakening and instruction, as for other ends, he declared the dreadful judgments of God against unprofitable professors and apostates, yet was it not as though he apprehended that that was their condition, or that they were cast out of the favor of God, or cursed by the law, but he was “persuaded better things of them.” Such ministerial encouragements are needful in like cases, that persons be not exasperated through an apprehension that undue surmises are entertained against them, nor too much dejected with fears that their condition makes them obnoxious unto the threatening. Both which are diligently to be avoided. The apostle’s reckoning himself, in his ministerial dealing with them, in their state and condition, as here, “We are not,” hath been spoken unto elsewhere, with the reasons of it. And whereas he says, “We are not,” it is frivolous to interpret it by” We ought not to be,” as is done by some; for so the words have nothing of comfort or supportment in them, which yet is the total design of them. Nor is it an absolutely infallible declaration of the state and condition of all individuals concerning whom he speaks; but he gives the interpretation of that persuasion, on what grounds it was built, and what it was resolved into; which was spoken of in the other place, whither the reader is referred, Hebrews 6:9.In the words there is a double supposition, of a twofold opposite state and a twofold opposite event, whose foundation is laid in the verse foregoing. The states are ὑποστολῆς on the one hand, and πίστεως on the other. The events are perdition on the one hand, and saving the soul on the other. The first of these is denied, the latter affirmed, concerning these Hebrews. 1. “We are not ὑποστολῆςεἰςἀπώλειαν.” Even among them that were called in those days this twofold state was found. No small number there were who were then falling into apostasy; but they were a certain determined number which that plague should prevail against, 2 Timothy 2:17-21. They were “appointed to stumble at the word,” being “of old ordained unto this condemnation;’— those of Israel unto whom the Lord Christ was “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense;” the reprobates among them, which were called, but not to be saved. This whole band of rovers, though in profession they were harnessed like the children of Ephraim, yet turned their backs in the day of battle. The event of this defection was “destruction.” Gradual decays and declensions there may be among true believers, from which they may be recovered; but those here intended are such as fall into eternal ruin. For although some respect may be had unto that woful fiery destruction that was coming upon them, in the desolation of the city, land, and temple, yet it is eternal ruin and destruction that is principally intended, as is manifest in the antithesis, wherein it is opposed unto “the saving of the soul.” Obs. 23. The Scripture everywhere testifieth, that in the visible church there is a certain number of false hypocrites, whose end and lot it is to be destroyed.Obs. 24. It is our duty to evidence unto our own consciences, and give evidence unto others, that we are not of this sort or number. Obs. 25. Nothing can free apostates from eternal ruin. 2. That which is asserted of these believing Hebrews is, that they belonged unto another state, that had another event. This state is, that they were of “the faith; so our apostle useth this expression, Galatians 3:7-8 : that is, true believers, and heirs of the promises. He there declares, that they are not only such as make profession of the faith, but such as truly and really believe; — a state of them unto whom all the promises as unto present preservation and eternal salvation are made in the word. ‘We are of that faith which is effectual unto the saving of the soul.’Both here and in the former clause, not only the event, but the actual influence of apostasy on the one hand unto destruction, and of faith on the other to the saving of the soul, are intended; so the preposition εἰς doth denote. ‘Faith that is effectual unto the acquisition of life;’that is, to the obtaining of it as by a due means for the saving of our souls from eternal ruin, and the obtaining of eternal life, Acts 26:18. For, —Obs. 26. Sincere faith will carry men through all difficulties, hazards, and troubles, unto the certain enjoyment of eternal blessedness. THE general nature of this epistle, as unto the kind of writing, is parenetical or hortatory; which is taken from its end and design. And the exhortation proposed is unto constancy and perseverance in the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ and profession of the gospel, against temptations and persecutions. Both these the Hebrews had to conflict withal in their profession; the one from the Judaical church-state itself; the other from the members of it. Their temptations to draw back and forsake their profession, arose from the consideration of the Judaical church-state and Mosaical ordinances of worship, which they were called unto a relinquishment of by the gospel. The divine institution of that state, with its worship; the solemnity of the covenant whereon it was established; the glory of its priesthood, sacrifices, and other divine ordinances (as Romans 9:4), with their efficacy for acceptance with God; were continually proposed unto them and pressed on them, to allure and draw them off from the gospel. And the trial was very great, after the inconsistency of the two states was made manifest. This gave occasion unto the whole doctrinal part of the epistle, whose exposition, by divine grace and assistance, we have passed through. For therein declaring the nature, use, end, and signification, of all divine institutions under the old testament, and allowing unto them all the glory and efficacy which they could pretend unto, he evidently declares, from the Scripture itself, that the state of the gospel-church, in its high priest, sacrifice, covenant, worship, privileges, and efficacy, is incomparably to be preferred above that of the old testament; yea, that all the excellency and glory of that state, and all that belonged unto it, consisted only in the representation that was made thereby of the greater glory of Christ and the gospel, without which they were of no use, and therefore ruinous or pernicious to be persisted in. After he hath fixed their minds in the truth, and armed them against the temptations which they were continually exposed unto, the apostle proceeds to the second means whereby their steadiness and constancy in the profession of the gospel, which he exhorted them unto, was already assaulted, and was yet like to be so with greater force and fury; and this was from the opposition which befell them, and persecutions of all sorts that they did and were like to undergo, for their faith in Christ Jesus, with the profession thereof and observance of the holy worship ordained in the gospel. This they met withal from the obstinate members of the Jewish church, as they did the other from the state of that church itself. An account hereof the apostle enters upon in the close of the foregoing chapter; and withal declares unto them the only way and means, on their part, whereby they may be preserved and kept constant unto their profession, notwithstanding all the evils that might befall them therein; and this is by faith alone. From their temptations they were delivered by the doctrine of truth; and from the opposition made unto them, by faith in exercise.But whereas they were things grievous and dreadful that were like to befall them, which would at length probably arise to blood, or the loss of their lives, Hebrews 12:4, it was necessary to know what this faith is, and what evidence can be produced to prove that it is able to effect this great work of preserving the souls of men in the profession of the truth under bloody and destructive persecutions.To comply with and give satisfaction on this necessary inquiry, the apostle in this whole chapter diverts to give a description or declaration of faith in general, whence it is meet and suited to produce that effect in the minds of believers; as also, to confirm by instances, that it had formerly, even from the beginning of the world, wrought effects of the same nature, or those which in greatness and glory were parallel thereunto. And hereon he takes advantage, according unto his constant method in this epistle, to make a full transition unto the hortatory part of the epistle, which gives life unto the whole; and which he made provision for, and some entrance into, Hebrews 10:19, as hath been declared.And that this is the design of the apostle, is evident beyond contradiction, in the inference which he makes from his whole discourse hereon, with the exhortation he presseth from it, in the beginning of the next chapter, verses 1-3, “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied, and faint in your minds,” etc. This is that which he designed to effect in their mind by his discourse of the nature of faith, and the instances given of its efficacy. The principal way whereby faith worketh in this case, of encountering the difficulties which lie in the way of constancy in profession unto the end, is patience preserving the soul from fainting and weariness. This he had before proposed in the example of Abraham, Hebrews 6:15; whereof see the exposition.This being the design of the apostle, the missing of it hath caused sundry contests among expositors and others about the nature of justifying faith, which is not here at all spoken unto. For the apostle treats not in this place of justification, or of faith as justifying, or of its interest in justification; but of its efficacy and operation in them that are justified, with respect unto constancy and perseverance in their profession, notwithstanding the difficulties which they have to conflict withal; in the same way as it is treated of James 2. The instances which he chooseth out unto this purpose, in a long season and tract of time, even from the beginning of the world unto the end of the church-state under the old testament, about the space of four thousand years, as unto the variety of their seasons, the distinct nature of the duties, and the effects expressed in them, with their influence into his present argument and exhortation, shall, God willing, be considered in our progress. This only we may observe in general, that it is faith alone which, from the beginning of the world, in all ages, under all dispensations of divine grace, and all alterations in the church-state and worship, hath been the only principle in the church of living unto God, of obtaining the promises, of inheriting life eternal; and doth continue so to be unto the consummation of all things. For the recording here of what it hath done, is only to evidence what yet it will continue to do. Faith can do all things that belong unto the life of God; and without it nothing can be done. Spiritual life is by faith, Galatians 2:20; and victory, 1 John 5:4; and perseverance, 1 Peter 1:5; and salvation, Ephesians 2:8, 1 Peter 1:9 : and so they were from the beginning. The first verse gives such a description of the nature of faith, as evidenceth its fitness and meetness unto the effecting of the great work assigned unto it, namely, the preservation of believers in the profession of the gospel with constancy and perseverance. Hebrews 11:1. — ῎Εστιδὲπίστιςἐλπιζομένωνὑπόστασις, πραγμάτωνἔλεγχοςοὐβλεπομένων.The Vulgar translation placeth the comma after πραγμάτων; “sperandarum substantia rerum,” excluding “rerum” from the last clause. Both ἐλπιζομένων and βλεπομένων being of the neuter gender, may either of them agree with πραγμάτων, and the other be used absolutely. “Sperandorum;” that is, “quae sperantur.”῾Ψπόστασις. “Substantia,” Vulg. Lat. So we, “the substance;” Beza,” illud quo subsistunt;” others, “id quo extant;” that whereby things hoped for exist or subsist Syr., τְ ?ιָ ?ρָ ?ΰςַ ?μΰִ ?ιμֵ ?ιοαְּ ?ρַ ?αְ ?ψָ ?ΰΰֵ ?ικְ δָ ?εγַּ ?δֲ ?εַ ?ιμְ ?δֵ ?ιοαְּ ?ρεּ ?ςֲ ?ιָ ?πָ ?ΰ“a persuasion of the things that are in hope, as if they were unto them in effect;” which goes a great way towards the true exposition of the words.῎Ελεγχος. Vulg. Lat., “argumentum illud quod demonstrat;” or “quae demonstrat;” “that which doth evidently prove or declare” Syr, βֶ ?μְ ?ιָ ?πָ ?ΰ, “the revelation of things that are not seen.”῾Ψπόστασις is a word not used in the Scripture, but 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 11:17, and in this epistle, wherein it three times occurs. In the first it is applied to express a distinct manner of subsistence in the divine nature, Hebrews 1:3; in the second, a firm persuasion of the truth, supporting our souls in the profession of it, Hebrews 3:14. See the exposition of those places. Here we render it substance. More properly it is a real subsistence: Τῶνἐνἀέριφαντασμάτων, τὰμένἐστικατ᾿ἔμφασιν, τὰδὲκαθ᾿ὑπόστασιν, Aristot. de Mundo; — “Of the things that are seen in the air, some have only an appearance, others have the real subsistence” of nature; are really subsistent, in contradiction unto appearing phantasms. As it is applied to signify a quality in the minds of men, it denotes confidence, or presence of mind without fear, as in the places above, 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 11:17. Polybius of Cocles, Οὐχοὕτωτὴνδύναμιν, ὡςτὴνὑπόστασιναὐτοῦ, etc.; — “They wondered not so much at his strength, as his boldness, courage, confidence.” The first sense is proper to this place; whence it is rendered by many, “that whereby they exist.” And the sense of the place is well expressed in the Greek scholiast:Επιδὴγὰρτὰἐνἐλπίσονἀνυπόστατάἐστινὠςτέωςμὴπαρόνταἡπίστιςοὐσίατιςαὐτῶνκαὶὑπόστασιςγίνεταιει῏ναιαὐτὰκαὶπαρεῖναιτρόπποντινὰπαρσκενάζουσα — “Whereas things that are in hope only have no subsistence of their own, as being not present; faith becomes the subsistence of them, making them to be present after a certain manner.” I shall retain in the translation the word “substance,” as it is opposed unto that which hath no real being or subsistence, but is only an appearance of things. ῎Ελεγχος is usually a “conviction” accompanied with a reproof; “redargutio:” and so the verb is commonly used in the New Testament; as the noun also: Matthew 18:15; Luke 3:19; John 3:20; John 8:46; John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 14:24; Ephesians 5:11; Ephesians 5:13; 1 Timothy 5:20; Titus 1:9; Titus 1:13; 2 Timothy 3:16. Sometimes it is taken absolutely, as a “demonstration,” a convincing, undeniable proof and evidence: that which makes evident. Syr., “the revelation;” the way or means whereby they are [1] made known.’ [1] . — Griesbach and Knapp adopt the following punctuation Hebrews 11:1 : ῎Εστιδὲπίστις, ἐλπιζομένωνὑπόστασις, etc.: which is probably correct; for the following verses, to which the first is an introduction, do not point out the evidence of the πίστις, but its existence (together with its blissful consequences), in the holiest men of the Old Testament history. Besides, γάρ, in verse 2, would be wholly superfluous, if we translated, with most interpreters, “Faith is the substance”or “evidence.” Punctuated as above, the whole is consistent, and the parts well connected: thus, “There is a faith,” a “confidence,” etc.; “for by it the elders obtained a good report.” It should not be overlooked that ἔστι stands in the beginning of the verse; though this in itself is by no means decisive. — Winer. Henry Stephens quotes this verse with the punctuation which is commended by Winer. See his Thesaurus. — ED. Hebrews 11:1. — Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.First, The respect and connection of these words unto the preceding discourse is in the particle δέ, which we render “now:” for it is not adversative or exceptive in this place, as it is usually, but illative, denoting the introduction of a further confirmation of what was before declared:‘That is, faith will do and effect what is ascribed unto it, in the preservation of your souls in the life of God, and constancy in profession; for “it is the substance,” etc.’The observation of the design of the apostle dischargeth all the disputes of expositors on this place about the nature and definition of faith, seeing he describes only one property of it, with respect unto a peculiar end, as was said before. Secondly, The subject spoken of is “faith,” that faith whereby the just doth live; that is, faith divine, supernatural, justifying, and saving, — the faith of God’s elect, the faith that is not of ourselves, that is of the operation of God, wherewith all true believers are endowed from above. It is therefore justifying faith that the apostle here speaks concerning; but he speaks not of it as justifying, but as it is effectually useful in our whole life unto God, especially as unto constancy and perseverance in profession.Thirdly, Unto this faith two things are ascribed:1. That it is “the substance of things hoped for.”2. That it is “the evidence of things not seen.” And, —1. We must first inquire what are these things; and then what are the acts of faith with respect unto them.These things for the substance of them are the same, the same πράγματα; but they are proposed under various considerations. For, that they may be useful unto us as they are hoped for, they are to have a present subsistence given unto them; as they are unseen, they are to be made evident: both which are done by faith.(1.) “Things hoped for,” in general, are things good, promised, future, expected on unfailing grounds. The things, therefore, here intended as “hoped for,” are all the things that are divinely promised unto them that believe, — all things of present grace and future glory. For even the things of present grace are the objects of hope:[1. With respect unto the degrees and measures of our participation of them. Believers live in the hope of increase of grace, because it is promised. [2. Absolutely, as unto the grace of perseverance in grace, which is future until its full accomplishment. As unto the things of future glory, see what hath been discoursed on Hebrews 6:19-20; Hebrews 8:5.All these things, as they are promised, and so far as they are so, are the objects of our hope. And that the good things of the pro-raises are the things here intended, the apostle declares in his ensuing discourse, where he makes the end and effect of the faith which he doth so commend to be the enjoyment of the promises. Hope in God for these things, to be received in their appointed season, is the great support of believers under all their trials, in the whole course of their profession, temptations, obedience, and sufferings. “We are saved by hope,” Romans 8:24. But yet I will not say that “things hoped for” and “things unseen” are absolutely the same; so as that there should be nothing hoped for but what is unseen, which is true; nor any thing unseen but what is hoped for, which is not so: for there are things which are the objects of faith which are unseen and yet not hoped for, — such is the creation of the world, wherein the apostle gives an instance in the first place. But generally they are things of the same nature that are intended, whereunto faith gives present subsistence as they are real, and evidence as they are true. But still these things as hoped for are future, not yet in themselves enjoyed; and so, although hope comprises in it trust, confidence, and an assured expectation, giving great supportment unto the soul, yet the influence of things hoped for into our comfort and stability is weakened somewhat by their absence and distance. This is that which faith supplies; it gives those things hoped for, and as they are hoped for, a real subsistence in the minds and souls of them that do believe: and this is the sense of the words. Some would have ὑπόστασις in this place to be “confidence in expectation;” which is hope, and not faith. Some render it the “principle,” or foundation; which neither expresseth the sense of the word nor reacheth the scope of the place. But this sense of it is that which both the best translators and the ancient expositors give countenance unto: “Illud ex quo subsistunt, extant.” Faith is that whereby they do subsist. And where do they so subsist as if they were actually in effect, whilst they are yet hoped for “In them,” saith the Syriac translation; that is, in them that do believe. “Faith is the essence of these things, and their subsistence, causing them to be, and to be present, because it believes them,” saith OEcumenius. And Theophylact to the same purpose, “Faith is the essence of those things which yet are not; the subsistence of those which in themselves do not yet subsist.” And yet more plainly in the scholiast before recited: or, it is the substance or subsistence of those things, that is, metonymically or instrumentally, in that it is the cause and means giving them a subsistence. But how this is done hath not been declared. This, therefore, is that which we must briefly inquire into. (2.) There are several things whereby faith gives a present subsistence unto things future, and so hoped for: — [1. By mixing itself with the promises wherein they are contained. Divine promises do not only declare the good things promised, — namely, that there are such things which God will bestow on believers, — but they contain them by virtue of divine institution. Hence are they called “the breasts of consolations,” Isaiah 66:11, as those which contain the refreshment which they exhibit and convey. They are the treasury wherein God hath laid them up. Hence to “receive a promise,” is to receive the things promised, which are contained in it, and exhibited by it, 2 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Peter 1:4. Now faith mixeth and incorporateth itself with the word of promise, Hebrews 4:2. See the exposition of it. Hereby what is in the word it makes its own, and so the things themselves believed are enjoyed; which is their subsistence in us.[2. By giving unto the soul a taste of their goodness, yea, making them the food thereof; which they cannot be unless they are really present unto it. We do by it, not only “taste that the Lord is gracious,” 1 Peter 2:3, — that is, have an experience of the grace of God in the sweetness and goodness of the things he hath promised and doth bestow, — but the word itself is the meat, the food, the milk and strong meat of believers; because it doth really exhibit unto their faith the goodness, sweetness, and nourishing virtue of spiritual things. They feed on them, and they incorporate with them; which is their present subsistence.[3. It gives an experience of their power, as unto all the ends which they are promised for. Their use and end in general is to change and transform the whole soul into the image of God, by a conformity unto Jesus Christ, the first-born. This we lost by sin, and this the good things of the promise do restore us unto, Ephesians 4:20-24. It is not truth merely as truth, but truth as conveying the things contained in it into the soul, that is powerfully operative unto this end. Truth, faith, and grace, being all united in one living, operative principle in the soul, give the things hoped for a subsistence therein. This is an eminent way of faith’s giving a subsistence unto things hoped for, in the souls of believers. Where this is not, they are unto men as clouds afar off, which yield them no refreshing showers. Expectations of things hoped for, when they are not in this power and efficacy brought by faith into the soul, are ruinous self-deceivings. To have a subsistence in us, is to abide in us in their power and efficacy unto all the ends of our spiritual life. See Ephesians 3:16-19. [4. It really communicates unto us, or we do receive by it, the first-fruits of them all. They are present and do subsist, even the greatest, most glorious and heavenly of them, in believers, in their first-fruits. These first- fruits are the Spirit as a Spirit of grace, sanctification, supplication, and consolation, Romans 8:23. For he is the seal, the earnest, and the pledge, of present grace and future glory, of all the good things hoped for, 2 Corinthians 1:22. This Spirit we receive by faith. The world cannot receive him, John 14:17; the law could not give him, Galatians 3:2. And wherever he is, there is an ὑπόστασις, a present subsistence of all things hoped for, namely, in their beginning, assurance, and benefit.[5. It doth it by giving a representation of their beauty and glory unto the minds of them that believe, whereby they behold them as if they were present. So Abraham by faith saw the day of Christ, and rejoiced; and the saints under the old testament saw the King in his beauty, 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:6. In these ways, and by these means, “faith is the substance of things hoped for;” and, — Obs. 1. No faith will carry us through the difficulties of our profession, from oppositions within and without, giving us constancy and perseverance therein unto the end, but that only which gives the good things hoped for a real subsistence in our minds and souls. — But when, by mixing itself with the promise, which is the foundation of hope, (for to hope for any thing but what is promised, is to deceive ourselves,) it gives us a taste of their goodness, an experience of their power, the inhabitation of their first-fruits, and a view of their glory, it will infallibly effect this blessed end. 2. It is said in the description of this faith, that it is “the evidence of things not seen.” And we must inquire,(1.) What are the things that are not seen;(2.) How faith is the evidence of them;(3.)How it conduceth, in its being so, unto patience, constancy, and perseverance in profession.(1.) By “things not seen,” the apostle intends all those things which are not objected or proposed unto our outward senses, which may and ought to have an influence into our constancy and perseverance in profession. Now, these are God himself, the holy properties of his nature, the person of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, all spiritual, heavenly, and eternal things that are promised, and not yet actually enjoyed. All these things are either absolutely invisible unto sense and reason, or at least so far, and under those considerations whereby they may have an influence into our profession. Every thing is invisible which nothing but faith can make use of and improve unto this end, 1 Corinthians 2:9-12.These invisible things are of three sorts: [1. Such as are absolutely so in their own nature, as God himself, with his eternal power and Godhead, or the properties of his nature, Romans 1:20. [2. Such as are so in their causes; such is the fabric of heaven and earth, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 11:3.[3. Such as are so on the account of their distance from us in time and place; such are all the future glories of heaven, 2 Corinthians 4:18.Obs. 2. The peculiar specifical nature of faith, whereby it is differenced from all other powers, acts, and graces in the mind, lies in this, that it makes a life on things invisible. It is not only conversant about them, but mixeth itself with them, making them the spiritual nourishment of the soul, 2 Corinthians 4:16-18. And, —Obs. 3. The glory of our religion is, that it depends on, and is resolved into invisible things. They are far more excellent and glorious than any thing that sense can behold or reason discover, 1 Corinthians 2:9.(2.) Of these invisible things, as they have an influence into our profession, faith is said to be the ἔλεγχος, the “evidence,” the “demonstration,” that which demonstrates; the “revelation.” Properly, it is such a proof or demonstration of any thing as carries with it an answer unto and a confutation of all objections unto the contrary: a convincing evidence, plainly reproving and refuting all things that pretend against the truth so evidenced. So it is sometimes used for a reproof, sometimes for a conviction, sometimes for an evident demonstration. See the use of the verb to this purpose, Matthew 18:15; Luke 3:19; John 3:20; John 8:9; John 16:8; 1 Corinthians 14:25; Ephesians 5:13; Titus 1:9; James 2:9 : and of the noun, 2 Timothy 3:16.Obs. 4. There are great objections apt to lie against invisible things, when they are externally revealed. — Man would desirously live the life of sense, or at least believe no more than what he can have a scientifical demonstration of. But by these means we cannot have an evidence of invisible things; at best not such as may have an influence into our Christian profession. This is done by faith alone. We may have apprehensions of sundry invisible things by reason and the light of nature, as the apostle declares, Romans 1; but we cannot have such an evidence of them as shall have the properties of the ἔλογχος here intended. It will not reprove and silence the objections of unbelief against them; it will not influence our souls into patient continuance in well-doing. Now, faith is not the evidence and demonstration of these things unto all, which the Scripture alone is; but it is an evidence in and unto them that do believe, — they have this evidence of them in themselves. For, — [1. Faith is that gracious power of the mind whereby it firmly assents unto divine revelation upon the sole authority of God, the revealer, as the first essential truth, and fountain of all truth. It is unto faith that the revelation of these invisible things is made; which it mixeth and incorporates itself withal, whereby it gives an evidence unto them. Hence the Syriac translation renders the word by “revelation,” ascribing that unto the act which is the property of the object. This assent of faith is accompanied with a satisfactory evidence of the things themselves. See our discourse of[2] the Divine Original and Authority of the Scriptures. [2] See vol. 16 p. 281, of miscellaneous works. — ED. [2. It is by faith that all objections against them, their being and reality, are answered and refuted; which is required unto an ἔλεγχος. Many such there are, over all which faith is victorious, Ephesians 6:16. All the temptations of Satan, especially such as are called his “fiery darts,” consist in objections against invisible things; either as unto their being, or as unto our interest in them. All the actings of unbelief in us are to the same purpose. To reprove and silence them is the work of faith alone; and such a work it is as without which we can maintain our spiritual life neither in its power within nor its profession without. [3. Faith brings into the soul an experience of their power and efficacy, whereby it is cast into the mould of them, or made conformable unto them, Romans 6:17; Ephesians 4:21-23. This gives an assurance unto the mind, though not of the same nature, yet more excellent than that of any scientific demonstration.(3.) Faith, in its being thus “the evidence of things not seen,” is the great means of the preservation of believers in constant, patient profession of the gospel, against all opposition, and under the fiercest persecutions; which is the thing the apostle aims to demonstrate. For, —[1. It plainly discovers, that the worst of what we can undergo in this world, for the profession of the gospel, bears no proportion unto the excellency and glory of those invisible things which it gives us an interest in and a participation of. So the apostle argues, Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:16-18. [2. It brings in such a present sense of their goodness, power, and efficacy, that not only relieves and refresheth the soul under all its sufferings, but makes it joyful in them, and victorious over them, Romans 5:3-5; Romans 8:34-37; 1 Peter 1:6-8.[3. It gives an assurance hereby of the greatness and glory of the eternal reward; which is the greatest encouragement unto constancy in believing, 1 Peter 4:12-13.In this description of faith, the apostle hath laid an assured foundation of his main position, concerning the cause and means of constancy in profession under trouble and persecution; with a discovery of the nature and end of the ensuing instances, with their suitableness unto his purpose. And we may observe in general, that, — Obs. 5. It is faith alone that takes believers out of this world whilst they are in it, that exalts them above it whilst they are under its rage; that enables them to live upon things future and invisible, giving such a real subsistence unto their power in them, and victorious evidence of their reality and truth in themselves, as secures them from fainting under all oppositions, temptations, and persecutions whatever. That the description which he hath given of faith, and the efficacy which he hath assigned thereunto, are true, and to be relied on, the apostle proves by the effects which, as such, it hath had in those of old in whom it was. Hebrews 11:2. — ᾿Ενταύτῃγὰρἑμαρτυρήθησανοἱπρεσβύτεροι.᾿Ενταύτῃ, “in hac,” “de hac,” “ob hanc,” “ob eam;” all to the same purpose. ᾿Εμαρτυρήθησαν, “testimonium consequuti,” “adepti;” “testimonio ornati.” Syr., αְּ ?δָ ?γָ ?ΰδֲ ?εָ ?ϊρָ ?δֲ ?γεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰςַ ?μχַ ?ωִׁ ?ιωֵׁ ?ΰ, “And hereof” (or of this faith) “there is extant a testimony concerning the ancients;” which somewhat changeth the sense. Πρεσβύτεροι, “seniores,” “majores,” “antiqui.” Syr., “those of ancient times;” properly, not δַ ?ζְ ?χַ ?πִ ?ιν but δχַּ ?γְ ?ξֹ ?πִ ?ιν, “priores,” those of old. Μαρτυρέω is “to testify,” “to bear witness,” absolutely; but it is generally used only in the better sense, “to give a good testimony,” “to approve by testimony,” “to adorn with a good testimony.” So is the passive, μαρτυρέομαι, used: which I observe only because the word is here used absolutely, ἐμαρτυρήζησαν, “were witnessed unto;” which we render,” obtained a good report.” So is it also used, Acts 6:3, ἄνδραςμαρτυρουμένους, “men witnessed unto,” “men of good report;” and Acts 10:22, μαρτυρούμενοιὑπὸὅλουτοῦἔθνους, “of good report;” and so in other places. “Were testified unto:” wherein and for what is not expressed; that we shall immediately inquire into. “There is a testimony extant concerning their faith,” as the Syriac reads it, doth not reach the sense of the place; for it intends not so much what good testimony they had, as the way whereby they obtained it, ᾿Ενταύτῃ for διὰταυτῆς, as is usual; “by it,” through it as the means and instrumental cause of it. Our Rhemists render the words somewhat in an uncouth manner, “for in it the old men obtained testimony;” as if it were on purpose to obscure the text.Hebrews 11:2. — For by it the elders obtained a good report: [or, were well testified unto.] The coherence of the words with the foregoing is expressed in the conjunctive particle γάρ, “for:” and it declares that a proof is tendered, by way of instance, of what was before asserted. ‘The nature and efficacy of faith is such as I have described; “for by it the elders,” etc.’This they could no way have done, but by that faith whereof these are the properties.Obs. 1. Instances or examples are the most powerful confirmations of practical truths.For the exposition of the words, it must be declared, 1. Who were the elders intended. 2. How they were testified unto, or from whom they obtained this testimony. 3. What it was that was testified concerning them. 4. On what account they had this testimony.1. Who these “elders” were is put beyond dispute by the ensuing discourse. All true believers from the foundation of the world, or the giving of the first promise, unto the end of the dispensation of the old testament, are intended; for in all sorts of them he giveth particular instances, from Abel unto those who suffered the last persecution that the church of the Jews underwent for religion, verses 36-38. What befell them afterward was judgment and punishment for sin, not persecution for religion. All these, by one general name, he calleth “the elders,” comprising all that went before them. ‘Thus was it constantly with all believers from the beginning of the world, — the elders, those who lived before us, in ancient times.’ 2. This testimony was given unto them in the Scripture; that is, it is so in particular of many of them, and of the rest in the general rules of it. It is the Holy Spirit in the Scripture that gives them this good testimony; for thereunto doth the apostle appeal for the proof of his assertion. In and from the world things were otherwise with them; none so defamed, so reproached, so reviled as they were. If they had had such a good report in the world, their example would not have been of use unto the apostle’s design; for he applies it unto them who were made a “gazing-stock, both by reproaches and afflictions,” Hebrews 10:33; and so it was with many of them, who yet obtained this testimony. They “had trial of cruel mockings,” etc., verses 36,37. Obs. 2. They who have a good testimony from God shall never want reproaches from the world.3. What was so testified of them is expressly declared afterwards; and this is, that they “pleased God,” or were accepted with him. The Holy Ghost in Scripture gives testimony unto them, that they pleased God, that they were righteous, that they were justified in the sight of God, verses 4-6, etc.4. That whereon this testimony was founded, is their “faith.” In, by, or through their believing it was, that they obtained this report. Many other great and excellent things, some heroic actions, some deep sufferings, are ascribed unto them, but their obtaining this testimony is assigned to faith alone; as for other reasons, so because all those other things were fruits of their faith, whose acceptance with God depended thereon. And we may observe, —Obs. 3. It is faith alone which from the beginning of the world (or from the giving of the first promise) was the means and way of obtaining acceptance with God. — There hath been great variety in the revelations of the object of this faith. The faith of some, as of Noah and some others, was principally and signally exercised on especial objects, as we shall see in our progress; but it is faith of the same nature and kind in all from first to last that gives acceptance with God. And all the promises of God, as branches of the first promise, are in general the formal object of it; that is, Christ in them, without faith in whom none was ever accepted with God, as we shall see. Obs. 4. The faith of true believers from the beginning of the world was fixed on things future, hoped for, and invisible; that is, eternal life “obtained a good report,” as the apostle here testifies. So vain is the imagination of them who affirm that all the promises under the old testament respected only things temporal; so making the whole church to have been Sadducees The contrary is here expressly affirmed by the apostle.Obs. 5. That faith whereby men please God acts itself in a fixed contemplation on things future and invisible, from whence it derives encouragement and strength to endure and abide firm in profession against all oppositions and persecutions. Obs. 6. However men may be despised, vilified, and reproached in the world, yet if they have faith, if they are true believers, they are accepted with God, and he will give them a good report. He enters on the confirmation and exemplification of his proposition by instances; first from an especial object of faith, and then proceeds unto the actings of it in them who by virtue of it did actually and really believe. The former he expresseth in this verse. Hebrews 11:3. — ΠίστεινοῦμενκατηρτίσθαιτοὺςαἰῶναςῥήματιΘεοῦ, εἰςτὸμὴἐκφαινομένωντὰβλεπόμεναγεγονέναι.Πίστει. Syr., αְּ ?δַ ?ιְ ?ξָ ?πεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “by faith.” So all others, “per fidem,” “by faith;” for being put absolutely, it denotes the instrumental cause. Νοοῦμεν, “intelligimus,” “we understand.” Νοέω is principally in the first place “to consider,” to agitate any thing in the mind; and consequently “to understand,” which is the end of that consideration.Κατρητίσθαι. Syr., γֶּ ?ΰϊְ ?ϊַ ?χַ ?πεּ, “were ordained, disposed, ordered.” Vulg. Lat., “aptata;” which the Rhemists render by “framed:” but “aptata” is more significant. Others, “aedificata, constructa, ornata, praeparata, creata, condita;” “built, made, adorned, prepared, created.” For the word signifies “so to make, or be made, as to be prepared, orderly disposed, and adorned.” The active is “to finish, to complete, to make a thing every way perfect.” In the New Testament it is most generally used for “to order, prepare, dispose, to set in order,” Matthew 4:21; Matthew 21:16; Luke 6:40; Romans 9:22; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:10. And it is the word used by our apostle to express the providing, making, or preparation of the body of Christ, Hebrews 10:5. See the exposition of that place.Τοὺςαἰῶνας. “secula,” “seculum,” “mundum;” “the worlds,” or “world.”Εἰςτὸμὴἐκφαινομένων. The Syriac, by transposing the words of this latter clause of the verse, makes the sense more plain, “that the things which are seen, were,” or “arose from things that are not seen.” Vulg. Lat., “ut ex invisibilibus visibilia fierent.” “That of invisible things visible things might be made,” Rhem., improperly; γεγονέναι is not “might be made,” but “were made;” and εἰςτό is as much as ὥστε, “so that.” The Arabic and Ethiopic wholly forsake the text, or sense of the words. Some render the words as if they were, εἰςτὸἐκμὴφαινομένων, by a transposition of the negative particle μή; and then the negative is to be referred unto φαινομένων, and not to γεγονέναι. In the latter way the sense is, as rendered in our translation, “the things that are seen were not made of the things that appear;” in the other it is, “the things that are seen were made of things that do not appear:” which may have an understanding coincident with the other. Τὰβλεπόμενα, “quae cernimus,” “quae cernuntur;” “which we see,”[3] “which are seen.” [3] VARIOUS READING. — Τὸβλεπόμενον is the reading of the best Mss. “The doctrine negatived is that which teaches that each successive condition of the universe is generated (γεγονέναι) from a preceding condition, (as the plant from the seed,) by a mere material development, which had no beginning in a Creator’s will.” — Conybeare and Howson. — ED. Hebrews 11:3. — By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God; so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.In this first instance of the power and efficacy of faith, the apostle hath respect unto the second clause of his general description of it, “the evidence of things not seen.” For although this world, and the things contained in it, are visible, and are here said to be seen, yet the original framing and making of them hath a principal place among things not seen. And to prove that faith hath a respect unto all unseen things as unseen, he gives an instance in that which was so long past as the creation of the world; all his other instances declare its efficacy in the prospect of unseen things that are future. 1. That which is here ascribed unto faith is, that it is the instrumental cause of it: “By faith.” And where faith is spoken of as the instrumental cause of any thing, it always takes in or includes its object as the principal cause of the same thing. So where it is said that we are “justified by faith,” it includes Christ and his righteousness as the principal cause of our justification; faith being only the instrument whereby we apprehend it. And here, where it is said that “by faith we understand that the worlds were framed,” it includes its object, namely, the divine revelation that is made thereof in the word of God. For there is no other way for faith to instruct us herein, or give us an understanding of it, but by its assent unto divine revelation. The revelation of it being made, faith is the only way and means whereby we understand it, and assent unto it. “By faith we understand;” that is, by faith we assent unto the divine revelation of it. The apostle lays here a good foundation of all his ensuing assertions: for if by faith we are assured of the creation of the world out of nothing, which is contrary to the most received principle of natural reason, “Ex nihilo nihil fit,” — “Nothing comes of nothing,” — it will bear us out in the belief of other things that seem impossible unto reason, if so be they are revealed. In particular, faith well fixed on the original of all things as made out of nothing, will bear us out in the belief of the final restitution of our bodies at the resurrection, which the apostle instanceth in as unto some of his worthies. 2. That which is ascribed unto faith subjectively, or unto its operation in our minds, is, that “by it we understand.” Upon a due consideration of what is proposed in divine revelation concerning this matter, we come not only to assent unto it as true, but to have a due comprehension of it in its cause, so as that we may be said to understand it. Wherefore, “understanding” here is not opposed only unto an utter nescience or ignorance hereof, but also unto that dark and confused apprehension of the creation of the world which some by the light of reason attained unto. Obs. 1. Those who firmly assent unto divine revelation, do understand the creation of the world, as to its truth, its season, its cause, its manner, and end. — Others do only think about it unsteadily and uncertainly. It was never determined among the ancient sages of the world, the pretended priests of the mysteries of reason. Some said one thing, and some another: some said it had a beginning, some said it had none; and some assigned such a beginning unto it, as it had been better it never had any. Nothing but an assent unto divine revelation can give us a clear understanding hereof. And, — Obs. 2. Then doth faith put forth its power in our minds in a due manner, when it gives us clear and distinct apprehensions of the things we do believe. Faith that gives not understanding, is but fancy.3. The object of this faith, materially considered, is “the worlds;” and of them three things are affirmed:(1.) That “they were framed.”(2.) By what means; “by the word of God.”(3.) In what manner; so as “that the things which are seen,” etc.The object of this faith is “the worlds:” for the exposition whereof, name and thing, I must refer the reader unto that of Heb 1:2. (1.) Of these worlds, that which we understand by faith is, that “they were framed.” The word here used doth nowhere signify the original production of any thing, but the ordering, disposing, fitting, perfecting, or adorning, of that which is produced. Nor is it anywhere applied to express the creation, or making of the world. Wherefore, although that be included herein (for that which is framed, fashioned, or fitted, must be first made or created), yet something more is intended; namely, the disposal of all created things into that beautiful order which we do behold. For the apostle hath especial respect unto the “things that are seen,” as they are orderly, beautiful, and glorious, setting forth the glory of Him by whom they were made; as Psalms 8:1; Psalms 8:3; Psalms 19:1-2; Romans 1:20. So it is said, that God “by his Spirit garnished the heavens,” Job 26:13, — that is, cast them into that curious, glorious frame which we behold; whence they are called “the work of his fingers,” Psalms 8, from a curious application of power in their frame and order. Hence he is said to “fashion” this work, Job 10:8, Psalms 119:73; that is, to give it shape and order. And the apostle hath in this word respect unto Genesis 2:1, ειλֻ ?μεּ, “the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished,” perfected, completely framed. Being originally, as unto the matter of them, created out of nothing, in the six days’work they were completely finished and perfected. And, — Obs. 3. As God’s first work was, so all his works shall be perfect. — He undertakes nothing but what he will finish and complete in beauty and order. And not only the original production of all things out of nothing, but the framing of them into their present order, is a demonstration of the eternal power of God. And because the apostle hath respect not merely unto the work of creation, but unto the perfecting and finishing of it in and upon the sixth day’s work, he ascribes the understanding of it unto faith alone. For although some few had notions of the original creation of all things by a divine power, yet none ever knew any thing of this framing of the world, or the reducing of the matter of it into perfect order, but by divine revelation only. So we understand it by faith. (2.) The efficient cause of this framing the worlds is the “word of God;” that exertion of his almighty power which was expressed by his word, ‘Let it be so and so,’which was the sign of it, and the indication of its exercise. And the apostle treating of the gradual fashioning of the world into its perfection, hath respect unto the repetition of that word in every day’s work, until the whole was accomplished. By this “word of God,” or by the divine power of God, whose gradual operation was signified by the repetition of that creating word, “the worlds were made.” And the ineffable facility of almighty power in the production of all things out of nothing, and the framing of them into their perfect state, is intimated in this expression, “He spake, and it was made; he commanded, and it stood fast.” It is alike easy to him to dispose of all things that are made. And so faith, as unto the disposal of all things by divine Providence, in times of greatest difficulties and insuperable obstacles, is secured by the consideration of the easy production of all things out of nothing by the same power. And this is that which the apostle intends to fix on the minds of believers in this fundamental instance of the work and effects of faith. But whereas that which he exhorts and encourages his Hebrews unto is a patient continuance in the profession of the gospel, against all difficulties and oppositions, giving them assurance that faith will enable them thereunto; this of its assent unto the creation of the world, a thing so long since past, doth not seem to be of any use or force unto these ends. For although we may believe the creation of the worlds by an act of divine power, yet it doth not seem to follow thence that faith will strengthen us, and make us victorious in our sufferings. But two things the apostle aims to evince herein, which are eminently suited unto this design: [1. That “faith is the evidence of things not seen;” thereby to call the Hebrews unto the consideration of its proper object, whereon when it is duly fixed it will carry them comfortably through all their difficulties. [2. That they might know how easy it is with God to help, relieve, and deliver them, by changing the nature of all things at his pleasure, who by his word, through an almighty facility, erected and perfected the worlds. And this consideration doth God himself frequently propose for the confirmation of the faith of the church in all their troubles, Isaiah 40:28; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13. (3.) The way whereby the worlds were thus framed, is declared in the latter part of the verse: “So that things which are seen,” etc.[1. The subject spoken of is τὰβλεπόμενα, “things that are seen.” This is not of the same extent with the τοὺςαἰῶνας, “the worlds,” which were framed; for they comprise all things visible and invisible, in heaven and earth, Colossians 1:16. But the apostle restrains the subject spoken of unto those things which are the objects of our senses, and our reason working by them; — these aspectable heavens and the earth, with all their host and ornaments; for these are they that in the first place and immediately “declare the glory of God,” Psalms 8, 19; Romans 1:20. All things that are seen, or that may be seen; the heavenly orbs with all their glorious luminaries, the earth with all that is on it and in it, the sea with all its fullness; all these things that are seen by us, by any of mankind, or that may be so, with these things, their greatness, their glory, their order, their use, the minds of men are and ought to be affected.[2. Of these things it is affirmed, that they “were not made of things which do appear.” “Made” they were, but “not of things which do appear;” which seems to be a negation of any pre-existing material cause. Some, as was observed, by the transposition of the negative particle, read the words, “were made of things that do not appear;” that is, they were made by the invisible power of God. So it answers unto that of the same apostle, Romans 1:20, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” These visible things were made by those which are invisible, even the eternal power and wisdom of God. And this sense I would embrace, if the phrase ἐκφαινομένων would bear it, which seems rather to respect the material than the efficient cause. But we may observe, —1st. That φαινόμενα are things that “appear clearly, illustriously,” in their shape and order.2dly. That the apostle doth not speak absolutely of the first original production of all things out of nothing, but of the forming, framing, and fashioning of all things into their proper state and order, — called the “finishing of the heavens and the earth, with their host,” or order and ornaments.3dly. There is therefore in the words,(1st.) A negation of any pre-existing material cause unto the creation of these worlds:(2dly.) An assignation of the only efficient cause of it, which is the power of God; which things are rather supposed than asserted in the words: (3dly.) Respect unto the order of the creation of all things, in bringing them unto their perfection. Now this was, that all the things which we now behold, in their order, glory, and beauty, did arise or were made by the power of God, out of that chaos, or confused mass of substance, which was itself first made and produced out of nothing, having no cause but the efficiency of divine power. For hereof it is said, that it “was without form, and void, and darkness was upon it,” Genesis 1:2; — that is, though absolutely, as a material substance, it was visible, yet it did not appear conspicuously in any shape or form, — it was “void, and without form;” no such things at all appeared as the things which we now behold, that were made out of it by the power of God. Wherefore in these words, which have much of obscurity and difficulty in them, the apostle doth both intimate the original production of all things out of nothing by the efficacy of divine power, and the making or framing of all things as they are in beauty and order to be seen, out of that unaspectable, unappearing matter which was first made out of nothing, and covered with darkness until it was disposed into order. The understanding hereof we have by faith alone, from divine revelation.: Nothing of the order of the creation can be known or understood any other way. And this the apostle intimates in these particles εἰςτό, that is, ὥστε, “so that.” ‘By faith alone we understand that the worlds were made; namely, “so as that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” And, — Obs. 4. The aids of reason, with the due consideration of the nature, use, and end of all things, ought to be admitted of, to confirm our minds in the persuasion of the original creation of all things; yet are they not to be rested in, but we must betake ourselves unto faith fixed on divine revelation. For,(1.) If they are alone they will be often shaken with a contrary rational maxim, namely, “Ex nihilo nihil fit.”(2.) They can give us re light into the way and manner of the creation of all things, which faith alone discovers. From the proposition of the nature of faith in general, and a declaration of its efficacy with respect unto things believed, the apostle proceeds to give instances of its power and efficacy in particular persons, whose example in believing he proposeth unto the Hebrews for their encouragement. And he begins with Abel, suitably on all accounts unto his design. For, 1. He was the first whose faith is expressly recorded and commended in the Scripture, and so meet to be mentioned in the first place. He was the first in the distribution of the ages of the church that he makes.2. He was the first that expressed his faith in duties of worship, or made public, solemn profession thereof, — the duty which he calls the Hebrews unto.3. He was the first that suffered in the cause of Christ, or for a testimony given unto faith in him.4. He suffered the utmost of what any among them could fear, even death itself, by the shedding of his blood; which they had not yet undergone, — they had “not yet resisted unto blood.” Wherefore on all accounts this was the meetest instance to begin withal, wherein his whole cause and argument, in all the parts of it, is confirmed.Hebrews 11:4.— Πίστειπλείοναθυσίαν῎ΑβελπαρὰΚάϊνπροσήνεγκετῷΘεῷ, δι᾿ἧςἐμαρτυρήθηει῏ναιδίκαιος, μαρτυροῦντοςἐπὶτοὶςδώροιςαὐτοῦτοῦΘεοῦκαὶδι᾿ ?[4] αὐτῆςἀποθανὼνἔτιλαλεῖται. [4] VARIOUS READING. — There is a great preponderance of critical authority in favor of λαλεῖ, — Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Ebrard in confirmation of this reading refers to Hebrews 12:24, as somewhat parallel, and remarks that Cain “is spoken of” as well as Abel, so that to read λαλεῖται would express no distinction. — ED. Πλείοναθυσίαν. Vulg. Lat., “plurimam hostiam;” using a word in the superlative degree, because “plurem” in the comparative is not usual. “A greater host,” say the Rhemists, attending to the first signification of the word, but forsaking its sense. The Syriac, γֶּ ?αְ ?ηָ ?ϊָ ?ΰγַּ ?ξְ ?ιַ ?ϊְּ ?ΰָּ ?ΰθָ ?α, “a sacrifice more (far more) excellent,” or “precious.” “Hostiam majoris pretii,” Beza; “a sacrifice of more worth” or “value,” referring it to the matter of the sacrifice. “Gratiorem,” “more acceptable.”᾿Εμαρτυρήθη. Vulg. Lat., “testimonium consecutus est;” “he obtained testimony.” Syr., δֲ ?εָ ?ϊςֲ ?μַ ?εְ ?δִ ?ιρָ ?δֲ ?γεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “there is extant (recorded) concerning him a testimony.” “Testimonium obtinuit,” “testimonio est ornatus;” he “obtained witness,” he was “adorned with this testimony.” See of the word, verse 2. ᾿Επὶτοῖςδώροιςαὐτοῦ, “muneribus ejus,” “de donis ejus.” Syr., χιּ ?εְ ?αָּ ?πֵ ?δּ ςμ, “concerning his offering,” “the sacrifice that he offered.” Hebrews 11:4. — By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent [acceptable] sacrifice than Cain; by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of [unto or concerning] his gifts; and by it he being dead yet speaketh, [or is spoken of].1. The person instanced in is Abel, the second son of Adam, and first son of the promise, and that under the considerations mentioned before. 2. It is affirmed of him, that he “offered sacrifice unto God.”3. The manner of it is declared in comparison with that of Cain; he “offered a more excellent sacrifice.” 4. Hereon there was with respect unto him a double consequent:(1) When he was alive, that “he obtained witness that he was righteous;”(2.) When he was dead, that “he yet speaketh.” 1. The person instanced in is Abel; he who was without example, without outward encouragement, without any visible theater, without any witness of his sufferings to transmit them unto others, but God alone; the first in the world who suffered death in the cause of Christ and his worship. And this he did from his own brother, from one that joined with him in the outward acts of divine worship; to give an example of the two churches, the suffering and the persecuting, to the end of the world. This hath made him famous in all generations; which, as Chrysostom thinks, is intended in the last clause of the words, ἔτιλαλεῖται, “he is yet spoken of;” that is, with fame and renown.Obs. 1. Every circumstance in suffering shall add to the glory of the sufferer; and those who suffer here for Christ without witness, as many have done to death in prisons and dungeons, have yet an all- seeing Witness to give them testimony in due season. — “The righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance;” and nothing that is done or suffered for God shall be lost for ever. sacrifice to God,” and that he did it “by faith:’An account hereof is given us, Genesis 4:3-5, which the apostle hath respect unto. And it is there declared, —(1.) What time he offered this sacrifice; it was ξִ ?χֵּ ?φιַ ?ξִ ?ιν“after the expiration of some time” or days, namely, after he and Cain were settled in their distinct callings, verse 3. Until then they had been under the instruction of their parents; but being now fixed in their own peculiar stations and callings, they made their distinct solemn profession of the worship of God; which is the sense of the place, though not observed by any expositors.(2.) The matter of his offering was “the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof.”[1. It was of living creatures, and therefore was made by mactation, or the shedding of blood; whence the apostle calls it θυσία, “a sacrifice by mactation;” ζֶ ?αַ ?η, though in the text it comes under the name of ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ, which he renders by δώρον, “a gift.”[2. It was of the best.1st. Whilst they were alive, “the firstlings of the flock;” which God afterwards took as his portion, Exodus 13:12. 2dly. When it was dead, it was of “the fat of them;” which God also claimed as his own, Leviticus 3:16; Leviticus 7:25; — that is, the fat of those firstlings.For his sacrifice was a holocaust, wherein, after the blood was shed at the altar, and offered unto God, the fat was burned on the altar, and the whole body at a distance from it it appears, therefore, that the sacrifice of Abel was, as unto the matter of it, both in itself and in God’s esteem, of the most precious and valuable things in the whole creation, subject unto man and his use. And even hence it may be called πλείοναθυσίανπαρὰΚάϊν, “a more excellent sacrifice than that of Cain,” which was only “of the fruit of the ground,” and that, it may be, gathered “raptim,” — without choice or judgment of what was most meet to be offered unto God. And it is for ever dedicated as a rule for the church in all ages, that, — that is in our power, with the best of our spiritual abilities; which God afterwards fully confirmed. (3.) And he offered this sacrifice “to God,” τῷΘεῷ, μιδָֹ ?εδ, Genesis 4:3. This was, from the first institution of it, the highest and most peculiar way of owning and paying homage unto the Divine Being. Unto whomsoever sacrifice is offered, he is owned as God. And therefore when the Gentiles sacrificed to the devil, as they did, 1 Corinthians 10:20, they owned him thereby as “the god of this world,” 2 Corinthians 4:4. And there are many superstitious observances in the Papacy that intrench on this idolatry.(4.) He offered it “by faith.” Now faith herein respects,[1. The institution of the worship; and, [2. The heart or mind of the worshippers. [1. He did it by faith, because he had respect in what he did unto God’s institution, which consists of a command and a promise, which faith hath regard unto. It was not a service that he himself invented; for if it were, he could not have performed it in faith, unto whose formal nature it belongs to respect a divine command and promise. [2. He did it in faith, in that he did it in the exercise of saving faith in God therein. He did it not hypocritically, he did it not in a mere attendance unto the outward duty; but it was kindled in his own heart by the Holy Spirit, before it was fired on the altar from heaven. For, — Obs. 3. God gives no consequential approbation of any duties of believers, but where the principle of a living faith goes previously in their performance.3. It is observed by the apostle, that he thus offered “a better, a choicer, a more excellent sacrifice than Cain;” for the “plurimam” of the Vulgar Latin is not capable of any good interpretation. And the reason whence it was so must be inquired into. And, —(1.) We observed before, that as to the matter of it, it was better, more valuable and precious, than that of Cain. But this is not a sufficient cause of ascribing such an excellency and preference unto it, as that on the account thereof Abel should obtain such acceptance with God, and a testimony from him. “Firstlings of the flock, and their fat,” were better than ordinary “fruits of the ground;” but yet not so as to constitute such a difference. Besides, the design of the apostle is to declare the efficacy and prevalency of faith, and not of any especial kind of sacrifices. Wherefore δι᾿ἧς, “for which,” or “whereby,” in the next words, is to be referred unto πίστει, “faith,” and not unto θυσίαν, or “sacrifice,” though that be the next antecedent. Wherefore, —(2.) This difference was from his faith. And two things did depend thereon:[1. That his person was justified in the sight of God antecedently unto his sacrifice, as we shall see immediately. [2. On the account thereof his sacrifice was grateful and acceptable unto God, as is commonly observed from the order of the words, “The LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.” But yet it is not evident where the great difference lay. For Cain also no doubt brought his offering in faith: for he believed the being of God, that God is, with his omnipotent power in the creation of the world, as also his government of it with rewards and punishments; for all this he professed in the sacred offering that he brought unto the Lord. And it is a vain fancy of the Targumist, who introduceth Cain and Abel disputing about these things, and Cain denying them all: for he made profession of them all in his offering or sacrifice. Wherefore it is certain that the faith of Abel and Cain differed, as in their especial nature, so in their acts and objects. For, — (1.) Cain considered God only as a creator and preserver, whereon he offered the fruits of the earth, as an acknowledgment that all these things were made, preserved, and bestowed on man, by him; but he had no respect unto sin, or the way of deliverance from it revealed in the first promise. The faith of Abel was fixed on God, not only as a creator, but as redeemer also; as him who, in infinite wisdom and grace, had appointed the way of redemption by sacrifice and atonement intimated in the first promise. Wherefore his faith was accompanied with a sense of sin and guilt, with his lost condition by the fall, and a trust in the way of redemption and recovery which God had provided. And this he testified in the kind of his sacrifice, which was by death and blood; in the one owning the death which himself by reason of sin was obnoxious unto; in the other the way of atonement, which was to be by blood, the blood of the promised Seed. (2.) They differed in their especial nature and acts. For the faith of Abel was saving, justifying, a principle of holy obedience, an effect of the Holy Spirit in his mind and heart: that of Cain was a naked, barren assent unto the truths before mentioned, which is usually described under the name of a common and temporary faith; which is evident from the event, in that God never accepted his person nor his offerings. And these are the things which still make the hidden difference between the professors of the same faith and worship in general, whereof God alone is the judge, approving some, and rejecting others. So from the foundation of the world there was provision laid in to warn the church in all ages, that the performance of the outward duties of divine worship is not the rule of the acceptance of men’s persons with God. A distinction is made from the inward principle whence those duties do proceed. Yet will not the world receive the warning unto this day. Nothing is of a higher provocation, than that the same duty should be accepted in some, and rejected in others, and that because the persons of the one are accepted, and not of the other. Many have no greater quarrel at religion, than that God had respect unto Abel and his offering, and not to Cain and his. 4. As to the consequences of Abel’s faith, —The first consequent of this efficacy of faith in Abel is, that “he obtained witness that he was righteous.” “By which;” that is, by which faith, as we showed before. “He was testified unto;” “he obtained witness;” — that is, from God himself. And this was so famous in the church, that he seems commonly to be called by that name, “the righteous Abel;” as he is by our Savior, speaking of him, Matthew 23:35. But we do not find any such testimony in express words given unto him in the Scripture. Wherefore the apostle proves his assertion by that wherein such a testimony is virtually contained. “For God,” saith he, “testified unto his gifts;” wherein he allegeth those words in Moses, “The LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.” He testified, in the approbation of his offering, that he had respect unto his person: that is, that he judged, esteemed, and accounted him righteous; for otherwise God is no respecter of persons. Whomsoever God accepts or respects, he testifieth him to be righteous; that is, to be justified, and freely accepted with him. This Abel was by faith antecedently unto his offering. He was not made righteous, he was not justified by his sacrifice; but therein he showed his faith by his works: and God by acceptance of his works of obedience justified him, as Abraham was justified by works; namely, declaratively; he declared him so to be. Obs. 4. Our persons must be first justified, before our works of obedience can be accepted with God; for by that acceptance he testifies that we are righteous.By what way God gave this testimony unto the gifts or sacrifice of Abel, is not expressed. Most do judge that it was by causing fire to fall from heaven to kindle and consume his sacrifice on the altar. Certain it is that it was by some such assured token and pledge, as whereby his own faith was strengthened, and Cain provoked. For God did that with respect unto him and his offering which he did not towards Cain and his; whereby both of them knew how things stood between God and them. As Esau knew that Jacob had gotten the blessing, which made him resolve to kill him; so Cain knew that Abel and his offering were accepted with God, whereon he slew him. And here we have the prototype of the believing and malignant churches in all ages; — of them who, under the profession of religion, are “born after the Spirit,” or after the promise; and those that are “born after the flesh” only. Then that began which the apostle affirms still to continue: “He that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit; even so it is now,” Galatians 4:29. This was the first public, visible acting of the enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent; for “Cain was of the wicked one” (the seed of the serpent), “and slew his brother,” 1 John 3:12. And a pledge or representation it was of the death of Christ himself from the same principle. And it being the first instance, and consequently the pattern and example of the two seeds in all ages, we may give a brief account of it.(1.) The foundation of the difference lay in their inward different principles. The one was a true believer, born of the Spirit, and heir of the promise; the other was of the evil one, under the power of the principles of sin and malice. Yet notwithstanding these different internal principles, they lived together for a season in outward peace, as believers and unbelievers may do, and as yet do.(2.) The occasion of acting this enmity in Cain, was the visible worship of God. Until that was undertaken and engaged in, he carried things quietly with his brother; as others walking in his way and spirit continue to do. But from hence, on many accounts, they take occasion to act their enmity. (3.) In this public worship Abel attended diligently unto the mind of God and conduct of faith, as we have showed; Cain trusted unto the formality of the outward work, without much regard to either of them. And there is nothing wherein true believers do more carefully act faith according to the mind of God than in his solemn worship, according to the example of Abel, others adhering for the most part unto their own inventions.(4.) Hereon God manifested his approbation of the one and his disapprobation of the other; which provoked Cain to exercise his rage and malice unto the death of his brother. Their worship was different in the matter and manner of it. This provoked not Cain; he liked his own way better than his brother’s. But when there was testimony given of God’s acceptance of his brother and his worship, with a disapprobation of him and his, this he would revenge with the blood of his brother. God did not afterwards continue to give, nor doth he now give, any outward testimony of the approbation of one, and the disapprobation of another. Howbeit, a secret sense and fear hereof ariseth in the hearts of evil men, whence Satan fills them with envy and malice, and stirs them up unto persecution. For in themselves they find nothing of that spiritual advantage and refreshment which ariseth in the true worship of God unto sincere believers. And they on the other side do openly avow such a satisfaction in an apprehension of God’s acceptance of them, as that they can undergo any persecutions on the account thereof. This provokes the world; this was the rise, this is the progress of persecution. And we may learn, — Obs. 5. That those whom God approves must expect that the world will disapprove them, and ruin them if it can.Obs. 6. Where there is a difference within, in the hearts of men, on the account of faith and the want of it, there will for the most part be unavoidable differences about outward worship. So there hath been always between the true church and false worshippers.Obs. 7. God’s approbation is an abundant recompence for the loss of our lives. All which are plain in this instance of Abel.The second consequent of the efficacy of the faith of Abel, was after his death: “And by it he being dead yet speaketh.” “By it;” — that is, by the same faith; by the means of that faith that was the ground of his acceptance with God, whereon that which is ascribed unto his faith doth depend. And this is, that “he, being dead, yet speaketh.” Λαλεῖται, being of a middle form, may be rendered either “he speaketh,” or “he is spoken of.” And accordingly this expression is variously interpreted. Some take it for the good fame and report that Abel had in all generations; he was celebrated, well spoken of, and yet continueth so to be. And this way the word is applied by most of the ancients. But it is not according to the mind of the apostle. For,(1.) It is evident that he ascribes something peculiar unto Abel, wherein others were not to be joined with him; but this of a good report is not so, but common to him with Noah, Abraham, and all the patriarchs, — they were spoken of, and their praise celebrated in the church no less than Abel’s.(2.) The apostle plainly proceeds in representing the story concerning him, and what fell out after his death, as expressed in the words of God himself, Genesis 4:10, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” This is the speaking of Abel after his death which is here intended; and this was peculiar unto him, it is not affirmed of any one besides in the Scripture.(3.) The apostle interprets himself, Hebrews 12:24, where he directly ascribes this speaking unto the blood of Abel, as we shall see on that place, if God permit.Obs. 8. There is a voice in all innocent blood shed by violence. — There is an appeal in it from the injustice and cruelty of men unto God as the righteous judge of all. And of all cries, God gives the most open evidence that he hears it, and admits of the appeal. Hence most murders committed secretly are discovered; and most of those that are openly perpetrated, are openly avenged sooner or later by God himself. For his honor and glory are concerned to appear, upon the appeal to his justice which is made by innocent blood. Especially he is so, when men, in taking away the lives of others, would entitle him unto it, by doing it under a pretense of judgment (which is his), — by wicked judges and false witnesses, as it was in the case of Naboth; which he will not bear withal. Wherefore this voice, this speaking of blood, ariseth from the eternal law which God hath given unto mankind for the preservation of life from violence, whereof he hath taken on himself the supreme conservation and guarantee, Genesis 9:5-6.But there is somewhat more in this speaking of the blood of Abel. For by the record of the Scripture God hath designed it unto other ends, in the way of an ordinance; as, (1.) That it should be a type of the future persecutions and sufferings of the church.(2.) That it might be a pledge of the certain vengeance that God will take in due time on all murderous persecutors. Abel, being dead, speaketh these words of our Savior, “Shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily,” Luke 18:7-8. (3.) That it might be instructive unto faith and patience in suffering, as an example approved of God, and giving evidence unto future rewards and punishments.And from this first instance the apostle hath given a mighty confirmation of his intention concerning the power and efficacy of faith, enabling men with blessed success to do and suffer according to the mind of God. For Abel did, by faith alone, 1. Obtain the blessing of the promise from his elder brother, as did Jacob afterwards.2. By it, as apprehending the promise, his person was justified and accepted with God.3. He was directed thereby to worship God, both as to matter and manner, according unto his own will.4. He had a divine testimony given both as unto his person as righteous, and his duties as accepted, to his unspeakable consolation.5. He had this honor, that God testified his respect unto him when he was dead, and made his blood as shed an ordinance unto the instruction of the church in all ages.From these considerations this example was of great force to convince the Hebrews, that if indeed they were true believers, as he supposed of them, Hebrews 10:39, that faith would safely carry them through all the difficulties they had to conflict withal in their profession, unto the glory of God and their own eternal salvation. And we may learn, that, — Obs. 9. Whatever troubles faith may engage us into in the profession of it, with obedience according to the mind of God, it will bring us safely off from them all at last (yea, though we should die in the cause), unto our eternal salvation and honor. His second instance is in Enoch; for he is the second man unto whom testimony is personally given that he “pleased God,” and was accepted with him. Others no doubt before him did so, and were so accepted; for he was “the seventh from Adam:” but as Abel was the first, so he is the second who was so peculiarly testified unto; and therefore the apostle instanceth in him in the second place, after Abel Hebrews 11:5. — Πίστει᾿Ενὼχμετετέθητοῦμὴἰδεῖνθάνατον, καὶοὐχεὐρίσκετο, διότιμετέθηκεναὐτὸνὁΘεόςπρὸγὰρτῆςμεταθέσεωςαὐτοῦμεμαρτύρηταιεὐηρεστηκέναιτῷΘεῷ.Hebrews 11:5. — By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.This Enoch hath a double testimony given unto him in the Scripture; one in the Old Testament, the other in the New. That in the Old Testament is unto his faith and holiness, Genesis 5. That in the New, is unto his being a prophet, and what he prophesied, Jude 1:14-15. But it is probable that all the holy fathers before the flood were prophets and preachers; as Enoch was a prophet, and Noah was a preacher of righteousness, 2 Peter 2:5. In their ministry did the Spirit of God strive with men; which at the flood he put an end unto, Genesis 6:3. Yea, by the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, 1 Peter 1:11, he preached repentance unto them, before they were cast into their eternal prison, 1 Peter 3:19. And these seem to have had a different ministry, for the declaration of the whole counsel of God. Noah was “a preacher of righteousness,” one that proposed the righteousness of God through the promise, to encourage men unto faith and repentance; as we say, a gospel-preacher. And Enoch preached the threatenings of the law, the future judgment, with the vengeance that would be taken on ungodly sinners, especially scoffers and persecutors; which is the substance of his prophecy or sermon recorded in the Epistle of Jude. And he seems to have given his name unto his son in a spirit of prophecy; for he called him ξְ ?ϊεּ ?ωָׁ ?μַ ?η, Genesis 5:21; — that is, “when he dieth,” there shall be a “dismission,” namely, of mankind from the earth; for he died just before the flood. The first of these testimonies the apostle here makes use of, and so expounds it as to take away sundry difficulties that in itself it is liable to. μָ ?χַ ?ηΰֹ ?ϊεֹ ΰַ ?μδִֹ ?ιν, “God took him;” which the author of the Book of Wisdom expounds in a severe sense, “God took him away, lest wickedness should alter his understanding,” Wis 4:11, groundlessly. The apostle renders it by “translated him;” that is, into a more blessed state. And εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ, “and he Was not,” which some of the Jews would have to intimate his death, the apostle renders by, “he was not found,” — that is, any more amongst men; and gives the reason of it, namely, “because God had translated him” into another world. And as unto what is affirmed in the story, that he “walked with God,” the apostle interprets it as a testimony that “he pleased God;” which makes plain the mind of the Holy Ghost in the words of Moses.Of this Enoch it is affirmed, 1. That he was “translated;”2. The end of that translation is declared, “that he should not see death;”3. The consequent of it, “he was not found;”4. The efficient cause of that translation, and the reason of that consequent, he was not found, “because God had translated him;”5. The means of this translation on his own part, it was “by faith;”6. The proof hereof, “for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God:” which must be opened briefly.1. It is affirmed of him that he was “translated;” translated out of one state and condition into another. There are but two states of good men, such as Enoch was, from first to last:(1.) The state of faith and obedience here in this world. This Enoch lived in three hundred years; so long he lived and “walked with God.” To “walk with God,” is to lead a life of faith in covenant obedience unto God ειִּ ?ϊְ ?δַ ?μֵ ?κְ, “he walked;” the same word whereby God prescribeth covenant obedience unto Abraham, δִ ?ϊְ ?δַ ?μֵ ?κְ μְ ?τָ ?πַ ?ι, Genesis 17:1. The word in both places, in the same conjugation of Hithpael, signifies a “continued walk up and down,” every way. So to walk with God, is in all our ways, actions, and duties, to have a continual regard unto God, by faith in him, dependence on him, and submission to him. This state Enoch had lived in and passed through. (2.) The other state is a blessedness in the enjoyment of God. No other state of good men is once intimated in the Scripture, or consistent with God’s covenant. Wherefore Enoch being translated from the one, was immediately instated in the other, as was Elijah afterwards.As unto any further conjectures of the particular place where, or condition wherein he is, the Scripture leaves no room for them; and those that have been made have been rash and foolish. Some things we may observe, to explain this translation. (1.) It was of the whole person, as unto state and condition. “Enoch was translated;” his whole person, soul and body, was taken out of one condition, and placed in another.(2.) Such a translation, without a dissolution of the person, is possible; for as it was afterwards actually made in Elijah, so the apostle intimates the desirable glory of it, 2 Corinthians 5:4, “We groan, not that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.”(3.) Unto this translation there is a change required, such as they shall have who will be found alive at the coming of Christ: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,” 1 Corinthians 15:51. The same change in the bodies of them that are translated as there is in those that are raised from the grave is necessary unto this translation. They must be made incorrupt, powerful, glorious, spiritual, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. So was it with the body of Enoch, by the power of God who translated him; his body was made in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, incorrupt, spiritual, immortal, meet for the blessed habitation above. So was Enoch translated. (4.) If any one shall ask why Enoch was not joined with Elijah, who was afterwards in like manner translated, at his appearance with the Lord Christ in his transfiguration, but Moses rather, who died, Matthew 17:3; I say, although I abhor all curiosities in sacred things, yet it seems to be agreeable unto the mind of God, that, — the discourse which they had then with the Lord Jesus Christ being about the accomplishment of the law in his death, as it was, — Moses who was the lawgiver, and Elijah the most zealous defender of it, should be employed in that service, and not Enoch, who was not concerned therein. 2. The next end of this translation was, “that he should not see death;” or this was the effect of it, that he should not die. Death being the great object of sensible consideration, it is expressed by words of sense, seeing it tasting it, and the like. And two things are intended herein:(1.)That this translation was without death, it was not by death. The Hebrew word μָ ?χַ ?η, “took,” “God took him,” Genesis 5:24, being applied unto his taking away a person by death, Ezekiel 24:16; Ezekiel 24:18, doth not necessarily prove that he died not. But it is here interpreted by the apostle that this taking away was by a translation from one state unto another, without the intervention of death.(2.) That, in a way of eminent grace and favor, he was freed from death. The great Lawgiver put in an exception unto the general sanction of the law, that all sinners should die: and this being in itself and its own nature penal, as also destructive of our present constitution, in the dissolution of soul and body, an exemption from it was a signal grace and favor.And this was a divine testimony that the body itself is also capable of eternal life. When all mankind saw that their bodies went into the dust and corruption universally, it was not easy for them to believe that they were capable of any other condition, but that the grave was to be their eternal habitation, according to the divine sentence on the entrance of sin, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” But herein God gave us a pledge and assurance that the body itself hath a capacity of eternal blessedness in heaven. But whereas this evidence of a capacity in the body to enjoy eternal life and blessedness was confined unto such as never died, it could not be a convincing pledge of the resurrection of bodies over which death once had a dominion. This, therefore, was reserved for the resurrection of Christ. 3. Another consequent of this translation is, that” he was not found.” In the text of Moses it is only εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ, “and he was not.” He went away, and was no more among men; as David expresseth his departure from among men, Psalms 39:13, αְּ ?θֶ ?ψֶ ?νΰֵ ?μֵ ?κְ εְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πִּ ?ι, — before I go away, and I be not;” that is, in this world any more. But in the exposition of the apostle something further is intimated. Enoch was the principal patriarch in the world, and besides, a great prophet and preacher. The eyes of all men about were upon him. How God “took him” is not declared. Whether there was any visible sign of it, as there was unto Elisha in the taking up of Elijah, 2 Kings 2:11, is uncertain. But doubtless, upon the disappearing of so great a person from the world, there was great inquiry after him. So when Elijah was taken up into heaven, though there was a visible sign of it, and his divine rapture was evident, yet the sons of the prophets, because of the rarity of the thing, would search whether he were not let down again on some mountain, or in some valley; “and they sought three days, and found him not,” 2 Kings 2:16-17. The apostle seems to intimate some such thing in the old world upon the disappearance of Enoch: they made great search after him, but “he was not found.” And therefore, — 4. He adds the reason why he could not be found on the earth, namely, “because God had translated him” into another state and condition. And herein he gives us the principal efficient cause of his translation; it was an act of God himself, namely, of his power, grace, and favor. And when he did no more appear (ΰֵ ?ιπֶ ?πּ ?εּ), when he was not found (οὐχεὐρίσκετο), this was that which all the godly were satisfied in, — it was because God had translated him; whereof there was such evidence as was sufficient security for their faith, although at present we know not what it was in particular. But the apostle doth not only declare the truth of the thing, but also that it was a matter known unto the church in those days; whereon its use did depend. 5. This the apostle (which was alone unto his present purpose), ascribes unto his faith: “By faith he was translated.” He was so,(1.)Not efficiently; faith was not the efficient cause of this translation; it was an immediate act of divine power.(2.) Not meritoriously; for it is recorded as an act of sovereign grace and favor. But,(3.) Instrumentally only, in that thereby he was brought into that state and condition, so accepted with God, as that he was capable of so great grace and favor. But his being made an instance of this divine grace, for the edification of the church in all ages, was an act of sovereignty alone.And this is peculiar unto these first two instances of the power of faith; that in the one it led him unto death, a bloody death; in the other it delivered him from death, that he did not die at all. In the field of conjectures used on this occasion, I judge it probable, (1.) That his rapture was visible, in the sight of many that feared God, who were to be witnesses of it unto the world, that it might be his ordinance for the conviction of sinners, and the strengthening of the faith of the church, as also an exposition of the first promise. (2.) That it was by the ministry of angels, as was that of Elijah.(3.) That he was carried immediately into heaven itself, and the presence of God therein (4.) That he was made partaker of all the glory which was allotted unto the heavenly state before the ascension of Christ; concerning which see our[5] discourse of the Person of Christ. [5] Vol. 1 of miscellaneous works. — ED. But, — Obs. 1. Whatever be the outward different events of faith in believers in this world, they are all alike accepted with God, approved by him, and shall all equally enjoy the eternal inheritance.Obs. 2. God can and doth put a great difference, as unto outward things, between such as are equally accepted before him. — Abel shall die, and Enoch shall be taken alive into heaven.I am fully satisfied, from the prophecy of Enoch, recorded by Jude, that he had a great contest with the world about faith, obedience, the worship of God, with the certainty of divine vengeance on ungodly sinners, with the eternal reward of the righteous. And as this contest for God against the world is exceeding acceptable unto him, as he manifested afterwards in his taking of Elijah to himself, who had managed it with a fiery zeal; so in this translation of Enoch upon the like contest, he visibly judged the cause on his side, confirming his ministry, to the strengthening of the faith of the church, and condemnation of the world. Wherefore, although it be a dream, that the two witnesses mentioned Revelation 11:3-5 are Enoch and Elias personally, yet because their ministry is to bear testimony for God and Christ against the world, thereby plaguing and tormenting the men that dwell on the earth, verse 10, as they also did, there may be an allusion unto them and their ministry. And whereas there are two ways of the confirmation of a ministry; first, By suffering, and that sometimes to death, as did Abel; and, secondly, By God’s visible owning of them, as he did Enoch: both these are to befall these two witnesses, who are first to be slain, and then taken up into heaven; first to suffer, and then to be exalted. Obs. 3. There is no such acceptable service unto God, none that he hath set such signal pledges of his favor upon, as zealously to contend against the world in giving witness to his ways, his worship, and his kingdom, or the rule of Christ over all. And, —Obs. 4. It is a part of our testimony, to declare and witness that vengeance is prepared for ungodly persecutors, and all sorts of impenitent sinners, however they are and may be provoked thereby.Obs. 5. The principal part of this testimony consists in our own personal obedience, or visible walking with God in holy obedience, according to the tenor of the covenant, 2 Peter 3:11; 2 Peter 3:14. And,— 6. This the apostle affirms of Enoch in the last place: “For before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”These words are an entrance into the proof of the apostle’s assertion, namely, that it was “by faith Enoch was translated;” which he pursues and confirms in the next verse. He was translated by faith; for before that translation he had that testimony. For it is said of him, that “he walked with God three hundred years;” after which he was translated. The apostle doth not say that this was testified of him before his translation, as signifying the time of the giving that testimony unto him; for it was not until many generations afterward: but this testimony, when given him, did concern the time before his translation, as it doth evidently, Genesis 5:22; Genesis 5:24.That of “walking with God,” in Moses, the apostle renders by “pleasing of God;” for this alone is well-pleasing to him. His pleasure, his delight is in them that fear him, that walk before him. And the apostle gives us the whole sense of the divine testimony, that he walked with God, namely, so as that his walk with God was well-pleasing unto him, — that it was accepted with him, and his person therein. And this also is peculiar unto these first two instances, that they had an especial testimony from God, as unto the acceptance of them and their services. So it is testified of Abel, that “the LORD had respect unto him and to his offering;” and of Enoch, that “he pleased God;” both of them being declared to be righteous by faith. And we may observe from the whole, that, — Obs. 6. It is an effect of divine wisdom, as to dispose the works of his providence and the accomplishment of his promises unto an ordinary established rule, declared in his word, which is the only guidance of faith; so sometimes to give extraordinary instances in each kind, both in a way of judgment and in a way of grace and favor. — Of the latter sort was the taking of Enoch into heaven; and of the former was the firing of Sodom and Gomorrah from heaven. Such extraordinary acts, either the wicked security of the world or the edification of the church doth sometimes make necessary.Obs. 7. Faith in God through Christ hath an efficacy in the procuring of such grace, mercy, and favor in particular, as it hath no ground in particular to believe. — Enoch was translated by faith; yet did not Enoch believe he should be translated, until he had a particular revelation of it.. So there are many particular mercies which faith hath no word of promise to mix itself withal, as unto their actual communication unto us; but yet, keeping itself within its bounds of trust and reliance on God, and acting by patience and prayer, it may be, and is, instrumental in the procurement of them. Obs. 8. They must walk with God here who design to live with him hereafter, or they must please God in this world who would be blessed with him in another.Obs. 9. That faith which can translate a man out of this world, can carry him through the difficulties which he may meet withal in the profession of faith and obedience in this world — Herein lies the apostle’s argument. And this latter, the Lord Jesus Christ hath determined to be the lot and portion of his disciples. So he testifies, John 17:15,“I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world; but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.”In these two instances of Abel and Enoch we have a representation of the state of the old world before the flood. There were two sorts of persons in it; — believers, and such as believed not. Among these there were differences about religion and the worship of God, as between Abel and Cain. Some of them were approved of God, and some were not. Hence arose persecution on the part of the world; and in the church, the wicked, scoffing, persecuting world, was threatened by predictions of judgments and divine vengeance to come, as they were in the preaching and prophecy of Enoch. God in the meantime exercised patience and long-suffering towards them that were disobedient, 1 Peter 3:20; yet not without some instances of his especial favor towards believers. And thus it is at this day. There being no direct mention made of faith in the testimony given unto Enoch, but only that by walking with God he pleased him, the apostle in this verse proves from thence that it was by faith that he so pleased God, and consequently that thereby he obtained his translation. Hebrews 11:6. — Χωρἰςδὲπίστεωςἀδύνατονεὐαρεστῆσαι·πιστεῦσαιγὰρδεὶτὸνπροσερχόμενοντῷΘεῷἐστὶ, καὶτοῖςἐκζητοῦσιναὐτόνμισθαποδότηςγίνεται.Εὐαρεστῆσαι. ΤῷΘεῷ is not in the original, but is in all the old translations, and is to be supplied. We add “him,” as contained in the word, and not as a supplement.Hebrews 11:6. — But without faith [it is] impossible to please him. For it behoveth him that cometh to God, to believe that he is [a God to him, or his God], and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.The assertion of the apostle whereon he builds his exhortation is, that Enoch was translated by faith. The proof of this assertion he expresseth in the way of a syllogistical argument. The proposition he lays down in the verse foregoing, Enoch had a divine testimony that he pleased God. The assumption consists in this sacred maxim, “Without faith it is impossible to please God:” whence the conclusion follows, by the interposition of another argument of the same kind, namely, that whereby Enoch pleased God, by that he was translated; for his translation was the consequent and effect of his pleasing God. And, thirdly, he gives an illustration and confirmation of his assumption, “For he that cometh to God,” etc. The adversative particle δέ, “but,” constitutes this form of argument, “He pleased God; but without faith it is impossible,” etc.1. In the proposition itself, the form and matter of it may be considered.(1.) As unto the form, there is a positive affirmation included in the negative: “Without ‘faith it is impossible to please God;” that is, faith is the only way and means whereby any one may please God. So χωρίς is frequently used to intimate the affirmation of the contrary unto what is denied. John 1:3, Χωρὶςαὐτοῦ, — “Without him nothing was made;” that is, ‘Every thing was made by him.’John 15:5, Χωρὶςἐμοῦ, — “Without me ye can do nothing;” that is, ‘By me, or my strength, ye must do all things.’Romans 10:14, “How shall they hear χωρὶςχηρύσσοντος;” — “without a preacher?” that is, ‘All hearing is by a preacher.’See Hebrews 7:20; Hebrews 9:7; Hebrews 9:18. Wherefore, “Without faith it is impossible to please God,” is the same with, ‘All pleasing of God is, and must be, by faith, it being impossible it should be otherwise.’And this sense of the words is necessary unto the argument of the apostle, which is to prove the power and efficacy of faith with respect unto our acceptation with God. (2.) As unto the matter of the proposition, that which is denied without faith, or that which is enclosed unto the sole agency of faith, is εὐαρεστῆσαι, “to please,” “placere,” “beneplacere.” The verb is used only in this epistle, in these two verses, and Hebrews 13:16, in the passive voice, “God is well-pleased;” “promeretur Deus,” Vulg. Lat., without any signification. The adjective, εὐάρεστος, is used frequently, and constantly applied unto persons or things that are accepted with God, Romans 12:1-2, 2 Corinthians 5:9; Ephesians 5:10; Philippians 4:18; Colossians 3:20. Three things are here included in it:[1. That the person be accepted with God, that God be well-pleased with him. [2. That his duties do please God, that he is well-pleased with them, as he was with the gifts of Abel and the obedience of Enoch. So Hebrews 13:16. [3. That such a person have testimony that he is righteous, just or justified, as Abel and Enoch had, and as all true believers have in the Scripture. This is that pleasing, of God which is enclosed unto faith alone. Otherwise there may be many acts and duties which may be materially such as God is pleased with, and which he will reward in this world, without faith: such was the destruction of the house of Ahab by Jehu. But the pleasing of God under consideration includes the acceptance with God of the person and his duties, or his justification before him. And this regulates the sense of the last clause of the verse. Our coming unto God, and believing in him, must be interpreted with respect unto this well-pleasing of him. This is so by faith, as that without it is “impossible.” Many in all ages have attempted thus to please God without faith, and yet continue so to do. Cain began it. His design in his offering was to please God; but he did it not in faith, and failed in his design. And this is the great difference always in the visible church. All in their divine worship profess a desire to please God, and hope that so they shall do, — to what purpose else was it to serve him? — but, as our apostle speaks, many of them seek it not by faith, but by their own works and duties which they do and perform, Romans 9:32. Those alone attain their end who seek it by faith. And therefore God frequently rejects the greatest multiplication of duties, where faith is wanting, Isaiah 1:11-15, Psalms 40.2. Wherefore, saith the apostle, this is a fundamental maxim of religion, namely, ‘It is impossible to please God any other way but by faith.’Let men desire, design, and aim at it whilst they please, they shall never attain unto it. And it is so impossible,(1.) From divine constitution. Hereunto the Scripture bears testimony from first to last, namely, that none can, that none shall, ever please God but by faith, as our apostle pleads at large, Romans 3:5.(2.) From the nature of the thing itself, faith being the first regular motion of the soul towards God, as we shall see immediately.Howbeit the contrary apprehension, namely, that men by their works and duties may please God without faith, as well as by faith, or in the same manner as with faith, is so deeply fixed in the minds of men, as that it hath produced various evil consequences. For, — (1.) Some have disputed with God himself, as if he dealt not equally and justly with them, when he was not well pleased with their duties, nor accepted themselves. Cain was so, being thereon not more wrathful with his brother than with God himself, as is plain in the rebuke given unto him, Genesis 4:5-7. So did the Jews frequently: “Wherefore have we fasted, and thou seest not?” Isaiah 58:3. And so it is with all hypocrites unto this day: should they at any time be convinced that God is not pleased either with their persons or their duties, especially the duties of religious worship which they perform unto him, — which they judge to be every whit as good as theirs who are accepted, — they are angry in their hearts with God himself, and judge that he deals not well with them at all. (2.) This is that which keeps up hatred, feuds, and persecutions, in the visible church. The greatest part generally are contented with the outward performance of duties, not doubting but that by them they shall please God. But when they find others professing that the sincerity of saving faith, and that working, in serious repentance, and universal obedience unto God, are necessary unto this pleasing of God, whereby their duties are condemned, their countenances fall, and they are full of wrath, and are ready even to slay their brethren. There is the same difference, the same grounds and reasons of it, between true believers and persecuting hypocrites still, as was between Abel and Cain. All profess a design to please God, as they both did; all perform the same outward duties, the one commonly more attending unto the rule of them than the other, as they did: but the one sort plead a secret interest in divine favor and acceptation by faith, that is invisible; the other trust unto their outward works; whence an endless difference doth arise between them. (3.) This hath been the foundation of all superstition in divine worship. For a secret apprehension that God was to be pleased with outward works and duties, as Cain thought, was the reason of the multiplication of innumerable rites and ceremonies in divine service; of all the masses, purgatories, pilgrimages, vows, disciplines, idolatries, that constitute the Roman church. They were all found out in answer unto the inquiry made, Micah 6:6-7, “Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” Hence one pretended duty, that shall have something to commend it, as its charge, its difficulty, or its beauty as it is adorned, must be added unto another; — all to please God without faith. (4.) This hath stirred up and maintained innumerable controversies in the church in all ages. Some openly contend that this pleasing of God is the fruit of the merit of our own works, and is not attained by faith. And others endlessly contend to bring our works and duties into the same order and causality, as unto our acceptance before God, with faith itself; and think it as true. as unto the end of the apostle’s discourse, — namely, our pleasing of God and being accepted with him, — that without our works it is impossible to please God, as it is that without faith it is impossible to please him: which is to overthrow both his argument and design. Wherefore, unless we hold fast this truth, namely, that whatever be the necessity of other graces and duties, yet it is faith alone whereby we please God, and obtain acceptance with him, we condemn the generation of the righteous in their cause from the foundation of the world, take part with Cain against Abel, and forego our testimony unto the righteousness of God in Christ. And, — Obs. 1. Where God hath put an impossibility upon any thing, it is in vain for men to attempt it. From the days of Cain multitudes have been designing to please God without faith, — all in vain; like them that would have built a tower whose top should reach to heaven. And, —Obs. 2. It is of the highest importance to examine well into the sincerity of our faith, whether it be of the true kind or no, seeing thereon depends the acceptance of our persons and all our duties. None ever thought that God was to be pleased without any faith at all; the very design of pleasing him avows some kind of faith: but that especial kind of faith whereby we may be justified, they regard not. Of these things I have treated fully in my book of[6] Justification. [6] See miscellaneous works, volume 5. — ED. 3. Of this assertion the apostle gives a further confirmation or illustration, by showing the necessity of faith unto acceptance with God. And this he doth by declaring the duty of every one that would be so accepted: “For it behoveth him that cometh unto God to believe,” etc. Wherein we have,(1.) The assertion of the duty prescribed; “It behoveth him,” or he must.(2.) The subject spoken of; which is, “he that cometh unto God.”(3.) the duty prescribed; which is, to “believe.”[1. That “God is;” [2. That “he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” That he gives a reason and proof of what he had before asserted is declared in the illative conjunction, “for:” This makes the truth herein manifest. (1.) He makes application of his assertion to every one concerned in particular in a way of duty. ‘Whoever he be that hath this design to come to God, and to be accepted with him, he ought, he must do so. This is his duty, from which no one living shall have an exemption.’(2.) The subject spoken of is, “He that cometh unto God.” Προσέρχομαι in general signifies any access, or coming to any person or thing; nor is it used in a sacred sense anywhere in the New Testament but only in this epistle, and 1 Peter 2:4. But the simple verb, ἔρχομαι, is frequently so used. And this coming unto God signifies in particular an access or approach unto him in sacred worship. See Hebrews 10:1, with the exposition. But in general, as in this place, and 1 Peter 2:4, it denotes an access of the person into the favor of God, including the particular addresses unto him with his duties. We must therefore inquire what it is thus to come to God, and what is required thereunto; that we may understand what it is that the apostle makes believing so necessary unto, and whereby he proves that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” And, —[1. There is required thereunto a previous sense of a wanting, lost condition in ourselves, by a distance from God. No man designs to come to God but it is for relief, satisfaction, and rest. It must be out of an apprehension that he is yet at such a distance from God as not to be capable of relief or rest from him; and that in this distance he is in a condition indigent and miserable; as also that there is relief and rest for him in God. Without these apprehensions no man will ever engage in a design to come unto God, as having no reason for it nor end in it. And this can be wrought in none sincerely but by faith. All other powers and faculties in the souls of men, without faith, do incline and direct them to look for rest and satisfaction in themselves. This was the highest notion of those philosophers who raised human wisdom into an admiration, namely, the Stoics, “That every one was to seek for all rest and satisfaction in himself, and in nothing else;” and so they came at length expressly to make every man a god to himself. Faith alone is the gracious power which takes us off from all confidence in ourselves, and directs us to look for all in another; that is, in God himself. And therefore it must see that in God which is suited to give relief in this condition. And this is contained in the object of it as here proposed, as we shall see. [2. There must antecedently hereunto be some encouragement given unto him that will come to God, and that from God himself. A discovery of our wants, indigence, and misery, makes it necessary that we should do so; but it gives no encouragement so to do, for it is accompanied with a discovery of our unworthiness so to do, and be accepted in doing it. Nor can any encouragement be taken from the consideration of the being of God, and his glorious excellencies absolutely; nor is that anywhere in the Scripture absolutely and in the first place proposed for our encouragement. This, therefore, can be nothing but his free, gracious promise to receive them that come unto him in a due manner; that is, by Christ, as the whole Scripture testifieth. For what some pretend concerning coining unto God by encouragements taken from general notions of his nature, and his works of creation and providence, without any promise, is an empty speculation; nor can they give any single instance of any one person that ever came to God, and found acceptance with him, without the encouragement of divine revelation, which hath in it the nature of a promise. Faith, therefore, is necessary unto this coming to God, because thereby alone we receive, lay hold of, embrace the promises, and are made partakers of them; which the apostle not only expressly affirmeth, but makes it his design to prove in a great part of the chapter, as we shall see. There is nothing, therefore, more fond, more foreign to the apostle’s intention, than what is here ignorantly and weakly by some pretended; namely, that faith here is nothing but an “assent unto the truth of the being of God, and his distribution of rewards and punishments,” without any respect unto the promise, that is, unto Christ and his mediation, as will yet further appear. Wherefore, — [3. To come to God, is to have an access into his favor, — to “please God,” as did Enoch; so to come as to be accepted with him. There may be a coming to God with our duties and services, as did Cain, when we are not accepted; but the apostle treats in this place only of an access with acceptance into his grace and favor, as is manifest from his instance, his design, and argument. (3.) For those that have this design, it is their duty to “believe.” This is the only way and means of attaining that end. Whence believing itself is often called coming to God, or coming to Christ, Isaiah 55:1; Isaiah 55:3; John 6:37; John 6:44; John 7:37. And it is by faith alone that we have an access into this grace, Romans 5:2; that is, whereby we thus come to God. (4.) The object of this faith, or what in this case we ought to believe, is twofold:[1. The being of God; “Believe that he is.” [2. His office; in that “he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” The Syriac translation seems to make but one entire object of faith in the words, namely, that God is a rewarder, referring both the verb ἔστι, and γίνεται, unto μισθαποδότης: as if it were said, “must believe that God is, and will be, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him,” — namely, in this world and hereafter also. But I shall follow the usual distinction of the words. [1. The first thing to be believed is, that “God is.” The expression seems to be imperfect, and something more is intended than the divine being absolutely, as, his God.The schoolmen, and sundry expositors on the place, as Catharinus, Salmeron, Tena, etc., dispute earnestly how the being of God, which is the object of natural science, seeing it may be known by the light of reason, can be proposed as the object of faith, which respects only things unseen, inevident, supernatural, made known by revelation only. And many distinctions they apply unto the solution of this difficulty. For my part, I no way doubt but the same thing or verity may on diverse respects be the object of reason and faith also. So is it when that which is consistent with reason, and in general discoverable by it, as the creation of the world, is more distinctly and clearly proposed unto faith by divine revelation; which doth not destroy the former assent on principles of reason, but confirms the mind in the persuasion of the same truth by a new evidence given unto it. But the apostle speaks not here of any such assent unto the truth of the being and existence of God as may be attained by reason or the light of nature; but that which is the pure object of faith, which the light of reason can no way reach unto. For that he treats of such things only, is evident from the description which he premiseth of the nature of faith, namely, that it is “the evidence of things not seen.” And it is such a believing of the being of God as gives encouragement to come unto him, that we who are sinners may find favor and acceptance with him. And that apprehension which men may have of the being of God by the light of nature, yea, and of his being a rewarder, Cain had, as we have showed; and yet he had no share in that faith which the apostle here requires. Wherefore it is evident, from the context, the circumstances of the subject-matter treated on, and the design of the apostle, that the being or existence of God proposed as the object of our faith, to be believed in a way of duty, is the divine nature with its glorious properties or perfections, as engaged and acting themselves in a way of giving rest, satisfaction, and blessedness, unto them that come unto him.When we are obliged to believe that he is, it is what he proposeth when he declareth himself by that name, I AM, Exodus 3:14; whereby he did not only signify his existence absolutely, but that he so was, as that he would actually give existence and accomplishment unto all his promises unto the church. So when he revealed himself unto Abraham by the name of “Almighty God,” Genesis 17:1, he was not obliged to believe only his “eternal power and Godhead,” which are intelligible by the light of nature, Romans 1:20, but also that he would be so unto him, in exerting his almighty power on his behalf; whereon he requires of him that he should “walk before him and be perfect.” Wherefore the believing that God is, “I AM,” the “Almighty God,” is to believe him as our God in covenant, exercising the holy properties of his nature, his power, wisdom, goodness, grace, and the like, in a way of giving rest and blessedness unto our souls. For all this he required Abraham to believe, as the ground of the covenant on his part; whereon he requires universal obedience from him.To suppose that the apostle intends by that faith whereby we may come to God, and find acceptance with him, nothing but an assent unto the being of God absolutely considered, which is altogether fruitless in the generality of mankind, is a vain notion, unsuited unto his design. Wherefore, — Obs. 3. God himself, in his self-sufficiency and his all-sufficiency, meet to act towards poor sinners in a way of bounty, is the first motive or encouragement unto, and the last object of faith. See Isaiah 50:10; 1 Peter 1:21.[2. The second thing which, in order unto the same end of acceptance with God, we are required to believe, is, “that he is, or will be, “a rewarder of them that diligently seek him;” that is, he will act in all things towards them suitably unto the proposal which he makes of himself unto faith when he says, “I AM,” and “I am God Almighty,” or the like. Two things may be considered in this object of faith: 1st. The assertion of the truth itself; “God is a rewarder.”2dly. The limitation of the exercise of that property as unto its object; unto “them that diligently seek him.”And this limitation wholly excludes the general notion, of believing in rewards and punishments from God, present and future, from being here intended; for it is confined only unto the goodness and bounty of God towards believers, — “those that seek him.” His dealing with them is not exactly according unto distributive justice with respect unto themselves, but in a way of mercy, grace, and bounty. For “the reward is of grace, and not of works.” 1st. That which these words of the apostle have respect unto, and which is the ground of the faith here required, is contained in the revelation that God made of himself unto Abraham, Genesis 15:1, “Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” God is so a rewarder unto them that seek him, as that he himself is their reward; which eternally excludes all thoughts of merit in them that are so rewarded. Who can merit God to be his reward? Rewarding in God, especially where he himself is the reward, is an act of infinite grace and bounty. And this gives us full direction unto the object of faith here intended, namely, God in Christ, as revealed in the promise of him, giving himself unto believers as a reward (to be their God), in a way of infinite goodness and bounty. The proposal hereof is that alone which gives encouragement to come unto him, which the apostle designs to declare. 2dly. This further appears from the limitation of the object, or of those unto whom he is thus a rewarder; namely, such as “diligently seek him.” Ζητεῖν, to “seek” the Lord, is used in general for any inquiry after him, from the light of nature or otherwise, Acts 17:27. But ἐκζητεῖν, the word here used by the apostle, argues a peculiar manner of seeking, whence we render it “diligently seek him.” But this duty of seeking God is so frequently enjoined in the Scripture, and so declared to consist in faith acting itself in prayer, patience, and diligent attendance unto the ways of God’s manifestation of himself in his ordinances of worship, that I shall not here insist upon it. Only I shall observe some things that are necessary unto the interpretation of the place. (1st.) To seek God, is to do so according to some rule, guiding us both what way we are to go, and what we are to expect with him and from him. Those that sought him without such a rule, as the apostle tells them, did but strive εἰψηλαφήσειαν, to “feel after him,” as men feel after a thing in the dark, when they know neither what it is nor how to come at it, Acts 17:27.(2dly.) This rule neither is, nor ever was, nor can be, any other but the rule of God’s covenant with us, and the revelation made of himself therein. In the state of original righteousness, man was bound to seek God (for this is eternally indispensable to all creatures, until we come to the full fruition of him) according to the tenor of the covenant of works. His seeking of God consisted in the faith and works of obedience required in that covenant. And there is now no way to seek God but according to the revelation that he hath made of himself in the covenant of grace, and the terms of obedience required therein. All other seeking of God is vain, and not prescribed unto us in a way of duty. All those who do attempt it do “wax vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts are darkened.” When once we have the knowledge of this rule, when God hath revealed his covenant unto us, and the confirmation of it in Christ, all things are plain and clear, both how we may find God, and what we shall find in him.(3dly.) This seeking of God is progressive, and hath various degrees. For there is,[1st.] Antecedent unto it, God’s finding of us in a way of sovereign grace and mercy. So “he is found of them that sought him not,” Isaiah 65:1. And if he had not so sought us, we should never have sought after him; for “herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us” first.[2dly.] In itself, it takes in our first conversion unto God. To seek God, is to seek his grace and favor in Christ Jesus, to seek his kingdom and righteousness, to turn and adhere unto him in faith and love unfeigned. [3dly.] A diligent attendance unto all the ways of duty and obedience which he hath prescribed unto us. “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD,” Isaiah 51:1. [4thly.] A patient waiting for the accomplishment of the promises, which the apostle so celebrates in Abraham. Wherefore, — (4thly.) This diligent seeking of God, in them unto whom God will be a rewarder in a way of goodness and bounty, is an access unto him by faith, initial and progressive, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace in Christ Jesus, that we may find favor and acceptance with him. So did Abel seek God, when he offered a bloody sacrifice, in faith of the future propitiation by the Seed of the woman. So did Enoch seek God, when he walked before him in covenant-obedience. Neither will God be such a rewarder as is here intended, he will not give himself as a reward unto any but those that seek him after this way.Obs. 4. Those who seek God only according to the light of nature, do but feel after him in the dark, and they shall never find him as a rewarder, namely, such as is here described, though they may have pregnant notions of his justice, and of rewards and punishments according unto it.Obs. 5. Those who seek him according to the law of works, and by the best of their obedience thereunto, shall never find him as a rewarder, nor attain that which they seek after; as the apostle expressly declares, Romans 9:31-32.I have insisted the longer on the exposition of this verse, both on the account of the important truths contained in it, as also because some of late have endeavored to wrest this text, as they do other scriptures, as though it should teach that no other faith was required unto the justification of them of old but only an assent unto the being of God, and his wisdom, righteousness, and power, in governing the world with rewards and punishments; so to exclude all consideration of the promise of the Lord Christ and his mediation from their faith. So is the place expounded by Crellius, and Grotius who followeth him, with his admirers, and others that borrow falsehoods from them. But as that assent is supposed and included herein, as necessary unto all religion, so that it is what, and all that is here proposed and required, is consistent neither with the scope of the place, the design of the apostle, nor any expression in the text rightly understood. Observe, — Obs. 6. It is the most proper act of faith, to come and cleave unto God as a rewarder in the way of grace and bounty, as proposing himself for our reward. Obs. 7. That faith is vain which doth not put men on a diligent inquiry after God.Obs. 8. The whole issue of our finding of God when we seek him, depends on the way and rule which we take and use in our so doing. Noah is the third person mentioned in the Scripture, unto whom testimony was given in particular that “he was righteous;” and therefore the apostle produceth him in the third place, as an instance of the power and efficacy of faith, declaring also wherein his faith wrought and was effectual Hebrews 11:7. — ΠίστειχρηματισθεὶςΝῶεπερὶτῶνμηδέπωβλεπομένων, εὐλαβηθεὶςκατεσκεύασεκιβωτὸνεἰςσωτηρίαντοῦοἴκουαὑτοῦ·δἰἧςκατέκρινετὸνκόσμον, καὶτῆςκατὰπίστινδικαιοσύνηςἐγένετοκληρονόμος.Κρηματισθείς. Vulg. Lat., “responso accepto;” Rhem., “having received an answer.” Hence sundry expositors, who adhere unto that translation, inquire how Noah may be said to have an answer from God, whereas no mention is made of any inquiry of his in this matter. Some say, that Adam had foretold that the world should be twice destroyed, once by water, and again by fire. Hereon Noah inquired of God to know when the first of them should fall out, and received this answer, that it was now approaching. Some say, that “to answer,” in Scripture, is ofttimes used for “to begin a speech unto another,” when there was nothing spoken before; whereof they give instances, I mention these things only to show what needless pains men put themselves unto, out of a prejudicate adherence unto what may deceive them, as they do here, by following a false translation; for in the original word there is nothing that intimates an answer upon an inquiry. But the truth is, the translation hath not so much deceived them as they have deceived themselves. For “responsum” in Latin is a “divine oracle,” and so used in all good authors. “Responsa deorum,” “reponsa Aruspicum,” are oracular directions; and so is “responsum” absolutely. Syr., λּ ?ψΰֶ ?ϊְ ?ξַ ?μֵ ?μςַ ?ξֵ ?δּ, “when he was spoken to,” “when there was a word with him.” “Divinitus admonitus,” as we say properly, “warned of God.” Περὶτῶνμηδέπωβλεπομένων. Syr., “of those things which are not seen;” omitting μηδέπω, “nondum;” “nondum adhue,” as all other translations. Arab., “when it was revealed to Noah about things which yet were not seen.” Εὐλαβηθείς, “veritus,” “reveritus,” “metuens,” “timuit,” “venerabundus;” “fearing,” he feared, “moved with fear,” a reverential fear. Κατεσκεύασε, “apparavit,” he “prepared;” Vulg. Lat., “aptavit,” he “fitted” by preparing and making of it; Syr., ςֲ ?αַ ?ψ, “fecit,” “condidit;” he “made” or “built” an ark.Εἰςσωτηρίαντοῦοἴκουαὑτοῦ. Syr., μְ ?ηַ ?ιֵּ ?ΰγַּ ?αְּ ?πַ ?ιαַּ ?ιְ ?ϊֵ ?δּ, “unto the lives” (that is, the saving of the lives) “of the sons of his house” or family.Hebrews 11:7. — By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not as yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.Chrysostom well commends this instance of the apostle, in that it not only gives a demonstration of the efficacy of faith on the one hand, in Noah, but also of the effect and consequent of unbelief on the other, in the whole world besides. Hence the application of this example was exceedingly seasonable and proper unto these Hebrews, who stood now on their trial of what they would follow and abide by. Here they might see, as in a glass, what would be the effect of the one and the other. There is in the words, 1. The person spoken of or instanced in; which is Noah.2. What is affirmed of him; that he was “warned of God of things not yet seen.”3. The effect hereof by faith:(1.) Internal, in himself; he was “moved with fear:”(2.) External, in obedience; he “built an ark.”4. The consequent of his so doing:(1.) The saving of his own family;(2.) The condemnation of the world;(3.) His own becoming an “heir of the righteousness which is by faith.”1. The person spoken of is Noah, concerning whom some things may be observed that relate unto the sense of the place. (1.) Being designed of God unto the great work which he was to be called unto, to live and act at that time and that season wherein God would destroy the world for sin, he had his name given him by a spirit of prophecy. His father, Lamech, called him αֹ ?ηַ; whereof he gave this reason, ζֶ ?διֵ ?πַ ?ηֲ ?ξֵ ?πε, — “This shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed,” Genesis 5:29. He foresaw that by him, and in his days, relief would come from the effects of the curse: which there did, [1. In the just destruction of the wicked world, whereon the earth for a while had rest from its bondage under which it groaned, Romans 8; [2. In that in him the promise of the blessed Seed should be preserved, whence all rest and comfort do proceed. But “to rest,” or “cause either the name of πֹ ?ηַ is not derived from πεּ ?ηַ, to rest,” but from πִ ?ηַ ?ν, “to comfort,” mem being rejected in the framing of the name; or else there is not in the words of Lamech, ζֶ ?διְ ?πַ ?ηֲ ?ξֵ ?πεּ, “This same shall comfort us, a respect unto the etymology of the word, but an expression of the thing signified.(2.) As unto his state and condition antecedent unto what is here declared of him, two things are affirmed:[1. That he “found grace in the eyes of the LORD,” Genesis 6:8.[2. That he was “just, perfect in his generations, and walked with God,” verse 9. He was accepted with God, justified, and walked in acceptable obedience, before he was thus divinely warned, with what followed thereon. Wherefore these things did not belong unto his first believing, but unto the exercise of that faith which he had before received. Nor was he then first made an “heir of righteousness,” but declared so to be, as Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac his son. (3.) His employment in the world was, that he was “a preacher of righteousness,” 2 Peter 2:5; — that is, of the righteousness of God by faith; and of righteousness by repentance and obedience among men. And there is no doubt but that before, and whilst he was building the ark, he was urgent with mankind to call them to repentance, by declaring the promises and threatenings of God. And in a blessed state he was, to be a preacher of righteousness unto others, and an heir of righteousness in himself. (4.) He is said to be ὄγδοος, 2 Peter 2:5, “the eighth person.” But whereas Enoch was “the seventh from Adam,” and he the third from Enoch, he could not be the eighth, but was the tenth on the line of genealogy from Adam. He is therefore called the eighth, because he was the head of the eight that were saved, the other seven depending on him, and saved by him; unless we shall suppose him to be called the eighth preacher of righteousness, — that is, from Enosh, when the separation was first made between the wicked and the godly, and wickedness increasing, those who feared God began publicly to preach repentance, Genesis 4:26. 2. That which is affirmed of him is, that he was “warned of God of things not as yet seen.” Χρηματίζω, is “to give an answer with authority,” by kings or magistrates unto ambassadors or orators. It is noted by Plutarch, that it was one cause of the conspiracy against Caesar, that he miscarried herein: Προσιόντωνδὲὑπάτωνκαὶστρατηγῶν, ἅμαδὲκαὶτῆςβουλῆςἑπομένης, οὔχὑπεξαναστὰς, ἀλλ᾿ὥσπερἰδιώταιςχρηματίζωνἀπεκρίνατο·, “The consuls, with the proctors and the whole senate following them, coming to him, he arose not, but spake as unto a company of private men.” And χρηματίζομαι, is used in the Scripture in a common sense, to be “called” or named, Acts 11:26; Romans 7:3. But its more frequent use is for a divine warning, Matthew 2:12; Matthew 2:22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22; Hebrews 8:5. And χρηματισμός is a divine oracle, Romans 11:4. And it is used to express any kind of divine revelation; as by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Luke 2:26; by the ministry of angels, Acts 10:22; by dreams, Matthew 2:12; Matthew 2:22; by an immediate voice of God, Romans 11:4.And this warning of God was no other but that which is recorded Genesis 6:13-16. And there were two parts of it, the first minatory, or a declaration of the purpose of God to destroy the whole world, verse 13. The second is directory, of what he required of him in making an ark, verses 14-16. Accordingly, as we shall see, it had a twofold effect on Noah; the first, of fear in himself from the threatening; the other of obedience, in building the ark according to direction. Both parts of this divine warning were of “things not yet seen.”Things of this sort, namely, “things not seen,” he had before declared to be the proper object of faith, verse 1. But the things here intended were not in their own nature invisible; they were sufficiently seen when they did exist. Therefore the apostle saith, they were “not yet seen;” namely, the flood, and the saving of himself in an ark. These were not seen when Noah was warned about them, nor in a hundred years after. They were seen neither in themselves nor in their causes. For although in the morally procuring cause of the flood, namely, the wickedness of the world, it was present, yet there was nothing then to be seen or learned of its destruction by a flood: and efficient cause it had none, but the invisible power of God. Wherefore it was a pure act of faith in Noah, to believe that which he had no evidence for, but by divine revelation; especially considering that the thing itself revealed was in itself strange, direful, and unto human reason every way incredible. And we may observe, — Obs. 1. It is a high commendation to faith, to believe things, on the word of God, that in themselves and all second causes are invisible, and seem impossible, Romans 4:17-21.Obs. 2. No obstacle can stand in the way of faith, when it fixeth itself on the almighty power of God, and his infinite veracity, Romans 11:23; Titus 1:2.Obs. 3. It is a great encouragement and strengthening unto faith, when the things which it believes as promised or threatened are suitable unto the properties of the divine nature, his righteousness, holiness, goodness, and the like, such as it becometh God to do. Such was the destruction of the world, when it was filled with wickedness and violence.Obs. 4. We have here a pledge of the certain accomplishment of all divine threatenings against ungodly sinners and enemies of the church, though the time of it may be yet far distant, and the means of it inevident. Unto this end is this example made use of, 2 Peter 2:5. 3. Of this warning of God given unto Noah, —(1.) The first effect, as we observed, respected the first part of the warning, which was a threatening of total destruction. He was “moved with fear.” And here faith in its efficacy begins to take place. For although he may be said to be warned of God through faith, inasmuch as he became accepted with God by faith, whereon he received the especial favor of this divine warning; yet here respect seems to be had unto the effect which it had in Noah, with the consequents thereof. “By faith he was moved with fear.” His believing the word of God had this effect on him. Of the meaning of the word, see the exposition on Hebrews 5:7. A reverential fear it is of God’s threatenings, and not an anxious, solicitous fear of the evil threatened. In the warning given him, he considered the greatness, the holiness, and the power of God, with the vengeance becoming those holy properties of his nature, which he threatened to bring on the world. Seeing God by faith under this representation of him, he was filled with a reverential fear of him. See Habakkuk 3:16; Psalms 119:120; Malachi 2:5.Neither is this fear that effect wherein his faith did ultimately acquiesce, but he used it only as a means unto the further end of obedience in building the ark; and therefore we render it, “moved with fear.” This fear, which arose from faith, was used by the same faith to excite and stir him up unto his duty. And therefore this reverential fear of God is frequently in the Scripture used for the whole worship of God, and all the obedience required of us; because it is a continual motive unto it, and a means of a due performance of it. So then, — Obs. 5. A reverential fear of God, as threatening vengeance unto impenitent sinners, is a fruit of saving faith, and acceptable unto God. See the exposition on Hebrews 4:1.Obs. 6. It is one thing to fear God as threatening, with a holy reverence; another to be afraid of the evil threatened, merely as it is penal and destructive, which the worst of men cannot avoid.Obs. 7. Faith produceth various effects in the minds of believers, according to the variety of objects that it is fixed on; sometimes joy and confidence, sometimes fear and reverence.Obs. 8. Then is fear a fruit of faith, when it engageth us unto diligence in our duty; as it did here in Noah: “being moved by fear, he prepared an ark.”(2.) This was the second effect of his faith, with respect unto the second part. of the divine warning, “Make thee an ark,” Genesis 6:14. God said unto him, “Make thee an ark,” and in compliance with that command and direction, it is here said that he “prepared an ark.” The word here used is variously rendered, as we have showed. Our translation, by “prepared,” is proper; for it compriseth all that Noah did, from the first provision unto the last finishing of it. All the preparation of materials, all their disposition into a fabric by divine direction, and the finishing of them in their order, are comprised in this word. And we may observe about it, — [1. That the preparing, building, and finishing of this vessel, meet to swim in the water, — which, from the Hebrew ϊֵּ ?αָ ?δ the Greeks rendered κιβωτός, the Latins arca, and we from them, an “ark,” — was a thing new in the earth, great, requiring labor and expense in a long continuance of time; as is supposed, an hundred and twenty years. And a strange thing no doubt it was in the world, to see a man with so great an endeavor build a ship where there was no water near him.[2. During the preparation of this ark he continued to preach righteousness and repentance unto the inhabitants of the world; nor could it be avoided, but that he must, in what he did, let them know in what way they should be destroyed if they did not repent. [3. In this state of things, the Scripture observeth three things concerning the inhabitants of the old world: 1st. That they were disobedient; they did not repent, they did not return unto God upon his preaching, and the striving of the Spirit of Christ with them therein, 1 Peter 3:19-20. For which cause they were not only temporally destroyed, but shut up in the everlasting prison.2dly. That they were secure, not having the least thought, fear, or expectation of the destruction which he denounced approaching to them, being not moved with his threatenings to the last hour: Matthew 24:38-39, “They knew not until the flood came, and took them all away.” 3dly. That they were scoffers, as is plainly intimated, 2 Peter 3:3-6. They scorned and derided Noah, both in his preaching and his building.And we may hence further observe, — Obs. 9. That all these things tend unto the commendation of the faith of Noah. Neither the difficulty, nor the length of the work itself, nor his want of success in preaching, as unto their repentance and conversion to God, nor the contempt and scorn which were cast upon him by the whole world, did weaken or discourage him in the least from going on with the work and duty whereunto he was divinely called. A great precedent and example it was unto all who may be called to bear testimony for God in times of difficulty and opposition. Obs. 10. We have here an eminent figure of the state of impenitent sinners, and God’s dealing with them, in all ages:(1.) When their sins are coming to the height, he gives them a peculiar time and space for repentance, with sufficient evidence that it is a season granted for that end. (2.) During this space the long-suffering of God waits for their conversion; and he makes it known that it doth so. (3.) He allows them the outward means of conversion, as he did to the old world in the preaching of Noah.(4.) He warns them in particular of the judgments that are approaching them, which they cannot escape; as he did by the building of the ark. And such are the dealings of God with impenitent sinners in some measure and proportion in all ages.They, on the other side, in such a season, (1.) Continue disobedient under the most effectual means of conversion. No means shall be effectual unto that end, Isaiah 6:9-12. Anti when the preaching of righteousness loseth its efficacy in the conversion of sinners, it is a token of approaching desolations.(2.) They are secure as unto any fear, or expectation of judgments; and shall be so until they are overwhelmed in them, Revelation 18:7-8.(3.) There are always amongst them scoffers, that deride all that are moved with fear at the threatenings of God, and behave themselves accordingly; which is an exact portraiture of the present condition of the world.4. Of this faith of Noah, and the fruits of it in fear and obedience, —(1.) The immediate effect was the saving of his family. He did it “to the saving of his household;” that is, he himself, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, — that is, such as on the foresight of the flood they had espoused, for probably they came not together in conjugal duties until after the flood, for they had no child until then, Genesis 10:1, and eight persons only were to be saved.This family, God in sovereign grace and mercy would preserve and deliver, principally to continue the conveyance of the promised Seed, which was to be produced from Adam, Luke 3:38, and was not, in the immutable counsel of God, liable to an intercision; which it would have been if God had destroyed all mankind, and created a new race of them upon the earth: and in the next place, for the continuation and propagation of a church, to be brought unto God by virtue of that promise.And in this saving of the family of Noah by the ark, we have a figure of God’s saving and preserving a remnant in all ages, when desolating judgments have destroyed apostatized churches and nations. So the apostle Peter declares with respect unto the vengeance and overwhelming destruction that was coming on the apostatized church of the Jews: 1 Peter 3:20-21, “The ark, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us.”I deny not but that there is a great allusion in general between salvation by the ark and that by baptism, inasmuch as the one did represent and the other doth exhibit Christ himself. But the apostle hath a particular design in this comparison. For judgment by a universal destruction was then coming on the whole church and people of the Jews, but God would save a few by baptism, — that is, their initiation into gospel faith and repentance, whereby they were separated from the perishing infidels, and were really and actually delivered from the destruction that befell them; as Noah and his family were in the ark. So then, — Obs. 11. The visible, professing church shall never fall into such an apostasy, nor be so totally destroyed, but that God will preserve a remnant, for a seed to future generations, Isaiah 6:11-13; Romans 9:27; Revelation 18:4.(2.) Lastly, There is a double consequent of this faith of Noah and his obedience therein;[1. With respect unto the world, “he condemned it;” [2. With respect unto himself, he “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” Both these are ascribed unto Noah. And the way whereby he din them is expressed in these words, “By the which.” That is, say some, “by which ark;” others, “by which faith;” for the relative agrees with either of these antecedents. I shall not contend about it. The meaning is, by the which faith, acting and evidencing itself in the building of the ark, these things were wrought. [1. He “condemned the world.” Not as the judge of it, properly and authoritatively; but as an advocate and a witness, by plea and testimony. He condemned it by his doctrine, by his obedience, by his example, by his faith in them all. He did so, 1st. In that he justified God. God had had a long contest with the world, — “his Spirit strove with them;” and now in the issue, after much patience and forbearance, he was coming to destroy them. Herein “God would be justified in his sayings, and overcome when he was judged,” as the apostle speaks, Romans 3:4. This was done by Noah: he cleared and justified God in his threatenings and the execution of them; and therein condemned the world as guilty, and justly deserving the punishment inflicted on it.2dly. He condemned the world by casting a weighty aggravation on its guilt, in that he believed and obeyed when they refused so to do. It was not any thing evil, grievous, or impossible, that was required of them, but what he gave them an example of in himself; which greatly aggravated their sin. So is the expression used, Matthew 12:41, “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.” Their example being not followed, did aggravate the guilt of that generation.3dly. He condemned the world, by leaving it utterly without excuse. He that takes away the principal plea that a guilty person can make in his own defense, may justly be said to condemn him. And this Noah did towards the old world. He left them no pretense that they had not been warned of their sin and approaching ruin; so as that they had nothing to plead for themselves why the execution of judgment should be respited for one moment. 4thly. He condemned the world, by approving of the vengeance that befell them, though very severe. So shall the saints judge and condemn fallen angels at the last day, 1 Corinthians 6:3. And we may observe, that —Obs. 12. Those whom God calleth unto, fitteth for, and employeth in any work, are therein συνεργοὶΘεοῦ, “co-workers with God,” 1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 6:1 : so as that what God doth himself efficiently, is ascribed unto them instrumentally, as working with him, and for him. So the preachers of the word do save men, 1 Timothy 4:16; and so are they said to condemn them.Obs. 13. Let those that are employed in the declaration of God’s promises and threatenings take heed unto themselves, to answer the will of him by whom they are employed, whoso work it is wherein they are engaged.Obs. 14. It ought to be a motive unto diligence in exemplary obedience, that therein we bear testimony for God against the impenitent world, which he will judge and punish.[2. The last thing in the words, or the second consequent of his faith and obedience, is, that he “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” What the righteousness here intended is, the “righteousness of faith,” is so fully declared by the apostle in all his other writings, and so laid down in the close of the foregoing chapter, that there can be no question about it. The nature of this righteousness, with the way of attaining it, I have so[7] fully manifested in my treatise of Justification, [7] See vol. 5 of miscellaneous works. — ED. that I shall not at all here speak to it. He calls it elsewhere, sometimes “the righteousness of God” absolutely, sometimes “the righteousness of God which is by faith,” sometimes “the gift of righteousness by Christ,” sometimes “the righteousness of faith,” or “the righteousness which is by faith,” as in this place. In all which our free, gratuitous justification by the righteousness of Christ, imputed unto us by faith, or through believing, is intended. This Noah obtained by faith. For that in this faith of the patriarchs no respect was had unto Christ and his righteousness, is such a putid figment, so destructive of the first promise and all true faith in the church of old, so inconsistent with and contrary to the design of the apostle, and utterly destroying the whole force of his argument, as we shall show afterwards that it deserves no consideration. Grotius and his follower say, “That Noah, as a reward of his faith, was left possessor of the whole earth, as an inheritance unto him and his children;” which is a wild exposition of being an “heir of the righteousness of faith,” and needs no confutation. The way whereby he obtained this righteousness is, that he was made the “heir” of it. Some say ‘he is so called and said to be because this righteousness utterly failing in the old world before the flood, it was left in Noah as his right and inheritance, which he carried along with him into the new world after the flood. Righteousness did not utterly perish; Noah had a title unto it, and continued in the possession of it.’ But there is somewhat more in this expression. The way whereby we come to be made partakers of this righteousness, is by gratuitous adoption. This is by faith, John 1:12. Whatever we receive upon or by virtue of our adoption belongs unto our inheritance; thereof we are heirs. See Romans 8:15-17. So in justification, forgiveness of sin and the inheritance go together, Acts 26:18. And this inheritance is by the promise, not by the law or works, Galatians 3:18-19; Romans 4:14. Wherefore Noah was the “heir of the righteousness which is by faith,” in that by free adoption, through faith, he came to have an interest in and right unto the righteousness which is tendered in the promise, whereby it is conveyed unto us as an inheritance. And whereas it is said that he “became” so, if respect be had unto his faith in building of the ark, the meaning is, that he was then evidenced and declared so to be. As Abraham was said to be “justified when he offered Isaac,” who was personally justified long before; so also was Noah, by the testimony of God himself, before he was warned to build an ark. And we may learn, — Obs. 15. That all right unto spiritual privileges and mercies is by gratuitous adoption.Obs. 16. That the righteousness of faith is the best inheritance for thereby we become “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.” The apostle hath now passed over the first period of Scripture records, namely, from the beginning of the world unto the flood; and therein he hath considered the examples of all concerning whom it is testified in particular that they “pleased God,” and were accepted with him in their obedience. And two things he proves from them with respect unto his present purpose: 1. That they all pleased God and were righteous by faith.2. That their faith was effectual to secure them in that state of divine favor, by enabling them unto all duties of obedience, notwithstanding the difficulties and oppositions which they met withal.Hereby he makes good his design with respect unto these Hebrews, namely, to convince them that if they did not persevere in their profession, it was because of their unbelief, for that true faith would certainly carry them through with constancy and perseverance, whatever difficulties they should meet withal, giving them encouragement from what it wrought in others from the beginning. Hence he proceeds unto the next period of time, from the flood, and the renovation of the world in the family of Noah, unto the giving of the law; so to manifest that in every state of the church the way of pleasing God was one and the same; as also, that faith still retained its efficacy under all alterations. He who, in this period of time, is first testified unto in the Scripture, is he whose example on all accounts was most forcible with these Hebrews, which he had before at large proposed unto them and insisted on, Hebrews 6:11-15; the exposition of which place may be consulted, to give light to this context. This is Abraham; whose example, by reason of the eminency of his person, the relation of the Hebrews unto him, from whom they derived all their privileges temporal and spiritual, the efficacy of his faith, with the various successful exercises of it, he declares and urgeth at large from hence unto the end of the 19th verse. Hebrews 11:8. — Πίστεικαλούμενος᾿Αβραὰμὑπήκουσενἐξελθεῖνεἰςτὸντόπονὅνἤμελλελαμβάνεινεἰςκληρονομίαν, καὶἐξῆλθεμὴἐπιστάμενοςποῦἔρχεται.Καλούμενος᾿Αζβαάμ. Vulg. Lat., “qui vocatur Abraham;” Rhem., “he who is called Abraham:” which can no way be reconciled unto the text. Those who will adhere unto that translation do suppose that the change of his name is here intimated, when from Abram he was called Abraham: but that is not “vocatus,” but “cognominatus;” not καλούμενος, but προσαγορευθείς. And if καλούμενος were ever used in such a sense, as it is not, it should have been ὅςἐκλήθη, and not καλούμενος, without any article. Besides, as the apostle had no reason to speak of Abraham in that manner, “he who is called Abraham,” as if he were a person but little known to them, so this interpretation takes away the whole foundation of the faith of Abraham, and of all the effects of it, and so of the whole argument of the apostle, which was his divine call, which he refers unto. Wherefore all other translations avoid this mistake. Syr., λּ ?γΰֶ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?ψִ ?ι, “ַ ?when he was called.” “Evocatus,” “called forth.” ῾Ψπήκουσενἐξελθεῖν, “obedivit exire,” “obeyed to go forth.” Syr., “dicto audiens fuit,” “auscultavit ut exiret,” “ut abiret,” “ut emigraret; “hearkened,” “obeyed to go forth,” “to wander away.” Some supply “Deo” to “ auscultavit;” which may be better supplied to “called,” “called of God.” Our English translation makes a transposition of the words: instead of, “he obeyed to go forth” unto the place, it refers ἐξελθεῖν, “to go forth,” unto καλούμενος, being “called to go out” unto a place; and so refers “obeyed” afterwards not only to the call of Abraham, but also unto what he did in compliance therewithall. ῾Ψπηκουσενv, “auscultavit,” “ditto audivit;” a word proper to answer καλούμενος: “being called,” he so “heard” as to yield obedience. So “to hearken or hear” is frequently used in the Scripture.Hebrews 11:8. — By faith Abraham, being called [of God], obeyed to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.In Abraham there was a foundation laid of a new state of the church after the flood, more excellent than that which preceded. He was the first also after the flood unto whom testimony was given in particular that he pleased God. He was the progenitor of the Hebrews, from whom they derived all their privileges, in whose person they were initiated into the covenant, with a right unto the promises. He was also by promise “the father of all that believe.” And therefore it was the great concernment of those Hebrews then, and is so now of us, to consider aright the example of his faith and obedience. Designing to give many illustrious instances of the power and efficacy of the faith of Abraham, the apostle begins with that which was the beginning and foundation of them all, namely, the call of God, and his compliance therewithal And the nature, life, and power of faith, are represented in three words in this instance: πίστει, καλούμενος, ὑπήκουσε. It respects the call of God, which it rests upon, and which it is resolved into; and it acts itself in obedience to all the commands of God. This alone is that faith which the apostle celebrates, and whereunto he ascribes the great effect of our pleasing God.In the words of the verse there is proposed unto us, 1. The foundation of the faith and obedience of Abraham, which was his call of God.2. What he was called unto, which was a journey or pilgrimage; described,(1.) By the term from whence he went, “go out;” and,(2.) From the term whither he went, “unto a place,” etc.3. The exercise of his faith, and the effects of it, “he obeyed.”4. The commendation of his faith, from the difficulty wherewith his obedience was accompanied, with respect unto what he was called unto, “not knowing,” etc.First, He was “called;” that is, of God, by an immediate word of command from him.1. He did it not without a command, He did not leave all his present satisfactions, he did not put himself on innumerable hazards for the future, merely of his own accord. Had he not had a divine call, there had been no work for faith. Where there is no call from God, there can be no faith or trust in God. Where the call is general, as in our ordinary occasions, so is our faith in God, resigning all circumstances unto his disposal; but this especial call of Abraham required a special faith. 2. Concerning this call of Abraham, there are many difficulties arising from the record of it, Genesis 12:1-3, with its repetition by Stephen, Acts 7:2-4. For Genesis 12, it is reported as made after the death of Terah, his father, in Haran, Genesis 11:31-32; by Stephen it is assigned unto his being in Mesopotamia, before he left the land of the Chaldees. Besides, Haran, or Charran, was in Mesopotamia; where, in the relation of Stephen, he is said to dwell after he left Mesopotamia. Wherefore some say he was twice called, once in the land of the Chaldees, and again in Haran. Others say his call was but one; but then some say it was at Ur of the Chaldees, before he first went thence with his father; others, at Haran, after his father’s death.It will not consist with my design, nor the nature of an exposition, to insist at large on these things. Some few observations will clear the whole difficulty, so far as is necessary unto our purpose; as, — (1.) Mesopotamia is in good authors sometimes taken largely for all that part of Asia which is separated from Syria by the river Euphrates, comprehending both Assyria and Chaldea; and sometimes strictly and properly for the country between the two rivers of Euphrates and Tigris, whence it hath its denomination. Hence, when Stephen affirms that “the God of glory appeared unto Abraham in Mesopotamia,” he takes it in the largest sense, comprehending Chaldea, wherein Ur was, as is plain, verses 2, 4. And Abraham coming thence unto Haran, came into a city of Mesopotamia properly so called, and that near to Euphrates, which he was to pass over into Syria. (2.) By assigning the appearance of God unto Abraham before he left the land of the Chaldees, Stephen directly affirms his call to have been whilst he was there, before he departed with his father and came to Haran. And this is evident from the story in Moses, when it is said that he and his father “went forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan,” Genesis 11:31; for they could have no design to leave their native country, with all their possessions and relations, to go into so remote and unknown a country, without some especial call and direction from God. (3.) Wherefore those words of Moses, ειּ ?ΰֹ ?ξֶ ?ψιְ ?δָֹ ?εδΰֶ ?ΰμΰּ ?ΰַ ?αְ ?ψָ ?ν, Genesis 12:1, are well rendered by our translators, “Now the LORD had said unto Abram;” that is, he had so whilst he was in Ur of the Chaldees, before he and his father departed thence to go into the land of Canaan, Genesis 11:31. And because this call had no respect unto Terah, but unto Abraham only, Moses first records his journey with his father toward Canaan, and then, on the death of his father, takes up again and particularly expresseth his call, Genesis 12:1. The pursuit whereof from thence he distinctly declares.(4.) And this is evident from the call itself, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house,” Genesis 12:1. For Abraham had all these in Ur of the Chaldees, and not in Haran.Wherefore this call of Abraham was but one, and given at once; namely, whilst he was in Ur of the Chaldees, before his going out from thence with his father, and the death of his father thereon; which place Stephen reckons to Mesopotamia in the large notation of it. And this one call is particularly recorded, Genesis 12:1-3, after the death of Terah, when he only remained who was alone concerned therein. But the reader may see these things fully discoursed, with a just reconciliation of Moses with Stephen, in our Exercitations on the first volume of the Exposition, Exercitation 19.Of this call of Abraham there were two parts: (1.) A command, Genesis 12:1, “Get thee out of thy country,” etc.(2.) A promise, Genesis 12:2-3, “And I will make of thee,” etc. Of this promise there were two parts:[1. A temporal blessing, in the multiplication of his seed, Genesis 12:2. [2. A spiritual blessing, in confining the promised blessing Seed unto him and his family, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, verse 3. And it is a thing most absurd, and contrary to the whole design of the Scripture and the dispensation of the covenant, to confine the faith of Abraham unto the land of Canaan, and the glory of his posterity therein. For the life of the promise made unto him on his call, whereby his faith was animated, was in the blessing of all the families of the earth in him; which was in Christ alone, the promised seed, as all but infidels must confess. Secondly, The apostle takes notice only of the first part of the call, namely, the command. And therein two things are considerable:1. From what he was to go and depart.2. What he was to go unto. He was to go out: καλούμενοςἐξελθεῖν. He was “called to go out;” so our translation disposeth the words: or, being called, ὑπήκουσενἐξελθεῖν, “he obeyed to go out,” or “in going out,” as they lie in the original. They are both to the same purpose.In the latter way, “obeyed” is immediately referred to faith; in the former, “going out” is so; his faith wrought by obedience in his going out. 1. It is said he was “called to go out.” From whence and from what, we are referred unto the story: Genesis 12:1, “Get thee” (μֶ ?ΰֱּ ?μְ ?κָ, “vade tibi”) “out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house;” — that is, ‘leave and forsake all things that are pleasant, useful, desirable unto thee;’for these three things, “country, kindred, and father’s house,” comprise them all. And they fall under two considerations:(1.) As man is naturally inclined to the love of them, to adhere unto them, to value them and delight in them. These are the things which, by all sorts of circumstances, do from their nativity insinuate themselves into the minds and affections of men, so as that they cannot be separated from them without the greatest convulsions of nature. And we have the testimony of mankind hereunto, with sundry instances of such as have preferred these things before their own lives. (2.) They may be considered as useful and beneficial unto life and the comforts of it. Whatever is so, is contained in these things. Whereas, therefore, natural affection and sense of usefulness unto all the advantages and comforts of life, are the two cords that bind us unto any thing whatever, the forsaking of all things that fall under both of them, must needs proceed from some great cause and efficacious impulse.This, therefore, commends the faith of Abraham in the first place, and evinceth the powerful efficacy of faith in general, that under its conduct, in obedience unto the call of God, he could and did relinquish all these things, — cast out their insinuations into his affections, and break the cords of delight and interest which they cast upon him. And we may see herein that, — Obs. 1. It becomes the infinite greatness and all-satisfactory goodness of God, at the very first revelation of himself unto any of his creatures, to require of them a renunciation of all other things, and their interest in them, in compliance with his commands. — ‘Get thee away from country, friends, relations, and enjoyments,’is a command becoming the greatness of God. “I am the LORD thy God,” is his first word unto us. And the next is, ‘“Thou shalt have no other gods but me,” — with me, before me, besides me, — nothing to be in my place, in comparison of me, in competition with me; forsake all, and be mine only.’Unless we have a sense of that greatness of God which makes such commands alone to become him, we yield no obedience unto him in a due manner. Obs. 2. The power of sovereign grace in calling men to God, and the mighty efficacy of faith complying therewithal. — Whilst Abraham lived with his father on the other side of the river, “they served other gods,” Joshua 24:2, or were engaged in the superstition and idolatry then prevalent in the world. And the minds of men being once thoroughly infected with them, as having received them by tradition from their fathers, are very hardly recovered from their snares. In this state he had all worldly accommodations that his own country, kindred, and inheritance, could afford him; yet such was the powerful efficacy of sovereign grace in his call by God, that it enabled him by faith to relinquish and renounce them all, and to betake himself at once unto a new state and condition, both as unto things temporal and eternal. It is well if all of us who make profession of the same faith, have an experience of the same grace.Obs. 3. It is the call of God alone that makes a distinction amongst mankind, as unto faith and obedience, with all the effects of them. — Abraham thus believed and obeyed God, because he was called; and he was called, not because he was better or wiser than others, but because it pleased God to call him and not others, 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. Obs. 4. The church of believers consists of those that are called out of the world. — The call of Abraham is a pattern of the call of the church, Psalms 45:10; 2 Corinthians 6:17-18. Obs. 5. Self-denial, in fact or resolution, is the foundation of all sincere profession. — This Abraham began his profession in the practice of, and proceeded unto the height in the greatest instances imaginable. And the instruction that our Savior gives herein, Matthew 10:37-38; Matthew 16:24-25, amounts but unto this, ‘If you intend to have the faith of Abraham, with the fruits and blessings attending it, you must lay the foundation of it in self-denial, and the relinquishment of all things, if called thereunto, as he did.’ Wherefore, the faith of Abraham being everywhere in the Scripture set up as the measure and standard of the faith of believers in all ages, and the apostle in this place giving us an account of the beginning and progress of it for our example, there is nothing that belongs more directly unto the exposition of the place than a due observation of its nature, actings, and effects, for our instruction, without which the mind of the Holy Ghost in the context is not understood; though expositors take very little notice of these things. Now, the foundation of the whole is laid herein, that the first act of saving faith consists in the discovery and sight of the infinite greatness goodness, and other excellencies of the divine nature, so as to judge it our duty, upon his call, his command and promise, to deny ourselves, to relinquish all things, and to do so accordingly. 2. We have seen what Abraham was called from: the next thing in the words is, what he was called unto; namely, “a place which he should after receive for an inheritance.”He was not called merely to forsake the place where he was, and then left to rove and wander up and down uncertainly; but he was called unto a certain place. For it so falls out many times, that men, wearied by one means or another, (as convictions or afflictions,) of their present spiritual state and condition, so as to have a mind to relinquish it, yet having no discovery of another, of a better state, with rest in Christ by the gospel, they rove up and down in their minds and affections for a season, and then return to the state or place from which they came out, (which the patriarchs refused to do, verse 15,) or else perish in their wanderings. This place whereunto he went is described by his future relation unto it and interest in it; he was “afterwards to receive it for an inheritance.” At present he received it not, but only in right and title; nor during his life. He, nor his posterity for some generations, had no inheritance in it; only he bought a burying-place in it of the children of Heth, whereby he took seizin of the whole. But he received it afterwards in his posterity, as is known. And he is said to “receive” it. It was given unto him, bestowed on him by way of a free gift, or donation.: He did only “receive” it. And so it is with respect unto all good things betwixt God and us; he is the free donor of them, we are but passive recipients. And he received this country “for an inheritance.” And unto an inheritance there is required right and title unto it, that a man may be a lawful possessor of it. Now, this country was before possessed by others, who enjoyed it by a prescription from its first plantation. But God, as the great possessor of heaven and earth, as the sovereign Lord of all things, transferred their right and title unto that land, and invested it in Abraham. So it is frequently repeated, that God gave them this or that land. Obs. 6. There is no right, title, or possession, that can prescribe against the righteousness of God in the disposal of all inheritances here below at his pleasure. — Whatever single persons, ‘whatever whole nations, may think or boast of their title and right, as unto God, they are all but tenants at will and pleasure. He can disinherit and disseize them of all as he sees good; and when he will do so, (as he gives instances of his so doing in all ages,) no plea will be admitted against his right, and the exercise of it. So do kings hold their crowns, nations their soil, and private men their possessions.Obs. 7. God’s grant of things unto any is the best of titles, and most sure against all pretences or impeachments. Judges 11:24,‘We will possess what the LORD our God gives us to possess.’ Obs. 8. Possession belongs unto an inheritance enjoyed. — This God gave unto Abraham in his posterity, with a mighty hand and stretched-out arm; and he divided it unto them by lot.Obs. 9. An inheritance is capable of a limited season. The title unto it may be continued unto a prefixed period. So was it with this inheritance; for although it is called an “everlasting inheritance,” yet it was so only on two accounts:(1.) That it was typical of that heavenly inheritance which is eternal. (2.) Because, as unto right and title, it was to be continued unto the end of that limited perpetuity which God granted unto the church-state in that land; that is, unto the coming of the promised Seed, in whom all nations should be blessed, which the call and faith of Abraham did principally regard. Until that time was expired, although many incursions were made into and upon this inheritance of Abraham, yet were all that made them oppressors; and they were punished for their usurpation. But when the grant of it to them expired, and those wicked tenants of God’s vineyard forfeited their right unto it by their unbelief, and murdering of the true Heir, God disinherited them, dispossessed them, and left them neither right nor title to, nor any interest in this inheritance; as it is at this day. It is no more the inheritance of Abraham; but in Christ he is become “heir of the world,” and his spiritual posterity enjoy all the privileges of it. Wherefore the grant of this land, for an inheritance unto Abraham in his posterity, had a season limited unto it. Upon the expiration of that term, their right and title unto it were cancelled and disannulled. And thereon God in his providence sent the armies of the Romans to dispossess them; which they did accordingly, unto this day. Nor have the present Jews any more or better title unto the land of Canaan than unto any other country in the world. Nor shall their title be renewed thereunto upon their conversion unto God. For the limitation of their right was unto that time wherein it was typical of the heavenly inheritance: that now ceasing for ever, there can be no especial title unto it revived. And we see herein, — Obs. 10. That it is faith alone that gives the soul satisfaction in future rewards in the midst of present difficulties and distresses. — So it did to Abraham, who, in the whole course of his pilgrimage, attained nothing of this promised inheritance. And, —Obs. 11. The assurance given us by divine promises is sufficient to encourage us unto the most difficult course of obedience.Thirdly, The last thing in the words is, the commendation of the faith of Abraham, from his ignorance of the place whither he was to go upon the call of God. He had only said unto him that he should go into a land that he would show him, Genesis 12:1.1. But of what nature the land was, how or by whom inhabited, or what way he was to go into it, he told him not. It should seem, indeed, that God had told him from the beginning that it was the land of Canaan which he designed; for when he first left Ur of the Chaldees, he steered his course towards Canaan, Genesis 11:31 : but it it is yet said that “he knew it not.” He did not understand any thing of the circumstances of it, nor what in that land he was called unto, nor where it was; so that it may be well said that he went whither he knew not. The sum is, that he wholly committed himself unto the power, faithfulness, goodness, and conduct of God, without the least encouragement from a prospect of the place whither he was going. 2. All these things being put together, namely, what he was called from; what he was called unto; his readiness in obedience; the ground of his whole undertaking, namely, the call of God, which he received, and obeyed by faith: here is not only an eminent instance of his faith recorded, but an invincible encouragement given unto those Hebrews unto whom the apostle wrote, and unto us with them, that faith is able to carry us through all the difficulties of our profession, unto the full enjoyment of the promise. This I look upon as a second instance of the faith of Abraham, wherein it was signally exemplary. He did not only on the first call of God, through a view of his greatness and sovereign authority, forego all that he had at present, but engaged himself unto absolute obedience, without any prospect what it might cost him, or what he was to undergo on the account of it, or what was the reward proposed unto him. And the same is required of us. Having declared the foundation of the faith of Abraham, and given the first signal instance of it, he proceeds to declare his progress in its exercise, first in general, and then in particular acts and duties; wherein he intermixeth some especial acts of it, whereby he was enabled and encouraged in and unto all other duties of it. That which he ascribes unto his faith in general is laid down in this verse; whereunto he adjoins that encouraging act of it which enabled him in his duty, verse 10. Hebrews 11:9. — Πίστειπαρῴκησενεἰςτὴνγὴντῆςἐπαγγελίαςὡςἀλλοτρίαν, ἐνσκηναῖςκατοικήσαςμετὰ᾿Ισαὰκκαὶ᾿Ιακὼβτῶνσυγκληρονόμωντῆςἐπαγγελίαςτῆςαὐτῆς. Παρῴκησεν. Syr., δεָ ?ΰϊַּ ?ιְ ?ηָ ?αָ ?ΰ, “he was a stranger,” “a sojourner.” Vulg. Lat., “demoratus est,”’”he tarried.” Rhem., “he abode.” Erasm., “commigravit;” that is, μετῴκησεν, saith Beza, “be went,” or “wandered,” to answer the preposition εἰς following, “he went into the land.” Beza, “commoratus est,” “he abode;” and then it must refer unto κατοικήσας, “he dwelt in tents.” Others, “advena fuit;” he was “a stranger,” “a guest,” “a sojourner.” Heb., βֵּ ?ιδָ ?ιָ ?δ, “he was a stranger,” or βּ ?εּ ?ψ, “he sojourned.”᾿Ενσκηναῖς. Vulg. Lat., “in casulis.” Rhem., “in cottages.” “In tentoriis,” “in tents” or “tabernacles.”Hebrews 11:9. — By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise.1. That which is assigned in general unto the faith of Abraham is, that “he sojourned.”2. The place where is added; “in the land of promise.”3. How he esteemed of that land, and how he used it; “as in a strange country.” 4. Who were his companions therein; namely, “Isaac and Jacob,” on the same account with himself, as “the heirs of promise.” 1. “He sojourned.” Παροικέω is “commoror,” “to abide;” but it is to abide as a stranger. So it is used Luke 24:18, Σὺμόνοςπαροικεῖςἐν῾Ιερουσαλήμ; — “Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem?” a sojourner there for a season, not an inhabitant of the place. And it is nowhere else used. Thence is πάροικος, “a stranger,” “a sojourner :” Acts 7:6, “Thy seed shall be γῇἀλλοτρίᾳ — a stranger; “should sojourn in a strange land.” So πάροικοι, are joined with παρεπίδημοι, 1 Peter 2:11, “Strangers and pilgrims;” and with ξένοι, Ephesians 2:19, “foreigners;” and are opposed to πολῖτοι, “citizens,” or the constant inhabitants of any place. Χρόνοςπαροικίας, is the “time of our pilgrimage” here, 1 Peter 1:17. Wherefore παρώκησε, is, “he abode as a stranger,” not as a free denizen of the place; not as an inheritor, for he had no inheritance, not a foot-breadth in that place, Acts 7:5; not as a constant inhabitant or house-dweller, but as a stranger, that moved up and down as he had occasion. His several motions and stages are recorded by Moses.2. There is the place of his sojourning; “in the land of promise,” — εἰςτὴνγῆν for ἐντῇγῇ, “into” for “in the land.” So Acts 7:4, “The land εἰςἥνὑμεῖςνῦνκατοικεῖτε,” — “wherein ye now dwell;” Hebrew, αָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?φ. And from the use of the Hebrew αְּ, εἰς is frequently put for ἐν in the New Testament, and on the contrary. Wherefore not the removal of Abraham into that land, which he had mentioned in the foregoing verse, but his abode as a stranger, a foreigner, a pilgrim in it, is intended. And this was “the land of promise;” that is, which God had newly promised to give unto him, and wherein all the other promises were to be accomplished.3. He sojourned in this place “as in a strange land.” He built no house in it, purchased no inheritance, but only a burying-place. He entered, indeed, into leagues of peace and amity with some, as with Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, Genesis 14:13; but it was as a stranger, and not as one that had any thing of his own in the land. He reckoned that land at present no more his own than any other land in the world, — no more than Egypt was the land of his posterity when they sojourned there, which God had said was not theirs, nor was so to be. Genesis 15:13.The manner of his sojourning in this land was, that he “dwelt in tabernacles;” “in cottages,’saith the Vulgar Latin, absurdly It was no unusual thing in those days, and in those parts of the world, for many, yea some nations, to dwell, in such movable habitations. Why Abraham was satisfied with this kind of life the apostle declares in the next verse. And he is said to dwell in tabernacles, or tents, because his family required more than one of them; though sometimes they are called a tent only, with respect unto that which was the peculiar habitation of the master of the family. And the women had tents unto themselves. So Isaac brought Rebekah into his mother Sarah’s tent, Genesis 24:67. So Jacob and his wives had all of them distinct tents, Genesis 31:33. These tents were pitched, fixed, and erected only with stakes and cords, so as that they had no foundation in the earth; whereunto the apostle in the next verse opposeth a habitation that hath a foundation. And with respect unto their flitting condition in these movable houses, God in an especial manner was said to be their dwelling-place, Psalms 90:1.4. He thus sojourned and dwelt in tents “with Isaac and Jacob.” It is evident that Abraham lived until Jacob was sixteen or eighteen years old; and therefore may be said to live with him, as unto the same time wherein they both lived. Nor is there any force in the objection, that Isaac had a separate tent from Abraham; for it is not said that they lived in the same tents, but that at the same time they all lived in tents. Yet there is no need to confine it unto the same time; the sameness of condition only seems to be intended. For as Abraham was a sojourner in the land of Canaan, without any inheritance or possession, living in tents, so was it also with Isaac and Jacob, and with them alone. Jacob was the last of his posterity who lived as a sojourner in Canaan; all those after him lived in Egypt, and came not into Canaan until they took possession of it for themselves.And they were “heirs with him of the same promise;” for not only did they inherit the promise as made unto Abraham, but God distinctly renewed the same promise unto them both; — unto Isaac, Genesis 26:3-4; and unto Jacob, Genesis 28:13-15. So were they heirs with him of the very same promise. See Psalms 105:9-11.The sense of the words being declared, we may yet further consider the matter contained in them. We have here an account of the life of Abraham after his call. And it fell under a twofold consideration: 1. As unto the internal principle of it; so it was a life of faith. 2. As unto the external manner of it; so it was a pilgrimage, without a fixed, settled habitation. Both are proposed in the first words of the text, “By faith he sojourned? 1. As unto the internal principle of it, it was a life of faith(1.) The life which he now led was a life of faith with respect unto things spiritual and eternal. For he had for the foundation and object hereof,[1. The promise of the blessed Seed, and the spiritual blessing of all nations in him, as a confirmation of the first fundamental promise to the church, concerning the Seed of the woman that was to break the serpent’s head. And, [2. God entered expressly into covenant with him, confirming it with the sea] of circumcision, wherein he obliged himself to be his God, his God almighty, or all-sufficient, for his temporal and eternal good. To suppose that Abraham saw nothing in this promise and covenant but only things confined unto this life, nothing of spiritual grace or mercy, nothing of eternal reward or glory, is so contrary to the analogy of faith, to express testimony of Scripture, so destructive of all the foundations of religion, so unworthy of the nature and properties of God, rendering his title of “the father of the faithful,” and his example in believing, so useless, as that it is a wonder men of any tolerable sobriety should indulge to such an imagination. (2.) It was a life of faith with respect unto things temporal also. For as he was a sojourner in a strange land, without friends or relations, not incorporated in any political society or dwelling in any city, he was exposed unto all sorts of dangers, oppression and violence, as is usual in such cases. Besides, those amongst whom he sojourned were for the most part wicked and evil men, such as, being fallen into idolatry, were apt to be provoked against him for his profession of faith in the most high God. Hence, on some occurrences of his life that might give them advantage, it is observed, as a matter of danger, that “the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelled then in the land,” Genesis 13:7; Genesis 12:6. And this he feared, Genesis 20:11. Moreover he had sundry particular trials, wherein he apprehended that his life was in imminent danger, Genesis 12:11-13; Genesis 20:2. In all these dangers and trials, with others innumerable, being helpless in himself, he lived in the continual exercise of faith and trust in God, his power, his all-sufficiency, and faithfulness. Hereof his whole story is full of instances, and his faith in them is celebrated frequently in the Scripture. (3.) In things of both sorts, spiritual and temporal, he lived by faith, in a constant resignation of himself unto the sovereign will and pleasure of God, when he saw no way or means for the accomplishment of the promise. So was it with him with respect unto the long season that he lived without a child, and under the command he had to offer him for a sacrifice, when he had received him. On all these accounts he was the father, the pattern, or example of believers in all generations. We saw before the foundation of his faith and the entrances of his believing; here we have a progress of them proposed unto our imitation. And that wherein we are instructed hereby is, that when we are once engaged, and have given up ourselves to God in a way of believing, there must be no choice, no dividing or halting, no halving; but we must; follow him fully, wholly, and universally, living by faith in all things. 2. For the external part, or manner of his life, it was a pilgrimage, it was a sojourning. Two things are required unto such a state of life:(1.) That a man be in a strange country;(2.) That he have no fixed habitation of his own.If a man be free from either of these, he is not a pilgrim. A man may want a habitation of his own as his inheritance, and yet, being in his own country, not be a pilgrim; and a man may be in a strange country, and yet, having a fixed habitation of his own therein, he may not be a pilgrim: but when both these concur, there is a state of pilgrimage. And so it was with Abraham. He was in a strange land. Though it was “the land of promise,” yet having no interest in it, no relation, no possession, no inheritance, it was unto him a strange land. And he did but sojourn in any place, having no habitation of his own. And this of all others is the most disconsolate, the most desolate estate, and most exposed unto dangers; wherefore he had nothing to trust unto or rest upon but divine protection alone. So are his state and protection described, Psalms 106:12-15. And we may observe,— Obs. 1. That when faith enables men to live unto God as unto their eternal concernments, it will enable them to trust unto him in all the difficulties, dangers, and hazards of this life. — To pretend a trust in God as unto our souls and invisible things, and not resign our temporal concernments with patience and quietness unto his disposal, is a vain pretense. And we may take hence an eminent trial of our faith. Too many deceive themselves with a presumption of faith in the promises of God, as unto things future and eternal. They suppose that they do so believe as that they shall be eternally saved; but if they are brought into any trial as unto things temporal, wherein they are concerned, they know not what belongs unto the life of faith, nor how to trust in God in a due manner. It was not so with Abraham; his faith acted itself uniformly with respect unto the providences as well as the promises of God. Wherefore, — Obs. 2. If we design to have an interest in the blessing of Abraham, we must walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham.— Firm affiance in the promises for grace, mercy, and eternal salvation, trust in his providence for preservation and protection in this world, with a cheerful resignation of all our temporal and eternal concerns unto his disposal, according to the tenor of the covenant, are required hereunto. And they are all indispensably necessary unto that obedience wherein we are to walk with God, as he did. The faith of most men is lame and halt in the principal parts and duties of it.Obs. 3. When faith is once duly fixed on the promises, it will wait patiently under trials, afflictions, and temptations, for their full accomplishment; as did that of Abraham which is here celebrated. See the exposition on Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 6:15.Obs. 4. Faith discerning aright the glory of spiritual promises, will make the soul of a believer contented and well satisfied with the smallest portion of earthly enjoyments, etc. The apostle gives a full indication in this discourse that Abraham was very well satisfied with the state and condition of a stranger and pilgrim in the world, without possession, without inheritance, which God had called him unto. And therefore he proceeds in the next place to declare the grounds and reasons whereon he was so satisfied. Hebrews 11:10. — ᾿Εξεδέγετογάρτὴντοὺςθεμελίουςἔχουσανπόλιν, ἧςτεξνίτηςκαὶδημιουργὸςὁΘεὸς.Hebrews 11:10. — For he looked for a city [that city] which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.The conjunction γάρ intimates that a reason is given in these words why Abraham behaved himself as a sojourner on the earth; it was because he knew that his portion did not lie in the things here below, but he looked for things of another nature, which by this means were to be obtained. For it is the end that regulates our judgment concerning the means.And there are in the words, 1. What is assigned unto Abraham, or his faith, namely, an expectation, a looking for somewhat more than at present he enjoyed.2. What he so looked for, which is “a city;” in opposition unto those tents or movable habitations which he lived in.3. That city is described,(1.) From the nature of it, it “hath foundations;”(2.) From the builder and framer of it, which is “God.”Our first inquiry must be, what that “city” was; and then how he “looked for it.” 1. Some late expositors, not for want of wit or learning, but out of enmity unto the efficacy of the office of Christ under the old testament, and the benefit of the church thereby, have labored to corrupt this testimony; some by wresting that word, “the city,” the object of Abraham’s expectation; and others that of his looking for or expecting of it: which must therefore be vindicated. “That city.” The article prefixed denotes an eminency in this city. “That is Jerusalem,” saith Grotius; and so interprets the words: “He hoped that his posterity should in those places have, not wandering habitations, but a city that God would prepare for them in an especial manner.” But he is herein forsaken by his follower. Nor do the Socinians dare to embrace that interpretation, though suited unto their design. But, — (1.) This is expressly contrary unto the exposition given by the apostle himself of this expression, or rather the repetition of the same thing, verse 16, “They desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city.” The “city” and “country” which they looked for was “heavenly;” and that in opposition unto the land of Canaan, and Jerusalem the metropolis thereof. (2.) It is not suitable unto God’s dealing with Abraham, unto his promise unto him, unto the nature and effects of his faith, that he should have nothing to encourage him in his pilgrimage, but a hope that after many generations his posterity should have a city to dwell in in the land of Canaan, wherein the condition of most of them was not better than his in tents.(3.) Whereas the framing and making of this city respects the being and substance of it, there is no reason why the building of that Jerusalem should be so ascribed unto God, as to exclude the work and workmanship of men, by whom indeed it was built. For the sense of that expression, “Whose builder and maker is God,” is the same with that of Heb 8:2, “Which the Lord pitched, and not man.” (4.) It is plain that this was the ultimate object of the faith of Abraham, the sum and substance of what he looked for from God, on the account of his promise and covenant. To suppose that this was only an earthly city, not to be possessed by his posterity until eight hundred years afterwards, and then but for a limited time, is utterly to overthrow his faith, the nature of the covenant of God with him, and his being an example unto gospel believers, as he is here proposed to be.This city, therefore, which Abraham looked for, is that heavenly city, that everlasting mansion, which God hath provided and prepared for all true believers with himself after this life, as it is declared, verse 16. It is also sometimes called a house, sometimes a tabernacle, sometimes a mansion, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Luke 16:9, John 14:2; it being the place of their everlasting abode, rest, and refreshment. And herein is comprised also the whole reward and glory of heaven, in the enjoyment of God. With the expectation hereof did Abraham and the following patriarchs support, refresh, and satisfy themselves, in the midst of all the toil and labor of their pilgrimage. For, —Obs. 1. A certain expectation of the heavenly reward, grounded on the promises and covenant of God, is sufficient to support and encourage the souls of believers under all their trials in the whole course of their obedience.Obs. 2. Heaven is a settled, quiet habitation; a suitable dwelling for them that have had a life of trouble in this world.(1.) The first part of the description of this city is taken from the nature of it, namely, that it is such as “hath foundations.” It is generally granted that there is an opposition herein unto the tents or tabernacles, such as wherein Abraham sojourned, which had no foundation, being supported only by stakes and cords. But the especial nature of the foundations of this city is intended, in comparison wherewith the foundations of other cities, laid in stone and mortar, are none at all. For experience hath manifested that they all are fading, temporary, and subject to ruin. But these foundations are such as give perpetuity, yea eternity, unto the superstructure, even all that are built upon them. Wherefore these foundations are the eternal power, the infinite wisdom, and immutable counsel of God. On these is the heavenly city founded and established. The purpose of God in his wisdom and power to make the heavenly state of believers immutable and eternal, subject to no change, no alteration, no opposition, is the foundation of this city. For, —Obs. 3. All stability, all perpetuity in every state, here and hereafter, ariseth from the purpose of God, and is resolved thereinto.(2.) The second part of the description of this city is from “the builder and maker of it;” that is, God. Most expositors judge that both the words here used are of the same signification; and indeed the difference between them is not material, if there be any. Properly, τεχνίτης is “artifex,” he who in building projecteth, contriveth, and designeth the whole frame and fabric, that regularly disposeth of it according to the rules of art. And δημιουργός is “conditor,” the builder or maker; that is, not he whose hands are employed in the work, but he whose the whole work is, at whose charge, on whose design, and for whose service it is made. So are “condo” and “conditor” always applied in Latin authors. Between these two, namely, “artifex” and “conditor,” the contriver and the chief author and disposer of the whole, there is in other buildings an interposition of them that actually labor in the work itself, the workmen. Here is nothing said of them, because they were supplied in this building by a mere word of infinite and sovereign power, without labor or toil; he said, ‘Let it be so,’and it was so. Wherefore God alone is the only contriver, framer, and erector of the heavenly city, without the least concurrence of any other agents, without the least use of any instrument. Next unto the constitution of the person of Christ, and the tabernacle which he pitched therein, this was the greatest instance of his infinite wisdom and skill in architecture. Heaven, with respect unto the visible fabric of it, with its immense spaces, luminaries, and order, is the principal means of the demonstration of the divine glory unto us, among all the works of creation. But here it is considered as the habitation of God himself, with all that enjoy his presence, and the polity or order which is the therein. And this is the most ineffable effect of infinite wisdom and power. And, — Obs. 4. This is that which recommends unto us the city of God, the heavenly state, that it is, as the work of God alone, so the principal effect of his wisdom and power.2. Of this city it is said that Abraham by faith “looked for it;” that is, he believed eternal rest with God in heaven, whereon he comfortably and constantly sustained the trouble of his pilgrimage in this world. This expectation is an act and fruit of faith, or it is that hope proceeding from faith whereby we are saved; or rather, it is a blessed fruit of faith, trust, and hope, whereby the soul is kept continually looking into and after the things that are promised. This was in Abraham a signal evidence of his faith, as also of the power of his faith in his supportment, and the way whereby it did support him; — the same with what the apostle ascribes unto all believers, 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, “For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.”This is a full description of the faith of Abraham, in the operation and effect here ascribed to it by the apostle. And herein it is exemplary and encouraging unto all believers under their present trials and sufferings; which is the apostle’s present design. Schlichtingius takes great pains to prove that indeed Abraham did not by faith look for a heavenly city or eternal reward, in direct contradiction unto the express words and argument of the apostle. Some general notions and apprehensions of the future reward he grants he might have, from the goodness and power of God; but faith of an eternal estate he had not, because God had not revealed nor promised it, Why then is it, said that he expected it, or looked for it? “Because God did purpose in himself to do it in his time, it was as certain as if Abraham had believed it; whence he is said to expect it.” But to suppose that Abraham, who had the first promise of a Deliverer and deliverance from all the effects of sin, even the promise of Him in whom all nations should be blessed, and was entered into that covenant with God wherein God engaged himself to be his God after this life, as our Savior expounds it, should have no faith of eternal life, is to deny the faith of God and the church. And we may observe, that — Obs. 5. A constant expectation of an eternal reward argues a vigorous exercise of faith, and a sedulous attendance unto all duties of obedience; for without these it will not be raised nor preserved, 2 Corinthians 4:16-17; 1 John 3:2. The instances of the faith of Abraham insisted on by the apostle in this discourse may be referred unto two heads: first, Such as respect his call; secondly, Such as respect the promise made unto him. Those of the first sort are two: 1. His obedience unto the divine call, in leaving his country and father’s family;2. His patience in enduring the troubles of a pilgrimage all his days, in a land wherein he was a stranger. The consideration of both these we have passed through.Here he proceeds unto the instances of his faith with respect unto the promise made unto him, namely, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. And these also are two: 1. That which concerned the birth of Isaac, by whom the promise was to have its accomplishment;2. What he did by faith on the command of God, in offering up of the son of the promise.In the first of these, or what concerned the birth of Isaac, the son of the promise, Abraham was not alone, but Sarah his wife was both naturally and spiritually no less concerned than himself. Wherefore the apostle in the midst of his discourse concerning Abraham and his faith, in this one instance introduceth Sarah in conjunction with him, as on many reasons she ought not to have been omitted. Hebrews 11:11. — ΠίστεικαὶαὐτὴΖάῤῥα (στεῖραοὗσα) δύναμινεἰςκαταβολὴνσπέρματοςἔλαβε, καὶπαρὰκαιρὸνἡλικίας[8] ἔτεκεν, ἐπεὶπιστὸνἡγήσατοτὸνἐπαγγειλάμενον. [8] VARIOUS . — The words στεῖρα and ἔτεκεν are now omitted in all the critical editions of the New Testament. — ED. Στεῖραου῏σα, “being barren.” Vulg. Lat., “sterilis.” Syr., γּ ?ςֲ ?χψְ ?ϊָ ?ΰηֲ ?εַ ?ϊ, “ַ ?who was barren.” And the words are retained in many vulgar translations. We omit them, for they are found only in two copies of the original; nor are they taken notice of by the ancient scholiasts. And it is far move probable that these words were inserted in one or two copies, than that they were left out of all the rest: for there is no color of reason why they should be omitted; but the addition of them, especially containing a truth, seems to set out more fully the greatness of the instance proposed. Εἰςκαταβολὴνσπέρματος. Vulg. Lat., “in conceptione seminis.” Rhem., “received virtue in conceiving seed.” Δύναμις is properly “vis,” “strength,” “power.” The Vulgar renders it here “virtutem;” proper enough in Latin, but “virtue” is very improper in our language, as unto this use of the word. “In the conception,” for “to conceive.” “Ad concipiendum semen,” “ad retinendum semen,” “ad concipiendum et retinendum semen.” Syr., γַּ ?ϊְּ ?χַ ?αְּ ?μִ ?ιφַ ?ψְ ?ςָ ?ΰ “ut susciperet semen.” The inquiries and disputes of expositors on these words, as unto their precise signification with reference unto Sarah, are useless, and some of them offensive. Strength to conceive a child, after the manner of other women, is all that the apostle intends.῎Ετεκεν is absent in one ancient Greek copy; which supplies it by τὸτεκνῶσαι, after ἔλαβε, to “beget children.” It is omitted in the Vulgar, which reads the words etiam praeter tempus aetatis;” “yea, past the time of age.” The Syriac retains it, ιֶ ?μְ ?γַ ?ϊ“brought,” or “bare a child.” Those who omit it, refer the whole to the cause, or her conception; those who retain it, express the effect also, in child-bearing.῾Ηγήσατο. Vulg., “credidit,” she “believed.” So the Syriac, γּ ?ΰωְׁ ?ψַ ?ϊ, “believed assuredly.” “Reputavit,” “judicavit;” “accounted,” “judged.” Hebrews 11:11. — Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed; and was delivered of a child when she was past age; because she judged him faithful who had promised.1. The person whose faith is here proposed as exemplary, is Sarah. But many expositors suppose that it is not Sarah’s faith, but Abraham’s, which wrought this effect by Sarah, that is commended. The reasons which I have seen on the one side and the other are light, and easily answered. But there are those which are cogent to convince that it is the faith of Sarah that is intended. For, —(1.) The manner of expression is a certain determination of her person to be the subject spoken of: ΚαὶαὐτὴΣάῤῥα, — “and,” or “also, Sarah herself.” The words plainly signify the introduction of another person in the same order, or unto the same purpose with him before spoken of. (2.) As Abraham was the father of the faithful, or the church, so she was the mother of it, so as that the distinct mention of her faith was necessary. She was the free-woman from whence the church sprang, Galatians 4:22-23. And all believing women are her daughters, 1 Peter 3:6. See Genesis 17:16.(3.) Her working and obedience are proposed unto the church as an example, and therefore her faith may justly be so also, 1 Peter 3:5-6.(4.) She was equally concerned in the divine revelation with Abraham, and was as sensible of great difficulties in its accomplishment as Abraham, if not more so.(5.) The blessing of the promised Seed was confined and appropriated unto Sarah no less than unto Abraham: Genesis 17:16, “I will bless her, yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations.” See Genesis 17:19; Genesis 18:10. Herein her faith was necessary, and is here recorded. Some things may be observed in the proposition of this instance and example; as, — (1.) That it is the faith of a woman that is celebrated. Hence that sex may learn, even that they also may be examples of faith unto the whole church, as Sarah was. And it is necessary for their encouragement; because,[1. Of the especial concernment of their sex in the first entrance of sin, which the apostle animadverts upon, for their instruction in humility and subjection unto the will of God, and makes it a matter of especial grace, that “they shall be saved,” 1 Timothy 2:9-15.[2. Because of their natural weakness, subject in a peculiar manner unto various temptations; which in this example they are encouraged to conflict withal and overcome by faith. Whence it is that they are “heirs together” with their believing husbands “of the grace of life,” 1 Peter 3:7.(2.) Here is a signal commendation of the faith of Sarah, even in that very instance wherein it was shaken and failed, though it recovered itself afterward. For whatever working there might be of natural affections in the surprisal which befell her on the promise of a son, whereon she laughed, yet there was a mixture of unbelief in it, as appears from the reproof given her, “Is any thing too hard for the LORD?” Genesis 18:13-14. But being awakened by that reproof, and receiving a fuller evidence that it was the Lord which spake to her, she recovered herself, and rested by faith in his power and truth. Wherefore, — Obs. 1. Faith may be sorely shaken and tossed with difficulties, at their first appearance, lying in the way of the promise, which yet at last it shall overcome. — And there be many degrees of its weakness and failure herein; as,[1. A mere recoiling with some disorder in the understanding, unable to apprehend the way and manner of the accomplishment of the promise. This was in the blessed Virgin herself, who, on the promise of her conception of a child, replied, “How shall,” or “can this be, seeing I know not a man?” Luke 1:34. But she immediately recovered herself into an acquiescency in the power and faithfulness of God, verses 37,38,45.[2. It ariseth unto a distrust of the event of the promises or their accomplishment, because of the difficulties that lie in the way. So was it with Zacharias, the father of John Baptist; who thereon had his own dumbness given him for a sign of the truth of the promise, Luke 1:18; Luke 1:20. So was it with Sarah on this occasion; for which she was reproved. This is denied of Abraham, “He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief,” Romans 4:20. And this at times is found in us all.[3. When there is for a season an actual prevalency of unbelief. So it was with the apostle Peter, when he denied his Master; who yet was quickly recovered. It is therefore our duty, [1. To watch that our faith be not surprised, or shaken by the appearance of difficulties and oppositions. [2. Not to despond utterly on any degree of its failure; for it is in its nature, by the use of means, to recover its vigor and efficacy. (3.) The carriage of Sarah is twice repeated by the Holy Ghost, here and 1 Peter 3:6; and in both places only what was good in it, — namely, her faith toward God on her recovery after her reproof, and her observance of her husband, whom, speaking to herself, she called “lord,” — is mentioned and proposed, without the least remembrance of her failing or miscarriage. And such will be the judgment of Christ at the last day concerning all those whose faith and obedience are sincere, though accompanied with many failings. 2. The second thing in the words is, what is here ascribed unto the faith of Sarah, or what she obtained by virtue of it: “She received strength to conceive seed.”(1.) She “received” it. It was not what she had in or of herself; she had it in a way of free gift, whereunto she contributed nothing but a passive reception.(2.) That which she received was “strength;” that is, power and ability for the especial end aimed at: this she had lost through age. And I do believe that this was not a mere miraculous generation, but that she received a general restoration of her nature unto an ability for all its primitive operations, which was before decayed. So was it with Abraham afterward, who after this, after his body was as dead, received strength to have many children by Keturah.(3.) What she received this strength for by faith; “to conceive seed.” There is no need to debate the precise signification of the word καταβολή in this place, as elsewhere. The arguings of some about it are offensive. It may suffice, that the meaning of the phrase is, to conceive a child in the womb after a natural way and manner, such as there was not in the conception of our Lord Jesus Christ in the womb of the blessed Virgin. Wherefore it is most probable that the holy Virgin conceived in her womb immediately upon the angelical salutation declaring it unto her. But Sarah conceived not until some good while after the divine revelation made unto her that she should have a child. See Genesis 17:21; Genesis 21:2.Here some copies read στεῖραου῏σα, “being barren;” which was true, and increaseth the miracle of her conception; — that whereas she had been barren all the usual and ordinary time of women’s bearing children in the course of their lives, she should now in her old age conceive seed. It is observed, indeed, that “Sarai was barren,” Genesis 11:30. But yet when the trial of her faith came, the difficulty did not arise from a natural barrenness, but that the time of life for bearing of children was now past with her. She was old, “and it ceased to be with her after the manner of women,” Genesis 18:11-12; or, as the apostle expounds it, her womb was dead, Romans 4:19. And this is that which here the greatness of this effect of faith is ascribed unto, namely, that she was “delivered of a child when she was past age.” If we read ἔτεκε, with most copies, “she was delivered of a child,” or she “childed,” she “bare a child,” then the particle καί is conjunctive, and denotes an addition unto what was said of her conceiving seed, namely, that she “also childed,” or brought forth a child. If it be absent, it is to be rendered by “even,” to denote a heightening circumstance of what was before effected. “She received strength to conceive seed, event when she was past age.” But the former is to be followed; she conceived, and accordingly bare a son, Genesis 21:2.That which was eminent herein, manifesting that it was a mere effect of faith, is, that it was thus with her παρὰκαιρὸνἡλακίας, “after the season of age was past.” So the apostle expounds that passage in Moses, “Sarah was old, and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women,” Genesis 18:11. She was ninety years old at that time, Genesis 17:17. And this was that which at first shook her faith, for want of a due consideration of the omnipotency of God; for that the improbability hereof, and the impossibility of it in an ordinary way of nature, was that which shook her faith for a season, is evident from the reply made by God unto her, “Is any thing too hard for the LORD”Genesis 18:14. She considered not that where divine veracity was engaged, infinite power would be so also to make it good. And we may observe, that, —Obs. 2. Although God ordinarily worketh by his concurring blessing on the course of nature, yet is he not obliged thereunto. Yet, —Obs. 3. It is no defect in faith, not to expect events and blessings absolutely above the use of means, unless we have a particular warranty for it, as Sarah had in this case.Obs. 4. The duty and use of faith about temporal mercies are to be regulated by the general rules of the word, where no especial providence doth make application of a promise.Obs. 5. The mercy here spoken of, concerning a son unto Abraham by Sarah his wife, was absolutely decreed, and absolutely promised; yet God indispensably requires faith in them for the fulfilling of that decree, and the accomplishment of that promise. The great engine whereby men have endeavored to destroy the certainty and efficacy of the grace of God is this, that if he have absolutely decreed and promised any thing which he will accomplish, then all our duty with respect unto it is rendered unnecessary. And if this be so, all the faith of the church under the old testament concerning the promised Seed, or coming of the Messiah, was vain and useless, for it was absolutely decreed and absolutely promised. So would have been the faith of Sarah in this case; nor could she have deserved blame for her unbelief But it is no way inglorious unto the methods of God, as unto his own grace and our obedience, that they are unsuited unto the carnal reasonings of men. 3. The last thing in the words is the ground of the effect declared, or the nature of that faith whereby she obtained the mercy mentioned. And this was, “Because she judged him faithful who had promised.” ᾿Επεί, “quoniam, “because. It doth not intimate the meritorious cause of the thing itself, nor any procuring cause of it; it only shows the reason of what was before asserted, namely, that it was by faith that she obtained a child, — “For she judged,” etc.That which is ascribed unto her on this occasion, which contains the general nature of that faith whereby she received strength, is, that “she judged him faithful who had promised,” etc. (1.) The act ascribed unto her is, that “she judged,” she reckoned, esteemed, reputed him so to be. Vulg. Lat. and Syr., “she believed:” which is true; but there is more in this word than a naked assent, there is a determinate resolution of the mind and judgment, on a due consideration of the evidence given for its assent unto any truth. And herein the nature of true faith in general doth consist, namely, in the mind’s judging and determination upon the evidence proposed. Sarah’s faith in this ease was the issue of a temptation, a trial. When she first heard the promise, she considered only the thing promised, and was shaken in her faith by the improbability of it, being that which she had lost all expectation and even desire of. But when she recollected herself, and took off her mind from the thing promised unto the Promiser, faith prevailed in her. (2.) This is manifest in the especial object of her faith, herein; and that was, “He that promised,” — that is, God himself in his promise. She first thought of the thing promised, and this seemed unto her altogether incredible; but at length, taking off her thoughts from the consideration of all second causes, she fixed her mind on God himself who had promised, and came unto this resolution, whatever difficulties or oppositions lay in the way of the accomplishment of the promise, he that made it was able to remove them all; and such was his faithfulness, that he would make good his word wherein he had caused her to put her trust. (3.) So it is added in the last place, that “she judged him faithful.” She resolved her faith, into, and rested upon the veracity of God in the accomplishment of his promises; which is the immediate proper object of faith, Titus 1:2. But yet also she joined with it the consideration of almighty power; for she thus recollected herself upon those words of God, “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” And we may see, —Obs. 6. That the formal object of faith in the divine promises is not the things promised in the first place, but God himself in his essential excellencies of truth or faithfulness, and power. — To fix our minds on the things themselves promised, to have an expectation or supposition of the enjoyment of them, as suppose mercy, grace, pardon, glory, without a previous acquiescency of mind in the truth and faithfulness of God, or on God himself as faithful, and able to accomplish them, is but a deceiving imagination. But on this exercise of faith in God, we make a comfortable application of the things promised unto our own souls; as did Sarah in this case. And, —Obs. 7. Every promise of God hath this consideration tacitly annexed to it, “Is any thing too hard for the LORD?” — There is no divine promise, no promise of the new covenant, but when it comes unto the trial, as unto our closing with it, we apprehend as great a difficulty and improbability of its accomplishment unto us as Sarah did of this. All things seem easy unto them who know not what it is to believe, nor the necessity of believing; they do so to them also who have learned to abuse the grace of God expressed in the promises, and to turn it into wantonness: but poor, humble, broken souls, burdened with sin, and entangled in their own darkness, find insuperable difficulties, as they apprehend, in the way of the accomplishment of the promises. This is their principal retreat in their distress, “Is any thing too hard for the LORD?” This God himself proposeth as the foundation of our faith in our entering into covenant with him, Genesis 17:1-2. And therefore, — Obs. 8. Although the truth, veracity, or faithfulness of God, be in a peculiar manner the immediate object of our faith, yet it takes in the consideration of all other divine excellencies for its encouragement and corroboration. And all of them together are that “name of the LORD,” whereon a believing soul stays itself in all extremities, Isaiah 50:10. And, — Thus is “the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith;” that is, the righteousness of Christ as tendered in the promise is made known and communicated from the faith of God therein unto the faith of them by whom it is believed. In this verse we have an illustration of the fruit of the faith before declared, by the eminent consequent of it, in the numerous or innumerable posterity of Abraham. Hebrews 11:12. — Διὸκαὶἀφ᾿ἑνὸςἐγεννήθησαν, καὶταῦτανενεκρωμένου, καθὼςτὰἄστρατοῦοὐρανοῦτῷπλήθει, καὶὡςἡἄμμοςἡπαρὰτὸχεῖλοςτῆςθαλάσσηςἡἀναρίθμητος.Hebrews 11:12. — Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea-shore, innumerable.The things contained in this verse, as they were a consequent of the original mercy or fruit of faith in the conception and birth of Isaac, so they are reckoned also themselves unto the gratuitous remuneration of faith, although it be not added particularly that it was by faith. For they are expressly contained in the promise to Abraham, which he received by faith, and that in the very words recorded here by the apostle: Genesis 15:4-5, the Lord said unto him, “He that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir;” which is what was declared in the foregoing verse. And then he adds, “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them, So shall thy seed be;” as it is in this place: Genesis 22:17, “I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore.”Wherefore the belief hereof belonged unto that faith of Abraham which he is commended for. And it had its peculiar difficulties also, that rendered it both acceptable and commendable. For whereas he himself had but one son by virtue of the promise, it was not easy for him to apprehend how he should have such an innumerable posterity. And it may be observed, that the first testimony given unto the justification of Abraham by faith, was upon his belief of this part of the promise, that his seed should be as the stars of heaven, that cannot be numbered; for thereon it is immediately added, that “he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness,” Genesis 15:5-6. For although this promise concerned things temporal, yet it belonged unto the way of redemption by Christ, the promised seed: so that justifying faith may act itself, and be an evidence of our justification, when we believe promises even about temporal mercies, as they belong unto the covenant; whereof we have innumerable examples under the old testament. The note of inference, διὸ, “therefore,” respects not a consequence in the way of reasoning, but the introduction of a consequent, or other matter, upon what was before asserted.And the particle καί in the original is not conjunctive, but emphatical only; so we render it even, “even of one.” The blessing here declared as a fruit of faith, is, a numerous posterity. Not only had Abraham and Sarah one son, upon their believing, but by him a numerous, yea, an innumerable, posterity. But it may be inquired, whence this should be such a blessing as to be celebrated amongst the most eminent fruits of faith, as being the subject of a solemn divine promise. I answer, It was so, because the whole church of God, who should be the true worshippers of him under the old testament, was confined unto the posterity of Abraham. Therefore was their multiplication a singular blessing, which all the faithful prayed for and rejoiced 3: So is it stated by Moses, Deuteronomy 1:10-11 :“The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!”And, — Obs. 1. When God is pleased to increase his church in number, it is on various accounts a matter of rejoicing unto all believers; and a subject of their daily prayers, as that which is frequently promised in the word of truth. Obs. 2. An ungodly, carnal multitude, combined together in secular interests for their advantage, unto the ends of superstition and sin, calling themselves “the church,” like that of Rome, is set up by the craft of Satan, to evade the truth and debase the glory of these promises. This blessing of a numerous posterity is variously set forth, illustrated, and heightened. 1. From the root of it. It was “one,” one man; that is Abraham. Unto him alone was the great promise of the blessing Seed now confined. And he, though but one, was heir of all the promises. And this privilege of Abraham, the Jews, when they were grown wicked and carnal, boasted of and applied unto themselves. They spake, saying,“Abraham was one, and he inhabited the land: but we are many; the land is given us for an inheritance,” Ezekiel 33:24.He was that one whose rights and privileges they appropriated unto themselves He was mentioned so here by the apostle, to set off the greatness of the mercy proposed, that so many should spring of one. 2. From the consideration of the state and outward condition of that one when he became the spring of this numerous posterity; “and him as good as dead,” — καὶταῦτανενεκρωμένου: so all our translations from Tyndal, much to the sense of the words. So it is expressed, Romans 4:19, Σῶμαἤδηνενεκρωμένον, — “His body now dead;” or rather, “mortified,” brought towards death, made impotent by age; being, as the apostle there observes, “about an hundred years old:” The word ταῦτα is variously rendered; but, as Erasmus observes, it is often used adverbially, and rendered “idque,” “atque,” “id,” “et quidem;” “and that,” “and truly.” And if we shall say that καὶταῦτα is taken for καὶπρὸςταῦτα, as sometimes it is, the meaning will be plain: “And as unto these things,” — that is, the generation of children, — “one that was dead.” Otherwise I cannot better express the sense than as it is in our translation. For this sense cannot be allowed, that “there sprang from one, and that after he was dead;” with respect unto the succeeding progenitors of the people: but respect is had unto the then present state of Abraham. His body naturally was as useless unto the end of the procreation of such a posterity as if it had been dead. Obs. 3. God oftentimes by nature works things above the power of nature in its ordinary efficacy and operations. So by weak and dead means he often produceth mighty effect.The way of the raising of this posterity from this “one,” we express by, “They sprang from him;” that is, as the word signifies, were “begotten” or born in their several generations, — the original spring and fountain of them all being in him. 3. The greatness of this fruit of faith, in a numerous posterity, is expressed by declaring the multitude of them, in a twofold proverbial expression.(1.) They were for multitude, “as many as the stars in the sky.” I had rather say, “the stars of heaven,” as it is in the original, for so they are constantly called; and in all naturalists the place of their fixation is termed “the starry heaven.”This expression was first used by God himself, who commanded Abraham to go out, or “brought him forth abroad,” and bade him “look toward heaven and tell the stars, if he were able to number them.” Now, although it is pretended that, by rules of art, those of them which are visible or conspicuous may be numbered, and are not so great a multitude as is supposed, yet it is evident that in a naked view of them, by our eyes, without any outward helps, such as God called Abraham unto, there can be no greater appearance of what is absolutely innumerable. Besides, I judge that in this comparison of the posterity of Abraham unto the stars of heaven, not only their number, but their beauty and order are also respected. The stars of heaven are like the inhabitants of a well- governed commonwealth, a people digested into order and rule, with great variety as unto their magnitude and aspects. This was a just representation of the numerous posterity of Abraham, disposed into the order of a wise commonwealth in the giving of the law. (2.) In the other allusion they are declared to be absolutely innumerable. It is not said that they should be as many as the sand by the sea-shore; but as that is “innumerable,” so should they also be. So were they a multitude, in their successive generations, which could be no more numbered than the sand by the sea-shore.On many considerations there cannot be a greater instance of the absolute certainty of an almighty efficacy in divine promises for their accomplishment, than is in that here proposed. Neither their own sins, nor the oppressions of the world, nor their Egyptian bondage, nor the graves of the wilderness, could hinder this fruit of faith, or the accomplishment of this promise. And hence proceeded the miraculous multiplication of the posterity of Jacob in Egypt, wherein from seventy-five persons, in little more than two hundred years, there sprang “six hundred thousand men, besides women and children.” Wherefore, — Obs. 4. Whatever difficulties and oppositions lie in the way of the accomplishment of the promises under the new testament, made unto Jesus Christ concerning the increase and stability of his church and kingdom, they shall have an assured accomplishment. Upon the proposal of these instances, because there was somewhat peculiar in them, distinct from those before recounted and those which follow after, namely, their pilgrim estate after the call of Abraham, the apostle diverts unto the declaration of what they did, what they attained, and what they professed in that state, His entrance into it is in this verse. Hebrews 11:13. — Κατὰπίστινἀπέθανονοὗτοιπάντες, μὴλαβόντεςτὰςἐπαγγελίας, ἀλλὰπόῤῥωθεναὐτὰςἰδόντες, καὶπεισθέντες, καὶἀσπασάμενοι, καὶὁμολογήαντεςὅτιξένοικαὶπαρεπίδημοίεἰσινἐπίτῆςγῆς.Κατὰπίστιν. Vulg. Lat, “juxta fidem,” “according to faith.” Syr., αִּ ?δַ ?ιְ ?ξָ ?πεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “in faith;” as in the former places, where it is ἐνπίστει. Beza, “secundum fidem;” more properly than “juxta.”Μὴλαβόντεςτὰςἐπαγγελίας. Vulg. Lat., “non acceptis repromissionibus,” “having’not received the promises.” Beza, “non adepti promissa,” “having not obtained the promises;” I think less to the mind of the apostle. Syr., ξεּ ?μְ ?λָ ?πְ ?δεּ ?ο, “their promise,” the promise made to them.Ethiop., “all these believing, obtained their own promises;” as it is usual with that translator, to contradict the text. Πόῤῥωθεν, “e longe,” “e longinquo,” “eminus;” “afar off,” at a great distance.Πεισθέντες is not in the Vulgar Latin nor Syriac, but is in most Greek copies, and is necessary to the sense.᾿Ασπασάμενοι. Vulg. Lat., “salutantes.” Beza, “amplexi essent;” as we,[9] “embraced.” Syr., εηֲ ?γִ ?ιεαֵ ?δּ, “and rejoiced in it.” [9] VARIOUS READING. — Καὶπεισθέντες are omitted by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. — ED. Hebrews 11:13. — These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.There is proposed unto us in the words, 1. The persons spoken of; and, 2. What is affirmed of them.1. The persons spoken of, — “All these.” That is, not all that he had instanced in from the beginning of the chapter, although they also, all of them except Enoch, who was translated, died in faith; but ‘those only who left their own country on the especial command of God, living as pilgrims in the land of Canaan, and elsewhere, — that is, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob. This is evident from what is affirmed of them in the ensuing verses 13-15.2. Of all these, many things are affirmed.(1.) That they “died in faith.” That they lived by faith, he had before declared; and now he adds that so they died also. It is in the original, “according to faith;” in the same sense. So, to “walk κατὰσάρκα,” Romans 8:4, is the same with living ἐνσαρκί, verse 8. And so it is well rendered, “in faith. There is no doubt but that the apostle commends the faith of them spoken of, from its perseverance unto the end; as there is no faith genuine or accepted with God but what doth and will do so. Their faith failed them not, neither unto nor in their last moments. But there is also somewhat more intended, namely, the exercise of faith in dying: they died in the exercise of faith as unto their own persons and state. And hereunto is required, [1. The firm belief of a substantial existence after this life; without this all faith and hope must perish in death. [2. A resignation and trust of their departing souls into the care and power of God, when they understood not how they could continue in their own conduct. [3. The belief of a future state of blessedness and rest, here called “an heavenly country,” “a city” prepared for them by God. [4. Faith of the resurrection of their bodies after death, that their entire persons, which had undergone the pilgrimage of this life, might be stated in eternal rest. For, on this their dying in faith, God after death “was not ashamed to be called their God,” Hebrews 11:16. Whence our Savior proves the resurrection of the body, Matthew 22:31-32. And, — Obs. 1. It is the glory of true faith, that it will not leave them in whom it is, that it will not cease its actings for their supportment and comfort in their dying; when the hope of the hypocrite doth perish. And, —Obs. 2. The life of faith doth eminently manifest itself in death, when all other reliefs and supportments do fail. And, — Obs. 3. That is the crowning act of faith, the great trial of its vigor and wisdom, namely, in what it doth in our dying. And, —Obs. 4. Hence it is that many of the saints, both of old and of late, have evidenced the most triumphant actings of faith in the approach of death.(2.) The second thing affirmed of them is, that they “received not the promises.”It is granted that the “promises” are here taken for the things promised; ἐπαγγελίας for ἐπάγγελτα. For as unto the promises themselves, they “saw them,” they “were persuaded of them,” they “embraced them;” wherefore it cannot be said that they received them not. And of Abraham it is said expressly, that he did receive the promises, verse 17; as also, that all other believers under the old testament did obtain them, verse 33.Again, “the promises,” in the plural number, is the same with “the promise,” in the singular, verse 39: for the promise intended was but one, but whereas it is frequently renewed, it is called “the promises;” as also because of the manifold occasional additions that were made unto it, and declaratory of it. This “promise,” or the thing promised, some expositors (as Grotius and his follower) take to be the land of Canaan, which these patriarchs possessed not. But nothing can be more remote from the intention of the apostle; for whilst they received not these promises, the country which they looked after was heavenly. And in the close of this discourse, he affirmeth of them who lived in Canaan in its greatest glory, and possessed it in quietness, as Samuel and David, that they received, not the promise, verse 39. Wherefore this promise is no other but that of the actual exhibition of Christ in the flesh, with all the privileges of the church thereby, which the apostle had so fully insisted on, chapters 7-10, foregoing. So, in particular, Abraham’s seeing the promises afar off, and embracing them, is interpreted by his seeing the day of Christ and rejoicing, John 8:56. This was the great fundamental promise of the blessing Seed made unto Abraham, which virtually comprised in it all other promises and blessings, temporal and eternal. This was that “better thing which God provided for us” under the new testament, “that they without us should not be made perfect,” Hebrews 11:40. And, —Obs. 5. The due understanding of the whole old testament, with the nature of the faith and obedience of all the saints under it, depends on this one truth, that they believed things that were not yet actually, exhibited nor enjoyed. — This is the line of life and truth that runs through all their profession and duties, the whole exercise of their faith and love, without which it was but a dead carcass. It was Christ in the promise, even before his coming, that was the life of the church in all ages. And, — Obs. 6. God would have the church from the beginning of the world to live on promises not actually accomplished. — For although we do enjoy the accomplishment of the great promise of the incarnation of the Son of God, yet the church continues still to live on promises, which in this world cannot be perfectly fulfilled. And, —Obs. 7. We may receive the promises as to the comfort and benefit of them, when we do not actually receive the things promised. See verse 1. And, —Obs. 8. As our privileges in the enjoyment of the promises are above theirs under the old testament; so our faith, thankfulness, and obedience, ought to excel theirs also.(3.) The third thing in the words, is the exercise and actings of their faith towards those promises which they had not yet received; that is, in their full accomplishment. And this is expressed under two heads:[1. What did immediately respect the promises themselves.[2. What profession they made thereon as unto all other things. [1. There were three degrees of the actings of their faith, with respect unto the promises themselves: 1st. They “saw them afar off;”2dly. They were “persuaded of them;”3dly. They “embraced them:” wherein the whole work of faith with reference unto divine promises is comprised and regularly disposed. For sight or knowledge, with trust or assured persuasion, and adherence with love, comprise the whole work of faith.1st. They “saw them afar off,” at a great distance. This further makes it evident that it is the things promised, and not the promises themselves, that are intended; for the promises were present with them, given unto them, and not afar off. The word respects time, and not distance of place; “e longinquo.” It was then a long space of time before those promises were to be accomplished. And this space was gradually taken off and shortened, until it was said to be a very “little while,” Haggai 2:6-7; and he that was promised was to come “suddenly,” Malachi 3:1. But at present it was “afar off.” This kept the church in a longing expectation and desire of the coming of this day; wherein the principal work of its faith and love did consist.Obs. 9. No distance of time or place can weaken faith as unto the accomplishment of divine promises. — There are such still left unto us upon record, that are, it may be, afar off; such as those which concern the destruction of Antichrist, and the glory of the kingdom of Christ in the latter days. The rule of faith concerning them is given us, Habakkuk 2:3-4. Yea, —Obs. 10. Quiet waiting for the accomplishment of promises at a great distance, and which most probably will not be in our days, is an eminent fruit of faith. — “He that believeth will not make haste.” Thus they saw them: It is an act of the mind and understanding that is expressed by this verb of sense. They understood the mind of God in the promises, that is, in general; and had the idea of the things promised in their minds. It is true, they discerned not distinctly and particularly the whole of what was contained in them; but they considered them, and diligently inquired into the mind of God in them, 1 Peter 1:11-12. They looked on the promises, they saw them as a map, wherein was drawn up the whole scheme of divine wisdom, goodness, and grace, for their deliverance from the state of sin and misery; but at such a distance as that they could not clearly discern the things themselves, but only saw a shadow of them. And this is the first act of faith with respect unto divine promises, namely, the discerning or understanding of the goodness, wisdom, love, and grace of God in them, suited unto our deliverance and salvation. And this I take to be intended in this expression, “they saw them;” which expositors take no notice of. 2dly. They were “persuaded of them,” — fully or certainly persuaded of them, as the word is used frequently. This is the second act of faith with respect unto divine promises. And it is the mind’s satisfactory acquiescency in the truth of God as unto their accomplishment. For when we discern the excellency of the things contained in them, the next inquiry is after an assurance of our participation of them. And herein, on the part of God, his truth and veracity do represent themselves unto us, Titus 1:2. Hence ariseth a firm persuasion of mind concerning their accomplishment. And to confirm this persuasion, God, in infinite condescension, confirmed his promise and his truth therein unto Abraham with his oath, as the apostle at large declares, Hebrews 6:12-18. Hereon they were assuredly persuaded that they were not empty flourishes, mere promises, that they were not subject unto any disappointment; but notwithstanding their great distance, and the intervenience of all sorts of difficulties, they should certainly be accomplished in their appointed time and season, Isaiah 60:22. Obs. 11. This firm persuasion of the truth of God in the accomplishment of his promises unto us, upon a discovery of their worth and excellency, is the second act of faith, wherein the life of it doth principally consist.3dly. On this persuasion they “embraced them.” The word signifies “to salute,” and is applied unto such salutations as are accompanied with delight and veneration. And because this kind of salutation is usually expressed by stretching out the hands to receive and embrace that which is saluted, it is used also for “to embrace;” which is the most proper sense of it in this place. Wherefore, this embracing of the promises is the heart’s cleaving to them with love, delight, and complacency; which if it be not a proper act of faith, yet is an inseparable fruit thereof.The apostle, therefore, hath here given us a blessed representation of the faith of these primitive believers; and therein of the frame of their hearts and minds in their walking before God. God had given unto them, confirmed and repeated, the great promise of the blessing Seed, as a recoverer from the state of sin, misery, and death. This they knew, as unto the actual accomplishment of it, was yet at a great distance from them; howbeit they saw that of the divine wisdom, goodness, and grace in it, as was every way suited unto their satisfaction and reward. Hereon they thrust forth the arms of their love and affection to welcome, entertain, and embrace him who was promised. And of this embracement of the promises, or of the Lord Christ in the promise, the Book of Canticles is a blessed exposition. This was the life, this was the comfort and supportment of their souls, in all their wanderings, under all their sufferings, in all the hazards and trials of their pilgrimage. And seeing it succeeded so well with them, as the apostle in the next verses declares, it is an eminent encouragement unto us to abide in the profession of the faith of the gospel, notwithstanding all difficulties, oppositions, and persecutions that we meet withal; we having already received that great privilege whereof they were only in the expectation. And we may observe by the way, the impiety of many in our days, who even deride such a faith as hath the divine promises for its especial object, which it embraceth, mixeth itself withal, and produceth an affiance in God for their accomplishment unto themselves in whom it is. For this was that faith whereby “the elders obtained a good report,” and not a mere naked, barren assent unto divine revelation; which is all that they will allow unto it. [2. The second effect of their faith was, that they “confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” To “confess,” is to grant that which we cannot deny, whether we do it willingly or unwillingly. But that is not the sense of the word as here used; it hath another signification. ῾Ομολογία is the “profession” that we make of our faith and hope, 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 10:23. And it is applied unto the witness which the Lord Christ gave unto himself and his doctrine, 1 Timothy 6:13. So is the verb, ὁμολογέω, constantly used, “to avow publicly,” “to profess openly” what is our faith and hope; especially when we meet with danger on the account of it. See Matthew 10:32; Luke 12:8; Romans 10:9-10. That, therefore, which is ascribed unto these believers is, that on all occasions they avowedly professed that their interest was not in nor of this world; but they had such a satisfactory portion in the promises which they embraced, as that they publicly renounced a concernment in the world like that of other men, whose portion is in this life. And, — Obs. 12. This avowed renunciation of all other things besides Christ in the promise, and the good-will of God in him, as to the repose of any trust or confidence in them for our rest and satisfaction, is an eminent act of that faith whereby we walk with God, Jeremiah 3:23-24; Hosea 14:2-3.That, in particular, which they thus professed of themselves is, that “they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” Rest, or home, is the perfection of our natures or beings; and it was originally intrusted with powers of operation for the attaining of it. But by sin those powers are lost, and the end is no more by them attainable. Yet we cannot but continue still to seek after it; and the most of men do look for it in this world, in this life. This, therefore, is their home, their country, their city of habitation. These believers professed that it was not so with them, that this was not their rest; they did but wander about in the world for a season. This profession made Abraham, Genesis 23:4; and Jacob, Genesis 47:8-9; and David, 1 Chronicles 29:15, Psalms 39:12. And that all believers are such, the apostle Peter declares, 1 Peter 2:11.If we distinguish these two sorts; ξένοι, “strangers,” are such as are always moving, having no abiding place at all, — such as was the state of our Lord Jesus Christ during his ministry, when he “had not where to lay his head;” παρεπίδημοι, or “pilgrims,” are such as take up an abode for a season, without an intermixture with the rights, duties, or privileges of the place wherein they are.This they are said to be “on the earth,” during their whole continuance here in this world. And an intimation is given of that other state which they looked for, and wherein their interest did lie, namely, heaven. The sum of the whole is, that they professed themselves called out of the world, separated from the world, as unto interest, design, rest, and reward; having placed their faith, hope, and trust, as unto all these things, in heaven above, and the good things to come. What it is to be “strangers and pilgrims” in this world; what actings of faith, what frames of spirit ought to be in them that are so; what evils and dangers they shall be assuredly exposed unto; what duties the consideration hereof is a motive unto; what use they may make of the world, and the things of it; what is required to state them in the heavenly polity, whereby, although they are pilgrims, yet they are not vagabonds; would be here too long to explain. From the profession of these patriarchs, that they were “strangers and pilgrims on the earth,” the apostle makes an inference from what is contained therein, which doth more expressly declare their faith than the words themselves which they were said to use. Hebrews 11:14. — Οἱγὰρποιαῦταλέγοντεςἐμφανίζουσινὅτιπατρίδαἐπιζητοῦσι.Hebrews 11:14. — For they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a country.“For they that say such things;” — be they who they will that speak such things as. these sincerely. Or, these persons, in their circumstances, saying such things as they are recorded in the Scripture to have spoken and publicly avowed. “Declare plainly;” they make it manifest and evident unto all: that is, there is this plain, open meaning and sense in their words. This is that which may easily be known to have been their mind, and what they designed in their words or expressions. And this was, that they did “seek a country,” or “a city for themselves,” as the Syriac expresseth it; that they “diligently inquired after it,” as the word signifies, or sought it with diligence. There is an entrance in these words on a train of evident consequences, one upon and from another, which he pursues in the next verses. For from their profession he concludes that they “desired a country.” And if they did so, it must be either that from whence they came, or some other. That from whence they came it could not be, for the reason he assigns. And if some other, it must be a better than either that from whence they came or where they were; which could be no other but a “heavenly country,” — that is, heaven itself. And some few things we may observe on this first inference of the apostle; as, — Obs. This is the genuine and proper way of the interpretation of the Scripture, when from the words themselves, considered with relation unto the persons speaking them, and all their circumstances, we declare what is their determinate mind and sense. — Hereunto, on the due apprehension of the literal sense of the words themselves, the studious exercise of reason, in all proper ways of arguing, is required. Some there are who deny all exposition of the Scripture; which is to say, that it ought not to be understood. Some are feigned to suppose that there is nothing needful hereunto but “spiritual illumination.” And some think there is no need of any such thing thereunto, but only the common use of our rational faculties, as in the understanding of other arts and sciences. The vanity of all which imaginations I have at large elsewhere discovered [10] and disproved. [10] See vol. 4 of miscellaneous works, book 6, part 2 of Pneumatologia. — Ed. The inference of the apostle from these words of the patriarchs is so evident and uncontrollable, that he affirms themselves to “declare plainly” what he declares to be the sense contained in their words. And indeed, take the words precisely, without a consideration of the mind wherewith they were spoken, the circumstances in which, and the end for which they were spoken, and they do not express any peculiar act or fruit of faith; for the very heathen had an apprehension that this life is but a kind of pilgrimage. So speaks Cicero, “De Senectute,” cap. 23. “Ex vita ita discedo tanquam ex hospitio, non tanquam ex domo. Commorandi enim natura diversorium nobis, non habitandi locum dedit.” But under their circumstances, there must be another sense in the words For they speak them not as the common condition of mankind, but as their peculiar portion in the world, with respect unto the promises of God. And herein in general they declare a sense of want, of an indigent condition; that it is not with them as with others, who have their portion in this life. And whoever declares a sense of want, at the same time declares a desire of a suitable supply of that want; which is included in the sense of it. And the want which they so declared consisting in this, that in this world they were “strangers and pilgrims,” — the only supply whereof is a country of their own for them to inhabit and enjoy, with all its rights and privileges, — they declared plainly therein that they sought a country: that alone is wanting to any as they are strangers and pilgrims; that alone will cause them to cease so to be. Most men do meet with and are sensible of sundry wants, yet they are such as may be supplied in the place where they are in this world; and their great desire, with their utmost endeavor, is, that they may be here supplied. Such persons, be they never so poor, so indigent, so harbourless, are not “pilgrims on the earth;” this is their home, although they are but ordinarily provided for. Much less are they so who have an affluence of all things unto their satisfaction, though they sometimes meet with a pinch or loss. They only are so who live always in a sense of such wants as this world cannot supply. Whereas these patriarchs did thus express their desire of a country, and diligently sought after it, it may be because, having lost their own country, their relations, and enjoyments, meeting with the difficulties of a wandering course of life, they had a desire to return home again, where they might have quiet habitations. This objection, which, if of force, would overthrow his present design, the apostle obviates and removes in this verse. Hebrews 11:15. — Καὶεἰμὲνἐκείνηςἐμνημόνευονἀφ᾿ἧςἐξῆλθον, ει῏χονἅνκαιρὸνἀνακάμψαι.Hebrews 11:15. — And truly, if they had been mindful of that from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.There is in the words, 1. A supposition that these pilgrims had originally a country of their own whereunto they did belong. 2. An assertion, first, That they left this country of their own accord; secondly, That in the profession they made of their being strangers and pilgrims, they had no respect unto the country they left, nor desire to return unto it. Which, 3. Is proved by the possibility and facility of such a return.1. Originally they had a country of their own. This was Ur of the Chaldees, Genesis 11:31; called also Mesopotamia, Acts 7:2, Genesis 24:10; the country “on the other side of the flood,” Joshua 24:2. Wherefore respect may be had either unto Ur of the Chaldees, which Abraham first left with his father; or unto Haran on the other side of Euphrates, where he first dwelt.2. From this country they went out; they left it, they departed from it upon the command of God. That is, Abraham and Sarah did so; and Isaac with Jacob continuing to follow them in obedience unto the same call, are said to do so also. And they went forth of it not for want, or to increase their riches, for Abraham had possessions and goods therein; nor were they driven out by external force or persecution, as the Jews fancy; but in an obediential compliance with the call of God. And this secured them from all desires of a return. 3. In their profession of being strangers and pilgrims, they had not respect unto this country. Εἰἐμνημόνευον, “si meminissent,” “si memores fuissent, “si recordarentur,” “si mentionem fecissent.” Syr., “si quaerentes essent.” We render it well, “if they had been mindful;” that is, remembered it with a mind and desire after it. It is natural unto all men to remember, to mind and desire their own country. Nothing is more celebrated amongst all sorts of ancient writers, nor more illustrated by examples, than the love of men unto their country, and their fervent desire after the enjoyment of it. Especially it was made evident in many when they came to die: —“ — Et dulces moriens reminiscitur Argos.” — Virg. AEn. 10:782.This love unto, this desire after their native soil, was mortified in these holy persons by faith, acting in obedience to the call of God, so as that no remembrance of their first enjoyments, no impressions from their native air, no bonds of consanguinity among the people, no difficulties they met withal in their wanderings, could kindle in them any peculiar love unto or desire after this country. They minded it not. Obs. 1. It is in the nature of faith to mortify not only corrupt and sinful lusts, but our natural affections, and their most vehement inclinations, though in themselves innocent, if they are any way uncompliant with duties of obedience unto the commands of God. — Yea, herein lies the principal trial of the sincerity and power of faith. Our lives, parents, wives, children, houses, possessions, our country, are the principal, proper, lawful objects of our natural affections; but when they, or any of them, stand in the way of God’s commands, if they are hinderances unto the doing or suffering any thing according to his will, faith doth not only mortify, weaken, and take off that love, but gives us a comparative hatred of them, Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 12:25. 4. That they had not respect unto this country in the profession they made, the apostle proves from hence, that they might have returned unto it if they had had any mind thereunto. Wherefore should they thus complain, when they might have gone home when they would? Ει῏χονἄν, “they might have had;” or, as some copies read, only ει῏χον, they “had;” — which better expresseth the mind of the apostle; for not only they might have had, but really they had (as we shall see), sundry opportunities of returning. Καιρόν, “tempus.” Vulg. Lat., “opportunitatem;” “a season,” a fit and meet time so to do. For,(1.) From the call of Abraham to the death of Jacob there were two hundred years; so that they had time enough for a return, if they had had a mind unto it.(2.) There was no external difficulty thereunto, by force or opposition.(3.) The way was not so far, but that Abraham sent his servant thither out of Canaan; and Jacob went the same journey with his staff. But they gave sundry evidences also that they would not, on any opportunity, return thither; for the text in the best reading grants that such opportunities they had. So when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for Isaac from thence, upon his servant’s inquiry whether, if the woman would not come with him, he should engage his son to return thither, when so great an opportunity was offered, replied, “Beware that thou bring not my son thither,” namely; ‘unto the land from whence I came,’Genesis 24:5-6. And afterwards, when Jacob, going thither on the like occasion, was increased there greatly, with a numerous family, wives, children, goods, riches and cattle in abundance; yet there he would not stay, but through innumerable hazards returned again into Canaan, Genesis 31. It is therefore most evident, that no opportunity could draw them to think of a return into their own country; and therefore it could not be that with respect whereunto they professed themselves to be strangers and pilgrims, — that was not the country which they did seek and desire. Obs. 2. And it appears hence, that when the hearts and minds of believers are fixed on things spiritual and heavenly, as theirs were, it will take them off from inordinate cleaving unto things otherwise greatly desirable. The apostle hereon draws another inference, wherein he expresseth the true, real object of their faith and desires, with the great advantage and dignity which they obtained thereon. Hebrews 11:16. — ΝυνὶδὲκρείΤτονοςὀρέγονται, τοῦτ᾿ἔστινἐπουρανίου·διὸοὐκἐπαισχύνεταιαὐτοὺςὁΘεὸς, Θεὸςἐπικαλεῖσθαιαὐτῶν·ἡτοίμασεγὰραὐτοῖςπόλιν.Νυνὶδέ, “atqui,” “nunc autem.” Syr., ηָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰγֵּ ?ιοιִ ?γִ ?ιςָ ?ΰ, “but now it is known,” or “certain;” it appears by the event.Κρείττονος, “meliorem;” the Syr. adds ξֶ ?πָּ ?δּ, “than that;” “better than the country which they came from.” Beza, “potiorem;” the same with the Syr. ῾Ορέγονται, “appetunt,” “expetunt,” “desiderant;” “earnestly desire,” in the present tense, speaking historically of what was then done.᾿Επαισχύνεται. Vulg. Lat.,” confunditur;” Rhem., “is not confounded to be called their God:” very improperly. “Non pudet,” “non erubescit.” Syr., μָ ?ΰπָ ?λֵ, abstained, refrained not.”᾿Επικαλεῖσθαι. Vulg. Lat., “vocari,” “cognominari” to have this title of “their God” to be added to his name. Hebrews 11:16. — But now they [earnestly] desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city.Here at length the apostle declares what was the acting of their faith in that confession which they made, that they were “strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” For, 1. It was not a mere complaint of their present state and condition; nor, 2. Did it include a desire after any other earthly country, — not that in particular from whence they came, where were all their dear concernments and relations: wherefore, 3. It must be another country, of another sort and kind, that they desired and fixed their faith upon; which is here declared. 1. What their faith was exercised in, under the profession which they made, namely, that they did “desire a better country, that is, an heavenly.” 2. What was the consequent thereof: “God is not ashamed to be called their God.”3. The ground and evidence hereof: “For he hath prepared for them a city.”1. In the first, the apostle declares that in the midst of the world, and against the world, which contemns things future and invisible in comparison of those which are of present enjoyment and use, they lived in the hope, desire, and expectation of a future, invisible, heavenly country. And in this profession testimony is borne unto the truth and excellency of divine promises. Yea, —Obs. 1. To avow openly in the world, by our ways of walking and living, with a constant public profession, that our portion and inheritance is not in it, but in things invisible, in heaven above, is an illustrious act and fruit of faith. — But then, it is incumbent on us that we do not in any thing contradict this testimony. If we love the world like others, use it and abuse it like others, we destroy our own profession, and declare our faith to be vain.In the first part of the words we may consider, (1.) The manner of their introduction; “but now.”(2.) The way of the acting of their faith; it was by “desire.” (3.) The object of that desire; “a better, that is, an heavenly country.”(1.) “But now.” Νῦν, “now,” is not in this place an adverb of time, but an illative particle; and joined with δέ, “but,” signifies an adversative inference, as ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ is used in the Hebrew, Psalms 2:10, “Be wise now, therefore.” ‘It was not so with them, they desired not a return into their country; “but they desired.”’(2.) Their faith acted by desire, earnest desire; so ὀρέλομαι signifies. It is twice used by our apostle in his First Epistle to Timothy, and nowhere else. In the one place it is applied to the desire of episcopacy, 1 Timothy 3:1; and in the other unto that of money, 1 Timothy 6:10; — which usually are vehement; in the latter place we render it by “coveted,” a craving desire. They had an earnest, active desire, which put them on all due ways and means of attaining it. Slothful, inactive desires after things spiritual and heavenly, are of little use in or unto the souls of men. And this kind of earnest desire includes, [1. A sense of want, and unsatisfiedness in things present. [2. A just apprehension of the worth and excellency of the things desired; without which none can have an earnest desire after any thing. [3. A sight of the way and means whereby it may be attained; without which all desire will quickly fade and fail Such a desire in any, is an evidence of faith working in a due manner. (3.) That which they thus desired, was “a better, that is, an heavenly;” — a better,” more excellent “country,” which is to be supplied: not that wherein they were, the land of Canaan; not that from whence they came, the land of the Chaldees; (in the one they were pilgrims, unto the other they would not return;) but another, a “better.”“Better,” may respect degrees or kinds; — a country better in degrees than either of them; better air, better soil; more fruitful, more peaceable: but there was no such on the earth, nor any such did they desire; wherefore it respects a country of another kind, and so the apostle expounds it, “that is, an heavenly.” He had before declared that they “looked for a city that had foundations, whose framer and builder is God,” verse 10. Here he expresseth where that city is, and what it is; namely, heaven itself, or a habitation with God in the everlasting enjoyment of him. The apostle here clearly ascribeth unto the holy patriarchs a faith of immortality and glory after this life, and that in heaven above with God himself, who prepared it for them. But great endeavors are used to disprove this faith of theirs, and overthrow it. If we may believe the Papists, they were deceived in their expectation. For whereas the apostle teacheth that when they died they looked to go to heaven, they affirm that they came short of it, and fell into a limbus they know not where. The Socinians grant a state of immortality and glory to be here intended; but they say that these holy men did not look for it, nor desire it, by virtue of any promise of God. But they are said to do so, because it was that which in the purpose of God would ensue; but they had no ground to believe it. There is herein not only boldness, but wantonness in dealing with the Scripture. For this exposition is not only expressly contradictory unto the words of the apostle in their only sense and meaning, but also destructive of his whole argument and design. For if he proves not that their faith wrought in the desire and expectation of heavenly things, he proves nothing at all unto his purpose. Grotius and his follower would have the country intended to be the land of Canaan, and the city to be Jerusalem, — which yet in a mystical sense were typical of heaven, — for these were promised unto their posterity; than which nothing can be more remote from the mind of the Holy Ghost. For, [1. That which they looked for and earnestly desired, they did at last enjoy, or their faith was vain, and their hope such as made them ashamed; but they never personally possessed Canaan or Jerusalem. [2. This country is directly opposed unto that wherein they were pilgrims, which was the land of Canaan, and called “a better country” in opposition unto it; and so could not be the same. [3. The city which was prepared, was that whose only framer and builder was God; that is, heaven itself. [4. This country is said to be heavenly; which the land of Canaan and the city of Jerusalem are never said to be, but are opposed unto heaven, or that which is above. Certainly men follow prejudices, and are under the influence of other corrupt opinions, so as that they advise not with their own minds, who thus express themselves concerning these holy patriarchs. Shall we think that those who were testified unto to have lived by faith, to have walked with God, who gave themselves unto prayer and meditation continually, who denied themselves as unto all worldly accommodations, whose faith produced inimitable instances of obedience, rose no higher in their faith, hopes, desires, and expectations, than those earthly things wherein their posterity were to have no share comparable unto that of many of the worst enemies of God; the whole of it being at this day one of the most contemptible provinces of the Turkish empire? I no way doubt, but on the promise of the blessed Seed, they lived in that faith of heaven and glory which some that oppose their faith were never acquainted withal. But we see here, that — Obs. 2. Faith looks on heaven as the country of believers, a glorious country, an eternal rest and habitation. — Thence they derive their original. They are born from above; there is their portion and inheritance. God is the one and the other. Thereunto they have right by their adoption; that is prepared for them as a city, a house full of mansions; therein they have their conversation, and that do they continually long after whilst they are here below. For, —Obs. 3. In all the groans of burdened souls under their present trials, there is included a fervent desire after heaven and the enjoyment of God therein. So was there in this complaint of the patriarchs, that they were strangers and pilgrims, Heaven is in the bottom of the sighs and groans of all believers, whatever may outwardly give occasion unto them, Romans 8:23.The consequent or effect of their faith acting itself in their earnest desires of a heavenly country, is, that “God is not ashamed to be called their God.” (1.) The word “wherefore” denotes, not the procuring or meritorious cause of the thing itself, but the consequent, or what ensued thereon, as it doth frequently.(2.) The privilege granted hereon was, that God would be “called their God.” He doth not say that he would be their God, for that he was absolutely in the first call of Abraham; but that he would be so styled, called, — he would take that name and title to himself. So the word signifies, not “vocari,” but “cognominari.” And the apostle respects what is recorded Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:15, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” He assumes unto himself this title, whereby he will be known and called on, as by his own name. And this was the greatest honor that they could be made partakers of. He who is the great possessor of heaven and earth, the God of the whole world, of all nations, of all creatures, would be known, styled, and called on, as their God in a peculiar manner; and he distinguisheth himself thereby from all false gods whatever. It is true, he hath revealed himself unto us by a greater and more glorious name; he hath taken another title unto himself, unto the manifestation of his own glory and the comfort of the church, far above it, namely, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ:” howbeit, by reason of the covenant made with them, he is yet known by this name. And whilst this name stands upon record, there is yet hope of the recovery of their posterity from their present forlorn, undone condition. Obs. 4. This is the greatest privilege, honor, advantage, and security that any can be made partakers of, that God will bear the name and title of their God. And thus is it with all believers, by virtue of their relation unto Christ, as he declares, John 20:17, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.’See 2 Corinthians 6:16-18. The privileges and benefits which depend hereon cannot be numbered. Their honor and safety in this life, their resurrection from the dead, as our Savior proves, and eternal life, flow from thence.Obs. 5. God’s owning of believers as his, and of himself to be their God, is an abundant recompence for all the hardships which they undergo in their pilgrimage.(3.) There is the way whereby he came to be so called; he was “not ashamed” to be so called, to take that name upon him self. And sundry things are intimated in this expression; as, —[1. Infinite condescension. Though it seems to be a thing infinitely beneath his glorious majesty, yet he is not ashamed of it. It is a condescension in God to take notice of, “to behold the things that are done in heaven and in the earth,” Psalms 113:5-6. How much more doth he so humble himself in taking this title on him! This infinite condescension is intimated in this peculiar expression, “He is not ashamed.”[2. It is so, that it would be unto him a matter of reproach. So it was in the world; innumerable gods were set up in opposition to him, — idols acted and animated by devils; but all agreed to reproach and despise the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, three poor pilgrims on the earth. Whilst those idols multiplied unto themselves great swelling titles of vanity, their best conceptions of him were, that he was “the unknown God,” — “incerti Judae Dei.” But notwithstanding all the reproaches and contempt of the world, God was not ashamed of them, nor of the title which he had assumed unto himself; nor did he disuse it until he had famished all the gods of the earth, and vindicated his own glorious being and power. But, — [3. It is usual that in such negative enunciations the contrary positive is included. So the apostle affirms that he was “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,” Romans 1:16; that is, he gloried in it, or the knowledge and faith of it were his honor, as he everywhere expresses himself. So, “God was not ashamed;” that is, he took this title to himself as his honor and glory. If it be asked, how this title could be any glory unto God; I say, it was so, in that by virtue thereof, and to fill it up, he glorified his grace, his goodness, his truth, and power, above all that he did besides in the world. For he gives himself this name in the confirmation of his covenant, in and by which he glorifies himself in the communication of all good things, temporal and eternal Wherefore, to know God as “the God of Abraham,” eta, is to know him as he glorifies all the holy properties of his nature in the confirmation of the covenant. Therefore he takes this title as his honor and glory. Besides, in being thus their God, he doth such things in them and for them, that they shall be a glory to him. For until his own Son came in the flesh, he could not be more glorified on the earth by the obedience of his creatures, which is his glory, than he was in that act of Abraham which the apostle immediately instanceth 2. Their graces, their sufferings, their obedience, were his glory. And therefore, as it is said that “he will be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty unto his people,” Isaiah 28:5, — his owning of them shall be their crown and diadem; so is it also said that they “shall be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of their God,” Isaiah 62:3. He will, by his Spirit and graces in them, make them his crown and diadem; which he will hold in his hand, to show it unto all the world. Well, therefore, is it said, that “He is not ashamed to be called their God.” And we may observe, that, — Obs. 6. Divine wisdom hath so ordered the relation between God and the church, that that which is in itself an infinite condescension in God, and a reproach unto him in the wicked, idolatrous world, should also be his glory and honor, wherein he is well pleased. — To trace the steps and declare the mystery of this wisdom, is the principal subject of the Scripture, — too large a subject to be here entered into. Obs. 7. When God, in a way of sovereign grace, so infinitely condescends, as to take any into covenant with himself, so as that he may be justly styled their God, he will make them to be such as shall be a glory to himself. And, —Obs. 8. We may see wherein the woful condition of them who are ashamed to be called his people, and make that name a term of reproach unto others.3. The last clause of the verse, “For he hath prepared for them a city,” doth either give a reason why he was not ashamed to be called their God, or contains an evidence that he was so called.In the first way, the causal conjunction, “for,” denotes the reason or cause whence it was that God was not ashamed to be called their God. It is true, they were poor wanderers, pilgrims on the earth, who had neither city nor habitation, so that it might be a shame to own them; but saith the apostle, ‘God had not herein respect unto their present state and condition, but that which he had provided for them.’Or it may be an evidence that he was not ashamed to be called their God, in that he did what might become that relation. The thing itself, which is either the cause or evidence of that title, is, that “he hath prepared for them a city.” What this city is, we have already declared and vindicated, namely, that city whose framer and builder is God, — the same with the heavenly country which they desired. Hereof it is said that God hath “prepared” it for them; — an allusion taken from the disposing of colonies into cities and towns, where all things are ready prepared for their habitation and entertainment. And the word here used is constantly applied unto the preparation of heaven and glory for believers, Matthew 20:23; Matthew 25:34; Mark 10:40; John 14:2-3; 1 Corinthians 2:9. And two things are included in it.(1.) The eternal destination of glory unto all believers: Matthew 25:34, “The kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;” that is, ‘designed, destinated unto you in the eternal counsel of God.’Thus God had prepared a city for these pilgrims in his eternal purpose, to bring them unto rest and glory. (2.) It denotes the fitting and suiting of that city unto them, as the means of their eternal rest and blessedness. It is such, so ordered, so furnished, so made meet for them, as to answer all the ends of God’s being their God, and being so called. So our blessed Savior useth the word, John 14:2-3, “I go to prepare a place for you;” his entrance into heaven being prerequisite unto that glorious state which is promised unto the believers of the new testament, as I have showed elsewhere. This preparation, therefore, of a city denotes, (1.) An eternal act of the will and wisdom, of God, in designing heaven and glory unto the elect.(2.) An act of his power and grace, in the actual producing and disposing of it of that nature as may be an everlasting habitation of rest and glory. Thus, —Obs. 9. Eternal rest and glory are made sure for all believers in the eternal purpose of the will of God, and his actual preparation of them by grace; which being embraced by faith, is a sufficient supportment for them under all the trials, troubles, and dangers of this life, Luke 12:32. Having spoken of the faith of the first patriarchs in the third period of time, the second from the flood, in general, with respect unto their peculiar state as pilgrims in the land of Canaan, he now singles them out in particular, giving particular instances of their faith, beginning with Abraham. Hebrews 11:17-19. — Πίστειπροσενήνοχεν᾿Αβραὰμτὸν᾿Ισαὰκπειραζόμενος, καὶτὸνμονογενῆπροσέφερενὁτὰςἐπαγγελίαςἀναδεξάμενος·πρὸςὅνἐλαλήθη, ὅτιἐν῾Ισαὰκκληθήσεταίσοισπέρμα·λογισάμενοςὅτικαὶἐκνεκρῶνἐγείρεινδυνατὸςὁΘεὸς, ὅθεναὐτὸνκαὶἐνπαραβολῇἐκομίσατα. Προσέφερεν. Syr., ΰρֵּ ?χμְ ?ξַ ?γְ ?αֵ ?ηָ ?ΰ, “he lifted him upon the altar;” to intimate, it may be, the event, that he was not actually sacrificed; but the word is the same with that before. Πειραζόμενος, “tentatus,” “cum tentaretur:” “when he was tried,” say we; more properly, “when he was tempted,” to answer the original word, wherein it is said, “God did tempt Abraham.”῾Οτὰςἐπαγγελίαςἀναδεξάμενος, ηֲ ?εָ ?ΰαְּ ?ξεּ ?μְ ?λָ ?πָ ?ΰ“him whom he had received by promise.” But it is the receiving of the promise, and not the accomplishment of it in the birth of Isaac,. that the apostle intends; for he considers it as that which includes the blessing Seed, as well as the type of it in Isaac. Vulg. Lat., “in quo susceperat promissiones,” “in whom he received the promises;” against the words and sense of the place.Πρὸςὅνἐλαλήθη, “ad quem dictum erat,” “to whom it was said.” Others, “respectu cujus dictum est,”” with respect unto whom,” or “concerning whom it was said.” For ὅν, “whom,” may be referred either unto Abraham or Isaac; — it was said unto Abraham, or it was said concerning Isaac, namely, unto him. We follow the latter sense, “of whom, that is, concerning whom.Λογισάμενος. Vulg., “arbitrans,” “thinking.” It reacheth not the force of the word. “Ratiocinatus,” “reasoning, computing, judging.” Syr., εֶ ?ΰϊְ ?ψַ ?ςִ ?ιδֲ ?εֹ ?ΰαְּ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωֵׁ ?δּ, “he thought,” or “computed in his own mind,” he reasoned in himself; properly.ΔυνατὸςὁΘεός, “posse Deum,” “that God could.” Others, “potentia. praeditum esse,” “to be endued with power;” that is, to be able. Syr., “that there was faculty,” ability or power, “in the hands of God.”᾿Ενπαραζολῇ. Vulg., “in parabolam.” Rhem., “for a parable.” “Similitudine.” Syr., “in a type.” We, “in a figure;” namely, such a figure as [11] represents somewhat else. [11] . — These words, ἐνπαραβολῇ, are particularly difficult. Calvin, Castalio, Beza, Schlichting, Grotius, Limborch, Kuinoel, Bleek, etc., take παραβολή in the well-known signification, “figure,” but then refer ἐνπαραβολῇ to ὅθεν, and obtain this sense: thence, as it were, (namely, ἐκνεκρῶν, as it were from the grave,) he “received him back.” Others, as Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Calov, Bohme, Olshausen, take παραβολή likewise in the signification of. “figure,” but with this explanation, “wherefore he received him back as a symbol,” (or in symbol). A third class, Camerarius, Ernesti, Tholuck, etc., take ἐνπαραβολῇ as equal to παραβόλως, “against expectation,” (Romans 4:18,) παρ᾿ἐλπίδα. So far Ebrard, who accompanies this synopsis of these three different views with an expression of his preference for the second of them. Wolf brings out the meaning thus: “Abraham not only received Isaac back alive, but obtained this additional benefit, that his recovery was a figure of Christ’s resurrection.” — ED. Hebrews 11:17-19. — By faith Abraham, when he was tried, [being tempted,] offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only-begotten, of whom it was said, That in Isaac thy seed shall be called, [or, a seed shall be called unto thee.] Accounting that God [was] able even to raise [him] up from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.We may consider in these words, 1. The person whose faith is instanced in, which is Abraham. 2. The circumstance of time, and occasion of this exercise of his faith, “when he was tried” or “tempted.”3. The act and effect of his faith, the offering of Isaac. 4. The amplification of the exercise of his faith herein;(1.) From the person of Isaac, he was “his only-begotten son;” (2.) From the consideration of his own person, in that “he had received the promises;”(3.) From the subject-matter of these promises, which was concerning a seed by Isaac.5. The reconciliation that faith made in his mind between the promises and the present duty which he was called unto, “accounting,” etc. 6. The event of his faith and duty, “from whence he received him in a figure.”1. The person instanced in is Abraham, the father of the faithful: and the instance is such as became him who was to be an example in believing unto all that should succeed him; that whereon he was renowned, and esteemed blessed in all generations, — such, so high, so glorious, as nothing under the old testament did equal, nothing under the new can exceed. This was that act and duty of the faith of Abraham whereon he had that signal testimony and approbation from heaven, Genesis 22:15-18. Hereon a close was put unto all his trials of temptations, and an end unto the repetition of the promise. “Now I know,” saith God, ‘It is enough; thou shalt be put to no “that thou fearest me, — more difficulties; walk now in assured peace unto the end of thy days.’And the greatness of this instance, with the season of it, teacheth us, —Obs. 1. That God alone knows how to prescribe work and duty proportionate unto the strength of grace received. — He knew that Abraham’s faith would carry him through this trial, and thereon he spared him not. As he will enjoin nothing absolutely above our strength, so he is not obliged to spare us in any duty, be it never so grievous, or of what difficult exercise soever it be, which he will give us strength to undergo; as he did here to Abraham.Obs. 2. That ofttimes God reserves great trials for a well-exercised faith. — So this trial befell Abraham when his faith had been victorious in sundry other instances. So he hath called many to lay down their lives by fire, blood, and torments, in their old age.2. The occasion and season of this exercise of the faith of Abraham, was his being tried, or tempted: “When he was tried.” So it is recorded, Genesis 22:1, “God did tempt Abraham,” — εְ ?δָ ?ΰַ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ινπִּ ?ρָּ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?ΰַ ?αְ ?ψָ ?δָ ?ν. The word is frequently used for to “tempt,” often in an evil sense; but it is in itself of a middle signification, and denotes to “try,” as unto any end, or with any design good or bad.But, whereas that which is here ascribed unto God is not without its difficulty, it must be inquired into, and not be left covered under the word “tried,” which hides the difficulty from the English reader, but doth not remove it. God is said to “tempt Abraham;” but the apostle James saith expressly that “God tempteth no man,” James 1:13. And if these things should be spoken of the same kind of temptation, there is an express contradiction in them. Wherefore I say, —(1.) That the temptation intended by James is directly unto sin as sin, in all its pernicious consequents; as he fully declares in the next words, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” So God tempteth no man. (2.) Both the Hebrew and Greek word are of an indifferent signification, including nothing that is evil, but only in general to make a trial; and the Hebrew word is used most frequently in that sense.(3.) The formality of an active temptation ariseth from an evil design and end. When one is put by another on that which is evil, if his design therein be also evil, that is a formal temptation unto sin. From this design and end in all his acting, Satan is called “the tempter,” Matthew 4:3. Thus God tempts no man: all his designs are holy, just, and good.(4.) The temptations ascribed unto God are of two sorts:[1. In express command of that which is evil unto us. [2. In his providential disposal of things, their circumstances and objects of actions, so as men may take occasion to act according unto their own principles and inclinations. (5.) In these temptations from God, which are always outward, and about men’s outward concerns, God acts three ways:[1. Positively, by supplies of grace to enable those who are tempted to overcome their temptations, or to discharge their duty notwithstanding their temptations; [2. Negatively, by withholding such supplies; [3. Privatively, by induration and hardening of the hearts of men, whereon they precipitate themselves into the evil which the temptation leads unto; as we may see in instances of each sort. [1. The temptation of Abraham was of the first sort, — it was by a positive command that he should sacrifice his son; which was unlawful for him to do of his own accord, both as it was a sacrifice that God had not ordained, and he had no such power over the life of an obedient son. But in this command, and by virtue of it, God, in an act of his sovereign right and authority over all, changed the nature of the act, and made it lawful, yea a duty, unto Abraham. Isaac was his absolutely, and by way of sovereignty, before and above any interest of Abraham in him. He is the supreme Lord of life and death, and may appoint what means of them he pleaseth. So when he commanded the Israelites to borrow jewels of the Egyptians, which they carried away with them, he did it by translating the right and title unto them from the one people unto the other, Exodus 12:35-36. Wherefore it was no part of Abraham’s trial, that what he was to do had any thing of sin in it; for he knew full well that God’s command had made it not only lawful, but his indispensable duty; his trial arose, as we shall see, from other considerations. And the internal work of God under this temptation, was the corroboration of the faith of Abraham unto a blessed victory, which was in his design from the beginning. [2. Of the second sort of temptations by providences, was that of Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 32:31. The coining of the ambassadors of the king of Babylon unto him was ordered by divine providence for his trial; and it was his temptation. His trial was, whether he would magnify God, who had wrought the miracles in his land of slaying the Assyrians, and the going backward of the sun on the dial; or set forth his own greatness, riches, and power: which latter way he closed with. And so God doth continually by his providence present unto men various occasions and objects, whereby what is prevalent in them is excited and drawn out into exercise. All opportunities for good or evil, all advantages of profit, power, honor, service, reputation, are of this nature. Now, in this case of Hezekiah, — and it is so in many others continually, — God acts internally, only negatively; not supplying them with that grace which shall be actually and effectually victorious, but leaving them unto their own strength, whereby they fail and are overcome. So it is said of Hezekiah, that “God left him,” (that is, to himself and his own strength, without supplies of actual grace,) “to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart.” [3. But in this case of temptations by outward providences, especially towards evil men, set on sin in their own hearts and minds, according to their power and opportunities, God acts by the induration or hardening of their hearts, whereon they rush with violence and fury into destructive evils; the way whereof is not here to be inquired into. (6.) This temptation of Abraham is said to be for his trial. And it is so carried in the story, as if God had done it for his own satisfaction in the faith and love of Abraham; for so he says, on the issue of it, “Now I know that thou fearest God,” Genesis 22:12. But these things are spoken after the manner of men. God knew the faith of Abraham what was the strength of it, as also the sincerity of his love, for they were both from himself; he knew what would be the issue of the trial of them, and what he had himself determined concerning the life of Isaac: and therefore “Now I know,” is no more but ‘Now I have made known,’namely, ‘unto thyself and others.’Thus, therefore, he was tried. God by his command, which could not be obeyed but by a vigorous, victorious faith, fervent love, and a reverential fear of God, made it known unto Abraham for his comfort, and to all the church for their example, unto his everlasting honor, what power of grace was in him, and by what principles he was entirely acted in his walking before God. (7.) The time of this trial of Abraham is marked in the story: “It came to pass after these things,” Genesis 22:1. That which is the most remarkable is, that it was after the casting out of Ishmael, which is reported in the foregoing chapter; so that, he being gone from his family, he had no other son but Isaac only, in whom all his expectations did center, as we shall see immediately. It was also before the death of Sarah, who probably knew nothing of this matter until afterwards; for it was not her trial, but Abraham’s only that was intended. And we may hence observe, — Obs. 3. That faith must be tried; and, of all graces, it is most suited unto trial.Obs. 4. That God proportions trials for the most part unto the strength of faith.Obs. 5. Yea, great trials in believers are an evidence of great faith in them, though not understood either by themselves or others before such trials.Obs. 6. Trials are the only touchstone of faith, without which men must want the best evidence of its sincerity and efficacy, and the best way of testifying it unto others. Wherefore, —Obs. 7. We ought not to be afraid of trials, because of the admirable advantages of faith in and by them See James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:6-7. And, —Obs. 8. Let them be jealous over themselves who have had no especial instances of the trial of their faith. And, —Obs. 9. True faith being tried, will in the issue be victorious.3. The third thing considerable in these words is the act and effect of his faith, “He offered up Isaac;” and who Isaac was, what was his relation unto him, and what were his circumstances, he afterwards declares. The command was to “offer him for a burnt-offering;” which was, first to be slain, and then consumed with fire. Accordingly, the apostle affirms that he offered him, whereas we know how he was delivered. But the meaning is, that he actually and fully obeyed the command of God herein. He did it in will, heart, and affections, though it was not eventually done; and the will is accepted for the deed. But the true meaning of the words is, that he fully obeyed the command of God. God commanded him to offer him, and he did so unto the uttermost of what was required in the command. Neither did the command of God respect the event, nor was Abraham obliged to believe that he should actually be offered in sacrifice. But he believed that it was his duty to obey the command of God, and he did it accordingly. Look, therefore, in what sense God commanded Isaac to be offered, in the same did Abraham offer him; for he fulfilled the command of God. And we may see his full compliance with the divine command in the particulars of his obedience, For, — (1.) He parted with his own interest in him, and gave him up wholly unto God and his will; which was the principal thing in every offering or sacrifice. This God takes notice of in an especial manner, as that which answered his mind, “Thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me,” Genesis 22:12.(2.) He complied with the way designed in the command for the giving him up unto God, namely, as a sacrifice by blood and fire, wherein himself was to be the offerer. Herein was the greatest convulsion of nature; his faith had an exercise above it, and beyond it. But this was that which put nature unto it to the utmost, — to have an only-begotten son slain by the effusion of his blood, visibly under his eyes, yea, to do it with his own hand, and to stand by his consumption in the fire, was an unparalleled trial We read, indeed, in heathen stories, and in holy writ with reference unto Moloch, that some in overwhelming distresses, inward and outward, for their supposed advantage and deliverance, have sacrificed some of their children in a kind of rage and fury, out of hopes to be gainers by it. But this was not the case of Abraham; he was at perfect peace with God and man, with an affluence of all other things unto the uttermost of his desires. His son had relation unto him in all those singular circumstances which we shall consider. On all accounts he was dear unto him, unto as great a height as it is possible for natural affection to rise unto. Being every way sedate in his mind, without hope or expectation of advantage, yea, to the utter ruin of his family and posterity, he complies with the command for the offering him with his own hand a bloody sacrifice unto God. (3.) He did as much for the trial of his faith as if his son had been actually slain. There could not have been a greater assault upon it in case he had been offered. He looked on him as dead under his eye; and thence, as we shall see, he is said to “receive him in a figure.” He was, as unto his faith, in the same condition as if he had been dead. Wherefore, —(4.) In compliance with the command of God, he shut his eyes as it were against all difficulties and consequents, resolving to venture Isaac, posterity, truth of promises, all, upon the authority of God; wherein he is principally proposed as our example.Whereas, therefore, the obedience of Abraham did every way answer the command of God, that being that he should offer his son Isaac, he is justly said to have done it accordingly, though as unto his death actually God otherwise disposed of things in the event. What in the meantime was the working of the faith of Abraham with respect unto the promise, we shall afterwards inquire. The things we are taught herein are, — Obs. 10. Where there is a divine command, evidencing itself unto our consciences so to be, it is the wisdom and duty of faith to close its eyes against whatsoever seems insuperable in difficulties or inextricable in consequents. — Faith may and ought to consider the difficulties that are in obedience, so far as to be prepared for them, provided against them, and resolved to conflict with them. But in case there appear that in them which seems to be overwhelming, which reason cannot contend withal, and when it can by no means look through the consequents of obedience, whether they will be good or no, it will commit the whole unto the authority and veracity of God in his commands and promises, casting out all objections that it cannot solve. For this is the faith of Abraham celebrated, not only in the offering of Isaac, but with respect unto his birth also. “Against hope he believed in hope. He considered not his own body,” Romans 4:18-19.Obs. 11. Divine revelations did give such an evidence of their being immediately from God unto those who received them, that though in all things they contradicted their reason and interest, yet they received them without any hesitation. — If there had been the least room left for a scruple whether the command given unto Abraham was immediately from God or no, whether it was such as, either unto its original or means of communication, might be subject unto any mistake, he could never with any satisfaction have complied with it. See my discourse of the Divine Authority of the [12] Scriptures. [12] See volume 16 of miscellaneous works. — Ed. Obs. 12. The great glory and commendation of the faith of Abraham consisting in this, that without all dispute, hesitation, or rational consideration of objections to the contrary, by a pure act of his will, he complied with the authority of God, — which in some sense may be called blind obedience, wherein the soul resigns the whole conduct of itself unto another, — it is a height of blasphemy and profaneness in the popish votaries, especially in the order of the Jesuits, that by vow and oath they oblige themselves unto the same kind of obedience to the commands of those who are their superiors; which their founder, in his Epistle ad Fratres Lusitanos, had the impudence to confirm with the example of Abraham. And hence is it come to pass, that whereas this honor and prerogative are ascribed solely unto God, namely, that his commands are to be obeyed in all things, without examination, reasonings or consideration, as to the matter of them, the righteous government of the world is absolutely provided for; seeing he neither will nor can command any thing but what is holy, just, and good: so, since the ascription of such an authority unto men as to secure blind obedience unto all their commands, as innumerable evils have ensued thereon, as murders, seditions, and the like; so it takes away all grounds of peace and security from mankind. For who knows what a crew or sort of men called “the Jesuits’Superiors,” known only by their restless ambition and other misdemeanours among mankind, will command their vassals, who are sworn unto blind obedience unto them, to perpetrate and execute whatever they enjoin. Let princes and others flatter themselves as they please, if these men, as they profess, are no less obliged in conscience to execute whatever their superiors shall command and enjoin, than Abraham was to obey God in his command for the sacrificing of his only son, they hold their lives on the mercy and good nature of these superiors, who are always safe out of the reach of their revenge. This ascription of a Godlike power to require a blind obedience unto their commands, to be yielded without any exercise or debate of reason, is that which it is a marvel how it is endured among mankind, especially since they have had such experience of its fruits and effects. Yea, though it be that which is absolutely due unto the infinite sovereignty of the Divine Being, yet God designing to govern us according to the principles, powers, and faculties of our natures, which he himself hath given us unto this end, that we may comply with his rule in a way of obedience, requires nothing from us but what is “reasonable service.” But what may be expected from these men, known only by their evil designings, who can tell? Obs. 13. It is a privilege and advantage to have an offering of price to offer to God, if he call for it. — And such are our lives, our names, our reputations, our relations, estates, liberties; as Abraham had his Isaac: it is so, I say, if we have hearts to make use of it.Obs. 14. Obedience begun in faith, without any reserves, but with a sincere intention to fulfill the whole work of it, is accepted with God as if it were absolutely complete. — So the confessors of old, delivered by divine Providence from death, when the sentence of it was denounced against them, were always reckoned in the next degree to martyrs. 4. The fourth thing to be considered, is the amplification of this obedience of Abraham, in the various circumstances of it; as, —(1.) From the person of Isaac, whom he so offered. He was his “only- begotten.” In what sense Isaac is said to be the only-begotten of Abraham, who had one son before him and many after him, is declared partly in the following words, “Concerning whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” He is that only son in whom the promise of the seed shall be accomplished. Further to clear the reason of this expression, it may be observed,[1. That the sons of Abraham by Keturah were not yet born. [2. Ishmael, who was born, was before this, by the command of God himself, put out of his family, as one that should not be the heir of his family, by whom his seed should be reckoned. [3. He was his only-begotten by Sarah, who was concerned in all this affair between God and him no less than himself. [4. The Holy Ghost taketh into consideration the whole state of things between God and Abraham, in his call, in his separation from the world, in the covenant made with him, in what he was designed unto in the promise made unto him concerning the blessed Seed; in all which Isaac alone had any concernment; and if he had failed, though Abraham had had an hundred children, they must have all fallen to the ground. Therefore, as Abraham was placed in these circumstances, he was his only-begotten son. [5. This expression is used in the Scripture sometimes for as much as peculiarly and entirely beloved, above all others, Proverbs 4:3; and there is great respect had hereunto.The trial of the faith of Abraham may be referred unto two heads: first, What it was exercised withal; and secondly, What arose from the opposition that seemed to be between the command and the promise. And it is here distributed by the apostle into these two parts. For the conflict which he had with his own natural affections, it is intimated in this expression, “His only-begotten son,” whom he most dearly and entirely affected. Abraham was very remote from being a person savage or cruel, like Lamech, that could boast of his killing and wounding, Genesis 4:23. Nor did he design that stoical apathy which was so falsely and foolishly boasted of by some of old. Nor was he ἄστοργος, “without natural affection;” which the apostle reckons among the worst vices of the heathens, Romans 1:31. Yea, he was such a tender and affectionate father, that the sending of Ishmael out of his family was more than he could well bear, until God comforted him in it, Genesis 21:11-13. What now must the working of his heart needs be towards Isaac, a son whom he had so long waited for, and prayed for; the only child of his dear wife, the companion of all his wanderings, troubles, and trials; who was now grown up, as is most probable, unto the age of sixteen or seventeen years, and had engaged his affections by all ways possible; the stay of his age, the life of his family, — his only hope and comfort in this world? And how was he to deal with him? Not to send him out of his family with some provision and a guide, as he sent Ishmael; not to part with him for a time into a foreign country; but to take him himself, to bind him, slay him with a knife, and then to burn him unto ashes. Who can conceive what convulsions of nature must needs be occasioned hereby? Who can put himself into these circumstances without trembling and horror? The advantages also which Satan might hence take to excite unbelief with respect unto the command of God, are obvious to all. How easy was it for him, under that hurry which naturally his affections were subject unto, to make that ensnaring inquiry which he did unto Eve, “And hath God said so?” and to prevent the working of faith, as he did then, by a sudden reply unto his own question, ‘Nay, but God knoweth that it is otherwise, that it is not the death of thy son that he requires;’or, ‘It is not God that gave the command. Can it be thought that he who is infinitely good, benign, and gracious, should command one who fears him and loves him thus to tear and rend his own bowels, to devour his own offspring, his only son? Hearken a little unto the outcries of love, fear, and sorrow, and be not too hasty to be the executioner of all thine own joy.’ Here, then, the divine power of faith manifested itself under all that storm of disorder which his affections were exposed unto; and in the midst of all the temptations whereunto from thence he was liable, it preserved the mind of this holy person, quiet, sedate, under an annihilation of his own will, unto a destruction of all disorder in nature, in security against the power of temptations, in an entire resignation of himself and all his concernments unto the sovereign pleasure and will of God. “It is the LORD,” prevented all murmurings, silenced all reasonings, and preserved his mind in a frame fit to approach unto God in his holy worship; whereas Moses himself, on far less provocation, resented it so far as not to sanctify the name of God aright in the administration of an ordinance, Numbers 20:10-12. And it is hence evident, that, —Obs. 15. The power of faith in its conflict with and conquest over natural affections, when their unavoidable bent and inclination are contrary unto the will of God, whereby they are exposed to receive impressions from temptations, is an eminent part of its glory, and a blessed evidence of its sincerity. — Such is its trial in the loss of dear relations, or their irrecoverable misery in this world, wherein natural affections are apt to indispose the mind, and to hinder it from a quiet submission unto the will of God; whereby David greatly failed in the case of Absalom. But another instance like this of Abraham there never was, nor ever shall be. And all less cases are contained in the greater. (2.) The excellency of the faith and obedience of Abraham is set forth by the consideration of his own circumstances with respect unto Isaac. And this is expressed,[1. In general, that “he had received the promises;” [2. In particular, as unto that part of the promises wherein his present fact was immediately concerned, namely, that “in Isaac should his seed be called.” [1. It is expressed, as that which recommends his obedience, that he had “received the promises;” which needs some explanation. 1st. It is twice said in this chapter, that neither he nor any other believer under the old testament did “receive the promise,” Hebrews 11:13; Hebrews 11:39; but here it is affirmed that he “did receive the promises.” The solution is easy. For in those two other places, by “the promise,” the thing promised is intended. And this sufficiently discovers the vanity of those expositors who would have these promises to respect principally, yea only, the land of Canaan, with the numerous posterity of Abraham therein; for this was fully enjoyed by them under the old testament, as much as ever it was to be enjoyed, then when the apostle affirms concerning them, that “they received not the promise.” But Abraham is said to “receive the promises” formally, inasmuch as God made and gave them unto him, and he believed them, or received them by faith. 2dly. The Scripture calleth the same thing indifferently “the promise” or “the promises.” Usually it is called the “promise,” Acts 2:39; Acts 13:32, Romans 4:14; Romans 4:16; Romans 4:20, Galatians 3:17; sometimes “the promises,” Romans 9:4; Romans 15:8. For,(1st.) It was originally one single promise only, as given unto Adam. (2dly.) The grace that is in it is one and the same.(3dly.) The principal subject of them all is one, namely, Christ himself.But here is mention of “promises,” (1st.) Because the same promise was several times renewed unto Abraham, so as that formally he received many promises, though materially they were but one. (2dly.) Sundry things being contained in the same promise of different natures, they do constitute distinct promises. An account of the nature, subject, and design of these promises, see in the exposition on Hebrews 6:13-18. [2. There is the application of these promises as unto their accomplishment unto Isaac. For whereas they concerned a seed, it was said of him that “in Isaac his seed should be called,” Genesis 21:12. He had not only a promise that he should have a son by Sarah his wife, whence he was called the child or son of the promise, Galatians 4:23; Galatians 4:28; but also the accomplishment of the promise was expressly confined unto him, by God himself.Hebrews 11:18. — “Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” “Of whom it was said.” “Of” or “concerning whom;” — that is, of Isaac unto Abraham; not unto Abraham concerning Isaac, though both be equally true. The words were spoken unto Abraham concerning Isaac; but the word “whom” immediately relates to Isaac. “It was said;” — that is, by God himself; it was not a conclusion that he made out of other promises, it was not told him by any other, but was expressly spoken unto him by God himself, and that on the occasion of sending Ishmael out of his family, that he might have full assurance of the accomplishment of the promises in him. And this was that which gave the greatest exercise unto his faith, as we shall see immediately. The Hebraism in the original, αְ ?ιִ ?φְ ?ηָ ?χιִ ?χָּ ?ψֵ ?ΰμְ ?κָ ζָ ?ψַ ?ς, “In Isaac shall a seed be called unto thee,” is preserved by the apostle, ᾿ΕνΙσαὰκκληθήσεταί, — that is, ‘The seed promised unto thee from the beginning shall be given in him; the traduction of it into the world shall be through him and no other.’(3.) It remains, then, only to consider what was the seed so pro. raised, or what was the principal subject of these promises. Grotius with his follower, and the Socinian expositors, reduce these promises unto two heads:[1. That of a numerous posterity. [2. That this posterity should inhabit and enjoy the land of Canaan for an inheritance. But this is directly to contradict the apostle, who affirms, that when they had possessed the land of Canaan almost unto the utmost period of its grant unto them, they had not received the promises; that is, the accomplishment of them, verse 39. I do not deny but that these things also were in the promises annexed unto that which was principal in them, as means and pledges of its accomplishment, as I have at large elsewhere demonstrated; but the principal subject-matter of the promise was no other but Christ himself, with the whole work of his mediation for the redemption and salvation of the church. This is so evident, from the respect herein unto the first promise given unto our first parents, and the faith of the church therein, not to be weakened by promises of an inferior nature; from the repeated words of the promise, namely, that “in this seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed,” which have nothing of truth in them but with respect unto Christ; from the faith of all the saints of the old testament, with all their institutions of worship; and from the exposition given of it in the New Testament, as Acts 2:38-39, Galatians 3:16; that it needs no confirmation.Supposing, therefore, what we have spoken before concerning the exercise of faith from his natural affections, with reference unto his only son, and this was the present case of Abraham: — God had called him from all his relations and enjoyments, to follow him, and live unto him in all things. To encourage him hereunto, he solemnly promiseth unto him that flora his loins the blessing Seed, the Redeemer of himself and the world, should proceed; which was the highest privilege that he could possibly be made partaker of: as also, that as unto the way and means of the accomplishment of this promise, he should have a numerous posterity, whom God would fix and preserve in the land of Canaan, until the original promise should be actually accomplished. In this promise of God did he place his whole temporal and eternal felicity; wherein he was blessed, and without which he was most miserable. In process of time he hath a son born, according to this promise, concerning whom God expressly declares, that in and by him this promise should be accomplished. Hereby the whole truth and all the benefit of the promise did absolutely depend on the life and posterity of Isaac, without which it could not be fulfilled. Add hereunto, that before this Abraham had prayed that the promise might be preserved in Ishmael; which God expressly denied him, Genesis 17:18-19, confining it unto the son of Sarah. In this state of things, when he was under a full persuasion, and the highest satisfaction, that he saw and enjoyed the assured means of the accomplishment of the promises, God commands him to take this Isaac, and offer him for a burnt-offering; that is, first slay him, and then burn him to ashes. Who can conceive with what heart Abraham received the thunder of this command? what perplexities he was east into, or at least would have been so, had not faith carried him through them all? He seems to be pressed unavoidably with one or the other of the greatest evils in the world, either of them eternally ruinous unto him: either he must disobey the command of God, or he must let go his faith in the promise; either of them being filled with eternal ruin. What was the faith of Abraham in particular, how his thoughts wrought in him, is not expressed in the original story: yet are two things plain therein; [1. That he was not cast into any distraction of mind, any disorderly passions, complaints, or repinings; [2. That he immediately, without delay, addressed himself to yield punctual obedience unto the command of God, Genesis 22:1-3. As unto the promise of God, there is no intimation in the story of what his thoughts were concerning it; only it appears in general, that he left unto God the care of his own truth and veracity, concluding, that as sure as he who had commanded was to be obeyed, so he that had promised was to be believed, he being more concerned in the accomplishment of the promise than Abraham himself could be. Wherefore, confirming himself against suggestions, temptations, fleshly reasonings, and giving himself up wholly unto the sovereignty of God, he proceeded in his obedience. Howbeit, our apostle makes a more particular discovery of the working of Abraham’s faith under this trial in the next verse, where we shall consider it. And we see here, — Obs. 1. That in great and inextricable difficulties, it is the duty, wisdom, and nature of faith, to fix itself on the immense properties of the divine nature, whereby it can effect things inconceivable and incomprehensible. — So was it in this case of Abraham. See Isaiah 40:28-31.Obs. 2. God may justly require the assent and confidence of faith unto all things which infinite power and wisdom can effect, though we can neither see, nor understand, nor comprehend the way whereby it may be accomplished. — For faith being placed and fixed on him as God, as God almighty and infinitely wise, it is our duty to believe whatever infinite power and wisdom can extend unto, if it be required of us in any instance, as it was here of Abraham, by divine revelation. See Isaiah 50:10.Obs. 3. God’s dealings with his church sometimes are such, as that unless we shut our eyes and stop our ears unto all objections and temptations against his promises, opening them only unto divine sovereignty, wisdom, and veracity, we can never abide in a comfortable course of obedience. — So is it at this day, wherein all the whole state of things in the world consists in a combination against the accomplishment of divine promises towards the church. See Ezekiel 37:1-2; Ezekiel 37:11-14.Obs. 4. This is the glory of faith, that it can spiritually compose the soul in the midst of all storms and temptations, under darkness as unto events, so as that it shall in a due manner attend unto all duties of worship and obedience, so as to sanctify the name of God in them, and not to provoke him with any irregularities of mind or actions; as once it fell out with Moses.Obs. 5. In any surprisal with seemingly insuperable difficulties, it is our duty immediately to set faith at work; not to consult with flesh and blood, nor hearken unto carnal reasonings or contrivances, which will but entangle us and increase our distress. — So did Abraham, who immediately, upon the command of God, applied himself unto his duty. In such cases, whatever arguings or reasonings do arise in our minds before faith hath had its due exercise in resignation, trust, and acquiescency in the will of God, are pernicious unto the soul, or destructive unto its comforts. They weaken it, entangle it, and make it unfit to do or suffer. But when faith hath had its work, and hath brought the soul unto a due composure in the will of God, it may take a sedate consideration of all rational means of relief unto its advantage.Obs. 6. There may sometimes, through God’s providential disposal of all things, be an appearance of such an opposition and inconsistency between his commands and promises, as nothing but faith bowing the soul unto divine sovereignty can reconcile, Genesis 32:8-12. These, and sundry other things of the like nature, we may learn from this great example of the faith of the father of the faithful, here proposed unto us: all which deserve to be handled more at large than the nature of the present work will allow. The especial working of the faith of Abraham in this case of distress, with the event of it, is declared, verse 19. Hebrews 11:19. — “Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.”1. The immediate object of his faith in general was the power of God; that “God was able.” 2. The application of that power by faith, was unto the resurrection of the dead; “to raise him from the dead.”3. The manner of its effectual working in him; it was in a way of reasoning, or of computing one thing from another.4. The event hereof was,(1.) The reception of his son back again unto himself, whom he had offered in the manner before described.(2.) The manner of it; it was “in a figure.” Which things must be explained.1. [The immediate object of his faith was the power of God.] But unto the right understanding of this, some things must be premised which are supposed in the words; as, —(1.) Abraham firmly believed, not only the immortality of the souls of men, but also the resurrection from the dead. Had he not done so, he could not have betaken himself unto this relief in his distress. Other things he might have thought of, wherein God might have exerted his power; but he could not believe that he would do it in that which itself was not believed by him. And it is in vain to inquire what especial revelation Abraham had of these things; for the resurrection from the dead, which includes the other, was an essential part of the first promise, or no relief is tendered therein against the curse, which was a return unto the dust. And, — Obs. 1. It is good for us to have our faith firmly built on the fundamental articles of religion, such as these are; without which we cannot act it on particular occasions and trials, wherein an application is made of such fundamental principles unto our present cases. (2.) He owned the omnipotency of God, as able to produce inconceivable effects. He did not limit God, as they did in the wilderness, as the psalmist at large describes their unbelief, Psalms 78:19-20; Psalms 78:40-41. He rested on this, that the power of God could extend itself unto things by him past finding out and incomprehensible. This was the life and soul as it were of the faith of Abraham; he believed that the power of God was infinitely sufficient to secure his truth and veracity in his promises, though he could neither conceive nor understand the way whereby it was to be done. And, — This is the life of faith at present in all that truly believe. Every thing in the world seems to lie cross unto the accomplishment of most eminent divine promises, and wherein the church, next unto things eternal, is most eminently concerned; but yet though things are very dark and dreadful, they are not in such a dismal strait as gluey were when the father of the faithful had his knife at the breast of him on whose life the accomplishment of all the promises did depend. Yet he rested in the power of God to secure his own veracity; and so may we do also at present. Wherefore, — (3.) Abraham still firmly believed the accomplishment of the great promise, although he could not discern the way whereby it would be fulfilled. Had his faith failed herein, his obedience had been needless and useless. And this is the last anchor of faith. It cleaves unto and rests upon the truth of God in his promises, against all objections, temptations, and oppositions, although they are such as reason in its highest exercise can neither conflict with nor conquer. And unto this end, God, who permits such objections to arise against it, or what he hath promised, yea, disposeth such trials and difficulties unto it, as shall be insuperable unto all the rational powers of our souls, giveth security in and from himself alone against them all. “God who cannot lie hath promised,” Titus 1:2. And in further confirmation hereof unto us, “he sware by himself,” Hebrews 6:13. And that faith which cannot rest in God himself, and the consideration of his properties engaged for the accomplishment of his promises, without other helps or corroborating testimonies, yea, against all conclusions and determinations of sense and reason, is weak, if it be sincere, Isaiah 1:10. On these principles, which were fixed immovably in his mind, he, — Reasoned within himself as unto the way and man-net whereby the power of God would make good his truth in the accomplishment of the promise: “Accounting;” that is, computing, reasoning in himself from the principles of faith that were fixed in his mind. God making a covenant with him, or taking him into covenant with himself, had peculiarly revealed himself unto him by the name of God Almighty, Genesis 17:1. This, therefore, did Abraham principally consider in all his walking before him. And now he thought was the season wherein he should see an instance of the almighty power of God. How this would work and exert itself, as yet he could not understand; for he had no reserve in his mind that Isaac should not die. This, therefore, on the aforesaid principles, first presented itself unto him, that if there were no other way, yet after he had slain him, and burnt him to ashes, God could again raise him from the dead.3. The manner of the expression declares the greatness of the matter spoken of, in his apprehension: “Even from the dead.” It is not said, as we supply it, “to raise him up from the dead,” but only, “to raise from the dead.”The resurrection of the dead is that which is proposed as the object of his faith; the application of it unto Isaac, and at that season, is included in what is expressed. This, then, is that which he reckoned upon in himself: (1.) That God was able to raise the dead in general.(2.) That he could so raise up Isaac after his death; which in this reasoning he supposed.(3.) That after this resurrection, if it should so fall out, it would be the same individual person that was offered; whereby the word which he spake unto his servants, that he and the lad would go and worship and come again to them, Genesis 22:5, would be made good.But these reasonings were not immediate acts of faith, as unto the object of them, in their application unto Isaac, but effects of it. The conclusions he made were true and right, but the thing itself, or the raising of Isaac from the dead, was not the object of faith; for it was not to be, and nothing but what is true, and what will be eventually true, can be believed with faith divine. No man ever was or can be obliged to believe that to be, which is not; or that that shall be, which shall never be. Only, whereas there was nothing herein that was inconsistent with any divine revelation, he did so far assent unto the possibility of this event, as to quiet his mind in the work and duty which he was called unto. It is evident, therefore, that by faith he devolved the whole event of things on the sovereignty, power, and truth of God; and in his reasoning thereon thought it most likely that God would raise him from the dead. 4. Lastly, The event of things is expressed, answering the faith of Abraham absolutely, and his reasonings also, in a figurative compliance with them: “From whence also he received him in a figure.”(1.) The promise was absolutely secured; Isaac was preserved alive, that in him his seed might be called.(2.) Abraham’s obedience was fully accomplished. For he had parted fully with Isaac; he was no more his than if he had been actually dead; whence it is said that “he received him again.” He was made to be God’s own, to belong unto him alone, as devoted; and God gave him again unto Abraham.(3.) Isaac was considered in the state of the dead, — that is, under the command of God, and in his father’s determination; so as that the apostle says he “offered him;” and therefore it is said that he “received him” from that state. “Whence also:” One expositor conjectures that respect is had herein unto Abraham’s first receiving of Isaac at his nativity from the womb of Sarah, which was as dead; than which nothing can be more remote from the sense of the place, unless it be some other conjectures of the same expositor on the like occasions.(4.) But whereas Isaac did not die, was not actually dead, he is said to “receive him” from that state only “in a figure.” See the various translations of the word here used before. Conjectures have been multiplied about the meaning of this word: “in a figure, a parable, a representation, a resemblance.” I shall not trouble the reader with them; it is not my manner. Nor have I here any thing to add unto what was first fixed on by the most judicious Calvin, who hath herein been followed by all sober expositors: “He received him as from the dead, in a figure or resemblance of the resurrection from the dead.” For whereas he had offered him up in faith, and thereon looked on him as dead, resting his soul in the power of God alone to raise him from the dead, his restoration, or giving him unto him again, had a complete representation of the resurrection of the dead at the last day. So have I briefly passed through this great instance of the faith of the father of the faithful, with some considerations of the conflicts which he had with temptations, and his conquest over them. And these things, I confess, require a more full search into and contemplation of, if the nature of my present design would admit of it. But yet, when I should have done my uttermost, I can easily discern how short I should fall, not only of discovering the depth of the treasures of divine wisdom herein, but also of the workings and transactions of faith in and by all the faculties of his soul in Abraham himself. I leave them, therefore, as objects of their meditation who have more skill and experience in these divine mysteries than I have attained unto. Some things we may yet observe from the whole; as, — Obs. 2. The privileges and advantages that Abraham obtained on this trial, exercise, and victory of his faith. For,1. He had hereon the most illustrious immediate testimony from heaven of God’s acceptance and approbation of him that ever any one had in this world, unless it were Jesus Christ himself, Genesis 22:11-12.2. The promise was solemnly confirmed unto him by the oath of God, which gave him absolutely infallible security that there was no reserved condition in it, on which its accomplishment was suspended, verses 16-18.3. He was constituted “heir of the world,” verses 17,18; and,4. The “father of the faithful.” And,5. An end was put unto all his trials and temptations. After this he was exercised with no more difficulties, but walked in peace unto the end of his days. And we may be assured that, —Obs. 3. Faith obtaining the victory in great trials (as suffering for the truth), and carrying us through difficult duties of obedience, shall have a reward even in this life, in many unspeakable spiritual privileges and advantages.This one instance is sufficient in itself to confirm the assertion of the apostle and his whole intention, namely, as unto the power and efficacy of faith in carrying believers through all difficulties and oppositions which they may meet withal in the profession of the gospel and the course of their obedience. For if we consider both parts of Abraham’s trial, 1. As unto nature, in the sacrificing of his only son, for whose sake he had undergone a wearisome pilgrimage;2. As unto grace and faith itself, in the dread of the command, and open appearance of the defeatment of the promise; nothing equal to it can befall us in our profession.Obs. 4. This example was peculiarly cogent unto the Hebrews, who gloried in being the children of Abraham, from whom they derived all their privileges and advantages. Wherefore they were justly pressed with this instance, as they were before by our Savior, when he told them that “if they were the children of Abraham, they would do the works of Abraham,” John 8:39. And an encouragement it was unto them, to abide in that faith wherein he had had such glorious success. Obs. 5. We may also consider, that,1. If we are children of Abraham, we have no reason to expect an exemption from the greatest trials, that the same faith which was in him is able to conflict withal.2. We have no reason to be afraid of the fiercest and severest trials that may befall us, having so great an instance that faith is able to carry us through them all victoriously.3. Difficult duties of obedience warranted by divine command, and successes of faith under trials, shall have a present reward in this life. “In keeping thy commandments there is great reward.”4. Though death should seem to pass on any of the promises concerning the church, yet nothing need shake our faith, whilst we can believe the resurrection of the dead. They will be given as in a figure of it. Πίστειπερὶμελλόντωνεὐλόγησεν᾿Ισαὰκτὸν᾿Ιακὼβκαὶτὸν᾿Ησαῦ.Hebrews 11:20. — By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.Isaac was a holy person, who, though a pilgrim, yet, as far as appeareth, spent most of his time in peace, without great perils and dangers. Wherefore there is less spoken of him, and the trials of his faith, than either of his father or his son. Howbeit there is no doubt but that this son of the promise led his life in the faith of the promise; and the promise was particularly renewed unto him, Genesis 26:4.The apostle chooseth to instance in his faith with respect unto the blessing of his sons, which was in his old age, and was the most eminent act of it, because of the conveyance of the promise unto his seed made thereby. The story which he reports is recorded Genesis 27. And there is none in the Scripture filled with more intricacies and difficulties, as unto a right judgment of the thing related, though the matter of fact be clearly and distinctly set down. The whole represents unto us divine sovereignty, wisdom, and faithfulness, working effectually through the frailties, infirmities, and sins of all the persons concerned in the matter. It was taken for granted by them all, that, by God’s institution and appointment, the promise, with all the benefits and privileges of it, was to be conveyed by paternal benediction unto one of the sons. Hereon there had been sundry indications of the mind of God, as unto the person to whom it was to be communicated. There was so in the answer of God unto Rebekah, when the children strove in her womb, when he said unto her, “The elder shall serve the younger,” Genesis 25:23. And an immediate indication hereof was given in their birth, wherein Jacob laid hold on the heel of Esau, as being to supplant him, verse 26. It was further manifest when they grew up, partly by the profaneness of Esau, evidenced in marrying evil and idolatrous wives; and partly in his selling his birthright for a mess of pottage, verses 32-34. Yet did not all this prevent the miscarriages of them all in the communication and obtaining this blessing; namely, of Isaac, Rebekah, and Jacob. For, — 1. Whatever may be spoken in excuse of Isaac, it is certain he failed greatly in two things:(1.) In his inordinate love unto Esau, whom he could not but know to be a profane person, and that on so slight an account as eating of his venison, Genesis 25:28.(2.) In that he had not sufficiently inquired into the mind of God in the oracle that his wife received concerning their sons. There is no question on the one hand, but that he knew of it; nor on the other, that he did not understand it. For if the holy man had known that it was the determinate will of God, he would not have contradicted it. But this arose from want of diligent inquiry by prayer into the mind of God.2. As for Rebekah, there is no doubt but that she was infallibly certain that it was the mind and will of God that Jacob should have the blessing. So far she had a sufficient ground of faith. But her contrivance for the obtaining of it, when she ought to have committed the event unto the providence of God, whose word was engaged for it, cannot be approved; nor is what she did to be made an example for imitation.3. Jacob also had, no doubt, sufficient evidence that the birthright was conveyed unto him; yet although he followed his mother’s instructions, and obeyed her commands in what he did, his miscarriages in getting the conveyance of it by his father’s blessing, which were not a few, are not to be excused.But under all these mistakes and miscarriages we may observe two things: — 1. That true faith acted itself in all the persons concerned. The faith of Isaac was true and right in this, that the promise was sure to his seed by virtue of the covenant, and that he was instrumentally, in the way of external evidence, to convey it by his solemn benediction. The first was express in the covenant: the other he had by immediate revelation and inspiration; for his blessing was a “prophecy of things to come,” as it is in the text. But he missed it in the application of it unto the object in his own intention, though in matter of fact, by the divine disposal of circumstances, he was in the right. This mistake hindered not but that he blessed Jacob in faith. One expositor, who abounds in conjectures, and is as unhappy in them as any man well can be, would have it that the blessing of Jacob in faith doth not belong, or is not to be ascribed unto that solemn blessing which he pronounced upon him when he mistook the person, supposing him to be Esau, Genesis 27:27-29, but unto what he said afterwards concerning him unto Esau, verse 33, “I have blessed him, and he shall be blessed;” than which nothing can be more remote from the mind of the Holy Ghost. For in these words to Esau he directly affirms that he had blessed him, and now only declares the consequent of it, namely, that he should enjoy the blessing, — “He shall be blessed.” Now this hath respect unto that former blessing; which was therefore in faith, notwithstanding the previous mistake of the person, which he now understood, by what he had done, as being under the immediate conduct of the Spirit of God. So did true faith act itself both in Rebekah and Jacob, and they were in the right, from divine revelation, that the promises did belong to Jacob. Howbeit they variously miscarried in the way they took for obtaining a pledge of it in the paternal benediction. Wherefore it cannot be denied but that sometimes, when true faith is rightly fixed on divine promises, those in whom it is, and who truly believe, may, through darkness, infirmities, and temptations, put themselves on irregular ways for the accomplishment of them. And as in these ways they may fail and miscarry, unto the scandal of religion and a dangerous concussion of their own faith; so if they do succeed in such ways, as Jacob did, yet are not their ways accepted or approved of God, as they will quickly under- stand. But although these mistakes may be such as to vitiate their works, and render them unacceptable unto God, yet shall they not condemn their persons in the sight of God, neither here nor hereafter. Whereas, therefore, there yet remain many promises to be accomplished concerning the church, and its state or condition in this world; as it is our duty firmly to believe them, so it is our wisdom, not, upon any temptations, provocations, or advantages, to attempt their accomplishment in any unwarrantable way and undertaking. 2. We may see herein the infinite purity of the divine will, effectually accomplishing its own purposes and designs through the failings and miscarriages of men, without the least mixture with or approbation of their iniquities or miscarriages. So did God accomplish his purpose and promise unto Jacob, by ordering the outward circumstances of the irregular actings of him and his mother unto his own blessed ends. And although he neither commanded nor approved of these irregularities in them, yet whereas there was true faith in the persons themselves, though misguided as unto some outward actions; and that acted, as they judged, in compliance with his will, without the least design of injury unto any others (for they aimed at nothing but what was their own by his grant and donation); he accepted their persons, pardoned their sins, and effected the matter according to their desire. And we may yet observe, — Obs. That the failure, error, or mistake of any one leading person, with respect unto divine promises and their accomplishment, may be of dangerous consequence unto others; — as here the failing of Isaac was the occasion of casting Jacob and Rebekah into all their irregularities.These things being premised, as unto the story which respect is here had unto, the words themselves may be briefly opened. And there are three things in them: 1. What is ascribed unto Isaac; namely, that “he blessed his sons.”2. How he did it; and that was, “by faith.”3. What was the subject-matter of his blessing; and that was, “things to come.”1. He blessed them. Those patriarchal blessings were partly euctical, or prayers; partly prophetical, or predictions. And the matter of them was the promise made unto them, with what was contained in them, and nothing else. They did not pray for, they could not foretell, any thing but what God had promised. They were authoritative applications of God’s promises unto the persons unto whom they did belong, for the confirmation of their faith. So far as they were merely euctical, or consisted in solemn prayer, they were an effect and duty of the ordinary parental ministry, and as such ought to be used by all parents. Not as some, by the trifling custom of daily asking and giving blessing, whilst perhaps a curse is entailed on families by wretched examples; but by solemn reiterated prayer unto that purpose. But there were two things extraordinary in them: (1.) A certain determination of the promise unto particular persons, as was here done by Isaac; which falls not within the compass of the ordinary paternal ministry. We may fail in our most earnest desires and sincere endeavors for the communication of the promise unto this or that child.(2.) Prediction of particular future events, falling within the compass and verge of the promise. So was it in the solemn blessings of Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. Herein were they acted by a spirit of prophecy and immediate revelation.2. Thus he blessed his sons; and he did it “by faith.” But yet there is a difficulty that ariseth on both hands, from the one blessing and the other. For the blessing of Jacob was from immediate inspiration, and not intended by Isaac to be applied unto Jacob; both which considerations seem to exclude his faisth from any interest in this benediction. And the blessing of Esau related only unto temporal things, and that not with respect unto any especial promise.I answer, That as unto the first, or the blessing of Jacob, (1.) There was a proper object of his faith, which it was fixed on, namely, the promise of the covenant, that God would be a God to him and his seed, and that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Herein was his faith exercised in his blessing of Jacob; which was no way impeded by his mistake of the person. Faith was acted by the promise, and was guided as to its object by God’s providence.(2.) Immediate inspiration doth no way hinder the actings of faith on preceding revelations. He had the warrant of the word of God before revealed for the ground of his faith, and his immediate inspiration guided him to act according unto it. And,(3.) As for the blessing of Esau, although it respected only temporal things, yet he gave it him in faith also, in that it was the fruit of his prayer for him, and contained predictions which he had received by divine revelation.3. The subject-matter of both these blessings were things to come; that is, things that were not yet, nor yet to have their present accomplishment. For that part of the blessing of Jacob, that he should be lord of his brethren, as it is expressed in the blessing of Esau, “Thou shalt serve thy brother,” was not fulfilled in their days, there being a great appearance of the contrary. Wherefore the things contained in these blessings, absolutely considered, were future, and yet for to come, in the days of, and among their posterity. Now, the blessing of Jacob did not contain only a better portion in this world than that of Esau, as Grotius would have it; nor had there been any need of so great a contest about the difference between the land of Canaan and that of Edom, but as it did comprise also the numerous posterity of Jacob, their quiet habitation, power and dominion in the land of Canaan: so the principal subject of it was the enclosure of the church, the confinement of the covenant, and the enjoyment of the promise of the blessed Seed unto him and his offspring. And it was the contempt hereof, and not of a double portion of earthly things, for which Esau is stigmatized as a “profane person.” Πίστει᾿Ιακὼβἀποθνήσκωνἓκαστοντῶνυἱῶν᾿Ιωσὴφἐυλόγνσε, καὶπροσεκύνησενἐπὶτὸἄχροντῆςῥάβδουαὐτοῦ.᾿Αποθνήσκων, “moriens,” “moriturus,” “cum moreretur;” “when he drew nigh to death,” — the present tense; that which was then in the next disposition unto the actual death that shortly ensued; probably a few days before his death.῝Εκαστον, “singulos filiorum,” for ἑκάτερον or ἄμφω, “each” or “both.” “Utrumque.” Syr., ‘μְ ?λֻ ?μηַ ?γ, “every one.” “Both the sons of Joseph” distinctly.᾿Επὶτὸἄκροντῆςῥάζδουαὐτοῦ. Vulg. Lat., “et adoravit fastigium virgae ejus,” “he adored the top of his rod.” Leaving out the preposition ἐπί, “on,” it corrupts the sense, and forceth the meaning of the words to be, of Joseph’s rod; whence a vain and foolish opinion hath been fancied about adoring or worshipping of creatures, — as remote from the sense of this place as from truth. The Syriac properly, εַ ?ρְ ?βֵ ?γςַ ?μψִ ?ιωׁ ηεθְ ?ψֵ ?δּ ?“he bowed” (or “adored”) “on the top of his own staff.” Beza supplies[13] “innixus,” which we render “leaning.” [13] Exposition. — In regard to the discrepancy between the meaning of the Masoretic text and the LXX. translation of the Hebrew passage, see vol. 1 of this Exposition, pp. 116,117. Ebrard supposes the apostle quoted the words, not so much as illustrative of the faith of Jacob in praying at his death, as in order to call to the minds of his readers, who were familiar with the Pentateuch, the context, in which Jacob gives orders to carry his bones to Canaan; and hence the natural transition to the analogous command of Joseph mentioned in verse 22. — Ed. Hebrews 11:21. — By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph, [each of them,] and worshipped, [leaning] on the top of his staff.There are two things mentioned in the words: 1. That “Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph.”2. That he “worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff.” But they did not fall out in the order wherein they are here expressed. The latter of them is recorded before the former, Genesis 47:31, “And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head.” To which is added, that after these things Joseph brought his children unto him, Genesis 48:1.From Genesis 47:29 unto the end of the Book of Genesis, an account is given us of the dying of Jacob, and what he did in order thereunto, — as the apostle expresseth it, “when he was dying.” What space of time, or how many days it took up, is uncertain; probably not many. The first thing he did in order hereunto, was to send for his son Joseph, to give him charge concerning his burial in the land of Canaan; which was an act and duty of faith with respect unto the promise, verses 29-31. This being done, it is said that “Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head;” that is, he bowed himself, and worshipped God. This is but once mentioned in the whole story; but an intimation is given therein of what Jacob did on the like occasions, especially in all the passages of his dying acts and words. When he had spoken or done any thing, his way was to retire immediately unto God with acknowledgment of his mercy, and requests of more grace. And such, indeed, is the frame and carriage of holy men in their dying seasons. For as they have occasion to attend unto other things sometimes, so on all advantages they bow down their souls and bodies so far as they are able, in acts of faith, prayer, and thankfulness. First, The person here whose faith is instanced in is Jacob; but there is some difficulty in the choice of the particular act or duty which the apostle chooseth to give instance in. For Jacob, as he abounded in trials and temptations above all the other patriarchs, so he gave sundry illustrious testimonies of his faith, seeming to be of greater evidence than this of blessing the sons of Joseph. Especially, that was so which is recorded by the Holy Spirit in Hosea 12:3-4,“By his strength he had power with God: yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us.”In comparison hereof this act of blessing the sons of Joseph is of an inferior consideration. This is the only difficulty of this place; which yet by expositors is taken no notice of. But if we look into the thing itself, we shall find that it was divine wisdom in the apostle whereby he fixed on this instance of the faith of Jacob. For in his blessing of the sons of Joseph, the good man being near to death, he makes a recapitulation of all the principal concernments of his life, as it was a life of faith; and we shall therefore consider some of those circumstances, which manifest how proper this instance was unto the purpose of the apostle. 1. It was the exercise of his faith in his old age; and not only so, but then when he had a certain prospect of the sudden approach of his death, Genesis 47:29; Genesis 48:21. We have therefore herein a testimony, that notwithstanding all the trials and conflicts which he had met withal, with the weaknesses and disconsolations of old age, he abode firm in faith, and vigorous in the exercise of it. His natural decay did not cause any abatement in his spiritual strength.2. In this blessing of Joseph and his sons he did solemnly recognise, plead, and assert the covenant made with Abraham: “God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk,” Genesis 48:15; that is, with whom God made the everlasting covenant, and who walked therein before him all their days. This is the life of faith, namely, to lay hold on the covenant; which he did herein expressly.3. As he made a solemn acknowledgment of all spiritual mercies by virtue of the covenant, so he added thereunto that of all temporal mercies also: “The God which fed me all my life long unto this day.” It was a work of faith, to retain a precious, thankful remembrance of divine providence, in a constant provision of all needful temporal supplies, from first to last, during the whole course of his life. 4. He reflects on all the hazards, trials, and evils that befell him, and the exercise of his faith in them all: “Redeemed me from all evil.” Now all his dangers are past, all his evils conquered, all his fears removed, he retains by faith a sense of the goodness and kindness of God in rescuing him out of them all.5. In particular, he remembers the acting of his faith in the matter recorded by Hosea, before mentioned, and therein of his faith in the Son of God in an especial manner, as he was the Angel of the covenant, the Angel the Redeemer: “The Angel,” saith he, “that redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads.” That by this Angel, the person of the Son of God, as he was to be the Messenger of the covenant, and the Redeemer of the church, is intended, I have proved elsewhere, and it was the sense of all the ancient writers of the church; however, some of the Roman church would abuse this testimony to give countenance unto the invocation of angels, — which is little less than blasphemy. Wherefore, in the recognition hereof did faith most eminently act itself. 6. The discerning of the sons of Joseph one from the other when he was blind; the disposal of his hands, his right hand unto the head of Ephraim, and his left unto the head of Manasseh, contrary to the desire of their father; and the proposal of them unto him; with the prediction of their future condition many ages after; were all evidences of the especial presence of God with him, and consequently of his own faith in God.7. There were other circumstances also that rendered this benediction of Jacob an eminent act of faith: as, (1.) That he laid the foundation of it in an especial revelation, Genesis 48:3 : “And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty” (God in covenant with me) “appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me,” etc. (2.) That he did solemnly, by divine warrant, adopt Ephraim and Manasseh to be his children; whereby they became to have the interest of distinct tribes in Israel, verse 5. And hereby(3.) He gave the right of the birthright, as unto a double portion, forfeited by Reuben, unto Joseph.(4.) He remembers the kindness of God in this, that whereas his beloved wife Rachel died immaturely of her second son, verse 7, yet God would give him a numerous posterity by her, — the thing which both he and she so greatly desired.On all these considerations, it is evident that the apostle for great and weighty reasons fixed on this instance of faith in Jacob, that he “blessed both the sons of Joseph.” And we may see, that, — Obs. 1. It is an eminent mercy, when faith not only holds out unto the end, but waxeth strong towards the last conflict with death; as it was with Jacob.Obs. 2. It is so also, to be able by faith, in the close of our pilgrimage, to recapitulate all the passages of our lives, in mercies, trials, afflictions, so as to give glory to God with respect unto them all; as Jacob did in this place.Obs. 3. That which enlivens and encourageth faith as unto all other things, is a peculiar respect unto the Angel the Redeemer, by whom all grace and mercy are communicated unto us Obs. 4. It is our duty so to live in the constant exercise of faith, as that we may be ready and strong in it when we are dying.Obs. 5. Though we should die daily, yet there is a peculiar dying season, when death is in its near approach, which requires peculiar actings of faith.Secondly, The latter clause of the words, or the other instance of the faith of Jacob, that “he worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff,” hath a peculiar difficulty in it, from a difference between the words of the apostle and those of Moses concerning the same thing. The words in Moses are, ειּ ?ωϊַּ ?ηεּ ιִ ?ωְׂ ?ψָ ?ΰֵ ?μςַ ?μΰּ ?ψΰֹ ?ωׁ δַ ?θִּ ?θָּ ?δ;ַ ?that is, “And Israel bowed himself upon the bed’s head.” This the Septuagint renders by, Καὶπροσεκύνησεν᾿Ισραὴλἐπὶτὸἄχροντῆςῥάβδουαὐτοῦ, — “And Israel worshipped on the top of his rod.” The Vulgar Latin in that place followeth the original, “Adoravit Israel Deum conversus ad lectuli caput,”’— “And Israel worshipped God, turning to the head of the bed.” The apostle in this place makes use of the words as they are in the translation of the LXX.; and the difficulty is increased by the Vulgar translation in this place, which leaving out the preposition ἐπί, renders the words, “And he adored the top of his staff,” or “rod;” that is, say some, the scepter of Joseph. This verbal difference is sufficiently belabored by critical expositors of all sorts: I shall give a brief account of my thoughts concerning it.1. The words of Moses are the close of the 47th chapter of Genesis (Genesis 47), “And Israel bowed himself upon the head of the bed.” Whereas this may denote only a natural action of the old man, who having sat up to confer with his son Joseph, being infirm and weary, when he had finished his discourse, and taken the oath of his son, he “bowed himself unto the head of the bed.” But the Vulgar Latin hath well. supplied, “God,” — he “adored God towards the bed’s head;” that is, by bowing down unto him. And so δִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?εָ ?δ is most frequently used to express an act of divine adoration; and that it was such is here declared by the apostle.2. That Jacob worshipped the top of Joseph’s staff or scepter, which he carried as an ensign of his authority and power, is rejected by all sober expositors. It hath, indeed, a double countenance given unto it in the Vulgar translation:(1.) By the omission of the preposition ἐπί, “on” or “upon,” which must include ‘leaning on,’or some word of the same importance; and, (2.) By rendering αὐτοῦ by “ejus,” and referring it to Joseph; whereas it is often used for ἑαυτοῦ, or reciprocally, “his own;” which must be here supposed, or it answers not the original. And as for any worship of Jacob performed unto Joseph, it is most remote from the text For not only at that instant had Joseph put his hand under his father’s thigh, and sworn unto him, wherein he acknowledged his superiority, but also a little after “he bowed himself” unto him “with his face to the earth,” Genesis 48:12.3. The apostle doth not in this epistle tie himself unto the express words of the original text in his allegations out of the Old Testament, but only gives the certain sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in them.4. The word in the original is ξִּ ?θָּ ?δ, which may have a different pronunciation by a different supply of vowels; and so a different signification. If we read it “mittah,’it signifies a “bed,” as we render it in Genesis; if we read it “matteh,” it signifies a “staff” or a “rod,” on which a man may lean; both from the same verb, πָ ?θָ ?δ, to “extend,” to “incline”. And hence doth the difference arise. And we may observe concerning it. —(1.) It is certain that in the days of Jerome the Hebrew reading was unquestionably “mittah,” a bed as it is now; for he blames the LXX. for misinterpreting the word. Quaest. Hebr.(2.) Hereon some say, that the translation of the LXX. being in common use among the Jews in all their dispersions, and even in Judea itself, the apostle freely followed it, in compliance with them, there being nothing in it discrepant from the truth as to the substance of it. What is my judgment of this conjecture, I have elsewhere declared.(3.) Others say, the apostle makes use of this variety in expression to represent the entire posture and action of Jacob in this adoration. For whereas he was very weak and infirm, being near the time of his death, (which is observed in the story,) upon the coming of Joseph to him he sat upon the side of his bed, with his staff in his hand; a posture which he may be easily conceived to be in. At the end of his discourse with him, addressing himself unto the solemn adoration of God, he so bowed towards the bed’s head as that he supported himself with his staff, to preserve himself in a posture of reverence for his divine meditation. Wherefore, — (4.) Although I will not contend that the word in that place hath a double signification, of a “bed” and a “staff,” yet this is the true solution of this difficulty. The apostle did not design a precise translation of the words of Moses, but intended only to express the same thing. And whereas that was undoubtedly the posture of Jacob in the worshipping of God which we have declared, the apostle useth his liberty in expressing it by his “leaning on his staff.” For that he did both, namely, “bow towards the head of the bed,” and at the same time “lean on his staff,” we are assured by comparing the divine writers together. (5.) There is an expression like unto it concerning David, 1 Kings 1:47, ειִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηεּ δַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ ςַ ?μΰּ ?δַ ?ξִּ ?ωְׁ ?λָּ ?α,— “And the king bowed himself on his bed;” that is, he bowed down towards the bed’s head in his great weakness, so to adore and worship God. And Jacob’s leaning on his staff therewithal, completes the emblem and representation of his reverence and faith: by the one he bowed down, by the other he sustained himself; as whatever doth sustain and support is in the Scripture called a staff. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 6. In all acts of divine worship, whether stated or occasional, it is our duty to dispose our bodies into such a posture of reverence as may represent the inward frame of our minds — So did Jacob here, and it is reckoned as an act and duty of faith. Obs. 7. There is an allowance for the infirmities of age and sickness, in our outward deportment in divine worship, so as that there be no indulgence unto sloth or custom, but that an evidence of a due reverence of God and holy things be preserved. — Those postures which are commended in Jacob, would not, it may be, become others in their health and strength. So David affirms, that he would rise at midnight out of his bed, to give thanks unto God, Psalms 119:62. Πίστει᾿Ιωσὴφτελευτῶνπερὶτῆςἐξόδουτῶνυἱῶν᾿Ισραὴλἐμνημόνευσε, καὶπερὶτῶνὀστέωναὐτοῦἐνετείλατο.Hebrews 11:22. — By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.Two instances are here proposed of the faith of Joseph: 1. That “he made mention of the departing of the children of Israel” out of Egypt. 2. That he “gave command concerning his bones” The account hereof is given in the close of the book of Genesis.1. The first instance proposed of Joseph’s faith, is his “making mention of the departing of the children of Israel” out of Egypt. And for the exposition of the place, we may consider, —(1.) To whom he spake these words, and gave this charge. The words he spake unto his brethren: “Joseph said unto his brethren,” Genesis 50:24. Some of his own brethren were yet alive, as is evident concerning Levi. For Joseph when he died was but an hundred and ten years old, verse 26; and Levi lived an hundred and seven and thirty years, being not twenty years older than Joseph. And probably God might shorten the life of Joseph to make way for the affliction of the people which he had foretold, and which immediately ensued thereon. Also, under the name of his “brethren,” his brothers’sons may be intended, as is usual. But as unto the command concerning his bones, the expression is changed. For it is said that “he took an oath of the children of Israel;” and so if, is again repeated, Exodus 13:19, “he had straitly sworn the children of Israel;” — that is, he brought the whole people into this engagement by the heads of their tribes, that they might be obliged in after generations; for he foresaw that it would not be the work of them who were then living.(2.) The time wherein these things were done; it was when he was dying: “And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die.” This evidence he gave of the steadfastness of his faith, that it had accompanied him through all his afflictions, and all his prosperity, not forsaking him now at his death. He had lived long in glory, power, and wealth; but through all he preserved his faith in the promise of God entire. And if there had been nothing 3: that promise but the inheritance of the land of Canaan, as some imagine, he would not have maintained his faith concerning it unto the death, and in his departure out of the world, enjoying far more in Egypt than what was contained the Romans But, — Obs. 1. It is of great use unto the edification of the church, that such believers as have been eminent in profession, should at their dying testify their faith in the promises of God. So did Jacob, so did Joseph; and others have done so, to the great advantage of them concerned.(3.) In the way whereby he expressed his faith we may observe,[1. The object of it, or what it was which he believed, namely, “the departure of the children of Israel” out of Egypt; [2. The manner of his acting that faith, he “made mention” of what he did believe. [1. This departure of the children of Israel is not intended absolutely, as a mere departing thence; but such as whereby the promise made unto their fathers should be accomplished. For so it is declared in the story, “God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land, unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,” Genesis 50:24. The accomplishment of this promise was that which was the especial object of his faith, whereof this departure was a means subservient thereunto. And he seems to have respect unto the promise made unto Abraham, Genesis 15:13-14; wherein the sojourning and affliction of his seed in a strange land was determined before their admission into the land of Canaan. Obs. 2. After his trial of all that this world could afford, when he was dying he chose the promise for his lot and portion.[2. The manner of the acting of his faith towards this object is, that he “made mention of it.” And we may consider in it, — 1st. How he did it. And that was in the way of public profession. He called his brethren unto him, and spake of it unto them all, Genesis 1:24. And he did it, as to discharge his own duty, (for “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,”) so to strengthen their faith. For when they found that he, in all his glory and wealth, yet embraced the promise, and died in the faith of it, it was a great encouragement and provocation unto them, who were in a meaner condition, firmly to cleave unto the same promise. And when men who are great, mighty, and wealthy in the world, do in their public profession prefer the promises of the gospel before and above their present enjoyments, it is of great use in the church. 2dly. He “made mention of it,” or called it to remembrance. It was not that which he had by immediate present revelation; but it was from his reliance on the promises long before given. And these were two:(1st) The great promise made unto Abraham, that God would give the land of Canaan to his seed for a possession, Genesis 15:7; and,(2dly.) That they should be delivered out of great bondage and distress before they entered into it, Genesis 15:13-14. His faith in these promises he here makes profession of.3dly. He foresaw the oppression and bondage that they were to undergo, before the accomplishment of this promise. For so he expresseth himself unto his brethren, “God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land,” Genesis 1:24. And again, “God will surely visit you,” Genesis 1:25. He hath respect unto the words of God to Abraham, Genesis 15:13-14, “Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years: and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance.” This he believed and foresaw, and therefore makes mention of God’s “visiting them;” that is, having respect unto them in their distresses, and providing for their deliverance.4thly. The prospect of their bondage, and their helpless condition therein, did not at all weaken his faith as unto the accomplishment of the promise. Wherefore, when the apostle says that “he made mention of the departing of the children of Israel,” (that is, from Egypt,) he had not only respect unto the thing itself, but also unto the manner and circumstances of it; namely, that it should be after great oppression, and by a work of almighty power.5thly. This was a proper season for Joseph to make mention of the promise and its accomplishment; as it is the wisdom of faith to call the promises to remembrance in the seasons that they are suited unto. He was now dying, and upon his death, his brethren, the posterity of Jacob, knew not what would become of them, nor what would be their condition, being deprived of him who was their only protector. At this season, to testify his own faith in the promise, now he had no more concernment in this world, and to encourage them unto the like confidence in it, he makes mention of its accomplishment. And we see, — Obs. 3. That no interposition of difficulties ought to weaken our faith as unto the accomplishment of the promises of God.2. There is a particular instance of the faith of Joseph, in that “he gave commandment concerning his bones.” And this was peculiar unto himself alone. That which the apostle expresseth by his commanding, or giving commandment, was his taking an oath of his brethren, and their posterity in them, Genesis 50:25. He straitly charged the children of Israel with an oath, Exodus 13:19. As it was an act of authority in him, (for he had the rule of his brethren,) it was a command; the manner of the obligation unto the performance of it was by an oath. So Abraham gave charge and command to Eliezer his servant about taking a wife for Isaac, with an oath, Genesis 24:2-3; Genesis 24:9. And these kinds of oaths, in things lawful, for a good end, not arbitrarily imposed, but entered into by consent, are good in themselves, and in some cases necessary.The apostle saith only, that “he gave commandment concerning his bones,” and doth not declare what it was that he gave in charge concerning them. But this is expressed in the story, namely, that when God visited them, and delivered them out of Egypt, they should carry his bones along with them into Canaan, Genesis 1:25. In order hereunto, “they embalmed him, and put him in a coffin in Egypt,” Genesis 1:26. Probably the Egyptians left the care of his funeral unto his brethren, and his coffin remained in the custody of their posterity, perhaps his own in particular, until the time of their departure. Then Moses took them into his care, Exodus 13:19. And the issue of the whole was, that into the land of Canaan they were safely carried, according to the oath of the people, and were buried in Shechem, in a parcel of ground whereof Jacob had made a purchase, and left it in legacy unto the children of Joseph, Joshua 24:32.Thus was it as unto the story; but an inquiry may be made into the reasons why Joseph gave this charge concerning his bones unto his brethren, whereas all their bones rested in Egypt, were not translated into Canaan, nor did they take any care that they should be so. But there were some things peculiar unto Joseph, which caused his faith to act in this way about the disposal of his bones. For, — (1.) He had been of great power, authority, and dignity among the Egyptians. His fame and reputation, for wisdom, righteousness, and law- making, were great among the nations. He might therefore justly have feared, that if he had not thus openly renounced all cognation and alliance with them, he might among posterity have been esteemed an Egyptian; which he abhorred. Therefore he established this lasting monument of his being of the seed and posterity of Abraham, and not an Egyptian.(2.) As it is supposed that God buried the body of Moses where it should not be known by any, lest the people, prone to superstition and idolatry, should have worshipped it, as they did afterwards the brazen serpent; so had the bones of Joseph been continued in Egypt, they might have been turned into an idol by that foolish people, which hereby was prevented. Yea, it is generally thought that in after ages they did worship him under the name of Serapis, and the symbol of an ox. But this, what lay in him, he prevented by the removal of his bones.(3.) He did it plainly to encourage the faith and expectation of his brethren and their posterity as unto the certainty of their future deliverance; as also to take them off from all designing to fix or plant themselves in Egypt, seeing he, who had all advantages above them for that end, would not have so much as his bones to abide in the land.(4.) He might also have respect herein unto the kindness of his father, who gave him a peculiar lot of inheritance in the land of Canaan, wherein, out of a remembrance of his faith in God and love unto him, he would be buried.However it be, it is most evident that this holy man lived and died in faith, being enabled thereby to prefer the promise of God above all earthly enjoyments. The frame of his spirit now he was dying is a sufficient indication of what it was in the whole course of his life. He is not solicitous about the disposal of his wealth and revenues, which no doubt were very great; but his mind is wholly on the promise, and thereby on the covenant with Abraham. It is highly probable that he had converted his wife, Asenath, a woman of a princely family, from idolatry, unto the knowledge of God and faith in him. Hereon, as is likely, she also was contented that her children and posterity should fall from their parental honor and revenues, to take up their portion among the afflicted people of God. The mighty working of his faith shines out in all these things. And if a voluntary relinquishment of all earthly enjoyments, by preferring the promises of God before and above them all, be no less glorious and acceptable in the sight of God, a no less eminent effect of faith, than patiently to undergo the loss of them by the power of persecuting enemies; then is this instance of the apostle eminently suited unto the argument which he hath in hand. The plea of some of the Roman church from this place, for the preservation and veneration of relics, or the bones of saints departed, is weak unto the utmost contempt. For besides that this charge of Joseph concerning his bones and their disposal was singular, such a fruit of faith as could have no place in any other person, nor ever can there be the like occasion in the world, all that was done in compliance with that charge, was but the carrying of them shut up in a coffin into the land of Canaan, and there decently burying of them. To take an example from hence of digging men’s bones out of their graves, of enshrining and placing them on altars, of carrying them up and down in procession, of adoring them with all signs of religious veneration, applying them unto miraculous operations, in curing diseases, casting out of devils, and the like, is fond and ridiculous. In searching the sacred records for eminent examples of the power and efficacy of faith, the apostle is arrived unto that of Moses. And because this is the greatest instance, next to that of Abraham, he insists on sundry acts and fruits thereof. And indeed, if we consider aright his person and his circumstances; the work which he was called unto; the trials, difficulties, and temptations he had to conflict withal; the concernment of the glory of God and of the whole church in him; the illustrious representation of the redemption and deliverance of the church by Christ in what he did; with his success and victory over all opposition; — we must acknowledge that there cannot be a more excellent exemplification of the power of faith than what was given in him. For this cause the apostle takes one step backward, to declare the faith of his parents in his preservation in his infancy, whereon his future life and all that he was called unto did depend. For ofttimes, when God designeth persons to a great work, he giveth some previous indication of it, in or about their nativity: not by a fictitious horoscope, or the position and aspect of planets, a thing common to all born at the same time unto the most different events; but by some peculiar work and divine warning of his own. So was it in the birth of Samson, of Samuel, John the Baptist, and others. And so was it in the birth and preservation of this Moses, as it is declared in this verse. Hebrews 11:23. — ΠίστειΜωϋσῆςγεννηθεὶςἐκρυβητρίμηνονὑπὸτῶνπατέρωναὑτοῦ, διότιἀστεῖοντὸπαιδίον, καὶοὐκἐφοβήθησαντὸδιάταγματοῦβασιλέως.Hebrews 11:23. — By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw [he was] a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.It is the faith of the parents of Moses that is here celebrated. But because it is mentioned principally to introduce the discourse of himself and his faith, and also that what is spoken belongs unto his honor, it is thus peculiarly expressed. He saith not, ‘By faith the parents of Moses, when he was born, hid him;’but, “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid;” that is, by the faith of his parents, who hid him. This birth of Moses fell out in the very height and fury of the persecution. After that Pharaoh failed in his design of destroying the male children of the Hebrews by the midwives, he gave the execution of it in charge unto all the people, — that is, the officers among them; who no doubt were sufficiently diligent and officious in the work committed unto them. About the very entrance of this new, effectual way of the destruction of the male children, — when their rage was most fierce, no way abated by compassion, nor wearied by long continuance, nor weakened by any conviction of want of success, which use to abate the edge of persecution, — in the wise disposal of divine Providence, Moses is born and preserved, who was to be the deliverer of the whole people out of all their misery. How blind are poor, sinful mortals, in all their contrivances against the church of God! When they think all things secure, and that they shall not fail of their end; that their counsels are laid so deep as not to be blown up; their power so uncontrollable, and the way wherein they are engaged so effectual, as that God himself can hardly deliver it out of their hands; — He that sits on high laughs them to scorn, and with an almighty facility lays in provision for the deliverance of his church, and their utter ruin. Josephus, giving an account of the nativity of Moses, tells us that Amram his father had a revelation from God, or a divine oracle, that of him and his wife Jochebed he should proceed and be born by whom the people should be delivered out of bondage. And that hereon, seeing the eminent beauty of this child when it was born, he and his wife used the utmost of their industry, with the venture of their lives, for his preservation; for they firmly believed that the divine oracle should be accomplished. And because it is said that they hid him by faith, some expositors do judge that in their faith they had respect unto some immediate divine revelation. But we shall see that they had a sufficient ground of faith for what they did without any such immediate revelation, which is not necessary unto the exercise of faith on all occasions And as for Josephus, it is manifest that in the account he gives of the life of Moses, before his flight out of Egypt, he records many things without sufficient warrant, and some of them inconsistent with the Scripture. There are five things to be considered in the exposition of the words: 1. Who they were whose faith is here commended; the parents of Moses. 2. Wherein they acted and manifested their faith; they “hid him three months.” 3. What was their motive hereunto; “they saw he was a proper child.”4. How they did this; “by faith.”5. What was the power of that faith enabling them unto this duty; “they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.”1. The persons intended were the parents of Moses. “fathers,” is sometimes used in the common gender for γονεῖς, “parents,” as it is here. In the story there is mention only of his mother, Exodus 2:2. And that was because the execution of the counsel or advice was committed unto her; wherein she used also the help of her daughter, as verse 4. But it is plain in this place, that his father was no less engaged in this work and duty than his mother. He was in the advice and counsel, as also in the hazard of what was done, no less than she. And this had an influence into the success. For, — Obs. 1. Where there is an agreement between husband and wife, in faith and the fear of the Lord, it makes way unto a blessed success in all their duties: when it is otherwise, nothing succeeds unto their comfort. And, —Obs. 2. When difficult duties befall persons in that relation, it is their wisdom each to apply themselves unto that part and share of it which they are best suited for. — So was it in this case; Amram no doubt was the principal in the advice and contrivance, as his wife was in its actual execution. 2. They hid him three months: He was “hid by them three months.” Herein they acted and exercised their faith. And this they seem to have done two ways:(1.) They concealed his birth as much as they were able, and did not let it be known that a male child was born in the family.(2.) They kept him not in the usual place where children were disposed of, but hid him in some secret part of the house. Here he abode three months; about the end of which time probably the report began to grow that there was a male child born there; which would have occasioned an immediate strict search and scrutiny, from which they could not have preserved him. And, — Obs. 3. This is the height of persecution, when private houses are searched by bloody officers, to execute tyrannical laws; — when the last and utmost retreat of innocency, for that protection which is due unto it by the law of God and nature, with the common rules of human society, cannot be a shelter against wicked rage and fury. No doubt but during this season their diligence was accompanied with fervent cries unto God, and the exercise of trust in him. The occasion was great on all hands, and they were not wanting unto any part of their duty. The outward act of hiding the child wan but an indication of the internal working of their faith. 3. That which was their motive and encouragement to the exercise of their faith in this way of hiding the child, is, “Because they saw he was a proper child.” Διότι, some render “quia” or “quoniam,” some “quum;” “because they saw,” or “when,” or “whereas they saw.” It doth not include the whole cause of what they did, as though this were the only reason or ground whereon they did it; but it respects that impression on their minds which the sight of the child gave unto them, exciting them unto that duty which they had other grounds and reasons for, as we shall see immediately. It is granted, therefore, that the sight of the child (whose countenance was twice instrumental in the saving of its life, first by the smiles of its beauty, and then by its weeping, Exodus 2:2; Exodus 2:6) did greatly excite their natural affections, by which their minds were made the more ready to engage in the hazard which faith called them unto for his preservation. They “saw that he was a proper child.” Heb., λִּ ?ιΰּ ?θεֹ ?αδεּ ?ΰ. “Tob,” in the Hebrew, is applied to every thing that is on any account approvable and excellent in its kind. The word it is whereby God approved of all his works of creation, and declared their perfection, Genesis 1:31. And it is applied in particular unto beauty of countenance: Genesis 24:16, Rebekah was θֹ ?αַ ?ϊξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ“good of countenance.” It is in this place rendered by the LXX. ἀστεῖος, — that is, “elegans, venustus, festivus, scitus, bellus, pulcher.” We render it here “proper,” “a proper child;” whether properly or no, the use of our language and custom in speaking must determine. The word signifies “comely, beautiful, goodly;” ἀγαθός, καλός. Holy Stephen expresseth the force of the Hebrew word by ἀστεῖοςτῷΘεῷ, “fair to God,” or in the sight of God, Acts 7:20; which we render “exceeding fair.” No doubt but an unusual natural elegancy, sweetness, and beauty of countenance are intended. And not only so, but I am persuaded, from that expression of Stephen, that there was θεῖόντι, an appearance of somewhat divine and supernatural, which drew the thoughts and minds of the parents unto a deep consideration of the child. They quickly thought it was not for nothing that God had given such a peculiarly gracious, promising countenance unto the infant. This not only drew their affections, and engaged them, but moved their minds and judgments to endeavor all lawful ways for its preservation. And, —Obs. 4. It is well when any thing of eminency in our children doth so engage our affections unto them, as to make them useful and subservient unto diligence in disposing of them unto the glory of God. Otherwise a fondness in parents, arising from the natural endowments of children, is usually hurtful, and oftentimes ruinous unto the one and other.4. The principle of their actings for his preservation, in hiding of him, as also in the means afterwards used, was their “faith.” But how and on what grounds they acted faith herein, must be inquired into. And, —(1.) I take it for granted that they had no especial, particular revelation concerning the life and work of this child. None such is mentioned, no such was needed for the acting of faith in this matter; and the manner of their deportment in the whole manifests that no such they had.(2.) They had a firm faith of the deliverance of the people out of bondage in the appointed season. This they had an express promise for, and were newly engaged in the belief of it by the witness given unto it by Joseph, and his charge on them to carry his bones with them. And with respect hereunto it is that they are said in the close of the verse not to fear the king’s command, which is the effect of their faith; which may now be spoken unto. It was a διάταγμα, “an ordinance, a statute, an edict,” which had the force of a standing law; and that established by the king, with the counsel of the kingdom, as is declared, Exodus 1:9-11. And this law lay directly against the accomplishment of the promise; for it aimed at the extirpation of the whole race, so as that there should have remained none to be delivered. As the historian says of that company of men who founded Rome, “Res unius aetatis respublica virorum,” — “A commonwealth of men only, without women, would have been but the matter of one age,” it must have expired for want of posterity; so if all the male children of the Hebrews had perished, according to this law, in one age more the nation would have been extinct. This the parents of Moses feared not: they knew the promise of God for their preservation, multiplication, and deliverance, should take place notwithstanding all the laws of men, and the highest rage in their execution. And so they shall be at this day, let men make what laws they please, and execute them with all the subtilty and rage they think meet. This counsel of Pharaoh and his people is reported for a wise and subtile contrivance, with respect unto the end aimed at, Exodus 1:9-10; Acts 7:17-19. However, they put one word into their law that made it “ipso facto” null and ineffectual. This was, that they should not multiply in Egypt. For God having promised unto Abraham that he would multiply his seed, and expressly unto Jacob, that he would do it in Egypt, Genesis 46:3, it utterly made void this law from its first enacting, whereby it became successless. And so it is with all laws, and so shall it finally be with them, that are made against any of the promises of God unto the church. Yea, it is probable that about this time, or not long after, when God had fulfilled his design in this law, — which was in part the disposal of Moses unto such an education as might prepare him, and make him, as unto natural qualifications, meet for the work he would call him unto, — that there was some remission of bloody cruelty in the execution of it. For it was eighty years after the birth of Moses before the deliverance of the people, in which time they multiplied exceedingly, so as that this law could not have been executed. The force of it probably was broken in this preservation of Moses, God having in his miraculous deliverance given a pledge of what he would do in the whole people. (3.) They had also a persuasion that God would provide a person who should be the means of their deliverance, and who should conduct them from their bondage. This Moses himself apprehended when he slew the Egyptian, and began to judge that he himself might be the person, Acts 7:24-25. And although afterwards he judged himself unmeet for to be employed in that work, yet still he retained his persuasion that God had designed some certain person unto that employment, and that he would send him in his appointed time. Hence was that prayer of his, when God began to call him unto his work, “O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send,” Exodus 4:13. One he was sure he would send, but prayed that he might not be the man. Now, the parents of Moses having this persuasion deeply fixed in them, and being raised by their distresses unto desires and expectations of his coming, beholding the unusual, divine beauty of their child, might well be raised unto some just hopes that God had designed him unto that great work. They had no especial revelation of it, but they had such an intimation of some great end God had designed him unto, as that they could not but say, ‘Who knows but that God may have prepared this child for that end?’And sometimes, as unto the event of things, faith riseth no higher but unto such an interrogation; as Joe 2:13-14.5. Their faith was eminent in this, that in the discharge of their duty they feared not the king’s edict. There is no mention of any thing in the order, but that every male child should be cast into the river, Exodus 1:22. But it is generally and rationally apprehended that they were forbid to conceal their children, on the pain of death. This they were not so afraid of as to neglect their duty. And the fear which they had was not from their own danger, which faith carried them above, but only as to the life of the child. This made them change their method, and, when they could no longer conceal him in the house, to commit him unto the providence of God in an ark, and to wait what would be the event thereof. And the issue did quickly manifest that they were led therein by a secret instinct and conduct of divine Providence. There is no ground, therefore, to charge the parents of Moses herein with either undue fear or failing in faith. For as unto what concerned themselves or their own lives in the king’s edict, they feared it not, as the apostle affirms. And such a fear as a solicitous care about the child’s life must needs produce, is inseparable from our nature in such cases, and not blamable. Neither was their change of method from want of faith: but rather an effect and fruit of it. For when one lawful way of preservation from persecution, oppression, and cruelty, will not secure us any longer, it is our duty to betake ourselves unto some other which is more likely so to do. For faith worketh by trust in God, whilst we are in the use of lawful means. And we have here an evident testimony that, — Obs. 5. The rage of men and the faith of the church shall work out the accomplishment of God’s counsels and promises, unto his glory, from under all perplexities and difficulties that may arise in opposition unto it. — So they did in this instance in an eminent manner. ΠίστειΜωϋσῆςμέγαςγενόμενοςἠρνήσατολέγεσθαιυἰὸςθυγατρὸςΦαραώ·μᾶλλονἑλόμενοςσυγκακουχεῖσθαιτῷλαῷτοῦΘεοῦ, ἥπρὀσκαιρονἔχεινἁμαρτίαςἀπόλαυσιν·μείζοναπλοῦτονἡγησάμενοςτῶνἐνΑἰγύπτῳθησαυρῶντὸνὀνειδισμὸντοῦΧριστοῦ·ἀπέβλετεγὰρεἰςτὴνμισθαποδοσίαν. Μέγαςγενόμενος. Syr., λּ ?γδֲ ?εָ ?ΰβַ ?αְ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “when he was now a man.” Other considerable variations in translations there are none. The latter clause of Heb 11:25, ἥπρόσκαιρονἔχεινἁμαρτίαςἀπόλαυσιν, is rendered by the Vulgar, “quam temporalis peccati habere jucunditatem:” which our Rhemists translate, “than to have the pleasure of temporal sin,” by a double mistake; for instead of πρόσκαιρον they read προσκαίρου, joining it with ἁμαρτίας, contrary unto all ancient copies, and the exposition of the Greek scholiasts. And ἀπόλαυσις, which is “fruition” or “enjoyment,” they render by “jucunditas,” or “pleasure.” Nor is the sense of the words, so translated, proper unto this place, as we shall see. Syr., “than for a short time to delight in sin.”῾Ελόμενος. Syr., εַ ?βְ ?αָּ ?ΰμֵ ?δּ ?“and he chose to” or “for himself;” he determined in himself and for himself.῾Ηγησάμενος. Syr., εֶ ?ΰϊְ ?ιַ ?ςִ ?ι; “and he thought;” Vulg Lat., “aestimans;” as we, “esteeming;” “arbitratus,” “reputans.” Τὸνὀνειδισμόν, “probrum,” “opprobrium.” Vulg. Lat., “improbrium;” which the Rhemists render [14] “reproach.” ft14 VARIOUS READING. — For ἐνΑἰγύπτῳ of the textus receptus, Αἰγύπτου is now generally substituted as the proper reading. — Ed. Hebrews 11:24-26. — By faith Moses, when he was come to years, [being grown up,] refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, [the transitory pleasure of sin]; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of reward. This example is great and signal. The apostle, as we showed before, takes his instances from the three states of the church under the old testament. The first was that which was constituted in the giving of the first promise, continuing unto the call of Abraham. Herein his first instance is that of Abel, in whose sacrifice the faith of that state of the church was first publicly professed, and by whose martyrdom it was confirmed. The next state had its beginning and confirmation in the call of Abraham, with the covenant made with him, and the token thereof. He therefore is the second great instance upon the roll of testimonies. The constitution and consecration of the third state of the church was in the giving of the law; and herein an instance is given in the lawgiver himself. All to manifest, that whatever outward variations the church was liable unto, and passed under, yet faith and the promises were the same, of the same efficacy and power under them all. The person then here instanced in, as one that lived by faith, is Moses. And an eminent instance it is unto his purpose, especially in his dealing with the Hebrews, and that on sundry accounts: — 1. Of his person. None was ever in the old world more signalized by Providence, in his birth, education, and actions, than he was. Hence his renown, both then and in all ages after, was very great in the world. The report and estimation of his acts and wisdom were famous among all the nations of the earth. Yet this person lived and acted and did all his works by faith.2. Of his great work, which was the typical redemption of the church. A work it was great in itself, — so God expresseth it to be, and such as was never wrought in the earth before, Deuteronomy 4:32-34, — yet greater in the typical respect which it had unto the eternal redemption of the church by Jesus Christ.3. On the account of his office. He was the lawgiver: whence it is manifest that the law is not opposite to faith, seeing the lawgiver himself lived thereby.Obs. 1. Whatever be the privileges of any, whatever be their work or office, it is by faith alone that they must live unto God, and obtain acceptance with him. The lawgiver himself was justified by faith. There are three things in general in the words, setting forth the faith of Moses: 1 What he did in matter of fact, whereby his faith was evidenced, Hebrews 11:24. 2. The interpretation of what he so did, by the nature and consequents of it, Hebrews 11:25. 3. The ground and reason whereon he so acted and exercised his faith, Hebrews 11:26.In the FIRST of these, the first thing expressed is the time or season, or the condition wherein he thus acted his faith. Say we, “when he was come to years;” not accurately. Μέγαςγενόμενος, “cum esset grandis,” “chin grandis rectus esset;” “when he became great.” Syr., “when he was a man.” But the word may respect either state and condition, or time of life and stature. To “become great,” is, in the Scripture and common speech, to become so in wealth, riches, or power, Genesis 24:35; Genesis 26:13. And so was it now with Moses. He was come unto wealth, power, and honor, in the court of Pharaoh; and a respect hereunto seems to set forth the greatness of his self-denial, which is the eminent fruit of his faith that is here commended. He did this when he was great in the court of the king.But although this be true materially, and hath an especial influence into the commendation of the faith of Moses, yet is it not intended in this expression. For, having declared the faith of his parents, and the providence of God towards him in his infancy, in the foregoing verse, the apostle here shows what was his own way of acting after he grew up unto years of understanding. So μέγας is used for one that is grown up to be “sui juris,” or to be a man: Νῦνδ᾿ὅτεδὴμέγαςεἰμί, Hom. Od. 2:314; — “I was an infant,” saith Telemachus, “but now I am grown up,” orgrown great. It is “grandis” absolutely in Latin, though “grandis natu” be one stricken in years: “At ego nunc grandis, hunc grandem natu ad carnificinam dabo,” Plaut. Capt.; — being grown up, being grown a man. “Cum adoleverit,” — “when he was grown up;” that is, come to years of understanding, to act the duty whereunto he was called. Most expositors suppose this expresseth the time when he was forty years of age; for they refer the refusal to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter unto that act of his in slaying the Egyptian, which was “when he was full forty years old,” Acts 7:23. And there is countenance given hereunto from what is affirmed, Exodus 2:11, “And it came to pass in those days, after Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren;” where the Hebrew, ξωֶׁ ?δεַ ?ιִּ ?βְ ?γַּ ?μ, is rendered by the LXX. μέγαςγενόμενος, the words here used by the apostle.But although that time and fact be also included herein, yet the whole duty cannot be confined thereunto. For, as it was an act of faith, Moses had in his mind long before refused to be called “the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;” that is, to renounce his own people, and to join himself unto the Egyptians. Wherefore the largest and most comprehensive interpretation of the words suits best with the sense of the place, or mind of the Holy Spirit therein” According as he grew up in stature and understanding, he acted faith in the duties whereunto he was called.” For the story mentioned by Josephus, of what he did in his infancy, by trampling on the crown of the king, when he would have placed it on his head, is undoubtedly fabulous. And, — Obs. 2. It is good to fill up every age and season with the duties which are proper thereunto. And it is the duty of all that are young, that, according as by time and instruction they come to the knowledge of what is required of them, they apply themselves vigorously and diligently thereunto. Not as is the manner of the most, whose inclinations to serve their lusts grow with their years and stature.Secondly, What he did at that season is declared as the first effect, fruit, and indication of his faith. He “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.” Three things are here to be inquired into: 1. How and on what account he was esteemed and commonly called “the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.”2. How and by what means he came to know that he was of another stock and race. 3. How did he refuse to be called “the son of Pharaoh’s daughter?”1. For the first, it is manifest from the story, Exodus 2; — upon her first finding him in the river, and saving of his life, she gave order to his mother, who appeared for a nurse, that she should nurse him for hers, and she would pay her wages, verse 9. Herein she owned it to be hers, or took the care of it on herself. But this she might do, and yet esteem and keep it only as a servant. So “servus” is called “a servando.” She saved him, and he was hers. But when he was weaned, his mother carried him home unto her, she having probably often seen him in the meantime. And it must be acknowledged, that there was no less danger herein, no less a trial of the faith of his parents, than when they put him into an ark of bulrushes and set him floating on the river. For to carry a tender infant, probably about three years of age, to be bred in an idolatrous, persecuting court, was no less dangerous unto his soul and eternal condition than the exposing of him in the river was unto his natural life. But there is no doubt his parents, who were true believers, were now satisfied that in all these wonderful passages concerning him, there was some extraordinary design of Providence working effectually for some especial divine end. They resolved, therefore, to comply with the conduct thereof, and leave him to the sovereign care and disposal of God. And this, by the way, gives not the least countenance unto those parents who, for gain or advantage, or to please their humor, will dispose their children unto persons, ways, places, employments, wherein they cannot avoid dangerous and inextricable temptations. But when Moses was thus brought to the court, unto Pharaoh’s daughter, it is said, “He became her son.” It is probable she had no other child, whether she was married or not. Wherefore being inclined both in her affection unto the child, which was beautiful, and by the marvellous manner of her finding and saving of him, by the consent of her father, she solemnly adopted him to be her son, and consequently the heir of all her honor and riches, which ensued on adoption. Hereon she gave him his name, as was usual in cases of adoption, taking it from the first occasion of her owning of him. She called his name Moses; and she said, “Because I drew him out of the water.” Whether he had any other name given him in the house of his parents is uncertain. This is that which God would have him use, as a perpetual remembrance of his deliverance, when he was in a helpless condition. Being thus publicly adopted and owned, he was by all esteemed, honored, and called “the son of Pharaoh’s daughter,” without any respect unto his extraction from the Hebrews, though no doubt that also was commonly known among the Egyptians; though the stories that Josephus, Philo, Clemens, from Ezekiel Tragicus, tell about him, and their fear of him, are justly to be suspected. Some think that the then present king of Egypt had no child but that only daughter, whom they call Thermutis; and that this adopted son of hers was to succeed unto the crown. But this also is uncertain and improbable. But the secular interest, power, glory, honor, and wealth, which belonged unto him by virtue of this adoption, were such as the apostle calls “the treasures in Egypt,” then one of the most rich and populous nations in the world. But, — 2. It may be inquired, how it was, and by what means, (supposing Moses to be carried unto Pharaoh’s daughter presently after he was weaned, and thenceforth brought up in the court,) could he come to know his stock, race, and kindred, so as, upon all disadvantages, to cleave unto them, unto the relinquishment of his new, regal relation. I answer, there were many means thereof, which God made effectual unto this end.(1.) His circumcision. He found himself circumcised, and so to belong unto the circumcised people. Hereon God instructed him to inquire into the reason and nature of that distinguishing character. And so he learned that it was the token of God’s covenant with the people, the posterity of Abraham, of whom he was. It was a blessed inlet into the knowledge and fear of the true God. And whatever is pretended by some unto the contrary, it is a most eminent divine privilege, to have the seal of the covenant in baptism communicated unto the children of believers in their infancy; and a means it hath been to preserve many from fatal apostasies. (2.) His nurse, who was his mother, as the custom is in such cases, was frequently with him; and probably his father also on the same account. Whether they were ever known to the Egyptians to be his parents, I very much question. But there is no doubt but that they, being persons truly fearing God, and solicitous about his eternal condition, did take care to communicate unto him the principles of true religion, with a detestation of the Egyptian idolatries and superstition.(3.) The notoriety of the matter of fact was continually before him. It was known unto all Egypt that he was of Hebrew extraction, and now incorporated into the royal family of the Egyptians. Hereon he considered what these two people were, what was the difference between them; and quickly found which of them was the people of God, and how they came so to be.By these means his mind was inlaid with the principles of faith and the true religion, before he was given up to learn “the wisdom of the Egyptians,” and before the temptations from wealth, power, and glory, had any influence on his affections. And, — Obs. 3. It is a blessed thing to have the principles of true religion fixed in the minds of children, and their affections engaged unto them, before they are exposed unto temptations from learning, wisdom, wealth, or preferment. — And the negligence of most parents herein, who have none of those difficulties in the discharge of their duty which the parents of Moses had to conflict withal, is a treachery which they must be accountable for.Obs. 4. The token of God’s covenant received in infancy, being duly considered, is the most effectual means to preserve persons in the profession of true religion against apostasy by outward temptations. 3. Our third inquiry is, How or when did Moses “refuse to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter?”Some observe, that ἀρνέομαι signifies sometimes not only “to refuse” barely, but “to reject with indignation.” But there is no need to affix any such signification unto it in this place. The sense of it is determined in the opposite act of “choosing,” mentioned in the next place. Choosing and refusing are opposite acts of the mind, both of the same kind.Some restrain this refusal unto that act of his in slaying the Egyptian, wherein he declared that he owned not his alliance unto the court of Egypt. But whereas it is the internal frame and act of his mind that are here intended, it is not to be confined unto any particular outward action, much less unto that which fell not out until he was full forty years old, Acts 7:23, and before which it is said that he owned the Israelites for his brethren: “He went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens,” Exodus 2:11; which he could not do without a resolution to relinquish his relation’unto Pharaoh’s daughter.Wherefore this refusal consisted in general in three things: (1.) In the sedate resolution of his mind, not finally to abide and continue in that state whereinto he was brought by his adoption. And this was not attained unto without great consideration, with great exercise of faith in prayer and trust in God. For this refusal was an act and fruit of faith, of whose power it is here given as an instance. The least sedate consideration of his circumstances, of what he was, what he was to leave, what he was to undergo, (whereof in the next verses,) will evidence unto any what conflicts of mind, what reasonings and fears he was exercised withal; what self-denial and renunciation of all earthly advantages he herein engaged into. Herein principally consisted the refusal which is here celebrated as a fruit and evidence of faith. (2.) No doubt but, as he had occasion, he did converse and confer with his brethren, not only owning himself to be of their stock and race, but also of their faith and religion, and to belong unto the same covenant.(3.) When there was no longer a consistency between his faith and profession to be continued with his station in the court, he openly and fully fell off from all respect unto his adoption, and joined himself unto the other people, as we shall see in the following verse. And we may observe from hence, that, —Obs. 5. The work of faith in all ages of the church, as unto its nature, efficacy, and method of its actings, is uniform and the same. — They had not of old a faith of one kind, and we of another. This in general is the design of the apostle to prove in this whole chapter. It hath been varied in its degrees of light by outward revelations, but in itself from first to last it is still the same. And hereof the instance here insisted on is a most evident demonstration. The first act of faith purely evangelical is self- denial, Matthew 16:24; Luke 9:23. And what greater instance of it, unless it were in Jesus Christ himself, can be given since the foundation of the world, than in what is here recorded of Moses?He was in the quiet possession of all the secular advantages which a man not born of the royal family could enjoy, and perhaps in a just expectation of them also. He was every way able honourably to fill up his place and trust in the discharge of all public offices committed unto him; for “he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds,” even before he fell off from the court, Acts 7:22. Wherefore, his personal eminency above other men, joined with his high place and dignity, procured him all the popular veneration which he could desire. And he was of that age (for he continued in this state from his infancy full forty years) wherein these things give the greatest gust and relish of themselves unto the minds of men. For him now, voluntarily and of his own accord, to relinquish them all, and to betake himself to dangers, poverty, banishment, without any prospect of relief, and that merely, as we shall see immediately, upon the account of the promise of Christ, must be acknowledged to be comprehensive of all the acts, parts, and duties of evangelical self-denial. For, as that which gives life, form, and power, unto self-denial, doth not consist in the respect which it hath unto the outward things which any one may be called therein to forego; but in the mortification of the desires and affections of the mind which would put a valuation on these things, when they stand in competition with things heavenly and spiritual: so this was in Moses in a most eminent degree. He left not his outward enjoyments until he had crucified his heart unto them, esteeming them but loss and dung in comparison of Christ, and what was in him to be enjoyed. But in the days wherein we live, we have more Esaus than Moseses, — more who for morsels of bread, for outward, secular advantages, will sell their birthright, or part with religion and profession of the truth conveyed unto them by their parents; than who will abandon self, with all that belongs thereunto, with a resignation of themselves unto the will of God for their whole satisfaction and reward, rather than part with one tittle of truth. , But the next verse is an exposition of this refusal of Moses, declaring the nature of it, and what was contained therein. Hebrews 11:25. — “Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.”There are two things to be considered in these words: 1. That there were at this time two things proposed unto Moses; first, The “people of God” in their afflicted state; secondly, The enjoyment of “the pleasures of sin for a season.”2. The determination he made as unto his own interest and concernment; he “chose rather,” etc.1. In the First sundry things may be considered: —(1.) Who were this “people of God;” that is, in contradistinction and opposition unto all other people and nations whatever? These were the Hebrews, the posterity of Jacob, then in Egypt; that is, the brethren of Moses, Exodus 2:10-11. (2.) How did these Hebrews come to be thus the people of God in a peculiar manner, in opposition unto all other people whatever? Now this was by virtue of that especial covenant which God made with Abraham and his seed throughout all generations; the token whereof they bare in their flesh. Therein God became their God, and they became his people: which relation cannot be any otherwise raised between God and any of the children of men, but by virtue of a covenant. And, —Obs. 1. Let hence no man be offended at the low, mean, persecuted condition of the church at any time. — All God’s people, and the only people he had then in the world, were only a company of brick-makers, under hard and cruel task-masters. And whoever would belong to the people of God was to cast in his lot among them; as it was with Moses. Wherefore, — Obs. 2. The sovereign wisdom of God, in disposing the outward state and condition of his people in this world, is to be submitted unto. — He only knows what is good for them, and for the concernments of his glory in them.Obs. 3. It is certain there is somewhat contained in this title and privilege that is infinitely above all outward things that may be enjoyed in this world, and which doth inexpressibly outbalance all the evils that are in it. For otherwise men might be losers by the nearest relation unto God; and he should not be himself an all- satisfactory reward.Obs. 4. The church, in all its distresses, is ten thousand times more honorable than any other society of men in the world; — they are “the people of God.” And we may observe, “That their being so, and withal professing and avowing themselves so to be, is that which provokes the world against them, and which is the cause of all their persecutions. The world cannot endure to hear a company of poor, despised persons, perhaps little better, at least in their sight, than these Egyptian brick-makers, should take to themselves and own this glorious title of “the people of God.” Other things they pretend against them, as the Egyptians did against the Israelites; namely, that whereas they are a people who have a peculiar interest of their own, there is danger of sedition from them against the state, Exodus 1:9-10. This is the usual pretense. The true cause of their rage is, their profession that they are the people of God, and have a right unto all the privileges accompanying that title. (3.) This people of God is proposed to Moses as under “affliction,” so as that if he will join himself to them, it must be with a participation of the outward evils that they were subject unto. Συγκακουχεῖσθαι. The word is used only in this place. It signifies “to be vexed and pressed with things evil and grievous.” And our expression, of being “afflicted,” or “suffering affliction,” according to the common understanding of that expression, scarce reacheth unto the emphasis of the original word, — “to be pressed, vexed, distressed with things evil, burdensome, destructive to nature.”What were the afflictions and sufferings of the people of God at that time, is known. It is not only related in the Scripture, with their sighs, sorrows, and cries under them, but they are frequently mentioned afterwards as the highest distresses that human nature could be exposed unto. But it may be inquired, how a participation in these sufferings was proposed unto Moses, seeing it was not required of him, nor was he called unto it, to work in the same kilns and furnaces with his brethren. I say, it is not at all here intimated that he was so; but only, considering their woful condition, he cast in his lot among them, to take that portion which fell to his share. He made no bargain or contract for himself, but choosing their condition, referred himself for his part and share unto the guidance of divine Providence. And this fell out in the danger of his life, his flight out of Egypt, his long poor condition in Midian, with all the evils that befell him afterwards. Secondly, That which was proposed unto him in opposition here-unto was, as we render the words, “to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season,” — to have the temporary enjoyment of sin. ᾿Απόλαυσις is “fruition” or “enjoyment,” and is usually applied to signify such a fruition as hath gust and relish in it, yielding delight and pleasure unto them that have it; as all enjoyment in some measure doth, nor is any man said to enjoy that which he doth not take some satisfaction 3: Hence we have rendered it “pleasures,” in the plural number. For the best that sin, or any thing that is enjoyed with sin, can pretend unto, is but present, transitory pleasure.To clear the meaning of the words, we must observe, (1.) That no man makes sin, as sin, under its formal notion, to be the object of his desires, nor can be said to have or possess the fruition of it. (2.) That the things here intended are those which accompanied his being the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, called “the treasures of Egypt” in the next verse.(3.) That those things might absolutely and in themselves be enjoyed and used without sin; and so they were by him, until the appointed time came wherein he was called from them.(4.) They would therefore have become sin unto him, not in themselves, but in their enjoyment; and that for two reasons: [1. Because they would have hindered him from the performance of a duty necessary unto the glory of God and his own salvation, as we shall see immediately. [2. Because he could not so enjoy them without a conjunction with the Egyptians, it may be, in their idolatries, but, to be sure, in the persecution and oppression of the people of God. Wherefore, to have or hold the fruition of sin, in this place, is to continue in the enjoyment of all outward advantages by the means of the greatest sin imaginable, namely, the neglect of the only great duty incumbent on us in this world, or the profession of faith in God and the true religion on the one hand, and persecuting the church of God on the other. This enjoyment of sin is, said to be πρόσκαιρος, “temporary,” “for a season;” subject unto a thousand interruptions in this life, and unavoidably ending with it.Thus were things truly represented and proposed to the thoughts of Moses. They were so by himself. He hid not his eyes from the worst on the one hand; nor did he suffer himself to be imposed on by the flattering appearances on the other. He omitted no circumstances that might influence a right judgment in his choice. He considered the worst of the people of God, which is their affliction; and the best of the world, which is but the evanid pleasure of sin; and preferred the worst of the one above the best of the other. 2. The work of his faith is expressed in the act of his mind with respect unto these different objects. He chose the one rather than the other. They were proposed unto the elective power or faculty of his soul; that whereby, upon the due consideration and pondering of things and their reasons, it is able to embrace that which is truly good unto it or best for it, and refuse whatever stands in competition with it. His choice hereby, on mature deliberation, may t)e expressed in the conclusions which he made in his own mind on this occasion; as, — (1.) That those two opposite states were divinely proposed unto his consideration, as those wherein his concernment did lie, and unto one of which he must associate himself, lie found that he could not be happy alone, nor perform his duty, nor enjoy things that were good and desirable. And these two sorts are always in the world, and are made conspicuous in a time of persecution. Some think they may pass their time here without a relation unto, or a conjunction with either of these societies. They will neither join themselves, as they suppose, to the persecuted church nor to the persecuting world. But they deceive themselves; for if they choose not the one, they do belong unto the other. (2.) That those states, and an interest in them, were irreconcilable, so as that he could not enjoy the good things of them both, but adhering unto the one, he must renounce the other. If he cleave to “the treasures of Egypt,” he must renounce “the people of God;” and if he join himself unto the people of God, he must renounce all his interest in Egypt. This he saw necessary, from that profession which God required of him, and from the nature of the promise which that profession did respect. (3.) He passed a right judgment concerning the true nature and end of those things, which were to be enjoyed in his continuing as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Notwithstanding all their glittering appearance, they were in themselves temporary, fading, perishing; and unto him would be sinful, pernicious, and destructive.(4.) Hereon he was determined in his mind, and actually made his choice of the state and condition which he would embrace. He “chose rather to suffer affliction,” etc. The reason of which judgment and choice is more fully expressed in the next verse, And we may observe, —Obs. 5. That in a time of great temptations, especially from furious persecutors, a sedate consideration of the true nature of all things wherein we are concerned, and their circumstances on every hand, is necessary to enable us unto a right choice of our lot, and a due performance of our duty. — The things we are to lose, in houses, lands, possessions, liberty, and life itself, make an appearance of a desirableness not to be overcome. And the distresses, on the other hand, of a persecuted estate, appear very terrible. If the mind leave itself unto the conduct of its affections in this matter, it will never make a right choice and determination. Faith enables the soul to divest the things on either side of their flattering or frightening appearances, and to make a right judgment of them in their proper nature and ends. Obs. 6. No profession will endure the trial in a time of persecution, but such as proceeds from a determinate choice of adhering unto Christ and the gospel, with a refusal and rejection of whatever stands in competition with them, on a due consideration of the respective natures and ends of the things proposed unto us on the one hand and the other; — that is, the loss of all temporal good things, and the undergoing of all that is temporally evil. Those who engage unto a profession on such light convictions of truth, or other inferior grounds, as it were at peradventures, will scarce endure when it comes unto a trial, like that which Moses underwent. Obs. 7. He chose to be afflicted with the people of God; and so must every one do who will be of them unto his advantage. — Our Lord Jesus Christ warns us, that some will entertain the gospel, but when persecution ariseth for the word, immediately they fall away. They would have him, but not with his cross; and his gospel, but not with its burden. And of the same Samaritan sect there are multitudes in every age. They would be accounted of the people of God, but they will have nothing to do with their afflictions. They have ways of compliance to keep their own peace and wealth, it may be their places and profits, without being concerned in the afflictions of the people of God. But those who will not have their afflictions shall never have their privileges; and so it is all one whether they profess themselves to belong unto them or no. Obs. 8. Men fearfully delude themselves, in the choice they make about profession in times of persecution. — The choice which they have to make is really and singly between the pleasures of sin, and those to be enjoyed but for a little while; and present sufferings attended with an eternal reward, as the next verse declares. But, for the most part men have other notions of things, and suppose they may come off with some distinctions or limitations, like that of Naaman, and save themselves THIRDLY, The grounds whereon Moses proceeded are expressed in the next verse.Hebrews 11:26. — “Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.”The words contain the ground and reason of the choice of Moses, mentioned in the foregoing verse. And this is, the judgment which he made concerning the things which he chose and those which he refused, being compared one with the other. “Esteeming,” or having esteemed, determined and judged. And, — 1. There are the things themselves expressed concerning which he passed a judgment, namely, “the reproach of Christ” on the one hand, and “the treasures of Egypt” on the other. 2. The common notion under which he considered them both, and by an especial interest wherein the one was preferred before the other; and this was “riches,” — he judged one to be “greater riches” than the other. 3. The especial reason whereby the things which he chose approved themselves in his mind to be greater riches than the other, namely, from “the recompence of the reward” which belonged unto them, and was inseparable from them.1. The thing which he chose he calls “the reproach of Christ.” This must be the same with what he calls being “afflicted with the people of God,” in the verse foregoing, only with an addition of a consideration under which it was peculiarly eligible. What is this “reproach of Christ,” we must inquire. Much endeavor hath been used by some to remove the consideration of Christ, as then proposed unto the church in the promise, out of the words. Grotius and his follower would have “the reproach of Christ” to be only such kinds of reproach, sufferings, and afflictions, as Christ himself afterwards, and Christians for Christ, did undergo. Of the same mind is Crellius, who feigns at least a catachresis in the words, arising out of sundry tropes and metaphors. But he thinks that chiefly the afflictions of the people of Israel were called the reproach of Christ, because they were a type of Christ, that is, of Christians in some sense. So unwilling are some to admit any faith of Christ, or knowledge of him, into the religion of the ancient patriarchs. But, — (1.) ῾ΟΧριστός as here, is never used for any type of Christ, for any but Christ himself. (2.) If Moses underwent reproaches as the type of Christ, and knew that he did so, then he believed in Christ; which is the thing they would deny.(3.) The immediate reason of the persecution of the Israelites was, because they would not coalesce into one people with the Egyptians, but would still retain and abide by their distinct interests and hopes. Now, their perseverance herein was grounded on their faith in the promise made unto Abraham, which was concerning Christ. So these things have nothing of solidity in them.But the mind of the apostle is evident in this expression. For, — (1.) From the first promise concerning the exhibition of the Son of God in the flesh, Christ was the life, soul, and the all of the church, in all ages. From him all was derived, and in him all centered: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever;” — a “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” To deny this, is to destroy the whole mystery of the wisdom of God under the old testament, and in particular, to overthrow the whole apostolical exposition of it in this epistle.(2.) Being so, he was the original cause or occasion of the sufferings of the church in all ages. All the persecutions of the church arose from the enmity between the two seeds, which entered upon the promise of Christ. And the adherence of believers unto that promise is the only cause of that separation from the world, which is the immediate cause of all their persecution. Wherefore, “the reproach of Christ,” in the first place, signifies the reproach which upon the account of Christ, or their faith in him, they did undergo. For all outward observances in the church, in all ages, are but the profession of that faith. (3.) Christ and the church were considered from the beginning as one mystical body; so as that what the one underwent, the other is esteemed to undergo the same. Hence it is said, that “in all their affliction he was afflicted,” Isaiah 63:9. And the apostle Paul calls his own sufferings, “that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ,” Colossians 1:24, — namely, which belonged unto the full allotment of sufferings unto that mystical body whereof Christ is the head. And in this sense also the afflictions of the church are the afflictions of Christ. (4.) Somewhat of that which is here called “the reproach of Christ” is called by the same apostle “the marks of the Lord Jesus in his body,” Galatians 6:17; or the stripes which he endured, with the marks of them that remained, for the sake of Jesus Christ. And so are all the sufferings of the church the reproach of Christ, because it is for his sake alone that they undergo them, and it is he alone whom they lay in the balance against them all.2. All the sufferings of the people of God for the sake of Christ are called his “reproach.” For all sorts of afflictions, persecutions, and oppressions from men, on the account of the profession of the truth, are intended. And they are so called on a double account:(1.) Because the foundation of them all is always laid in reproach. The world can neither justify nor countenance itself in its persecutions of the church, unless they first cover it all over with reproaches. So dealt they with our Lord Jesus Christ himself. They attempted not to take away his life, before the rage of the people was by all manner of reproaches stirred up against him. So it is in all the persecutions and sufferings of the church. They are always represented as heretics, schismatics, or seditious persons, opposite to all good order in church and state, before they are exposed to violence. And this also is usually accompanied with contempt, scorn, mocking, and false accusations. Wherefore, all the sufferings of believers may be denominated from this rise and entrance of them.(2.) There is nothing in sufferings that is more sharp and terrible unto ingenuous souls than this reproach is; nothing that hath more of a severe trial in it. Hence the psalmist, in the person of Christ, complains that” reproach had broken his heart,” Psalms 69:19-20. And the apostle mentions “cruel mockings,” verse 36 of this chapter, where we shall speak of them.(3.) They are so called, because all the persecutions of the church do arise from the enmity, hatred, scorn, and contempt, which the world hath of and towards Christ himself, or the mystery of the wisdom of God for the salvation of sinners in and by him. And we may observe in our passage, that, — Obs. 1. Reproach hath in all ages, from the beginning of the world, attended Christ and all the sincere professors of faith in him; which in God’s esteem is upon his account. — One of his last acts in this world was his conflicting with ignominy and shame; which he overcame with contempt, Hebrews 12:2-3. And his apostles began their ministry with “suffering shame for his name’s sake,” Acts 5:41. But when the mystery of iniquity began to work, one great design in it was, for the rulers of the church and their adherents to quit themselves of this reproach and scorn from the world; which indeed they did not deserve. Wherefore, they contrived all ways whereby they might attain wealth, honor, grandeur, and veneration in the world; wherein they succeeded, unto the ruin of Christian religion. 3. That which Moses compared herewithal was “the treasures of Egypt;” the treasures that were in Egypt. “Treasures” properly are riches in gold, silver, precious stones, and other things highly valuable, that are stored, hid, and laid up. But when there is mention of the treasures of a nation, they include all those profits and advantages of it also whence those treasures are gathered. In both respects, Egypt, whilst it flourished, was behind no kingdom in the world. What was, and what might be, the interest of Moses in these treasures, we before declared. But in this matter he doth not so much, or at least not only, consider them as unto his own share and interest, but also absolutely what they were in themselves, tie considered what they were, what they would amount unto, what might be done with them or attained by them, and prefers the reproach of Christ above them all. For, — Obs. 2. Let the things of this world be increased and multiplied into the greatest measures and degrees imaginable, it alters not their kind. — They are temporary, fading, and perishing still; such as will stand men in no stead on their greatest occasions, nor with respect unto eternity.Now, these things were not considered by Moses in the notion of them, but he saw them daily exemplified before his face. He saw “the treasures of Egypt,” with the state, glory, gallantry, and power of the court, by whom they were enjoyed, and what supply they had for all their lusts and desires. And he saw the poor, oppressed, scorned people of God, in their bearing “the reproach of Christ.” Yet in this present view of them, when it most highly affected him, he did in his mind, judgment, and resolution, prefer the latter before the former, so as to choose it and embrace it. This is that which faith will effect. Let us go and do likewise. 4. These things Moses considered under the notion of “riches.” He “esteemed the reproach of Christ to be greater riches.” Riches, opulency, wealth, contain all that men love and value in this world; all that is of use unto them for all the ends of life; all that they desire, and place their happiness in, — at least so far, that they judge they cannot be happy without them. Hence two things are denoted in the word:(1.) That which is the principal means of all the ends of life.(2.) An abundance of it. On these accounts the word is frequently used by the Holy Ghost to denote the spiritual things which God prepares for and gives unto believers, with the greatness, the abundance, the excellency of them. They are called “riches,” “durable substance,” “treasures;” and are said to be “richly” or “abundantly communicated,” for there is in them an all-sufficiency, in all things, for all the ends of man’s life and blessedness. So doth the apostle here call them “riches,” with an especial respect also to “the treasures of Egypt,” which were their riches, Obs. 3. There is therefore an all-satisfactory fullness in spiritual things, even when the enjoyment of them is under reproach and persecution, unto all the true ends of the blessedness of men.5. Lastly, There is in the words the ground whereon Moses made his judgment concerning these things, and what it was which influenced his mind into that determination. For although he might on some accounts prefer “the reproach of Christ” unto “the treasures of Egypt,” yet it doth not easily occur on what ground he should judge that it was “greater riches” than they, or more sufficient unto all the ends of men’s lives and blessedness. Wherefore the ground of this judgment being taken from a due consideration of what did accompany this reproach of Christ, and was inseparably annexed unto it, is expressed in these words, “For he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.” “He had respect,” ἀπέβλεπε, “intuitus est;” he looked on, he saw by the eyes of faith, as represented in the promise; he took into consideration.“The recompence of the reward;” “praemii retributionem,” “largitionem;” “mercedis redditionem;” the gratuitous reward that God hath annexed unto faith and obedience, not merited or deserved by them, but infallibly annexed unto them, in a way of sovereign bounty. The causal conjunction, “for,” is introductive of the reason whereon Moses made the judgment before declared. Schlichtingius is mute as unto this reward, not knowing, as it should seem, how to avoid the force of this plain testimony concerning the faith which believers under the old testament had of eternal rewards, by virtue of God’s promise. Grotius is bold, in his usual manner, and refers it to the possession, of the land of Canaan. Hammond forsakes his guide, and extends it unto things eternal. Nor can there be any thing more improbable than the conjecture of Grotius; for neither did Moses ever enter into the land of Canaan, nor was the interest of his posterity therein to be any way compared with the treasures of Egypt But the apostle gives us here a pregnant instance of that description of faith which he gave us in the first verse of the chapter, namely, that it was “the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen;” for both these were seen in this faith of Moses. It gave him an evidence of the invisible things of the eternal reward; and caused them so to subsist in their power and foretaste in his mind, as that he chose and preferred them above all things present and visible. And, — Obs. 4. Such signal exemplifications of the nature and efficacy of faith in others, especially when victorious against mighty oppositions, as they were in Moses, are high encouragements unto us unto the like exercise of it in the like circumstances.Now whereas, as was said, and as is plain in the text, this is the ground whereon Moses made the judgment declared, it is evident that the whole thereof, and of his faith therein, is resolved into this certain and immovable truth, that God in his purpose, promise, and constitution of his word, hath immutably annexed a blessed reward unto the reproach of Christ, or the undergoing of it by believers. We must therefore inquire, (1.) What this “recompence of reward” is; and,(2.) How Moses had “respect unto it.” (1.) That this “recompence of reward” includes in it, yea, principally respects, the eternal reward of persecuted believers in heaven, is out of question. But whereas God is in his covenant a present reward unto them, Genesis 15:1; and that in the present keeping of his commandments there is a great reward, Psalms 19:11; as also, that the spiritual wisdom, grace, mercy, and consolation, that believers receive in this world, are “riches,” “treasures,” and “durable substance;” I doubt not but the blessed peace, rest, and satisfaction which they have, in a comfortable persuasion of their covenant-interest in God, are also included here. But even these also have their power and efficacy from their inseparable relation unto the eternal reward. (2.) This reward he had “respect” unto; which compriseth three things:[1. He believed it upon divine revelation and promise; and that so steadfastly and with such assurance, as if he held it, or had seen it with his eyes. [2. He valued it according to its worth and desert, as that which was to be preferred incomparably above all present things. [3. He brought it into reckoning and account, in the judgment which he was to make concerning the reproach of Christ and the treasures of Egypt. And this was the victory whereby he overcame the world, even his faith. And sundry observations, for our own use and instruction, we may take from this example of the faith of Moses and its success. But we must first of all observe in general, that the consideration of this example is principally required of us in those seasons wherein we are brought into the like circumstances with him, — that is, a time of great distress, oppression, and persecution of the church; and unto such a season is this example here applied by the apostle. So we may learn, — Obs. 5. It is our duty, in the whole course of our faith and obedience, to have respect unto the future recompence of reward, but it is so especially in times of great persecution and oppression of the church, wherein we are and resolve to be sharers; — a respect, not as unto that which we shall deserve by what we do or suffer; nor as that which principally influenceth us unto our obedience or suffering, which is the love of God in Christ; nor as that between which and what we do there is any proportion, like that between work and wages; but only as unto that which divine bounty hath proposed unto us for our encouragement, or as that which becomes the divine goodness and righteousness freely to grant unto them that believe and obey. See our exposition on Hebrews 6:10. But this I add, that we are to have this respect unto the future reward principal]y, or to have faith in exercise about it, in the times of danger, persecution, and oppression. Nor is this respect unto the reward anywhere mentioned in the Scripture, but it is still with regard unto sufferings and tribulations. See Matthew 5:11-12; Matthew 10:39; Luke 6:35; Hebrews 10:35; Revelation 22:12. For as in such a season we do stand in need of that view and consideration of the future reward which we may lay in the balance against all our present sufferings; so it becomes the greatness, goodness, and righteousness of God, that those who suffer from the world for him, and according to his will, should have that proposed and assured unto them, for their encouragement, which is incomparably greater in goodness and blessedness than what they can suffer from the world is in evil, loss, and trouble. And therefore frequently where believers are encouraged with an expectation of this reward, they are so also with being minded of that recompence of reward, in vengeance and punishment, which shall befall their wicked persecutors; both of them being on many accounts alike suited unto their encouragement. See Philippians 1:28; 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10. Obs. 6. It is faith only that can carry us through the difficulties, trials, and persecutions, which we may be called unto for the sake and name of Christ. — Moses himself, with all his wisdom, learning, courage, and resolution, had never been able to have gone through with his trials and difficulties, had not faith had the rule and government of his mind and heart, had he not kept it in exercise on all occasions. And in vain shall any of us, in such a season, expect deliverance or success by any other way or means. A thousand other things may present themselves unto our minds, for our relief or preservation in such a season; but they will all prove fruitless, dishonorable shifts, or snares and temptations, unto the ruin of our souls. We are “kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” Obs. 7. Faith in exercise, will carry us safely and securely through all the trials which we have to undergo for Christ and the gospel. — As there is no other way for our safety, success, and victory, so this will never fail us. Consider all circumstances, and it is almost impossible that our temptations and trials should be greater than those of Moses: howbeit faith carried him safely through them all, as we shall see further in the next verses. How it doth it, whence it derives its power and efficacy for this end; what are the ways of its working, and how it engageth all our graces unto its assistance; by what means it resists, refels, and conquers oppositions; how it strengthens, relieves, and comforts the souls of them that believe; is not my present work to declare: I only, with the apostle, propose an example of what it hath done, as a document and evidence of what it will do in like cases. Obs. 8. Faith is highly rational, in all its acts of obedience towards God. — It reckoneth, computeth, judgeth, chooseth, determineth, in the most exalted acts of reason. All these things are here ascribed unto Moses in the exercise of his faith. I would willingly insist hereon, to vindicate the honor of faith from the imputations that are cast on all its actings in the world, as weak and foolish; or that it is nothing but an engine or pretense set up unto the ruin of reason, and the use of it in the lives of men. And if we cannot prove that the wisdom of faith, and the reason wherewith and whereon it always acts, are the most eminent that our nature is capable of in this world, and that whatever is contrary to them or inconsistent with them is arrant folly, and contrary to the primigenial light of our nature, and all the principles of reason truly so called, we shall freely give up the cause of faith unto the vainest pretences of reason that foolish men can make. But a resolution not to engage in such discourses, on this occasion, will not allow me to enter on a further demonstration of this truth. ΠίστεικατέλιπενΑἴγυπτον, μὴφοβηθεὶςτὸνθύμοντοῦβασιλέως·τὸνγὰρἀόρατονὡςὁρῶνἐκαρτέρησε.Τὸνθύμον. Vulg. Lat., “animositatem;” which the Rhemists translate, “fierceness.” Syr., ξֵ ?οηֵ ?ξָּ ?ϊֵ ?δּ, “from the fury of the king.” “Iram,” “iracundiam;” or as we, very properly, “the wrath.”᾿Εκαρτέρησε. Vulg. Lat., “invisibilem tanquam videns sustinult.’Rhem., “for him that is invisible he sustained, as if he had seen him;” very improperly, and without any due sense. They make ἐκαρτέρησε to be a verb transitive, and to affect “him that is invisible;” whereas it is plainly used in a neutral sense, or it hath none at all. Nor is the phrase of “sustinere Deum” anywhere used. Syr., εְ ?ρַ ?αַּ ?γ, “and he hoped,” or “trusted, as one who saw him who is invisible.” “Fortiter obduravit;” “forti animo fuit.” We properly, “endured.”Hebrews 11:27. — By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.Having declared the faith of Moses with respect unto the sufferings of the people of God, the apostle proceedeth in like manner to instance in the power and acting of it with respect unto their deliverance; which here he mentions in general, and afterwards insists on in some particulars. 1. What he did,” He left Egypt.”2. The manner how he did it: “Not fearing the wrath of the king.”3. The reason or ground of his so doing it: “For he endured,” etc.1. That which he did is, that “he left Egypt;” and he did it “by faith.”Moses did twice leave Egypt; first when he had slain the Egyptian, and fled upon its discovery, Exodus 2:14-15; and a second time when he carried away the people with him out of Egypt, which he entered into, Exodus 10:29.Some think that the apostle intends his first departure, and that on this reason, because it is mentioned before the celebration of the passover, whereas it is evident in the story that his last departure was after it. And they suppose they can reconcile what is affirmed in Exodus, namely, that “he feared,” to wit, “the wrath of the king,” who sought to slay him, Exodus 2:14-15; and what is here declared by the apostle, that “he feared not the wrath of the king.” For they say, that although he had a natural fear which moved him to use the proper means for the preservation of his life, yet he had no such fear as should overthrow his faith, or hinder him from committing himself to the providence of God for his preservation, when he fled from so mighty a monarch, who had long hands to reach him wherever he was.But it is not likely, nay, it is not true, that the apostle intends that first departure out of Egypt. For, (1.) It is said there expressly, that he “fled from the face of Pharaoh;” that is, in haste and with fear: here, that he “left Egypt;” which expresseth a sedate act of his mind, and that with respect unto the whole country and all the concerns of it.(2.) It is not likely that the apostle would take his instance of the victorious faith of Moses from that fact and place wherein there is no mention made of his faith, but of that which was contrary unto it, namely, his fear. “By faith he left Egypt,” is not a proper interpretation of” He feared, and fled from the face of Pharaoh.” (3.) That which the apostle intends was accompanied with, or immediately followed by, his keeping of the passover, which was forty years and somewhat more after his first flight out of Egypt.Wherefore, although this leaving of Egypt may be a general expression of his whole conduct of the people thence into the wilderness, yet the apostle hath a peculiar respect unto what is recorded, Exodus 10:28-29 :“And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die. And Moses said, Thou hast spoken well; I will see thy face again no more.”Never was there a higher expression of faith, and spiritual courage thereon: whence it is said, Exodus 11:8, that he threatened Pharaoh, that all his servants should come and bow down before him; and so “went out from him in a great anger,” or the height of indignation against his obstinate rebellion against God. He had before him a bloody tyrant, armed with all the power of Egypt, threatening him with present death if he persisted in the work and duty which God had committed unto him; but he was so far from being terrified, or declining his duty in the least, that he professeth his resolution to proceed, and denounceth destruction to the tyrant himself. 2. This was the manner of his leaving Egypt: “He feared not the wrath of the king.” And assigning it unto this act and carriage of his, wherein he may justly and properly be said to leave Egypt, when he renounced a continuance therein and addressed himself unto a departure, it is properly placed immediately before his keeping of the passover; which sufficiently resolves the difficulty proposed on the behalf of the first opinion.And we may observe the different frames of mind that were in Moses on these several occasions. In the first of them, when it was reported that Pharaoh sought to slay him, it is said, “He feared and fled;” but here, when probably another Pharaoh, no less powerful, cruel, and bloody than the former, threatened him with present death, he is so far from being moved at it, that he declares his resolution to persist in his duty, and threatens the tyrant himself. And the reason of this difference was, that on the first occasion Moses had made an attempt into what he apprehended his duty, without a sufficient call and warranty from God; wherein he could not stir up faith unto an exercise, which will not move without a divine word for its warranty; and: natural courage would not carry him out in his undertaking: now, being assured of his call as well as of his work, he is bold as a lion, through the power of faith acting regularly on a word of promise and command. Obs. 1. In all duties, especially such as are attended with great difficulties and dangers, it is the wisdom of believers to take care not only that the works of them be good in themselves, but that they have a just and due call unto their performance. — When they have so, and are satisfied therein, there is nothing that faith will not conflict withal and conquer; but if they are weak in this foundation of duty, they will find that faith will not be engaged unto their assistance.Obs. 2. Even the wrath of the greatest kings is to be disregarded, if it lie against our duty towards God. — See the great and glorious instance, Daniel 3:13-18. 3. Lastly, The ground and reason of what he did, with the inward frame of his spirit in doing of it, is expressed: “He endured, as seeing him who is invisible.”The word ἐκαρτέρησε, which we render “endured,” is not used in the New Testament but in this place only. It is derived from κράτος (by the transposition of a letter), which is “strength, power, and fortitude.” The use of it in other authors, is “to bear evils, or to undergo dangers with patience, courage, and resolution, so as not to wax weary or faint under them, but to hold out unto the end.” Καρτερέω: “forti animo sum, non cedo malis;” — a word singularly suited to express the frame of mind that was in Moses with respect unto this work of faith in leaving Egypt. For he met with a long course of various difficulties, and was often threatened by the king; besides what he had to conflict with from the unbelief of the people. But he strengthened and confirmed his heart with spiritual courage, and resolution to abide in his duty unto the end. So is καρτερία, joined with ἀνδρία, “fortitude,” as of the same nature; and opposed to μαλακία, an “easy softness of nature,” that betrays men into a relinquishment of their duty. And as the verb, καρτερέω, is used sometimes with a dative, sometimes with an accusative case, sometimes with prepositions, πρόςἐπί, sometimes without; so it is also neutrally, without affecting any other persons or things: Καρτερεῖνδὲχρὴἄλλωνπαίδωνἐλπίδι, Thucyd., lib. 2:cap. 44. So that there was no need for the Vulgar to join it unto τὸνἀόρατον, “invisibilem sustinuit.”Wherefore this enduring by faith, is not a mere bare continuance in duty; but it is an abiding in it with courage and resolution, without fear and despondency. Obs. 3. There is a heroic frame of mind and spiritual fortitude required unto the due discharge of our callings in times of danger, and which faith in exercise will produce: 1 Corinthians 16:13, Γρηγορεῖτε, στήκετεἐντῇπίστει, ἀνδρίζεσθε, κραταιοῦσθε.That which preserved Moses in this frame was, that “he saw him who is invisible.” God is said to be invisible (as he is absolutely) in respect of his essence, and is often so called in the Scripture, Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17; but there is a peculiar reason of this description of him here. Moses was in that state and condition, and had those things to do, wherein he stood in need continually of divine power and assistance. Whence this should proceed, he could not discern by his senses. His bodily eyes could behold no present assistant; for God is invisible. And it requires an especial act of the mind in expecting help from him who cannot be seen. Wherefore this is here ascribed to him. “He saw him who is” in himself “invisible;” that is, he saw him by faith whom he could not see with his eyes. “As seeing,” is not, ‘as if he saw him,’but seeing of him really and indeed; only in such a way and by such means as left him still in himself invisible, but represented him a present help no less than if he had been seen. A double act of the faith of Moses is intended herein: (1.) A clear, distinct view and apprehension of God in his omnipresence, power, and faithfulness.(2.) A fixed trust in him on their account, at all times and on all occasions. This he rested on, this he trusted to, that God was everywhere present with him, able to protect him, and faithful in the discharge of his promise; which is the sum of the revelation he made of himself unto Abraham, Genesis 15:1; Genesis 17:1. Hereof he had as certain a persuasion as if he had seen God working with him and for him by his bodily eyes. This sight of God he continually retreated unto in all his hazards and difficulties; and thereon endured courageously unto the end. And, — Obs. 4. There is nothing insuperable unto faith, whilst it can keep a clear view of the power Of God and his faithfulness in his promises. — And unless we are constant in this exercise of faith, we shall faint and fail in great trials and difficult duties. From hence we may fetch revivings, renewals of strength, and consolations on all occasions, as the Scripture everywhere testifieth, Psalms 73:25-26; Isaiah 40:28-31. Πίστειπεποίηκετὸπάσχακαὶτὴνπρόσχυσιντοῦαἵματος, ἵναμὴὁὀλοθρεύωντὰπρωτότοκαθίγῃαὐτῶν.Πεποίηκετὸπάσκα, “he wrought,” “he made the passover.” So the Syriac, ‘τֶ ?φְ ?ηָ ?ΰςֲ ?αַ ?γ. Vulg., ‘*celebravit pascha:” Rhem., “he celebrated the passover.” “Fecit,” “peregit;” “be performed,” “kept.” ᾿Επασχοποίησε, ἑώρτασε, “he kept the feast.” Καὶτὴνπρόσχυσιντοῦαἵματος. Syr., εψְ ?ρֵ ?ργְּ ?ξָ ?ΰ, and he sprinkled blood.” Vulg., “et affusionem sanguinis.” Rhem., “and the shedding of the blood;” adhering to a corrupt translation, which took πρόσχυσις for the same with ἔκχυσις, not only against the original, but the plain, express meaning of the Holy Ghost. For it is not the shedding of blood, which was done in the killing of the lamb, but the sprinkling of it on the doors and posts, that is intended. “And that affusion,” “pouring on,” or “sprinkling of blood.”῾Οὀλοθρεύωντὰπρωτότοκα. Vulg., “qui vastabat primitiva,” “he that wasted the firstlings;” which is the best sense that word will bear. The Rhemists render it, “the first-born,” “Qui perimebat,” “who slew.” “Qui destruxit,” “who destroyed.” δַ ?ξַּ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊ “the destroyer;” ὀλοθρευτής, Corinthians 10:10.Θίγῃαὐτῶν. Syr., πֶ ?ϊְ ?χָ ?ιַ ?αμְ ?δεּ ?ο, “should come nigh them.”Hebrews 11:28. — By faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the first-born should touch them; [or, that sprinkling of blood, that the destroyer of the first-born should not touch them.]The story which the apostle hath respect unto is recorded at large, Exodus 12; which it doth not appertain unto us here to insist upon. There are two things in the words: 1. The commendation of the faith of Moses, from the due observation of a double divine ordinance of worship. The one whereof was to be standing, and of perpetual use in the church, namely, the passover: the other was temporary, suited unto that season only, namely, the sprinkling of blood; or it may be esteemed a temporary addition unto the other. 2. The effect or consequent of his faith, in the observance of these ordinances, whereof they were a sign; “that he who destroyed,” etc.1. The first thing ascribed unto him as the fruit of his faith, is, that “he kept the passover.” The word used (πεποίηκε) is of a large signification. We render it, “he kept.” But that doth not comprise its whole sense: for it refers no less to the sprinkling of blood than to the passover; and it is not proper to say, he kept the sprinkling of blood. He “wrought,” he “performed” the whole sacred duty; that is, of killing the passover and sprinkling the blood. The “passover.” The Greeks call it πάσχα, “pascha;” which some would derive from πάσχειν, “to suffer,” because the lamb suffered when it was slain; — very foolishly; for the word is of a Hebrew original, only used by the Greeks after the Chaldee dialect, wherein it is usual to add ΰ unto the end of words. So of the Hebrew τֶּ ?ρַ ?η came the Chaldee τּ ?ρְ ?ηָ ?ΰ, and thence the Greek πάσχα. The Hebrew word “pesach” is from τָּ ?ρַ ?η, “pasach,” to “pass over.” Not that “pasach” doth properly or commonly signify “transire,” to “pass over” or away, which is ςָ ?αַ ?ψ; but a peculiar passing over, by a kind of leaping or skipping, taking one thing and leaving another. Hence it is like the going of a lame man, rising up and falling down. And such a one is called τִ ?ρֵּ ?ηַ, “piseach,” Leviticus 21:18, Malachi 1:13; “claudus,” — “one that limpeth.” The word was chosen to intimate the manner of the distinction that God made by the destroying angel between the houses of the Egyptians and the Israelites, when he passed over one untouched, and entered into another, it may be next unto it, with death. Sundry things did the faith of Moses respect in his keeping or observance of the passover: (1.) Its institution.(2.) The command for its observation.(3.) Its sacramental nature, wherein a divine promise was included.(4.) Its mystical or typical signification. (1.) He had respect unto the original institution of this ordinance, which he had by divine revelation. God revealed unto him the ordinance itself, with all its rites and ceremonies; which was its institution. And this faith respects in the first place; nor will it move or act towards any thing in the worship of God but what it hath the warranty of divine institution for. This is recorded Exodus 12:1-4, etc.(2.) Unto the command for its perpetual observance, which he was then to initiate the people into, Exodus 12:14 : “Ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance, for ever.” For although divine institution be a sufficient warranty for the observance of any thing in the worship of God, yet, to secure and encourage our faith, God did always confirm it by a command of obedience. So our Lord Jesus Christ did not only institute the ordinance of the holy supper, but commanded all his disciples to observe it in the remembrance of him. And with respect hereunto did the faith of Moses work in the way of obedience. And an active obedience unto the authority of Christ in his commands is expressly required in all that we do in divine worship.(3.) He had respect by faith unto the sacramental nature of it, wherein the promise was included. For this is in the nature of sacraments, that in and by a visible pledge they contain a promise, and exhibit the thing promised unto them that believe. This is expressed Exodus 12:11, where, speaking of the lamb to be slain and eaten, with all its rites and ceremonies, God adds, “It is the LORD’s passover;” where the application of the name of the thing signified unto the sacramental sign of it is consecrated unto the use of the church. So was it taken for granted by our Savior in the institution of the sacrament of his supper, when he says of the bread and wine that they are his body and blood; applying the names of the things signified unto those which were appointed signs of them by divine institution. And herein was the promise in-wrapped and contained of the deliverance of the people; which was exemplified and represented unto their faith in all the rites and circumstances of it. And the accomplishment of this promise was that which they were obliged to instruct their children and posterity in, as the reason of keeping this divine service, Exodus 12:24-27. (4.) He had respect unto the mystical or typical signification of it. For what Moses did of this kind, it was “for a testimony of those things which were afterwards to be declared,” Hebrews 3:5. See the exposition. And those testimonies of Moses concerning Christ, which are so frequently appealed unto in the New Testament, consist more in what he did than in what he said. For all his institutions were representations of him, and so testimonies unto him. And this of the paschal lamb was one of the most illustrious types of his office. Hence the apostle expressly calls Christ “our passover:” “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” 1 Corinthians 5:7. He in his sacrifice was that really and substantially, whereof the paschal lamb was a type, sign, and shadow. And it may not be a useless diversion to name some of those things wherein the typical relation between Christ in his sacrifice, and the paschal lamb or passover, did consist; as, — [1. It was a lamb that was the matter of this ordinance, Exodus 12:3; and in allusion hereunto, as also unto other sacrifices that were instituted afterwards, Christ is called “the Lamb of God,” John 1:29.[2. This lamb was to be taken out from the flock of the sheep, verse 5: so was the Lord Christ to be taken out of the flock of the church of mankind, in his participation of our nature, that he might be a meet sacrifice for us, Hebrews 2:14-17.[3. This lamb, being taken from the flock, was to be shut up separate from it, Exodus 12:6 : so although the Lord Christ was taken from amongst men, yet he was “separate from sinners,” Hebrews 7:26; that is, absolutely free from all that contagion of sin which others are infected withal.[4. This lamb was to be without blemish, Exodus 12:5; which is applied unto the Lord Christ, 1 Peter 1:19, “A Lamb without blemish, and without spot.”[5. This lamb was to be slain, and was slain accordingly, Exodus 12:6 : so was Christ slain for us; “the Lamb,” in the efficacy of his death, “slain from the foundation of the world,” Revelation 13:8.[6. This lamb was so slain as that it was a sacrifice, Exodus 12:27, — “It is the sacrifice of the LORD’S passover;” and “Christ our passover was sacrificed for us,” 1 Corinthians 5:7.[7. The lamb being slain, was to be roasted, Exodus 12:8-9; which signified the fiery wrath that Christ was to undergo for our deliverance. [8. That not a bone of him should be broken, Exodus 12:46, was expressly to declare the manner of the death of Christ, John 19:33-36. [9. The eating of him, which was also enjoined, and that wholly and entirely, Exodus 12:8-9, was to instruct the church in the spiritual food of the flesh and blood of Christ, in the communication of the fruits of his mediation unto us by faith. And sundry other things of the same nature might be observed. With respect unto all these things did Moses by faith keep the passover. And, — Obs. 1. There is always an especial exercise of faith required unto the due observation of a sacramental ordinance.2. The second thing ascribed unto the faith of Moses is, “the sprinkling of blood.” This, whether it was a peculiar, temporary ordinance, or an observation annexed unto the first celebration of the passover, is all to the same purpose. That it was not afterwards repeated is evident, not only from hence, that it is nowhere mentioned as observed, but principally because the ground and reason of it did utterly cease. And God will not have any empty signs or ceremonies in his worship, that should be of no signification. However, that first signification that it had was of constant use in the church, as unto the faith of believers. The institution is recorded, Exodus 12:7. The blood of the lamb when it was slain was preserved in a bason; from whence they were to take it by dipping a bunch of hyssop into it, Exodus 12:22, and strike it on the two side-posts and the upper door- post of their houses. And this was to be a token unto them that God would pass over the houses that were so sprinkled and marked with blood, that none should be destroyed in them, Exodus 12:13. And this was to abide for ever in its mystical signification, as the present use of it is declared in the next words by the apostle. But unto this day we are hence taught, —Obs. 2. That whatever is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ, the Lamb of God who was slain and sacrificed for us, is exposed unto destruction from the anger and displeasure of God. As also, —Obs. 3. That this alone is that which gives us security from him that had the power of death. See the exposition on Hebrews 2:14-15.Lastly, The end of this institution was, “that he who destroyed the first- born might not touch them.”(1.) The agent employed in this work was ὁὀλοθρεύων or ὀλοθρευτής, 1 Corinthians 10:10; “the destroyer;” — that is, an angel whom God employed in that work, as the executioner of his judgments; as he did one afterwards in the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, as before in that of Sodom. There is therefore no reason to think, with some of the Jews, that it was an evil angel whom they call ΰωξεγι, “Ashmodaeus,” in the Book of Tobit; and usually ξַ ?μְ ?ΰָ ?κְ δַ ?ξָ ?εֶ ?ϊ“the angel of death;” or “him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” For there is no work more holy, nor more becoming the holy ministering spirits, than to execute the judgments of God on impenitent sinners. I do grant, that in the infliction of the plagues on the Egyptians in general, especially in the work of hardening their hearts, and seducing them, unto their deserved destruction, God did make use of the activity of evil angels unto such ends; for so the psalmist affirms, “He sent evil angels among them,” Psalms 78:49 : but this work of slaying their first-born is so peculiarly and frequently ascribed unto God himself, that I rather judge he employed a good angel the Romans And, —Obs. 4. God hath always instruments in readiness to execute the severest of his judgments on sinners, in their greatest security. — They were all in their midnight sleep in Egypt, when this messenger of death came amongst them. And, —(2.) “He destroyed the first-born;” τὰπρωτότοκα, in the neuter gender, — that is, γεννήματα. For the destruction was extended unto the first- born of beasts as well as of men, Exodus 12:29. And this was done at the same time throughout all the land of Egypt; that is, about midnight, Exodus 11:4; Exodus 12:29-30.Obs. 5. Such is the great power and activity of these fiery ministering spirits, that in the shortest space of time imaginable they can execute the judgments of God on whole nations, as well and as easily as on private persons, 2 Kings 19:35.The close of the words gives us the use of the sprinkling of blood on the posts of the door, namely, that it might be a sign and token unto the Israelites that they should be preserved from that woful destruction which they knew would that night befall the Egyptians: Exodus 12:13, “The blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are.” And what is added, that when he did see the blood he would pass over them, and the plague should not come nigh them, was only to oblige them with all diligence and reverence to observe his sacred institution; for their deliverance was suspended on the condition thereof, and had they failed therein, any of them, they had perished with the Egyptians. “Should not touch them;” that is, the Israelites and their cattle. For although they are not mentioned before, yet are they necessarily understood. And it is thus expressed, “Not touch them,” to declare the absolute security which they were to enjoy whilst the Egyptians were smitten. The destroyer made no approach unto their houses; they had no fear of him. So, not to touch is used for the same with doing no harm, or being remote from it: Psalms 105:15, “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.” 1 John 5:18, “The wicked one toucheth him not.”Obs. 6. That which God would for ever instruct the church in by this ordinance is, that unless we are sprinkled with the blood of Christ, our paschal Lamb, no other privilege can secure us from eternal destruction. — Though a man had been really an Israelite, and had with others made himself ready that night for a departure, which was a high profession of faith, yet if the lintel and posts of his door had not been sprinkled with blood, he would have been destroyed. And on the other hand, where there is this sprinkling of blood, be the danger never so great or so near, there shall be certain deliverance. “The blood of sprinkling speaks better things than the blood of Abel.” Having fixed the foundation and beginning of the deliverance of the church on the exercise of faith in the observance of the holy institutions of divine worship, prescribed to be the signs and tokens thereof, the apostle proceeds to give an instance in one of the most remarkable passages of divine providence that befell them in the way of their deliverance. Hebrews 11:29. — Πίστειδιεβησαντὴν᾿Ερυθρὰνθάλασσαν, ὡςδιὰξηρᾶς·ἧςπεῖρανλαβόντεςοἱΑἰγύπτιοι, κατεπόθησαν.Τὴν᾿Ερυθρὰνθάλασσαν. The Syrian retains the Hebrew name, ιָ ?ξָּ ?ΰγְ ?ρεּ ?�y Sea,” the sea of reeds or canes, as this sea is called constantly in the Scripture.Πεῖρανλαβόντες. Vulg., “experti,” a making a trial.” “Periculo facto,” “venturing to do;” “when they durst,” as we, assaying. Syr., λַּ ?γΰַ ?ξְ ?ψַ ?ηεּ ςֲ ?μεְ ?ηִ ?ιor emboldened themselves “to enter it.”Κατεπόθησαν, “devorati sunt.” Vulg. Lat., “absorpti aunt.” Syr., properly, “were swallowed up,” overwhelmed, drowned, suffocated.Hebrews 11:29. — By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry [land:] which the Egyptians assaying, [making a trial of,] were drowned, [or swallowed up.]A greater instance with respect unto the work of divine Providence, of the power of faith on the one hand, and of unbelief with obdurate presumption on the other, there is not on record in the whole Book of God. Here we have the end and issue of the long controversy that was between those two people, the Egyptians and the Israelites; — a certain type and evidence of what will be the last end of the contest between the world and the church. Their long conflict shall end in the utter destruction of the one, and the complete salvation of the other. 1. The persons whose faith is here commended are included in that word, they passed; that is, the whole congregation of the Israelites, under the conduct of Moses, Exodus 14. And the whole is denominated from the better part; for many of them were not believers in state, unto the sanctification of their persons. For “with many of them,” as the apostle speaks, “God was not well pleased,” though they were “all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea,” 1 Corinthians 10:2; 1 Corinthians 10:5. But in a professing society, God is pleased to impute the faith and obedience of some unto the whole; as, on the other hand, judgments do oftentimes befall the whole for the provocations of some, as it frequently happened unto that people in the wilderness. It is therefore the duty of every man in church society to endeavor, on the one hand, the good of the whole in his own personal faith and obedience; as also, on the other, to keep them in what lies in him from sin, that he fall not with them under the displeasure of God. 2. Their faith wrought in their passing through the sea: not in dividing of the waters, — that was an act of immediate almighty power; but by faith they passed through when they were divided. It is true that God commanded Moses to divide the sea, Exodus 14:16; but this was only ministerially, in giving a sign thereof by stretching forth his rod, verse 21. And concerning their passage by faith some things may be observed.(1.) It was the Red Sea that they passed through; that part of the Ethiopic Ocean which lieth between Egypt and Arabia. In the Hebrew it is constantly called ιָ ?νΰּ ?ρεּ ?�“Sea of Sedges,” reeds or canes, from the multitude of them growing on its shore; as it is unto this day. The Greeks call it ᾿Ερυθραῖος or ᾿Ερυθρά, the word here used by the apostle. And it was so called, not from the red color of the waters, appearing so from the sand or the sun, as some have fancied, but from a king whom they called Erythrseus; that is, Esau, or Edom, who fixed his habitation and rule towards this sea. For whereas that name signifies “red,” they gave him a name of the same signification in their language. Thence came the sea among them to be called the “Red Sea,” which the Hebrews called “Yam Suph.”(2.) This sea they passed through from the Egyptian unto the Arabic shore. For what some have imagined, that they entered into the sea, and, making a semicircle, came out again on the same side, leaving Pharaoh and his host drowned behind them, is inconsistent with the narrative of Moses, that they passed through the sea. Nor is there any countenance given hereunto from what is affirmed, Numbers 33:6-8, namely, that before they entered the sea they pitched in Etham, and that after they had passed through the midst of it, they went three days’journey in the wilderness of Etham. For all that tract of land wherein the Red Sea issues and ends, from which end of it they were not far remote, belonged unto the wilderness of Etham both on the one side of the sea and the other, as is evident in the story. (3.) It is said that they passed through as on dry land, Exodus 14:21-22; Exodus 14:29. Some think that the bottom of the sea being sand, was fit and meet to go upon, on the mere separation of the waters; others, that this was the effect of the mighty wind which God also used in the dividing of the waters, though he put forth in it an act of his almighty power. See Isaiah 63:11-13. For no wind of itself could produce that effect, much less keep the parted waters standing like walls; yet it is said directly that the east wind made the sea dry land, Exodus 14:21-22. However it was, the ground was made fit and meet for them to travel on, and pass through the waters without difficulty or impediment.(4.) The division of the waters was very great, leaving a space for so great a multitude to pass orderly between the divided parts, perhaps unto the distance of some miles. And their passage is judged to have been six leagues from the one shore unto the other; by some much more.(5.) The Israelites had light to discern this state of things; and no doubt the appearance of it was very dreadful. The waters must of necessity be raised unto a very great height on each side of them; and although they were, and proved, by the power of God, a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left, yet was it in them a high act of faith to put themselves between such walls, as were ready in their own nature to fall on them unto their destruction every moment, abiding only under an almighty restraint. But they had the command and promise of God for their warranty and security, which will enable faith to overcome all fears and dangers.(6.) I doubt not but that Moses first entered himself at the head of them. Hence it is said that God led them through the sea by the right hand of Isa 63:11-13; — he entering before them into the channel of the deep to guide and encourage them. Some of the Jews say that this was done by Amminadib, captain of the host of Judah, who, when all the rest of the people were afraid, first entered, with his tribe; whence mention is made of “the chariots of Amminadib,” Son 6:12. But, alas! they had neither chariot nor horse with them, but went all on foot.From all these difficulties and dangers we may observe, — Obs. 1. Where God engageth his word and promise, there is nothing so difficult, nothing so remote from the rational apprehensions of men, but he may righteously require our faith and trust in him therein. Whatever almighty power can extend unto, is a proper object for faith; in reliance whereon it shall never fail.Obs. 2. Faith will find a way through a sea of difficulties, under the call of God.Obs. 3. There is no trial, no difficulty, that the church can he called unto, but there are examples on record of the power of faith in working out its deliverance. — There can be no greater strait than the Israelites were in, between the host of the Egyptians and the Red Sea.3. It remains that we consider the other people, with what they did on this occasion, and what end they came unto.The people were “the Egyptians.” So they are called here in general. But in the account given us by Moses, it appears that Pharaoh himself, the king, was there present in person, with all the nobility and power of his kingdom. It was he in an especial manner whom God had undertaken to deal withal; yea, he raised him up for this very purpose, that he might show his power in him, and that his name thereby might be declared throughout the earth, Exodus 9:16, Romans 9:17. Accordingly, he carried it for a long time with intolerable pride and obstinacy. Hence the contest betwixt God and him, with the issue of it, was so famous in the world that the glory of God was exceedingly exalted thereby; and the terror of it made way for the people in their entrance into Canaan, the hearts of the inhabitants failing because of them. Here the contest came to an issue, in the utter ruin of the proud tyrant. For there is none so great, so proud, so obstinate, but if God undertake to deal with them, he will be victorious in the end. See Exodus 15:3-10.This Pharaoh with his Egyptians (that is, his whole army, horses, and chariots) “assayed to do” what they saw the children of Israel. do before them; namely, to pass through the sea whilst the waters of it were divided. And this was the greatest height that ever obdurate infidels could rise unto in this world. They had seen all the mighty works which God had wrought in the behalf of his people among them, — they and their country were almost consumed with the plagues and judgments that were inflicted on them on their account; and yet now, beholding this wonderful work of God in opening the sea to receive them from their pursuit, they would make a venture, as the word signifies, to follow them into it. Now, although this presumptuous attempt of the Egyptians be to be resolved into that judiciary hardness which was upon them from God, that they might be destroyed, yet no doubt but some things did occur to their minds that might lead them unto the hardening of themselves; as, (1.)That they might not know for a while that they were entered into the channel of the sea, the waters being removed far from them; but they might go on perhaps in the night, without once thinking that the people whom they pursued were gone into the midst of the sea.(2.) When they discovered any thing extraordinary therein, they might suppose it was only by some extraordinary natural cause or occasion; of which sort many things fall out in the ebbing and flowing of the sea. But,(3.) That which principally animated them was, that they were continually near or close upon the Israelites, ready to seize on them; as is evident in the story. And they did perfectly believe that they should fare as well as they. And for this reason it was that God began to disturb them in their passage, that they should not overtake the people, but abide in the sea unto their ruin. But however these and the like considerations might serve to blind their minds in some measure, that they should forget all former instances of divine severity against them in the same cause, and not discern the imminent destruction that was prepared for them, the principal cause from whence they precipitated themselves into the punishment which they had deserved was the efficacy of that blindness and hardness of heart wherewith they were plagued of God. And herein, as was said, we have the most signal example and instance of the power of unbelief, confirmed by judiciary hardness of heart, that is upon record in the whole book of God; nor doth any monument of an equal folly and blindness remain among other memorials of things done in this world. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 4. God knows how to secure impenitent sinners unto their appointed destruction, by giving them up unto hardness of heart, and an obstinate continuance in their sins, against all warnings and means of repentance. — The devils are reserved for judgment under the chains of their own darkness. See Romans 1:24; Romans 1:28-29. Obs. 5. God doth not give up any in a judiciary way unto sin, but it is a punishment for preceding sins, and as a means to bring on them total ruin and destruction.Obs. 6. Let us not wonder that we see men in the world obstinate in foolish counsels and undertakings, tending unto their own inevitable ruin, seeing probably they are under judiciary hardness from God, Isaiah 6:9-10; Isaiah 19:11-14.Obs. 7. There is no such blinding, hardening lust in the minds or hearts of men, as hatred of the people of God and desire of their ruin. — Where this prevails, as it did in these persecuting Egyptians, it deprives men of all wisdom and understanding, that they shall do things against all rules of reason and policy, (which commonly they pretend unto,) brutishly and obstinately, though apparently tending unto their own ruin and destruction. So it was with these Egyptians; for although they designed the utter extirpation of the people, that they should be no more in the world, — which they attempted in the law for the destruction of all the male children, which in one age would have totally exterminated them out of Egypt, — yet now they will run themselves on imminent, universal destruction, to bring them back again into Egypt. Obs. 8. When the oppressors of the church are nearest unto their ruin they commonly rage most, and are most obstinate in their bloody persecutions. — So is it at this day among the anti-christian enemies of the church; for notwithstanding all their pride and fury, they seem to be entering into the Red Sea.Lastly; The event of this essay or undertaking of the Egyptians, was, that they “were drowned,” they were swallowed up. The account hereof is given us so gloriously in the triumphant song of Moses, Exodus 15, that nothing needs to be added in its further illustration. And this destruction of the Egyptians, with the deliverance of Israel thereby, was a type and pledge of the victory and triumph which the church shall have over its antichristian adversaries, Revelation 15:2-4. In this verse the apostle adds another instance of the faith of the whole congregation, in the sense before declared; for although respect no doubt be had unto the faith of Joshua in an especial manner, yet that of the whole people is expressed. Hebrews 11:30. — Πίστειτὰτείχη῾Ιεριχὼἔπεσε, κυκλωθένταἐπὶἑπτὰἡμέρας.Hebrews 11:30. — By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.The apostle in these words gives us a compendium of the history of the taking and destruction of Jericho, which is at large recorded in the sixth chapter of the Book of Joshua, with what was spoken before concerning the spies, in the second chapter. I shall not need to report the story, it is so well known. Only I shall observe some few things, wherein the faith of the people did concur unto this great work of divine Providence, when I have a little opened the words. The thing ascribed unto their faith, is the fall of “the walls of Jericho.” The city itself was not great, as is evident, because the whole army of the Israelites did compass it seven times in one day. But most probably it was fortified and encompassed with walls of great height and strength; with which the spies sent by Moses out of the wilderness were terrified, Numbers 13:28. And in all probability the Israelites were destitute of any engines of war for the casting of them down, or making a breach in them. And because the king of the place neither endeavored to hinder the passage of the Israelites over Jordan, which was but a few miles from the city, when he knew that they designed his destruction; nor did once attempt to oppose them in the field before they sat down about the town, as did the men of Ai; it is probable that he placed his confidence in the strength of the walls and their fortifications. And it is uncertain how long it was besieged by the Israelites before God showed unto them the way of demolishing these walls; for the town was beleaguered by Joshua it may be for some good while before he had the command to compass it, Joshua 6:1. These walls, saith the apostle,” fell down.” They did so unto the very ground. This is signified in that expression, ηηεֹ ?ξָ ?δϊַּ ?ηְ ?ϊֶּ ?ιδָ εַ ?ϊִּ ?τֹּ ?μ, Joshua 6:20; — “And the wall fell down under it.” Which, although it doth not prove that the wall sunk into the ground, as some of the Hebrews judge, (yea, that notion is inconsistent with the words whereby its fall is expressed,) yet it intimates the utter casting it down fiat on the earth, whereby the people went over it with ease into the city. And therefore this fall was not by a breach in any part of the wall, but by the dejection of the whole. For the people being round about the city when it fell, did not go from one place unto another to seek for an entrance, but “went up into the city, every one straight before him,” in the place where he was; which utterly deprived the inhabitants of all advantages of defense. Yet need not this be so far extended as that no part nor parcel of the wall was left standing, where the fall of it was not of any advantage unto the Israelites. So that part of it whereon the house of Rahab was built was left standing; for in the fall of it she and all that were with her must have been destroyed. But the fall was such as took away all defense from the inhabitants, and facilitated the entrance of the Israelites in all places at once. This, saith the apostle, was done “after they were compassed about seven days.” “Compassed about;” that is, by the army of the Israelites marching round the town in the order described, Joshua 6:2-3, etc. And this was done “seven days.” The first command of God was to have it done six times in the space of six days, verse 3; but an especial command and direction was given for that of the seventh day, because it was then to be done seven times, verse 4. This seventh day probably was the Sabbath. And somewhat of mystery is no doubt intimated in the number of seven in this place. For there were to be seven priests going before the people, having seven trumpets of rams’horns to sound with; and the order was to be observed seven days, and on the seventh day the city was to be compassed seven times, — which thing was of divine designation. The reader may, if he please, consult our discourse of the original and institution of the Sabbath, wherein these things are spoken unto. The apostle takes no notice of the compassing it seven times on the seventh day, but only of its being compassed seven days. And some things there are wherein the Israelites did manifest their faith herein. 1. It was on the command of God, and his promise of success therein, that they now entered the land of Canaan, and began their work and war with the siege of this strong town, not having by any previous fight weakened the inhabitants. Here they made the first experiment of the presence of God with them in the accomplishment of the promise made to Abraham. 2. They did so in their readiness to comply with the way prescribed unto them, of compassing the town so many days with the noise of trumpets, without the least attempt to possess themselves of it. For, without a respect by faith unto the command and promise of God, this act was so far from furthering them in their design, that it was suited to expose them to the scorn and contempt of their adversaries. For what could they think of them, but as of a company of men who desired indeed to possess themselves of their city, but knew not how to do it, or durst not undertake it? But this way was prescribed unto them of God, to give them a distinct apprehension that the work of the conquest of Canaan was his, and not theirs. For although he required of them therein to use the utmost of their courage, prudence, and diligence, yet he had taken upon himself the effecting the work itself, as if they had contributed nothing thereunto. And the compassing of the city once every day for the space of six days, and the entrance into it on the seventh, had respect unto the work of the creation. For God was now entering into his rest with respect unto his worship, in a new way of settlement and solemnity, such as he had not erected or made use of from the beginning of the world. Hence he frequently calls it his rest, as hath been declared in the exposition on the fourth chapter, Psalms 95:11; Psalms 132:8; Psalms 132:14; Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 4:11. And it was a type of the new creation, with the rest of Christ thereon, and of believers in him. Therefore would God give here a resemblance of that first work in the labor of the six days, and the reward they received on the seventh. Besides, hereby he took possession as it were of the city for himself, not intending to allow the people any share in the spoil of it; for it was wholly devoted.3. In the triumphant shout they gave, before the walls stirred or moved. They used the sign of their downfall before the thing signified was accomplished; and triumphed by faith in the ruin of the walls, whilst they stood in their full strength.Wherefore the apostle might justly commend their faith, which was acted against so many difficulties, in the use of unlikely means, with a constancy and persistency unto the time and event designed. For, — Obs. 1. Faith will embrace and make use of means divinely prescribed, though it be not able to discern the effective influence of them unto the end aimed at. — On this consideration was Naaman induced to wash himself in the waters of Jordan for the cure of his leprosy, 2 Kings 5:13-14.Obs. 2. Faith will cast down walls and strong towers, that lie in the way of the work of God. — It is true, we have no stone walls to demolish, nor cities to destroy: but the same faith in exercise is required of us in all our concerns as was in Joshua when he entered on the conquest of Canaan; as the apostle declares, Hebrews 13:5. And there are strongholds of sin in our minds, which nothing but faith can cast to the ground. Hitherto we have had the examples of men, with one woman only, in conjunction with her husband. In this verse the apostle puts a close unto his particular instances in that of one single woman, accompanied with many eminent circumstances, as we shall see. Hebrews 11:31. — Πίστει῾Ραὰβἡπόρνηοὐσυναπώλετοτοῖςἀπειθήσασιδεξαμένητοὺς, κατασκόπουςμετ᾿εἰρήνης.Hebrews 11:31. — By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with them that believed not, [or were disobedient,] when she had received the spies with peace.The story concerning this Rahab, her faith and works, is at large recorded in the second and sixth chapters of Joshua. What concerns the exposition of these words, and the great instance of the grace of God and efficacy of faith in them, may be comprised in some observations; as, — 1. This Rahab was by nature a Gentile, an alien from the stock and covenant of Abraham. Wherefore, as her conversion unto God was an act of free grace and mercy in a peculiar manner, so it was a type and pledge of calling a church from among the Gentiles; as they all were who were converted unto God after the outward confinement of the promise unto the family of Abraham by the covenant and the token thereof. 2. She was not only a Gentile, but an Amorite; of that race and seed which in general was devoted unto utter destruction. She was therefore an instance of God’s sovereignty in dispensing with his positive laws as it seems good unto him; for of his own mere plea. sure he exempted her from the doom denounced against all those of her original and traduction.3. She was a harlot; that is, one who for advantage exposed her person in fornication. For what the Jews say, that ζεֹ ?πָ ?δ signifies also a “victualler,” or one that kept a house for public entertainment, they can prove by no instance in the Scripture, the word being constantly used for a harlot; and she being twice in the New Testament, where she is highly commended, called expressly πόρνη, which is capable of no such signification, it must be granted that she was a harlot, though, it may be, not one that did commonly and promiscuously expose herself: δַ ?ΰָֹּ ?πδ “nobile scortum.” But that also she kept a public house of entertainment is evident from the spies going thither; which they did as into such a house, and not as into a mere stew. And herein have we a blessed instance both of the sovereignty of God’s grace and of its power; — of its freedom and sovereignty, in the calling and conversion of a person given up by her own choice to the vilest of sins; and of its power, in the conversion of one engaged in the serving of that lust, and the habitual course of that kind of sin, which of all others is the most effectual in detaining persons under its power. But nothing, no person, no sin, is to be despaired of, in whose cure sovereign, almighty grace is engaged, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.4. She was converted unto God before the coming of the spies unto her, by what she had heard of him, his mighty works and his peculiar owning of the people of Israel. For God had ordained and designed that the report of these things should be an effectual ordinance, as to terrify obstinate unbelievers, so to call others to repentance and to conversion from their idols; unto which end, no doubt, it was effectual on others as well as on Rahab, — as it was on the Gibeonites in general. For he declares that he did, and would do, such things to make his power known and his name exalted, that others might know that he alone was God, and that by grace he had taken Israel to be his people. Hence those who perished are said to be unbelievers: “She perished not with them that believed not,” or “who were disobedient.” For they had a sufficient revelation of God and his will to render their faith and obedience necessary, as we shall see in the account that Rahab gives of herself; the things whereof were known to them as well as unto her, and that by the same means. And had they believed and repented, they might have been saved. For although this, as unto the event, could not be with respect unto entire nations (although their lives also might have been spared, had they, according to their duty, sought peace with Israel on God’s terms), yet multitudes of individuals might have been saved who perished in their unbelief. Wherefore, although their destruction was just, upon the account of their former sins and provocations, yet the next cause why they were not spared was their unbelief. And therefore are they so described here by the apostle, “Those who believed not.” And their destruction is ascribed unto the hardening of their hearts, so as that they should not make peace with Israel, Joshua 11:19-20. Wherefore, —Obs. 1. Although unbelief be not the only destroying sin (for the wages of every sin is death, and many are accompanied with peculiar provocations), yet it is the only sin which makes eternal destruction inevitable and remediless. And, — Obs. 2. Where there are means granted of the revelation of God and his will, it is unbelief that is the greatest and most provoking sin, and from whence God is glorified in his severest judgments. — Therefore the apostle, mentioning the destruction of the Canaanites, passeth by their other sins, and represents them as obstinate unbelievers. And, —Obs. 3. Where this revelation of the mind and will of God is most open, full, and evident, and the means of it are most express, and suited unto the communication of the knowledge of it, there is the highest aggravation of unbelief. — If the inhabitants of Jericho perished in their unbelief, because they believed not on the report that was brought unto them of the mighty works of God, what will be the end of them who live and die in their unbelief under the daily, constant preaching of the gospel, the most glorious revelation of the mind and will of God for the salvation of men! Hebrews 2:3. Obs. 4. Every thing which God designs as an ordinance to bring men unto repentance, ought to be diligently attended unto and complied withal, seeing its neglect, or of the call of God therein, shall be severely avenged. — Such were his mighty works in those days; and such are his judgments in all ages.5. Rahab, upon the first opportunity, made an excellent confession of her faith, and of the means of her conversion to God. This confession is recorded at large, Joshua 2:9-11. She avows the Lord Jehovah to be the only “God in heaven above, and in earth beneath;” wherein she renounced all the idols which before she had worshipped, verse 11. And she avows her faith in him as their God, or the God of Israel, who had taken them to be his people by promise and covenant; which in this confession she lays hold on by faith: “The LORD your God, he is God.” And she declares the means of her conversion; which was her hearing of the mighty works of God, and what he did for his people, verse 10. And she adds moreover the way and means whereby her faith was confirmed, namely, her observation of the effect which the report of these things had upon the minds and hearts of her wicked countrymen: ‘Their hearts hereon did melt, and they had no more courage left in them,’verse 11. As she had an experience of the divine power of grace in producing a contrary effect in her, namely, that of faith and obedience; so she plainly saw that there was a hand of God in that dread, terror, and fear, which fell upon her countrymen. Their hearts did melt, faint, fall down: and it is an infallible rule in all affairs, especially in war, “Qui animis cadunt, excidunt omnibus rebus bonis;” — “They that fall in their hearts and spirits, fall from every thing that is good, useful, or helpful.” By the observation hereof was her faith confirmed. So, on the first occasion after her conversion, she witnessed a good confession. Hereby the rule is confirmed which we have, Romans 10:10.Obs. 5. It is in the nature of true, real, saving faith, immediately, or at its first opportunity, to declare and protest itself in confession before men; or confession is absolutely inseparable from faith. — Where men, on some light and convictions, do suppose themselves to have faith, yet through fear or shame do not come up to the ways of expressing it in confession prescribed in the Scripture, their religion is in vain. And therefore our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Gospel, doth constantly lay the same weight on confession as on believing itself, Matthew 10:33; Luke 9:26. And “the fearful,” — that is, those who flee from public profession in times of danger and persecution, — shall be no less assuredly excluded from the heavenly Jerusalem than unbelievers themselves, Revelation 21:8.6. She separated herself from the cause and interest other own people among whom she lived, and joined herself unto the cause and interest of the people of God. This also is a necessary fruit of faith, and an inseparable concomitant of profession. This God called her unto, this she complied withal, and this was that which rendered all that she did, in receiving, concealing, and preserving the spies, though they came in order unto the destruction of her country and people, just and warrantable. For although men may not leave the cause and interest of their own people to join with their enemies on light grounds or reasons, since the light of nature itself manifesteth how many obligations there are on us to seek the good of our own country, yet where the persons whereof it consists are obstinate idolaters, and the cause wherein they are engaged is wicked, and in direct opposition unto God, there a universal separation from them in interest, and a conjunction with their enemies, is a duty, honorable and just, as it was in her. Wherefore, although it may seem something hard, that she, being born and living in the town, a citizen of it, and subject of the king, should studiously and industriously receive, conceal, give intelligence unto, and convey away in safety, spies that came to find out a way for the total destruction of the place; yet she, on the call and command of God, having renounced an interest in and relation unto that wicked, idolatrous, unbelieving people, whom she knew to be devoted to utter destruction, it was just and righteous in her to be assisting unto their enemies. Obs. 6. This separation from the cause and interest of the world is required in all believers, and will accompany true faith wherever it be. — I speak not of the differences that may fall out between nations, and the conjunction in counsel and action with one people against another; for in such cases we cannot desert our own country without perfidious treachery, unless warranted by such extraordinary circumstances as Rahab was under: but I intend that wicked, carnal interest of the world, and its corrupt conversation, which all believers are obliged visibly to separate themselves from, as a necessary part of their profession.7. She showed, testified, manifested her faith by her works. She “received the spies with peace.” In these few words doth the apostle comprise the whole story of her receiving of them, her studious concealing them, the intelligence she gave them, the prudence she used, the pains she took, and the danger she underwent in the safe conveyance of them to their army; all which are at large recorded, Joshua 2. This work of hers is celebrated there, and also James ii., as an eminent fruit and demonstration of that faith whereby she was justified. And so it was. That it was in itself lawful, just, and good, hath been declared. For what is not so cannot be rendered so to be on any other consideration. Again, it was a work of great use and importance to the church and cause of God. For had these spies been taken and slain, it would have put a great discouragement on the whole people, and made them question whether God would be with them in their undertaking or no. And it is evident that the tidings which they carried unto Joshua and the people, from the intelligence which they had by Rahab, was a mighty encouragement unto them. For they report their discovery in her words. They said unto Joshua, “Truly the LORD hath delivered into our hands all the land; for even all the inhabitants of the country do faint because of us,” Joshua 2:24. And it was a work accompanied with the utmost hazard and danger unto herself. Had the matter been discovered, there is no doubt but that she, and all that she had, had been utterly destroyed. And all these things set a great luster upon this work, whereby she evidenced her faith and her justification thereby. And as this instance is exceedingly apposite unto the purpose of the apostle, in arm and encourage believers against the difficulties and dangers which they were to meet withal in their profession; so it is sufficient to condemn multitudes among ourselves, who, after a long profession of the truth, are ready to tremble at the first approach of danger, and think it their wisdom to keep at a distance from them that are exposed to danger and sufferings, 8. The fruit of this faith of Rahab was, that “she perished not,” — she was not destroyed. The matter of fact is declared, Joshua 6:25, “And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel unto this day.” It is good, and sometimes useful, to have relation unto them that believe; as it was with the kindred and household of this Rahab. But what is added of her dwelling in Israel, plainly intimates her solemn conjunction unto the people of God in faith and worship. Yea, I am persuaded that from henceforward she was as eminent in faith and holiness as she had been before in sin and folly; for it was not for her wealth that she was afterwards married unto Salmon the son of Naasson, the prince of the tribe of Judah, Matthew 1:5, coming thereby to have the honor of a place in the genealogy of our blessed Savior, and of a type of the interest of the Gentiles in his incarnation. The Holy Ghost also, taking occasion twice to mention her in a way of commendation, and proposing her as an example of faith and obedience, gives such an approbation of her as testifies her to have been eminent and exemplary in these things.And herewith the apostle shuts up his particular instances, proceeding unto a more general summary confirmation of the truth concerning the power and efficacy of faith, which he had undertaken to demonstrate. In this verse, and unto the end of Heb 11:38, he sums up the remaining testimonies which he might further have insisted on in particular; with intimation that there were yet more of the like kind upon record, which he would not so much as name. But he changeth the method which he had hitherto observed. For he doth not single out his witnesses, and ascribe unto each of them distinctly that wherein the exercise of their faith did appear; but he proposeth two things to confirm in general: 1. That faith will do and effect great things of all sorts, when we are called unto them.2. That it will also enable us to suffer the greatest, the hardest, and most terrible things, which our nature can be exposed unto. And with the instances of this latter sort he closeth his discourse, because they were most peculiarly accommodated to strengthen his especial design: this was, to animate and encourage the Hebrews unto suffering for the gospel; giving them assurance by these examples that faith would carry them victoriously through them all.Now, whereas he handles these things distinctly, in the proof of the first, or the great things faith will do, first he names the persons in whom it did so of old, and then adds the things which they did; not distributing them particularly to each one by whom they were done, but leaving that to be gathered out of the sacred story. It was sufficient unto his purpose that they were all to be found amongst them, some performed by some of them, and some by others. And as unto the second, or the great things which faith will enable believers to undergo and suffer, which he enters upon Hebrews 11:35, he names the things that were suffered, but not the persons that suffered them; because, as I suppose, their names were not recorded in the Scripture, though the things themselves were notoriously known in the church. And as unto the first we may observe two things: 1. That in the naming of them, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and Samuel, he doth not observe the order of time wherein they lived; for Barak was before Gideon, and Jephthah before Samson, and Samuel before David. 2. He doth not reckon up the things they (lid in the same order wherein he had named the persons; so as that the first thing mentioned should be ascribed unto him that was first named, and so on in order. But he useth his liberty in setting down both the names of the persons and the things ascribed unto them, an exact order and distribution of them no way belonging unto his purpose. Yea, the proposing of the persons with their names at once, and then amassing together the great and mighty fruits of their faith, gives a persuasive efficacy unto the example. Again it must be remarked, that although in the first part he reckoneth up the names of many of them who wrought these works of faith, yet he intimates that there were more of them; and therefore the things which he mentioneth cannot all of them absolutely be accommodated and applied unto the persons named, but some of them were wrought by others whose names he doth not express. Having given this account of the scope and argument of the apostle, I shall be very brief in the exposition of the particulars. Hebrews 11:32. — Καὶτίἔτιλέγω; ᾿ΕπιλείψειγάρμεδιηγούμενονὁχρόνοςπερὶΓεδεὼν, Βαράκτε, καὶΣαμψὼν, καὶ᾿Ιεφθάε, Δαυί>δτεκαὶΣαμουὴλ, καὶτῶνπροφητῶν.᾿Επιλείψειγὰρμε. Syr., ζְ ?ςεּ ?ψδεּ μִ ?ιζַ ?αְ ?πָ ?ΰγֶּ ?ΰωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ςֵ ?ΰ“I have but a little time,” or, “there is but a little time for me that I should report:” which is another sense of the words than that in the original, although to the same purpose, it being an excuse of his furore brevity, which is not the direct meaning of the phrase. “The time would fail me,” is a usual expression with respect unto that wherein we are ready and abound, but repress it for present reasons.Καὶτῶνπροφητῶν. Syr., εְ ?ςַ ?μωַ ?ψְ ?λָ ?ΰγַּ ?πְ ?αִ ?ιֵ ?ΰ; “and of the rest of the prophets;” which is naturally to be supplied, seeing David and Samuel, the persons last named, were prophets also.Hebrews 11:32. — And what shall I more say? [what do I say more?] for the time would fail me to tell [declaring, expounding] of Gideon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthah; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of the rest of] the prophets. The manner of expression used by the apostle is suited unto his transition from insisting on particular instances, when he might have added many more had it been convenient, unto a general summary of what remained of the same kind. 1. He puts a stay unto his own procedure by an interrogation: “And what shall I more say?” or, “Why do I further so speak?” And two things are intimated in this expression:(1.) That he had already sufficiently attested the truth by the examples before insisted on, so as that it needed no further confirmation. Yet,(2.) That, if need were, he had in readiness many more examples of the same kind. And, —Obs. 1. It is requisite prudence, in the confirmation of important truths, as to give them a full proof and demonstration, so not to multiply arguments and testimonies beyond what is necessary, which serves only to divert the mind from attending unto the truth itself to be confirmed.2. He gives a reason of the resolution intimated in the preceding interrogation, such as introduceth that new way of procedure which he now designed by a compendium of the faith of others also, whom he judged necessary to mention: “For the time would fail me; that is,’it would be a work of that length, as would not be contained within the bounds which I have assigned unto this epistle;’— a usual proverbial speech on the like occasions: “Ante diem clauso componet vesper Olympo.”3. By a refusal of treating distinctly and separately of the persons he names, — “The time would fail me treating of them;’that is, ‘if I should so declare their faith and the fruits of it in particular as I have done those beforegoing,’— he doth so name them as to bring them in as witnesses in this cause. As unto the persons whose example he produceth in general, we must inquire into two things: 1. How it doth appear that they did the things in and by faith which are ascribed unto them. 2. How their faith and its efficacy can be an encouragement unto us, who are not called unto any such works and actions as they were engaged in 1. In answer unto the first inquiry, the things ensuing are to be considered: — (1.) They all, or most of them, had especial calls from God for and unto the works which they wrought. So had Gideon by an angel, Judges 6. Barak by the prophecy of Deborah, Judges 4; Samson by the direction of an angel unto his parents, Judges 13. So was it also, as is known, with Samuel and David; they had their calls immediately from God. And as for Jephthah, he was at first called and chosen by the people unto his office and work, Judges 11:11; which God approved of, in giving him his Spirit in an extraordinary manner, verse 29. Herein lay the foundation of their acting what they did in faith: They were satisfied in their call from God, and so trusted in him for his aid and assistance.(2.) The work which they had to do was the work of God, namely, the deliverance of the church from trouble and oppression. This in general was the work of them all; for here is respect had unto all the principal deliverances of the people recorded in the Book of Judges. This work, therefore, they might with confidence, and they did, commit to God by prayer. And herein their faith wrought effectually. Yea, as unto themselves, it is with especial regard hereunto that they are said to do any thing by faith, namely, because by the prayer of faith they prevailed in what they undertook. (3.) There was a promise annexed unto their works, when undertaken according to the mind of God; yea, many promises unto this purpose were left on record for their encouragement, Deuteronomy 32:30, etc. This promise they rested on by faith in all their undertakings. And thereon what they did effect is rightly ascribed thereunto.(4.) Some of them, as Gideon, Barak, and David, had particular promises of success in what they were called unto. And although at first they might be slow in the believing of them, as Gideon was, who insisted on multiplied miraculous signs for the confirmation of his faith; or might be shaken in their minds as unto their accomplishment, through the dangers and difficulties which they had to conflict withal, as David was, when he said that “all men were liars,” and that he should “one day fall by the hand of Saul;” yet in the issue their faith was victorious, and they “obtained the promises,” as it is in the next verse. On these grounds they wrought all their great works in faith, whereby they engaged the presence of God with them and his assistance of them; and are therefore a meet example to be proposed for our encouragement. 2. But whereas the things which they performed, for the most part, were heroic actions of valor, courage, and strength, in war and battle, such as Christians, as Christians, are not called unto, what can we gather, from what they were and did, as unto those things and duties which our faith is called unto, that are quite of another nature? But there are sundry things in their example that tend unto our encouragement; as, —(1.) Whatever their faith was exercised in, yet they were men subject to like passions and infirmities with ourselves. This consideration the apostle James makes use of to stir us up unto prayer, by the example of Elias, whose prayers had a miraculous effect, Hebrews 11:16-18. Having assured us that “effectual fervent prayer availeth much,” he confirms it with the example of the prayer of Elias, who by his prayer shut and opened heaven as to rain. And whereas it might be objected, that we are neither like Elias, nor are our prayers like his, he prevents it, by affirming that “he was a man subject unto like passions as we are.” It was not on the account of his person, or the merit of the works which he performed, that his prayer had such success, but of the grace of God in blessing his own institution. And if we apply ourselves unto the same duty, as unto the things that we are called unto, we shall have the same success by the same grace that he had. And so is it with respect unto the faith of these worthies. Its success depended on God’s ordinance and grace; for they were men subject to the like passions as we are. (2.) The faith whereby they wrought these great things, was the same, of the same nature and kind, with that which is in every true believer. Wherefore, as it was effectual in them as unto those things and duties whereunto they were called, it will be so in us also, as unto all that we are or may be called unto.(3.) Whereas their faith was exercised in conflicting with and conquering the enemies of the church, we also are engaged in a warfare wherein we have no less powerful adversaries to contend ‘withal than they had, though of another kind. To destroy the kingdom of Satan in us, to demolish all his strongholds, to overcome the world in all its attempts on our eternal safety, will appear one day not to be inferior unto the conquest of kingdoms, and the overthrow of armies. See Ephesians 6:10-12, etc. (4.) Most of the persons mentioned did themselves fall into such sins and miscarriages, as to manifest that they stood in need of pardoning grace and mercy as well as we; and that therefore our faith may be effectual, on the account thereof, as well as theirs. Gideon’s making of the ephod out of the spoils of the Midianites cannot be excused, and is condemned by the Holy Ghost, Judges 8:27. Jephthah’s rash vow, and, as is supposed, more rash accomplishment of it, enrolls him among sinners, Judges 11. Samson’s taking a wife of the Philistines, then keeping company with a harlot, were sins of a high provocation; not to mention the killing of himself at the close of all, for which he seems to have had a divine warranty. And it is known what great sins David himself fell into. And we may learn hence, —Obs. 2. That it is not the dignity of the person that gives efficacy unto faith, but it is faith that makes the person accepted.Obs. 3. That neither the guilt of sin nor the sense of it should hinder us from acting faith on God in Christ, when we are called thereunto.Obs. 4. That true faith will save great sinners. For that they were all saved who are on this catalogue of believers, the apostle expressly affirms, verse 30.That which we are taught in the whole is, that — Obs. 5. There is nothing so great or difficult, or seemingly insuperable, no discouragement so great from a sense of our own unworthiness by sin, nor opposition arising against us from both of them in conjunction, that should hinder us from believing, and the exercise of faith in all things, when we are called thereunto. — The truth is, the first call of men to believe, is when they are under the greatest sense of sin; and some of them, it may be, of sins great and heinous, — as it was with them who were accessory to the murder of Christ himself, Acts 2 : and our call is, to believe things more great and excellent than the conquest of earthly kingdoms. From the enumeration of the persons that believed, the apostle proceeds to declare the things which they wrought by faith; all unto the same end, — to encourage us to make use of the same grace in all our occasions. And four instances he giveth in this verse. Hebrews 11:33. — ΟἵδιὰπίστεωςκατηγωνίσαντοΒασιλείας, εἰργάσαντοδικαιοσύνην, ἐπέτυχονἐπαγγελιῶν, ἔφραξανστόματαλεόντων.Διὰπίστεως, “through faith:” the same with πίστει all along in the chapter absolutely, an instrumental cause. The words are of common use, and there is no difference in the translation of them.Hebrews 11:33. — Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.The persons unto whom these things are ascribed are included in the article οἵ and it refers not only unto those named, but unto others also whose faith in these things is recorded in the Scripture. For adding, in the close of his enumeration of names, “and the prophets,” he intimates that he intends them all. 1. The first thing ascribed unto them is, that they “subdued kingdoms.” ᾿Αγωνίζομαι, is to “fight,” to “contend,” to enter into trial of strength and courage in the theater or field; and thence αταγωνίζομαι, the word here used, is to “prevail in battle,” to conquer, to subdue.“They subdued kingdoms.” This is generally and rightly assigned unto Joshua and David. Joshua subdued all the kingdoms in Canaan; and David all those about it, as Moab, Ammon, Edom, Syria, and the Philistines. But it may be inquired, how this conquering of kingdoms should be esteemed a fruit and effect of faith; for the most of them who have subdued kingdoms in the world, have not only been unbelievers, but for the most part wicked and bloody tyrants. Such have they all been by whom the great monarchies of the world have been raised out of the ruins of other lesser kingdoms. I say, therefore, that the kingdoms subdued by faith were of two sorts: (1.) Those within the land of Canaan, which were destroyed by Joshua. And these had all, by their sins and wickedness, forfeited their land and lives unto divine justice, God having given the country unto the Israelites. Wherefore, in the conquest of them, they did only execute the judgments of God, and take possession of that which was their own. (2.) Such as were about that land, which was the inheritance and possession of the church, and were enemies unto it upon the account of the worship of the true God. Such were those conquered by David. Now, it was the will of God that they should be so far subdued, as that the land might be a quiet habitation unto his people. Wherefore “through faith” they subdued these kingdoms; in that they did it, (1.) On God’s command. It was the will and command of God that they should so subdue them.(2.) In the accomplishment of his promises; for he had given them all those kingdoms by promise before they were subdued. A due respect unto this command and promise made what they did a fruit of faith.(3.) The persons destroyed by them were devoted to destruction for their own sins; the people did only execute the righteous judgment of God upon them, so as what they did was for the good of the church. So it was on just causes.(4.) This subduing of kingdoms was an act of faith, in that it was typical of the victory of Christ over the kingdom of the devil and all the powers of darkness, in the redemption of the church. Hence both Joshua and David were especial types of him.We may yet further observe, that although it was through faith that they subdued kingdoms, yet in the doing of it they made use of all heroical virtues, such as courage, valor, military skill, and the like. Never, doubtless, were there on the earth more valiant men than Joshua and David were, nor who underwent greater hardship and danger in war For these things are consistent, yea, mutually helpful unto one another. For as faith will excite all graces and virtues that are useful in and unto any work that men are called unto, as these were unto war and the subduing of kingdoms; so they are subservient unto faith in what it is called unto. Hence God took order in the law, that those who were fearful and faint-hearted should be discharged from engaging in this work of subduing kingdoms. Now, although we are not called unto this work, yet we may hence conclude, that if there be any kingdoms on the earth that stand in the way of faith and the accomplishment of divine promises, faith will yet have the same effect, and at one time or another, by one means or another, subdue them all. 2. The second thing ascribed unto these worthies is, that through faith they “wrought righteousness.” There is a threefold exposition of these words, with respect unto a threefold state of life and a threefold righteousness, namely, military, moral, and political.(1.) In the first way, to work righteousness is as much as to execute judgment, namely, the judgment of God on the enemies of the church. But the phrase of speech will scarcely bear this interpretation, nor is it anywhere used unto this purpose. But if this be the meaning of the word, it is fully declared, Psalms 149:6-9 : “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honor have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.” (2.) In a moral sense it compriseth a respect unto all the duties of the second table. And so ἐργάζεσθαιδικαιοσύνην is the same with ποιεῖνδικαιοσύνην, 1 John 3:7, to “do righteousness;” that is, “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world,” as Titus 2:12. And this also is a fruit of faith. Men may do actions that are good, righteous and just in themselves, as many did among the heathen; but universal righteousness, from right principles, and with right ends, is a fruit of faith alone. But whereas this is in its measure common unto all believers, it doth not seem to be that which in a peculiar manner is ascribed unto these worthies. (3.) To work righteousness in a political sense, is to be righteous in rule and government, to administer justice and judgment unto all that are under their rule. Now the persons mentioned expressly being all of them rulers or judges, and this righteousness being o£ such eminent use unto the church and to the world, it is likely to be that which is here ascribed unto them. An account hereof David gives in himself, Psalms 101 throughout; who is therefore here intended. As is Samuel also, whose working of righteousness in this kind is recorded, 1 Samuel 7:15-17. And a fruit of faith it is for rulers and judges thus to work righteousness, considering the manifold temptations they have unto partiality, by bribes and acceptation of persons; as also the opposition which they shall be sure to meet withal in many instances of their duty. And it is the want of faith that is the cause of all the injustice and oppression that are in the world. 3. It is said of them, that they “obtained promises.” Sundry expositors have taken pains to reconcile this with what is said Hebrews 11:39, as though “they obtained promises,” and “they received not the promise,” were contradictory. But they make a difficulty themselves where there is none; which when they have done, they cannot easily solve. For ἐπέτυχονἐπαγγελιῶν, “they obtained promises,” namely, the things which were peculiarly promised unto them in their occasions, may well consist with οὐκἐκομίσαντοτὴνἐπαγγελίαν, “they received not that” great “promise” of the coming of Christ in the flesh, namely, in the actual accomplishment of it, Wherefore the promises here intended, which by faith they obtained, were such as were made particularly unto themselves; — as unto Joshua, that he should conquer Canaan; unto Gideon, that he should defeat the Midianites; and unto David, that he should be king of all Israel. And they are said to “obtain” these promises, because of the difficulty that was in their accomplishment, yea, and sometimes a seeming impossibility. How often was the faith of Joshua tried in the conquest of Canaan! yet at length he “obtained the promise.” Gideon was put on a great improbability, when he was commanded with three hundred men to attempt and set upon an innumerable host; and yet he “obtained the promise,” in their destruction. And it is known how long and by what various ways the faith of David was tried and exercised, before the promise made to him was fulfilled. Obs. 1. There is nothing that can lie in the way of the accomplishment of any of God’s purposes, but it is conquerable by faith. — Or, whatever difficulties any one may have to conflict withal in the discharge of his duty, if he abide in faith, he shall in the issue obtain the promises; that is, the things promised which he doth believe. 4. It is ascribed unto them, that they “stopped the mouths of lions.” Stopping the mouths of lions, may intend the preventing them from destroying and devouring, by any means whatever. It is with their mouths that they devour, and he that hinders them from devouring may well be said to stop their mouths. In this sense it may be ascribed unto Samson, who, when a young lion roared against him in an approach to devour him, stopped his mouth by rending him to pieces, Judges 14:5-6. In like manner David stopped the mouth of a lion, when he slew him, 1 Samuel 17:34-35. But if the word be to be taken in its proper signification, to put a bridle or stop to the mouth of a lion, so as he shall neither hurt nor devour though he be kept alive and at liberty, then it is applied unto Daniel only; for so it is said of him expressly, when he was cast into the den of lions, that God had sent his angel and shut the lions’mouths, that they did not hurt him. He “stopped the months of lions,” Daniel 6:22. And he did it by faith; for although the ministry of angels was used therein, yet it was done “because he believed in his God,” verse 23. And, — Obs. 2. That faith that hath thus stopped the mouths of lions, can restrain, disappoint, and stop the rage of the most savage oppressors and persecutors of the church. ῎Εσβεσανδύναμινπυρὸς, ἔφυγονστόματαμαχαίρας, ἐνεδυναμώθησανἀπὸἀσθενείας, ἐγενη.θησανἰσχυροὶἐνπολέμῳ, παρεμβολὰςἔκλινανἀλλοτρίων·ἔλαβονγυναῖκεςἐξἀναστάσεωςτοὺςνεκροὺςαὐτῶν.Hebrews 11:34-35. — Quenched the violence [the power] of fire; escaped [fled from] the edge [edges] of the sword; out of weakness were made strong; waxed [were made] valiant [powerful, strong] in fight; turned to flight the armies of the aliens, [or, overthrew the tents or camps of the aliens.] Women received their dead [by a resurrection] raised to life again. Six more instances of the power of faith are added unto those foregoing; and these taken from things of all sorts, to let us know that there is nothing of any kind whatever, wherein we may be concerned, but that faith will be useful and helpful in it. 1. The first instance is, that they “quenched the violence of fire.” He doth not say they quenched the fire, which may be done by natural means; but they took off, abated, restrained the power of fire, as if the fire itself had been utterly quenched. This, therefore, belongs unto the three companions of Daniel, who were cast into “the burning fiery furnace,” Daniel 3:23. The fire continued still, and had its burning power in it, for it slew the men that cast them into the furnace; but by faith they “quenched” or restrained the power and violence of it towards themselves, so as that “not an hair of their head was singed,” Hebrews 11:27.And the faith of these men was considerable, in that it did not, consist in an assurance that they should be so miraculously delivered, but only in committing themselves unto the omnipotency and sovereignty of God in the discharge of their duty; as it is declared, Hebrews 11:16-18. A resolution to perform their duty, whatever was the event, committing the disposal of themselves unto the sovereignty of God, with a full persuasion of his power to do whatever he pleased, and that he would do whatever was for his own glory, was the faith whereby they “quenched the violence of fire.” And, — As this faith is imitable in us (for though a miracle ensued on it, yet was it not the faith of miracles), so it will never fail of those blessed effects which tend unto the glory of God and good of the church. 2. They “escaped the edge of the sword;” the edges of it, — swords with two edges. In the Greek it is, “the mouths of the sword;” from the Hebrew, τִּ ?ιηֶ ?ψֶ ?α: and a two-edged sword they call “a sword of mouths;” as in the Greek μάχαιραδίστομος, Hebrews 4:12. “They escaped:” Vulg. Lat., “effugaverunt,” by an escape, for “effugerunt.” The way of their escape from death, when in danger of it by the sword, is intimated, namely, by flight from the danger; wherein God was present with them for their deliverance and preservation. So was it frequently with David when he fled from the sword of Saul, which was at his throat several times, and he escaped by flight; wherein God was with him. So did Elijah, when he was threatened to be slain by Jezebel, 1 Kings 19:3.Now, this should seem rather to be the effect of fear than of faith; however, it had good success. But, — Obs. 1. It is the wisdom and duty of faith to apply itself unto all lawful ways and means of deliverance from danger. — Not to use means, when God affords them unto us, is not to trust in him, but to tempt him. Fear will be in all cases of danger, and yet faith may have the principal conduct of the soul. And a victory is sometimes obtained by flight.3. Some of them “out of weakness were made strong.” ᾿Ασθενεία is any kind of weakness or infirmity, moral or corporeal. In each of these senses it is used in the Scripture; — to be without or to want strength in any kind. Frequently it is applied to bodily distempers, Luke 13:11-12; John 5:5; John 11:4; Acts 28:9. And so it is here used. For the conjecture of Chrysostom and others of the Greek scholiasts, that respect is had herein unto the Jews in the Babylonish captivity, who were weakened therein, and afterwards restored unto strength and power, hath no probability in it. They are the words in Isaiah that the apostle doth almost express: “The writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when he had been sick, and was recovered of his sickness,” Isaiah 38:9. For this was through faith, as is evident in the story, and was in part miraculous. Obs. 2. We ought to exercise faith about temporal mercies; as they are ofttimes received by it, and given in on the account of it. In the miraculous cure of many diseases by our Savior himself, there was a concurrence of the faith of them that were healed: “Thy faith hath made thee whole.” 4. Some of them through faith “waxed,” were made “valiant,” strong “in fight,” or battle. As this may be applied unto many of them, as Joshua, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, so David affirms of himself, that “God taught his hands to war, so as that a bow of steel was broken by his arms;” and, that “he did gird him with strength unto battle,” Psalms 18:34; Psalms 18:39; — the same thing which is here affirmed.5. Of the same kind is that which followeth: they “turned to flight the armies of the aliens.” Erasmus renders these words, “incursiones averterunt exterorum,” — they “turned away the incursions of the aliens;” mistaking both the words, as many have observed. Παρεμβολαὶ are the “camps,” the fortified tents of an army: but the word is used for an army itself; as Genesis 32:7; 1 Samuel 4:16; — a host encamped, like that of the Midianites when Gideon went down unto it, Judges 7:10. And his overthrow of that host is here principally intended; for so it was signified in the dream, that the tents should be smitten and overturned, verse 13. But because the apostle useth the word in the plural number, it compriseth other enterprises of the like nature, as that of Barak, and of Jonathan against the Philistines, with the victories of Asa and Jehoshaphat; in all which there was an eminent exercise of faith, as the stories of them declare. And these “aliens” were those whom the Scripture calls ζָ ?ψιִ ?ν; that is, not only “foreigners,” but “strangers” from and “enemies” unto the church of God. And where this defense against foreign invasions is neglected, there can be no assured ground of security or deliverance, whatever the success may be.6. It is added, “Women received their dead raised to life again.” These women were the widow of Zarephath, whose son Elijah raised from death, 1 Kings 17:22-24; and the Shunammite, whose son was raised by Elisha, 2 Kings 4:36. And it is said of them, that they received their children from the dead; for in both places the prophets, having raised them from the dead, gave them into their mothers’arms; who received them with joy and thankfulness. Their faith is not expressed; but respect is rather had unto the faith of the prophets, who obtained this miraculous operation by faith. However, at least one of them, namely, the Shunammite, seems to have exercised much faith in the whole matter. And it is said, “they received their dead,” their children which had been dead, ἐξἀναστάσεως, “out of” or “by a resurrection.”These ten instances did the apostle choose out to give of the great things that had been done through faith, to assure the Hebrews, and us with them, that there is’nothing too hard or difficult for faith to effect, when it is set on work and applied according to the mind of God. He proceeds in the next place unto instances quite of another nature, and which were more immediately suited unto the condition of the Hebrews. For hearing of these great and glorious things, they might be apt to think that they were not so immediately concerned in them; for their condition was poor, persecuted, exposed to all evils, and death itself, for the profession of the gospel. Their interest, therefore, was to inquire, what help, what relief from faith, they might expect in that condition. What will faith do where men are to be oppressed, persecuted, and slain? Wherefore the apostle, applying himself directly unto their condition, with what they suffered and further feared on the account of their profession of the gospel, produceth a multitude of examples, as so many testimonies unto the power of faith in safeguarding and preserving the souls of believers, under the greatest sufferings that human nature can be exposed unto. And sundry things lie plain in this discourse of the apostle: — 1. That he would not hide from these believers what they might meet withal and undergo in and for their profession, lie lets them know that many of them who went before them in the same cause, underwent all manner of miseries on the account thereof. Therefore ought not they to think it “a strange thing” if they also should be called unto the like trials and sufferings. Our Lord Jesus Christ dealt openly and plainly in this matter; he hid nothing of what was likely to befall them whom he called to be his disciples, but professed directly that he would admit of them on no other terms to be his disciples, but that they denied themselves and took up the cross, or engaged to undergo all sorts of sufferings for his sake and the gospel’s. He deceiveth none with fair promises of things in this world; nor ought we to be surprised, nor ought we to complain, of any thing that may befall us in our following him; no, not of a “fiery trial,” 1 Peter 4:12; 1 Peter 5:9. So the apostle here, having given instances of the great and glorious things that have been done even in this world by faith, that those Hebrews might not expect that they should also be called to enjoy the like successes and victories, because they had the same spirit of faith with them who did so, he minds them of those who were called to exercise their faith in the greatest miseries that could be undergone. 2. That all the evils here enumerated did befall the persons intended on the account of their faith, and the profession thereof. He doth not present them with a company of miserable, distressed creatures, that fell into that state through their own default, or merely on the account of a common providence disposing their lot in this world into such a state of misery, as it is with many; but all the things mentioned they underwent merely and solely on the account of their faith in God, and the profession of true religion: so as that their case differed in nothing from that which they might be called unto. And from both these we may learn, — Obs. 1. That it belongs unto the sovereign pleasure of God, to dispose of the outward state and condition of the church as unto its seasons of prosperity and persecution. As also, —Obs. 2. That those whose lot falleth in the times of greatest distress or sufferings are no less accepted with him than those who enjoy the highest terrene felicity and success. 3. There is as much glory, unto a spiritual eye, in the catalogue of the effects of faith that follows, as in that which went before. The church is no less beautiful and glorious when encompassed and seemingly overwhelmed with all the evils and dreadful miseries here recounted, than when it is in the greatest peace and prosperity. To look, indeed, only on the outside of them, gives a terrible, undesirable prospect. But to see faith and love to God working effectually under them all, to see comforts retained, yea consolations to abound, holiness promoted, God glorified, the world condemned, the souls of men profited, and at length triumphant over all; — this is beautiful and glorious. 4. That to do the greatest things, and to suffer the hardest, is all one to faith. It is equally ready for both, as God shall call; and equally effectual in both. These things, unto the flesh, differ next to heaven and hell: they are both alike to faith, when duty calls.5. That the evils here enumerated are of such various sorts and kinds, as to comprise every thing that may befall believers on the account of their profession: — temptation, scorn, mockings, scourgings, bonds, imprisonments, troubles of poverty, fears, and dangers; and those of long continuance, with death itself by all sorts of tortures and extremities. It is impossible that any believer can be called to suffer any thing, in any kind whatever, for the profession of the gospel, but that he may find an instance of it in the sufferings of these martyrs. And it is an encouragement in the greatest distresses, to remember that others in the same cause have undergone them, and been carried victoriously through them. There is good use to be made of the records of the sufferings of the primitive Christians under their pagan oppressors, and of believers of late ages under the power of antichrist. 6. It may be observed, that as the apostle obliged not himself unto the order of time in naming the foregoing witnesses, so here he useth his own liberty in representing these sufferings of the church, without respect unto any method of coherence between the things themselves, or order of time as to the seasons wherein they fell out. Hence, in the midst of his account of the various sorts of death which they underwent, he interposeth that they were “tempted:” Hebrews 11:37, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword.” This hath given occasion to many to question whether the word “tempted” do indeed belong unto the text, or whether it is not a mistake in the copies, for a word of almost an alike sound, but quite of another signification, namely, they were “burned; — but without cause; for it is evident that the apostle obligeth himself unto no such order as that things of the same nature should be placed together, without the interposition of any thing else. And we shall see there was occasion to interpose that expression, “They were tempted,” in the place where it is put by the apostle.7. It may also be observed, that the apostle takes most of these instances, if not all of them, from the time of the persecution of the church under Antiochus, the king of Syria, in the days of the Maccabees. And we may consider, concerning this season,(1.) That it was after the closing of the canon of the Scripture, or putting of the last hand unto writings by divine inspiration under the old testament. Wherefore, though the apostle represented these things from the notoriety of fact, then fresh in memory, and, it may be, from some books then written of those things, like the books of the Maccabees, yet remaining; yet as they are delivered out unto the church by him, they proceeded from divine inspiration. (2.) That in those days wherein these things fell out there was no extraordinary prophet in the church. Prophecy, as the Jews confess, ceased under the second temple. And this makes it evident that the rule of the word, and the ordinary ministry of the church, are sufficient to maintain believers in their duty against all oppositions whatever. (3.) That this last persecution of the church under the old testament, by Antiochus, was typical of the last persecution of the Christian church under Antichrist, as is evident unto all that compare the prophecy of Daniel, Daniel 8:9-14; Daniel 8:23-25; Daniel 11:36-39, with that of the Revelation in sundry places. And indeed the Martyrologies of those who have suffered under the Roman Antichrist are a better exposition of this context than any that can be given in words. Hebrews 11:35. — ῎Αλλοιδὲἐτυγπανι.σθησαν, οὐπροσδεξάμενοιτὴνἀπολύτρωσινἵνακρείττονοςἀναστάσεωςτύχωσιν.᾿Ετυμπανίσθησαν. Syr., αְּ ?ωֶׁ ?πְ ?γֵ ?ΰξִ ?ιϊεּ, “they died with torments.” Vulg. Lat., “districti sunt;” Rhem., “were racked,” stretched out; — respecting that kind of torture wherein they were stretched on a wheel, as a skin is on the head of a drum. So Beza and Erasmus. We use a more general word, “were tortured.”Οὐπροσδεξάμενοιτὴνἀπολύτρωσιν. Syr., εְ ?μָ ?ΰρַ ?λִ ?ιεμְ ?ξֶ ?ϊְ ?τָ ?φָ ?ιεּ. Trem., “neque intenti expectarunt ut liberentur.” Others render it by “non speraverunt.” “They looked not earnestly after deliverance,” “they hoped not for it;” that is, they regarded it not. Vulg.,” non suseipientes redemptionem.” “Not accepting redemption;” that is, deliverance: “liberationem.”῞Ινακρείττονοςἀναστάσεωςτύχωσιν. Syr., γָּ ?χְ ?ιָ ?ξְ ?ϊָ ?ΰξְ ?ιַ ?ϊַ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?ΰϊֶּ ?δְ ?εֵ ?ΰμְ ?δεּ ?ο“that there might he to them a more excellent resurrection.” Vulg., “ut meliorem invenirent resurrectionem.” Rhem., “that they might find a better resurrection.” “Invenio” is ofttimes used for “to attain,” or “obtain.” Others, “ut consequerentur,” “naneiscerentur,” “that they might obtain.”Hebrews 11:35. — Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection.The apostle passeth unto the second sort of them in whom faith exerted its power and efficacy in their sufferings. These he saith were “others;” persons of another sort, that were called unto other duties than those before mentioned. And this distinction is further signified by the particle δέ, “but;” — ‘others there were.’Three things he mentions of them in this first instance: 1. What they suffered. 2. How they acted faith in their sufferings. 3. On what grounds they did it.1. For the first, he affirms that they were “tortured.” The word here used, ἐτυμπανίσθησαν, hath been by critics and others so coursed through all sorts of authors, that there needs no further search after it. The substance of their discoveries is, that τύμπανον, “tympanum,” whence the word is framed, doth signify either an engine whereon those who were tortured were stretched out, as a skin is stretched on the head of a drum; or the instruments which were used in the striking and beating them who were fastened unto that engine, like those who have their bones broken on a wheel. So some render the word by “fustibus multati, contusi, caesi.” But whereas the word is frequently used to signify “taking away the lives of men by any kind of torture or tormenting pain,” the precise notation of it from its original is not here much to be regarded. We have therefore rendered it, and that properly in general, “were tortured;” that is, unto death.There is no doubt but the apostle hath respect herein unto the story that is recorded in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Second Book of the Maccabees. For the words are a summary of the things and sayings there ascribed unto Eleazar, who was beaten to death, when he had been persuaded and allured to accept deliverance by transgressing the law. And the like respect may be had unto the mother and her seven sons, whose story and torments are there also recorded. And this is the height of what the old murderer could rise and attain unto. He began with a sudden death, by violence and blood. But when he had got advantages, he was not contented therewith. He would have the servants of the living God to die by all sorts of tortures. This was his hell, a hell of his making. But he could never put the displeasure of God into it, nor make it of any continuance. Divine wrath, and perpetuity under it, are his own portion. But that which is most marvelous herein is, that he should get amongst men such as should execute his infernal rage and malice. There was never any greater instance of the degeneracy of human nature unto the image and likeness of the devil than this, that so many of them have been found, and that in high places of power; emperors, kings, judges, and priests, who were not satisfied to take away the lives of the true worshippers of God by the sword, or by such other ways as they slew the worst of malefactors, but invented all kinds of hellish tortures whereby to destroy them. For although the crafts of Satan were open and evident herein, who designed by these ways to get time and advantage for his temptations to draw them off from the profession of the faith, which he could not have had in a speedy execution, yet is it astonishable that the nature of man should be capable of so much villany and inhumanity. But this also hath God seen good to permit, in that patience whereby he endures with much long-suffering “the vessels of wrath, that are fitted for destruction.” And he doth it for many blessed ends of his own glory and the eternal salvation of his church, not here to be insisted on. “They were tortured.” This is the utmost that the devil and the world can reach unto, all the hell he hath to threaten his enemies withal. But when he hath done his utmost it falls only on the body, — it cannot reach the soul; it is but of a short continuance, and gives assurance of an entrance into a blessed eternity. It can shut out no divine consolation from the minds of them that suffer; a little “precious faith” will carry believers victoriously through the worst of all. The work of faith with respect unto these tortures, which are the utmost trials of it, may be reduced unto these heads: (1.) A steady view of that promised eternal glory which they are on an entrance into, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18.(2.) A due comparing of present sufferings with the eternal miseries of the damned in hell, Matthew 10:28.(3.) .4 firm persuasion that these things shall make no separation between God and them, Romans 8:35-39.(4.) A derivation of present help, strength, and consolation from God, by mixing itself with his promises.(5.) By a due consideration of the presence of Christ With us, and his concernment in our sufferings. And sundry other ways there are of the like nature whereby faith acts itself, and is victorious under tortures; that none of us may tremble at the thought of Smithfield flames.2. The way whereby those who were tortured did evidence their faith, was, that they “accepted no deliverance;” that is, freedom from their tortures, which was offered them in case they would forego their profession. This is expressly affirmed of Eleazar and the seven brethren. Yea, they were not only offered to be freed from tortures and death, but to have great rewards and promotions: which they generously refused. And it was not thus only with them, but it hath been so always with all that have been tortured for religion. For the principal design of the devil in bringing them unto tortures, is not to slay their bodies thereby; though that he aims at in the next place, in case his first design fail, which is to destroy their souls. And therefore we find in all ages, especially in the primitive times of Christianity, that when the cruel persecutors brought any unto tortures, after they began with them they still gave them a space and respite, wherein they dealt with them by fair means and entreaties, as well as threatening further torments, to renounce their profession. And with some they prevailed; but those who were steadfast in the faith refused to accept of deliverance on such terms. The story of Blandina, a virgin and a servant, in the excellent Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, about their persecution, is worth the perusal of all good Christians. Now, that which those persons intended suffered these tortures for, and from which they would not accept of deliverance, was only because they would not eat swine’s flesh. And unto Eleazar it was offered, that he should “bring flesh of his own providing” unto the place where he was to eat, and only make an appearance that he had eaten swine’s flesh; which he refused, 2Ma 6:21. It may be this would by some be esteemed a small matter, and such as by the refusal whereof wise men ought not to have undergone martyrdom by tortures. But the things which are commanded or forbidden of God are not to be esteemed by the matter of them, or what they are-in themselves, but by the authority of him that commands or forbids them. And this is the same in the least as well as in the greatest things in religion. The authority of God may be despised in small things as well as in great. And therefore God doth ordinarily choose out arbitrary institutions to be the trial and touchstone of the faith of the church. So the martyrs here in England died on the account of the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. And if we begin at any time to suppose, that, to save our lives, we may comply with some lesser things (such as bowing in the house of Rimmon) that God hath forbidden, both faith and profession are lost. We know not what command, what ordinance, what institution, what prohibition, God will single out to be the means and subject of our trial as unto sufferings. If we are not equally ready to suffer for every one, we shall suffer for none at all. See James 2:10.3. The ground of their steadfastness in their profession and under their tortures, was, “That they might obtain a better resurrection.” So one of the brethren in the Maccabees, chapter 7:9, affirmed expressly that he endured those torments, and death itself, in that he believed that God would raise him up at the last day. This, as the Syriac hath it, they were “intent upon.”And this the apostle calls “a better resurrection,” not only in opposition unto the deliverance which they refused, a resurrection that was better than that deliverance, but because he intends that better resurrection which is to life, seeing all shall rise again, but some to life, and some to everlasting torments. Now, this faith of the resurrection of the dead is the topstone of the whole structure, system, and building in religion; that which states eternal rewards and punishments, and gives life unto our obedience and suffering. For without it, as the apostle testifies, “we are of all men the most miserable.” This, therefore, is that which their minds were fixed on under all their tortures, and wherewith they supported themselves, namely, that after all this they should have a blessed resurrection. See Philippians 3:10-11.Schlichtingius on this place acknowledgeth, that believers under the old testament had hopes of a blessed resurrection, but not by virtue of any promise of God, only they gathered it up out of some considerations of his goodness, and of his being a rewarder of them that seek him; — a vain, foolish opinion, striking at the very foundation of all religion, laying the ground of faith in the conjectures of men, and not on the veracity and faithfulness of God. But, — Obs. Sufferings will stir us up unto the exercise of faith on the most difficult objects of it, and bring in the comforts of them into our souls. — Faith of the resurrection hath been always most eminent in prisons and under tortures, Hebrews 11:36. — In the next place we have the example of them who suffered also, but not by tortures, nor unto death, yet in such ways as were a great trial of their faith. Hebrews 11:36. — ῞Ετεροιδὲἐμπαιγμῶνκαὶμαστίγωνπεῖρανἔλαβον, ἕτιδὲδεσμῶνκαὶφυλακῆς. The Syriac makes here two distinct sorts, repeating ΰηֲ ?ψָ ?πֵ ?ΰ, “alii,” “others,” after πεῖρανἔλαβον: as in the next verse it repeats the same word four times, which is not once in the original. Πεῖρανἔλαβον it renders by ςμεּ, “they exposed themselves to mocking and stripes.” Hebrews 11:36. — Others had trial of [had experience of, or were tried by,] [cruel] mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment.1. Those spoken of are said to be ἕτεροι, not merely ἄλλοι; not only “others,” but “of another sort,” namely, such as suffered through faith, but not by tortures, nor unto death. And the exceptive particle δέ intimates the introduction of another kind of sufferings.2. It is of no use to fix the particulars mentioned unto certain determinate persons, as Jeremiah or others; for seeing the apostle hath left that undetermined, so may we do also. Certain it is, that there were in those days believers who, through faith, patiently and victoriously underwent these things.There are four things mentioned distinctly under this head: 1. “Mockings.”2. “Scourgings.”3. “Bonds.”4. The “prison,” or “imprisonment.”And they contain all the outward ways of the sufferings of the church, when God restrains the rage of the world, so as that it shall not rise to blood and death. So it often falls out. It is the utter destruction of the church that Satan and the world do always aim at; but ofttimes there are such bounds set unto their rage, by the division of their own counsels, by their supposed interests, by the more gentle inclinations of some Gamaliels among them, or for want of a pretense to execute the utmost of bloody cruelty, that they take up in mockings, stripes, imprisonments, spoiling of goods, and the like. Of these things it is said they “had trial.” “Experti sunt,” they had experience of them, they really underwent them; and so, by consequent, their faith was tried with them. And the first thing mentioned is, as we render it, “cruel mockings.” ᾿Εμπαίβομαι is the word constantly used for the mockings that were cast on our Lord Jesus Christ himself, Matthew 20:19; Matthew 27:29; Matthew 27:31; Matthew 27:41; Mark 10:35, Luke 14:29; Luke 18:32; Luke 22:63; Luke 23:11; Luke 23:36. Neither is the verb in either voice, active or passive, used in the New Testament, but only as applied to Christ. And it is joined with μαστιγόω, to “scourge,” as it is here with “stripes.” ᾿᾿Εμπαιγμός, nowhere used but here, is “ludibrium,” a “mocking with reproach and contumely or scorn.” Hence we have rendered it “cruel mockings.” They reproached them with their God, with their religion, with folly, with feigned crimes. Such mockings are recorded in all the stories of the persecutions and sufferings of the church. The world is never more witty, nor doth more please itself, than when it can invent reproachful names, terms, and crimes, to cast upon suffering believers. And whereas the word is derived from παίζω, (as that is from παῖς,) “to play and mock childishly,” it may respect the calumnious reproaches that ofttimes in the streets are cast on suffering professors, by the rude, foolish multitude, like the children that ran after Elisha, mocking and scoffing at him.And this is reckoned among severe sufferings, there being nothing more harsh to ingenuous minds, nor any thing almost which they had not as willingly undergo. Nor is there any thing that their adversaries inflict on them with more self-pleasing and exultation of mind. Mockings are persecutors’triumphs. But these also faith will conflict withal and conquer: it hath done so in all ages. And it is a fruit of faith which we ought to aim at, namely to keep our spirits composed, unto a contempt of shame under the most severe and scornful mockings. Unto these sometimes “stripes” are added; — a servile punishment, used towards vagabonds and the vilest of men. Of the last two ways of trial, namely, “bonds and imprisonment,” we have had so full an exposition in the days wherein we live, that they need no further explication. And, — Obs. There may be sufferings sufficient for the trial of the faith of the church, when the world is restrained from blood and death. — But how long at present it will be so, God only knows.Hebrews 11:37. — ᾿Ελιθάσθησαν, ἐπρίσθησαν, ἐπειράΣθησαν, ἐνφόνῳμαχαίραςἀπέθανον·περιῆλθονἐνμηλωταῖς, ἐναἰγείοιςδέρμασιν·ὑστερούμενοι, θλιβόμενοι, κακουχούμενοι.᾿Επρίσθησαν, “dissecti,” “secti sunt,” “they were cut asunder;” “serrati sunt,” “they were sawn asunder,” — cut asunder with a saw; which is usually referred to Isaiah, but without any ground from the Scripture: a punishment and torment used in the east, 2 Samuel 12:31; Amos 1:3.᾿Επειράσθησαν. This word is omitted by the Syriac; nor doth Chrysostom take any notice of it. The Vulg. Lat. retains it; and it is in all approved Greek copies. But because it contains a sense which seems not to be suited unto the place it holds in the text, critics have made bold to multiply conjectures about it. Some say it is the word beforegoing, first written a second time upon a mistake, and afterwards changed, by the addition of a letter or two, to give it a distinct signification; some say it should be ἐπυράθησαν, and others ἐπυρώθησαν, — “ they were burned with the fire;” and every one doth well confute the conjectures of others. We shall retain the word in its proper place and signification.᾿Ενφόνῳ. Syr., αְּ ?τεּ ?ξָ ?ΰ, “in the mouth” or “edge of the sword.” Vulg. Lat., “in occisione gladii,” “caede gladii occubuerunt;” “they fell” or “died by slaughter of the sword.”Περιῆλθον. Vulg., “circuiverunt,” “they went about.” Syr., “they wandered.” Beza, “oberraverunt.”᾿Ενμηλωταῖς. The Syriac interposeth μְ ?αִ ?ιωִׁ ?ιο, “induti,” “amicti,” “clothed;” which is necessary unto the sense. Vulg. Lat., “in melotis.” All suppose that translator understood not the sense of the Greek word, and so retained it. And Erasmus makes himself very merry in reflecting on Thomas, who gives some wild interpretations of it. Μῆλον is “a sheep.” “In sheep-skins.” ᾿Εναἰγείοιςδέρμασιν. The Syriac transposeth this word, and prefixeth it unto the other, “in the skins of sheep and goats;” without necessity, for μηλωτή is “a sheep-skin.” ῾Υστερούμενοι. Vulg., “egentes; Syr., ερְ ?πִ ?ιχִ ?ιο; properly, “destitute,” “deprived of all.” “wanting,” “poor;” Θλιβόμενοι. Vulg. Lat., “angustati,” “straitened.” Syr., ΰֲ ?μִ ?ιφִ ?ιο, “oppressed.” “Pressi,” “afflicti;” “pressed,” “afflicted.”Κακουχούμενοι. Vulg. Lat., “afflicti.” Syr., ξְ ?θַ ?ιְ ?τִ ?ιο, “conquassati,” “conturbati;” “shaken,” “troubled.” “Male habiti,” “male vexati.” “Tormented,” say we, as I suppose not properly. “Evilly-entreated,” vexed with evils.Hebrews 11:37. — They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword, [died by slaughter of the sword:] they wandered about in sheepskins and goat-skins, being [15] destitute, afflicted, tormented, [evilly-entreated.] [15] VARIOUS READING. — ᾿Επειράσθησαν: unable to account for this word in an enumeration of physical sufferings, critics have proposed other readings. Wakefield suggests ἐπειράθησαν, “transfixed with stakes;” and Juntas, Beza, and others, suggest ἐπυράσθησαν or ἐπυρώθησαν, “were burned.” — ED.Two sorts of persons and two sorts of sufferings are here represented unto us: 1. Such as fell under the utmost rage of the world, suffering by death itself. 2. Such as, to escape death, did expose themselves to all sorts of miseries to be undergone in this life.The same faith works equally, in them that die by violence, and them who, to escape death, expose themselves to other miseries, provided that the call unto the one or the other be of God. 1. Those of the first sort were killed three ways, or died three kinds of death; that is, some of them one way, and some of them another, as the Syriac translation distinguisheth them, by prefixing “some,” or “others,” to each sort: “Some were stoned, some were sawn asunder, some were slain with the sword.” Amongst these outward sufferings of the body, the apostle interposeth the inward sufferings of their minds, — “They were tempted;” or whether this denoteth a peculiar kind of suffering, we shall afterwards consider. (1.) The first way of their suffering death, was that they were “stoned.” This kind of death was peculiar unto the people of the Jews. And therefore it is not amiss applied unto Naboth, 1 Kings 21:13; and Zechariah, 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. This punishment was appointed by law for blasphemers, idolaters, false prophets, and the like profaners of the true religion only. But when the persecuting world grew unto the height of impiety, it was applied unto those that were the true professors of it. So was the blood of the first Christian martyr shed under pretense of that law, Acts 7:59. And indeed the devil is never more a devil, nor more outrageous, than when he gets a pretense of God’s weapons into his hands. Such hath been the name of “the church,” and the like profaners of the true religion only. But when the persecuting world grew unto the height of impiety, it was applied unto those that were the true professors of it. So was the blood of the first Christian martyr shed under pretence of that law, Acts 7:59. And indeed the devil is never more a devil, nor more(2.) They were “sawn asunder.” Some were so, although their names and the particular fact are not recorded. A savage kind of torture, evidencing the malice of the devil, with the brutish rage and madness of persecutors.(3.) It is added, they were “tempted.” This seems to be a trial of another kind than those wherewith it is joined; for it is mentioned among various sorts of violent deaths. But we are not to question the order or method of the apostle’s words. The expression may denote either a distinct kind of suffering, or what befell them under their other sufferings, with which it is joined. In the first way, it lets us know how great a trial there is in temptations in a suffering season, and what vigor of faith is required to conflict with them. They are the fiery darts with which Satan in such a season fights against the souls of believers; and whereby ofttimes he more prevails than by outward and bodily pains. And when a season of persecution approacheth, there is nothing we ought to be more prepared for and armed against. Or the word may denote the temptations wherewith they were tempted by their persecutors under their sufferings, and the threatenings of death unto them. For, as we declared before, in all such seasons the craft and malice of the devil and his instruments, ignorant of the hidden power of faith, endeavored to work upon human frailty, by persuading them to spare themselves, requiring but little of them for their deliverance, with promise of rewards if they would forego their profession. And that this proceeds from the subtilty of Satan, our Lord Jesus Christ declares, in that when his apostle Peter would have dissuaded him from suffering, he lets him know that it was not from himself, but from the suggestion of the devil, Matthew 16:22-23. This temptation, therefore, was the engine whereby he wrought in all those sufferings, — that which gave them all their power and efficacy towards his principal end, which was the destruction of their souls. For he will willingly spare the lives of many, to ruin the soul of one. Well, therefore, might this be reckoned among their trials, and in the conquest whereof their faith was eminent. And therefore it is an especial promise of our Lord Christ, that when persecution cometh, he will keep his from the hour and power of temptation, Revelation 3:10. This word, therefore, may keep its station in this place against all objections.(4.) The third instance of the ways whereby they suffered death, is, that they were “slain with the sword,” or “died by the slaughter of the sword.” The sword intended, is either that of injustice and oppression in form of law, or of violence and mere force. Sometimes they proceeded against those holy martyrs in form of law, and condemned them unto decollation, or the cutting off their heads by the sword; a way of punishment in use among the Grecians, and the Romans afterwards. And if this be intended, it refers probably unto the days of Antiochus, wherein many were so destroyed. Or it may intend the sword of violence, when persecutors in their rage have pursued, fallen upon, and destroyed multitudes by the sword, for their profession. So Jezebel slew the prophets of the Lord with the sword, 1 Kings 19:10. And in all times of the general prevalency of persecution, multitudes have been so destroyed. And the same course hath been continued under the new testament. Many have been “beheaded for the testimony of Jesus,” Revelation 20:4; as his forerunner John the Baptist was, Luke 9:9. And innumerable multitudes have been slain both under the pagan and antichristian tyranny with the sword.So have all sorts of death been consecrated to the glory of God in the sufferings of the church. Christ himself, God’s great martyr, the amen and faithful witness, was crucified; John the Baptist, his forerunner, was beheaded; Stephen, his first witness by death, was stoned. Nero first invented torments in the case of religion, which afterwards the devil and the World placed their greatest hopes of prevalency in. But, — Obs. 1. No instruments of cruelty, no inventions of the devil or the world, no terrible preparations of death, that is, no endeavors of the gates of hell, shall ever prevail against the faith of God’s elect. 2. The latter part of the verse gives us an account of others, who, though they escaped the rage of their adversaries, as unto death in all the ways of it, yet gave their testimony unto the truth, and through faith bare that share in suffering which God called them unto. And two things the apostle declares concerning them:(1.) What they did; and,(2.)What was their inward and outward estate in their so doing.(1.) As unto what they did, “they wandered about in sheep-skins and goat- skins.”[1. They “wandered about.” They went about from place to place, To “wander,” as we have rendered the word, is to go about from place to place without any fixed residence, or design of any certain, quiet habitation. So was it with them. They were driven from their own houses by law or violence. Cities, boroughs, corporations, were made unsafe for them, yea, and sometimes villages also, on one pretense or another. This cast them on this course of life, to wander up and down, sometimes fleeing from one city unto another, sometimes forced to forsake them all, and betake themselves unto the wilderness, as the apostle immediately declares. However, they had not any fixed, quiet habitation of their own. The best interpretation of this word and place is given us by the apostle in the instance of himself, 1 Corinthians 4:11 : ᾿Αστατοῦμεν, — ‘We “wander;” we have no abiding place, but move up and down, as men altogether uncertain where to fix.’And indeed the representation he makes of the state of the apostles in those days, 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, and 2 Corinthians 11:23-27, is a full and plain exposition of this place. And, — Obs. 2. It is no small degree of suffering, for men by law or violence to be driven from those places of their own habitation which the providence of God and all just right among men have allotted unto them. — A state whereof many in our days have had experience, who, being conscious unto themselves of no evil towards any sort of men, yet merely for the profession of the gospel and exercise of their ministry, have been driven from their own houses, driven from all places that might accommodate them with any refreshment, to wander up and down that they might find a place to lodge a night in peace. [2. But it may be said, that although they did thus go up and down, yet they traveled in good equipage, and had all manner of accommodations; which is not the worst kind of sojourning here in this world. But all things were otherwise with them. They thus wandered “in sheep-skins and goat- skins.” There is no more intended in these expressions, but that in their wandering their outward condition was poor, mean, and contemptible. For as he declares it fully in the next words, so he gives an instance of it in the garments’they wore, which were of the meanest and vilest sort that can be made use of, the unwrought skins of sheep and goats. Some, indeed, did voluntarily use these kinds of garments, as a testimony of their mortified condition. So did Elijah, who was said to be “an hairy man, girt with a girdle of leather;” not from the hair of his face or body, but from the kind of his garments, 2 Kings 1:8. So John the Baptist “had his raiment of camel’s hair,” while “his meat was locusts and wild honey,” Matthew 3:4. And therefore the false prophets that were among the people did many of them wear garments of hair, which we render “rough garments,” Zechariah 13:4; to beget an opinion of that mortification which they pretended unto. Nothing here is intimated of choice, but necessity. They were poor men, that wandered up and down in poor clothing.So have the saints of God in sundry seasons been reduced unto the utmost extremities of poverty and want which any man can be exposed unto. And there is a proclamation herein to all the world of these two things: 1st. That there is a satisfaction in faith and obedience to God; there are such internal consolations in that state as do outbalance all the outward evils that may be undergone for the profession of them. Without them the world may know, if they please, that those who do expose themselves unto these straits and difficulties for the preservation of their consciences entire unto God, do know as well as themselves how to value the good things of this life, which are needful to the refreshment of their natures. 2dly. That there is a future state, that there are eternal rewards and punishments, which will set all things aright, unto the glory of divine justice and the everlasting glory of them that have suffered. (2.) The apostle more particularly declares their state in those expressions, “destitute, afflicted, tormented,” or evilly-entreated. [1. He useth many words to express the variety of their sufferings in their wandering condition. Nothing was absent that might render it troublesome and afflictive. Wherefore, although, it may be, we may miss it in the especial intention of each word or expression, yet we cannot do so as unto the general intention, which is to declare all the properties and concomitants of a calamitous condition. And they are here so set forth, that no believer at any time may faint or despond on the account of any thing which may fall under the power of the world to inflict upon him. [2. In particular, they are said, — 1st. To be “destitute.” The Syriac and Vulgar render the word by “egentes,” or “indigentes,” “pauperes;” “poor,” “needy,” “wanting.” All good Latin interpreters render it by “destituti:” which word is by use more significant in our language than any to the same purpose; for which cause we have borrowed it of the Latin, as we have done other words innumerable, — “destitute.” ῾Ψστερέω and ὑστερέομαι are used in the New Testament sometimes in their proper signification, which is “to come behind,” and so to fall short, or to be cast behind, Romans 3:23, 1 Corinthians 1:7, 2 Corinthians 11:5; but most commonly “to want” or “lack” in any kind, “to be deprived” of what we stand in need of, Luke 15:14; Philippians 4:12. Being referred, as it is here, to a course of life, it is “to want,” “to be deprived” of necessary accommodations, — to be kept without friends, relations, habitation, and such other supplies of life as others do enjoy. So ὑστέρημα is “penuria,” “poverty,” a poor, wanting condition, Luke 21:4. That I judge which is most particularly intended in this word, is want of friends, and all means of relief from them or by them. And this, as some know, is a severe ingredient in suffering. But as our Lord Jesus Christ told his disciples, they should all forsake him and leave him alone, yet he was not alone, for the Father was with him, John 16:32; so is it with suffering believers: though they are outwardly destitute, left and forsaken of all means of comfort and relief, yet they are not utterly so; they are not alone, for Christ is with them.2dly. In this condition they were “afflicted.” The former word declares what was absent, what they had not, namely, outward supplies and comforts; this declares what they had, what was present with them, — they were straitened, or afflicted. The Vulgar renders the word by “angustiati,” “brought into straits: “ the Syriac by “pressi” or “oppressi;” “pressed,” “oppressed: “ we constantly render this word, in all its variations, by “affliction” and “afflicted.” But this is of a general signification, every thing that is grievous, evil, or troublesome. Here the word seems to have peculiar respect unto the great straits which they were brought into, by the great dangers that continually pressed on them. This state was very afflictive; that is, grievous, pressing, and troublesome unto their minds. For when we are called to suffer for the gospel, it is the will of God that we should be sensible of and affected with the evils we undergo, that the power of faith may be evident in the conquest of them. 3dly. It is added, that they were “tormented.” So we render the word; the Vulg. Lat. reads “afflicti;” which is the proper meaning of the foregoing word: the Syriac by “conquassati,” “conturbati;” “shaken,” greatly troubled: others properly “male habiti,” or “male vexati;” “evilly- entreated,” which is the signification of the word, and not “tormented,” as we have rendered it. In this wandering condition they met with very ill treatment in the world. All sorts of persons took occasion to vex and press them with all sorts of evils. And this is the constant entertainment that such wanderers meet withal in this world. Whatever is judged evil and vexatious unto them is on all occasions cast upon them. Reproaches, defamations, revilings, threatenings, contempt, are the things they continually meet withal. And, — Obs. 3. He will be deceived who at any time, under a sincere profession of the gospel, looks for any other, any better treatment or entertainment in the world. The apostle hath not yet finished his account of the sufferings of these worthies; yet he thought meet to interpose a character of their persons. For men in this course of life might be looked on, and were so by some, as the “offscouring of all things,” and unmeet either for human converse or any of the good things of this world, but rather to be esteemed as the beasts of the field. These thoughts the apostle obviates in another kind of testimony concerning them, and so proceeds unto the end of his account concerning their sufferings:— Hebrews 11:38. — ῟Ωνοὐκη῏νἄξιοςὁκόσμος·ἐνἐρημίαιςπλανώμενοι, καὶὄρεσι, καὶσπηλαίοις, καὶταῖςὀπαῖςτῆςγῆς.Hebrews 11:38. — Of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and eaves of the earth. There are two things in these words: 1. The character which the apostle gives of these sufferers; “The world was not worthy of them.”2. The remainder of their sufferings which he would represent; “They wandered in deserts,” etc.1. Their character is, that “the world was not worthy of them.” By “the world,” not the fabric of heaven and earth is intended. For in that sense God hath appointed this world for the habitation of his people; it is therefore meet for them and worthy of them, whilst their mortal life is continued. And therefore our blessed Savior affirms, that he did not pray that God would take them out of this world, but only that he would keep them from the evil that is in it, John 17:15. Nor by “the world” is merely intended mankind living in the world. For under that consideration they are meet for society, and may have good done unto them by the people of God, Micah 5:7. But by “the world” is understood the inhabitants of it, in their interests, designs, ends, and actings, their successes in them, and advantages by them, as they are opposite unto the true interest of the church and people of God. In this sense, “the world” hath a high opinion of itself, as possessed of all that is desirable, despising and hating them who are not in conjunction with it in these things: the world in its power, pride, pomp, enjoyments, and the like. Of this world it is said, that it was “not worthy” of those sufferers. It was not so in the ages and seasons wherein they lived; nor is so of them who suffer in any other age whatever. The world thinks them not worthy of it, or to live in it, to enjoy any name or place among the men of it. Here is a testimony given to the contrary, — that the world is not worthy of them. Nor can any thing be spoken to the greater provocation of it. To tell the great, the mighty, the wealthy, the rulers of the world, that they are not worthy of the society of such as in their days are poor, destitute, despised, wanderers, whom they hurt and persecute, as the “offscouring of all things,” is that which fills them with indignation. There is not an informer or apparitor but would think himself disparaged by it,. But they may esteem of it as they please; we know that this testimony is true, and the world one day shall confess it so to be. And we must see in what sense it is here affirmed. Chrysostom and the Greek expositors after him, suppose that a comparison is here made between the worth of the world and that of suffering believers; and that the apostle affirms that these sufferers, yea, any one of them, is more worth than the whole world. This may be true in some sense; but that truth is not the sense of this place. For the design of the apostle is to obviate an objection, that these persons were justly cast out, as not worthy the society of mankind; which he doth by a contrary assertion, that the world was not worthy of them. And it was not so in two respects: (1.) It was not worthy of their society, or to have converse with them; no more than slaves are worthy of or meet for the society of princes. For he speaks of the world as it is engaged in persecution; and so it is unworthy of the converse of persecuted saints.(2.) It is not worthy of those mercies and blessings which do accompany the presence of this sort of persons, where they have a quiet habitation. And, —Obs. 1. Let the world think as well, as highly, as proudly of itself as it pleaseth, it is, when it persecutes, base and unworthy of the society of true believers, and of the mercies wherewith it is accompanied. And, — Obs. 2. God’s esteem of his people is never the less for their outward sufferings and calamities, whatever the world judgeth of them. — They cannot think otherwise of them in their sufferings than they thought of Christ in his. They did “esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted,” Isaiah 53:4; as one rejected of God and man. Such is their judgment of all his suffering followers; nor will they entertain any other thought of them. But God is of another mind.2. Having given this character of these poor sufferers, he proceeds to issue his account of their sufferings, and that in a further description of that wandering course of life which he had before ascribed unto them. And first he asserts again, that they “wandered,” and then gives an account of the places wherein they wandered, and. where they disposed of themselves in their wanderings.That which he had before expressed by περιῆλθον, they “went up and down,” he ere doth by πλανώμενοι; that is, directly, they had an “erratical motion,” — wandered without any certain rule or end, as unto any place of rest. I showed before how they were driven from cities, boroughs, towns corporate, and villages also, partly by law, partly by force. What now remains for them to betake themselves unto but deserts, solitary and uninhabited places. But whereas the continuance of human life is not capable of perpetual actual wandering up and down, but must have some place of rest and composure, the apostle distributes the places of their wandering state under two heads, suited unto these two acts of motion and rest. Of the first sort were “deserts and mountains,” uninhabited wastes; and of the latter, were the “dens and caves” that were in them. By deserts and uninhabited mountains, all know what is intended; and they did abound in those parts of the earth wherein these things were acted. There is no need of any exact distinction of dens and caves, neither will the signification of the words afford it; though possibly one may signify greater, the other lesser subterraneous receptacles: but the common use of the first word seems to denote such hollow places under the ground as wild beasts have sheltered themselves in from the pursuit of men. This was the state of these servants of the living God: when they were driven from all inhabited places, they found no rest in deserts and mountains but wandered up and down, taking up dens and caves for their shelter. And instances of the same kind have been multiplied in the pagan and antichristian persecutions of the churches of the new testament. That no color is hence given unto a hermitical life by voluntary choice, much less unto the horrible abuse of its first invention in the Papacy, is openly evident. And we may learn, that, — Obs. 3. Ofttimes it is better, and more safe for the saints of God, to be in the wilderness among the beasts of the field, than in a savage world, inflamed by the devil into rage and persecution.Obs. 4. Though the world may prevail to drive the church into the wilderness, to the ruin of all public profession in their own apprehension, yet it shall be there preserved unto the appointed season of its deliverance; the world shall never have the victory over it. Obs. 5. It becomes us to be filled with thoughts of and affections unto spiritual things, to labor for an anticipation of glory, that we faint not in the consideration of the evils that may befall us on the account of the gospel. ΚαὶοὗτοιπάντεςΈμαρτυρηθέντεςδιὰτῆςπίστεως, οὐκἐκομίσαντοτὴνἐπαγγελίαν·τοῦΘεοῦπερὶἡμῶνκρεῖττόντιπροβλεψαμένου, ἵναμὴχωρὶςἡμῶντελειωθῶσι.Hebrews 11:39-40. — And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.There are, in this close of the apostle’s discourse, which is an observation concerning all the instances of the faith of believers under the old testament, and his judgment concerning their state, four things considerable: 1. Who they are of whom he speaks; and that is, “All these.”2. What he allows and ascribes unto them: “They obtained a good report through faith.”3. What he yet denies unto them; which is the receiving of the promise: “They received not the promise.”4. The reason of it; which is God’s sovereign disposal of the states, times, seasons, and privileges of the church: “God having provided,” etc.There is not any passage in this whole epistle that gives a clearer and more determinate sense of itself than this doth, if the design and phraseology of the apostle be attended unto with any diligence. But because some have made it their business to bring difficulties unto it, that it might seem to comply with other false notions of their own, they must in our passage be discarded and removed out of the way. 1. The persons spoken of are, “All these.” “That is,” saith Schlichtingius, “all these last spoken of, who underwent such hardships, and death itself. For they received not any such promises of deliverance as those did before mentioned, who had great success in their undertakings.” He is followed in his conjecture (as almost constantly) by Grotius: “Others,” saith he, “received promises, verse 33; but these did not, who could not abide peaceably in the promised land.” To which Hammond adds, “They did not in this life receive the promise made to Abraham, had no deliverance in this life from their persecution.” But, under favor, there cannot be a more fond interpretation of the words, nor more contrary unto the design of the apostle. For, (1.) Those of whom he speaks in this close of his discourse, that “they obtained a good report through faith,” are the same of whom he affirms in the beginning of it, verse 2, that “by faith they obtained a good report;” — that is, all those did so whom at the beginning he intended to enumerate; and all those did so whom in the close he had spoken of: of any distinction to be made between them, there is not the least intimation.(2.) It is said expressly of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that “they received not the promises,” verse 13, as well as of those now mentioned.(3.) It is one thing to “obtain promises,” ἐπαγγελίας, indefinitely, promises of any sort, as some are said to do, verse 33, and another to receive τὴνἐπαγγελίαν, that signal promise which was made unto the fathers.(4.) Nothing can be more alien from the design of the apostle, than to apply the promise intended unto temporal deliverance and freedom from suffering. For if it be so, God did not “provide some better thing for us,” that is, the Christian church, than for them; for the sufferings of Christians, without deliverance from their persecutions, have been a thousand times more than those of the Jewish church under Antiochus, which the apostle hath respect unto. Wherefore the “all these” intended, are all those who have been reckoned up and instanced in from the beginning of the world, or the giving out of the first promise concerning the Savior and Redeemer of the church, with the destruction of the works of the devil. 2. Of all these it is affirmed, that they “obtained a good report through faith.” They were “well testified unto.” They were God’s martyrs, and he was theirs, — he gave witness unto their faith. See the exposition of verse 2. That they were all of them so testified unto upon the account of their faith, we need no other testimony but this of the apostle; yet is there no doubt but that, in the several ages of the church wherein they lived, they were renowned for their faith and the fruits of it in what they did or suffered. And, — Obs. It is our duty also, not only to believe, that we may be justified before God, but so to evidence our faith by the fruits of it, as that we may obtain a good report, or be justified before men.3. That which he denies concerning them, is the receiving of the promise: “They received not the promise.” And what promise this was we must inquire.(1.) It is affirmed of Abraham, that “he received the promise,” verse 17. And that promise which was given, which was made unto him, is declared by the apostle to be the great fundamental promise of the gospel, Hebrews 6:13-18; the same promise which is the object of the faith of the church in all ages. Whereas, therefore, it is said here that “they received not the promise,” the promise formally considered, as a promise, must in the first place be intended; and in the latter it is considered materially, as unto the thing itself promised. The promise, as a faithful engagement of future good, they received; but the good thing itself was not in their days exhibited. (2.) Some say, the promise here intended is the promise of eternal life. Hereof, they say, believers under the old testament had no promise; none made unto them, none believed by them. So judgeth Schlichtingius; who is forsaken herein by Grotius and his follower. But this we have before rejected, and the folly of the imagination hath been sufficiently detected.(3.) Others, as these two mentioned, fix on such an account of the promise as I would not say I cannot understand, but that I am sure enough they did not understand themselves, nor what they intended; though they did so as to what they disallowed. So one of them explains, or rather involves himself, on verse 40, after he had referred this promise which they received not unto deliverance from their persecutors: “God having determined this as the most congruous time, in his wisdom, to give the utmost completion to all those prophecies and promises, to send the Messiah into the world, and, as a consequent of his resurrection from the dead, to grant us those privileges and advantages that the fathers had not enjoyed, — a rest after long persecution, a victory over all opposers of Christ’s church; that so what was promised unto Abraham’s seed, Genesis 22:17, that “they should possess the gates of their enemies,” being but imperfectly fulfilled to the fathers, might have the utmost completion in the victory and flourishing of the Christian faith over all the enemies thereof.” Besides what is insinuated about the effects of Christ’s mediation, or consequent of his resurrection, — which whose shop it comes from we well know, — the promise here intended is expounded not to be the promise made to Abraham, which it was, but that made to his seed, of victory over all their enemies in this world; which, as it seems, they received not, because it was not completely fulfilled towards them, but is to be so unto the Christian church in the conquest of all their adversaries. And this in the verse foregoing is called a deliverance from their persecutors. But whatever this promise be, the apostle is positive that they did not receive it, but that the Christians or believers in Christ in those days had received it. But we know, that not only then, but nearly three hundred years after, Christians were more exposed to persecutions than ever the church of the Jews was; and so did less receive that promise, if any such there were, than they. Something is indeed interposed about the coming of Christ, further to cloud the business; but this is referred only unto the time and season of the accomplishment of this promise, not unto the promise itself. Wherefore such paraphrases are suited only to lead the mind of the readers from a due consideration of the design of the Holy Ghost. (4.) It is therefore not only untrue and unsafe, but contrary unto the fundamental principles of our religion, the faith of Christians in all ages, and the design of the apostle in this whole epistle, to interpret this promise of any thing but that of the coming of Christ in the flesh, of his accomplishment of the work of our redemption, with the unspeakable privileges and advantages that the church received thereby. That this promise was made unto the elders from the beginning of the world; that it was not actually accomplished unto them, being necessarily confined unto one season, called “the fullness of time,” only they had by faith the benefit of it communicated unto them; and that herein lies the great difference of the two states of the church, that under the old testament, and that under the new, with the prerogative of the latter above the former; are such sacred truths, that without an acknowledgment of them, nothing of the Old Testament or the New can be rightly understood. This, then, was the state of believers under the old testament, as it is here represented unto us by the apostle: They had the promise of the exhibition of Christ, the Son of God, in the flesh, for the redemption of the church. This promise they received, saw afar off as to its actual accomplishment, were persuaded of the truth of it, and embraced it, verse 13. The actual accomplishment of it they desired, longed for, looked after and expected, Luke 10:24; inquiring diligently into the grace of God contained therein, 1 Peter 1:10-11. Hereby they enjoyed the benefits of it, even as we, Acts 15:11. Howbeit they received it not as unto its actual accomplishment in the coming of Christ. And the reason hereof the apostle gives in the next verse.Hebrews 11:40. — “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.”Having declared the victorious faith of believers under the old testament, with what it enabled them to do and suffer, and given an account of their state as unto the actual accomplishment of that promise which they lived on and trusted unto, in this last verse of this chapter he compares that state of theirs with that of believers under the gospel, giving the preeminence unto the latter, with the reason whence so it was. And there is in the words, — 1. The reason of the difference that was between the two states of the church; and this was God’s disposal of things in this order: “God having provided.”2. The difference itself, namely, “some better thing” that was so provided for us. 3. A declaration of that better thing, in a negation of it unto them: “That they without us should not be made perfect.”In the exposition of these words, Schlichtingius proceeds on sundry principles, some whereof are embraced by his followers, as others of them are rejected by them: 1. That the promise intended, verse 39, is the promise of eternal life.2. That under the old testament believers had no such promise, whatever hopes or conjectures they might have of it.3. That both they and we at death do cease to be, in soul and body, until the resurrection, none entering before into eternal life.4. He inquires hereon how God did provide some better thing for us than for them; which he pursues with such intricate curiosities as savor more of the wit of Crellius than his own.But the whole of it is senseless and foolish. For if when any one dies he is nothing, or as nothing, so as that unto him it is but as one moment between death and the resurrection, as he contends, the state of all as unto eternal life and an entrance thereinto is absolutely the same, nor is the one in any thing better than the other, although they should die thousands of years one before another. But as all these things are openly false, and contrary to the chief principles of Christian religion, so they are utterly remote from the mind of the apostle, as we shall see in the exposition of the words. Those of the church of Rome do hence fancy a limbus, a subterraneous receptacle of souls, wherein they say the spirits of believers under the old testament were detained until after the resurrection of Christ, so as that they without us were not made perfect. But that the saints departed from the beginning of the world were excluded from rest and refreshment in the presence of God, is false and contrary unto the Scripture. However, the apostle treats not here at all about the difference between one sort of men and another after death, but of that which was between them who lived under the old testament church-state whilst they lived, and those that live under and enjoy the privileges of the new; as is evident in the very reading of the epistle, especially of the seventh chapter, and is expressly declared by himself in the next chapter to this, verses 18-24, as, God willing, we shall see on the place. These open corruptions of the sense of the words being rejected, we may be the more brief in the exposition of them. 1. The first thing in them is the reason of the difference asserted. And that is, God’s providing things in this order. The word properly signifies “foreseeing.” But God’s prevision is his provision, as being always accompanied with his preordination: his foresight with his decree. For “known unto him are all his works from the foundation of the world,”Acts 15:18. Now this provision of God is the οἰκονομίατοῦπληρώματοςτῶνκαιρῶν, Ephesians 1:10, — the dispensation or ordering of the state, times, and seasons of the church, and the revelation of himself unto it; which we have opened at large on the first verse of the epistle, whereunto the reader is referred. And, —Obs. 1. The disposal of the states and times of the church, as unto the communication of light, grace, and privileges, depends merely on the sovereign pleasure and will of God, and not on any merit or preparation in man. — The coming of Christ at that time when he came was as little deserved by the men of the age wherein he came as of any age from the foundation of the world. Obs. 2. Though God gives more light and grace unto the church in one season than in another, yet in every season he gives that which is sufficient to guide believers in their faith and obedience unto eternal life.Obs. 3. It is the duty of believers, in every state of the church, to make use of and improve the spiritual provision that God hath made for them; always remembering, that unto whom much is given, of them much is required.2. That which God hath thus provided for us, — that is, those who in all ages do believe in Christ as exhibited in the flesh, according to the revelation made of him in the gospel, — is called “something better;” that is, more excellent, a state above theirs, or all that was granted unto them. And we may inquire,(1.) What these “better things,” or this “better thing” is;(2.) How with respect thereunto “they were not made perfect without us.”(1.) For the first, I suppose it ought to be out of question with all Christians, that it is the actual exhibition of the Son of God in the flesh, the coming of the promised Seed, with his accomplishment of the work of the redemption of the church, and all the privileges of the church, in light, grace, liberty, spiritual worship, with boldness in an access unto God, that ensued thereon, which are intended. For were not these the things which they received not under the old testament? were not these the things which were promised from the beginning; which were expected, longed for, and desired by all believers of old, who yet saw them only afar off, though through faith they were saved by virtue of them? and are not these the things whereby the church-state of the gospel was perfected and consummated, the things alone wherein our state is better than theirs? For as unto outward appearances of things, they had more glory, and costly, ceremonious splendor in their worship, than is appointed in the Christian church; and their worldly prosperity was for a long season very great, much exceeding any thing that the Christian church doth enjoy. To deny, therefore, these to be the “better things” that God provided for us, is to overthrow the faith of the old testament and the new. (2.) We may inquire how, with respect hereunto, it is said that “they without us were not made perfect.” And I say, — [1. “Without us,” is as much as without the things which are actually exhibited unto us, the things provided for us, and our participation of them. [2. They and we, though distributed by divine provision into distinct states, yet with respect unto the first promise and the renovation of it unto Abraham, are but one church, built on the stone foundation, and enlivened by the same Spirit of grace. Wherefore, until we came in unto this church- state, they could not be made perfect, seeing the church-state itself was not so. [3. All the advantages of grace and mercy which they received and enjoyed, it was by virtue of those better things which were actually exhibited unto us, applied by faith, and not by virtue of any thing committed unto them and enjoyed by them. Wherefore, — [4. That which the apostle affirms is, that they were never brought unto, they never attained, that perfect, consummated spiritual state which God had designed and prepared for his church in the fullness of times, and which they foresaw should be granted unto others, and not unto themselves, 1 Peter 1:11-12.[5. What this perfect, consummated state of the church is, I have so fully declared in the exposition of the seventh chapter, where the apostle doth designedly treat of it, that it must not be here repeated; and thereunto I refer the reader. I cannot but marvel that so many have stumbled, as most have done, in the exposition of these words, and involved themselves in difficulties of their own devising. For they are a plain epitome of the whole doctrinal part of the epistle; so as that no intelligent, judicious persons can avoid the sense which they tender, unless they divert their minds from the whole scope and design of the apostle, fortified with all circumstances and ends; which is not a way or means to assist any one in the right interpretation of the Scripture. And to close this chapter, we may observe, — Obs. 4. God measures out unto all his people their portion in service, sufferings, privileges, and rewards, according to his own good pleasure. — And therefore the apostle shuts up this discourse of the faith, obedience, sufferings, and successes of the saints under the old testament, with a declaration that God had yet provided more excellent things for his church than any they were made partakers of. All he doth in this way is of mere grace and bounty; and therefore he may distribute all these things as he pleaseth. Obs. 5. It was Christ alone who was to give, and who alone could give, perfection or consummation unto the church. — He was in all things to have the pre-eminence.Obs. 6. All the outward glorious worship of the old testament had no perfection in it; and so no glory comparatively unto that which is brought in by the gospel, 2 Corinthians 3:10.Obs. 7. All perfection, all consummation, is in Christ alone. For “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and we are complete in him, who is the head of all principality and power.” This chapter contains an application of the doctrine, declared and confirmed in the foregoing chapter, unto the use of the Hebrews. Doctrine and use were the apostle’s method; and must, at least virtually, be theirs also who regard either sense, or reason, or experience, in their preaching. It would be an uncouth sermon that should be without doctrine and use. And there are three general parts of the chapter: 1. A pressing of the exhortation in hand from the testimonies before insisted on, with new additional motives, encouragements, and directions, unto the end of the 11th verse.2. A direction unto especial duties, necessary unto a due compliance with the general exhortation, and subservient unto its complete observance, Hebrews 12:12-17.3. A new cogent argument unto the same purpose, taken from a comparison between the two states, of the law and the gospel, with their original, nature, and effects; unto the end of the chapter.In the first general part, or enforcement of the exhortation, there are four things: 1. The deduction of it from the foregoing instances and examples, Hebrews 12:1. 2. The confirmation of it from the consideration of Christ himself, and his sufferings, Hebrews 12:2-3. 3. The same is pressed from their known duty, Hebrews 12:4. And, 4. From the nature of the things which they were to undergo in their patient perseverance, as far as they were afflictive; with the certain advantages and benefits which they should receive by them, Hebrews 12:5-11. Having insisted long on a multitude of instances, to declare and evidence the power and efficacy of faith to carry and safeguard believers through all duties and difficulties that they may be called unto in the way of their profession, he proceeds thereon to press his exhortation on the Hebrews unto a patient perseverance in the profession of the gospel, notwithstanding all the sufferings which they might meet withal. And his discourse on this subject is exceedingly pregnant with arguments unto this purpose. For it both declares what hath been the lot of true believers in all ages from the beginning, which none ought now to be surprised with, or think strange of; what was the way whereby they so carried it as to please God; and what was the success or victory which they obtained in the end: all which were powerful motives unto them for the diligent attendance unto and discharge of their present duty. Hebrews 12:1. — Τοιγαροῦνκαὶἡμεῖς, τοσοῦτονἔχοντεςπερικείμενονἡμῖννέφοςμαρτύρωνΈὄγκονἀποθέμενοιπάντακαὶτὴνεὐπερίστατονἀμαρτίαν, δι᾿ὑπομονῆςτρέχωμεντὸνπροκείμενονἡμῖνἀγῶνα.Τοιγαροῦν, “ideoque,” “quamobrem,” “igitur,” “proinde,” “quoniam;” Syr., “propter hoc,” “for this cause;” — a vehement note of inference. Τοσοῦτον, etc., “we also, who have all these witnesses, who compass us about as a cloud.” Περικείμενον. Vulg. Let., “impositam nubem;” Rhem., “a cloud put upon us;” — that is, ἐπικείμενον, which here hath no place, but is very improper. ῎Ογκονἀποθέμενοιπάντα. Vulg. Lat.,” deponentes omne pontius;” Rhem., “laying away all weight,” for “every weight.” “Abjecto omni pondere,” “casting away every weight.” Others, “deposito omni onere,” “laying aside every burden,” a weight that is burdensome, and so a hinderance. Syr., “loosing ourselves from all weight.” Εὐπερίστατονἁμαρτίαν. Vulg. Let., “et circumstans nos peccatum;” Rhem., “and the sin that compasseth us,” “that stands round us.” Beza, “peccatum ad nos circumeingendos proclive:” which we render,” the sin that doth so easily beset us;” that is, to oppose and hinder us in our progress, which is to beset us. Syr., “the sin which at all times is ready for us;” that is, to act itself in us or against us. Erasmus, “tenaciter inhaerens peccatum,” “the sin that doth so tenaciously inhere or cleave to us;” perhaps to the sense of the place, though it mistakes the precise signification of the word. Smid., “peccato facile noxio,” “the sin that doth so easily hurt us;” to comply with the exposition of the words which he embraceth. The mind of the Holy Ghost in this expression we must further inquire into. Τρέχωμεντὸνπροκείμενονἡμῖνἀγῶνα. Vulg. Lat., “curramus ad propositum nobis certamen;” Rhem., “let us run to the fight that is proposed unto us.” But ἀγών is not properly a fight; and the interposing of the preposition ad, “to,” corrupts the sense: though the Syriac retaining the Greek word seems to own it, μΰβεּ ?πָ ?ΰ, “leagona,” “to the race,” course. But we are to run the race, not run to it. ᾿Αγῶνα, “stadium,” “the race;” “certamen,” the contest in the race or course.Hebrews 12:1. — Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside [cast away] every weight [or burden], and the sin that doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. Some things may be observed concerning these words, as unto the manner of speech used in them; as, 1. The whole of it is figurative, consisting in sundry metaphors, drawn out of that which is the principal, namely, the comparison of our patient abiding in the profession of the gospel unto running or contending in a race for a prize. 2. That the allusions being plain and familiar, as we shall see, they convey a great light unto the understanding, and have a great efficacy upon the affections.3. It being so, the exposition of the words is not so much to be taken from the precise signification of them, as from the matter plainly intended in them.4. The structure of the words is pathetical, becoming an exhortation of so great importance.There is in the words themselves, 1. A note of inference from the preceding discourse, intimating the influence which it hath into what follows: “Wherefore;” — ‘Seeing it is thus with us in respect unto them who went before us, whose faith is recorded for our use and example.’ 2. An exhortation unto patient perseverance in the profession of the gospel, notwithstanding all difficulties and oppositions; metaphorically expressed by “running with patience the race that is set before us.” 3. A motive and encouragement thereunto, taken from our present state with respect unto them who went before us in the profession of the faith, and whose example we are obliged to follow: “Seeing we also are compassed with so great a cloud of witnesses.”4. A declaration of something necessary unto a compliance with this exhortation, and the duty required in us; which is, to “cast off every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us.”I shall open the words in the order wherein they lie in the text. 1. The first thing expressed, is the motive and encouragement given unto our diligence in the duty exhorted unto: “Seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses.” ‘We having so great a cloud of witnesses placed about us.’(1.) The persons spoken of are “we,” “we also,” or “even we.” The apostle joins himself with these Hebrews, not only the better to insinuate the exhortation into their minds, by engaging himself with them, but also to intimate that the greatest and strongest of believers stand in need of this encouragement. For it is a provision that God hath made for our benefit, and that such as is useful unto us and needful for us. Wherefore this expression, “even we,” compriseth all believers that were then in the world, or shall be so to the end of it.(2.) That which is proposed unto us is,[1. That we have “witnesses.” [2. That we have a “cloud” of them. [3. That they are placed “about” us, or we are “compassed” with them. These witnesses are all the saints of the old testament whose faith is recorded in the Scripture; both those mentioned by name by the apostle, and all others who in general are testified unto. And how these are said to be witnesses, with respect unto us, must be inquired into. [1. Witnesses are of two sorts: 1st. Such as behold the doing of any thing, and give their testimony unto it when it is done.2dly. Such as testify unto any thing, that it ought to be done; or unto any truth that it is so, whereby men may be engaged unto what it directs unto.If the sense of the word be to be regulated by the metaphorical expression of the duty exhorted unto, namely, running in a race, then the witnesses intended are of the first sort. For at the striving and contest in those public games which are alluded unto, there were multitudes, clouds of spectators, that looked on to encourage those that contended by their applauses, and to testify of their successes. So is it with us in our patient perseverance; all the saints of the old testament do as it were stand looking on us in our striving, encouraging us unto our duty, and ready to testify unto our success with their applauses. They are all placed about us unto this end; we are “compassed” with them. And they are so in the Scripture; wherein they, being dead, yet see, and speak, and bear testimony. The Scripture hath encompassed us with them; so that when we are in our trials, which way soever we look in it, we may behold the face of some or other of these worthies looking on us, and encouraging of us. So the apostle chargeth Timothy with his duty, not only “before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ,” unto whom he was to give his account, but “before the elect angels” also, who were to be witnesses of what he did therein, 1 Timothy 5:21. And it is not unuseful for us, in all our trials for the profession of the faith, to consider that the eyes as it were of all that have gone before us in the same, or the like, or greater trials, are upon us, to bear witness how we acquit ourselves.But the intention of the apostle may be better taken from his general scope, which requireth that the witnesses be of the second sort, namely, such as testify unto what is to be done, and the grounds of truth whereon it ought to be done. For he intends especially the persons whom he had before enumerated: and that which they testify unto is this, that faith will carry believers safely through all that they may be called to do or suffer in the profession of the gospel; which even we, therefore, ought with all patience to abide in. They all jointly testify unto these things: — that it is best for us to believe and obey God, whatever may befall us in our so doing; that faith, where it is true and sincere, will engage those in whom it is to venture on the greatest hazards, dangers, and miseries in the world, rather than to forego their profession; and that it will safely carry us through them all. Those that testify these things are important witnesses in this cause. For when, upon the approaches of danger and trouble, it may be death itself, we are brought to contest things in our own minds, and to dispute what is best for us to do, — wherein Satan will not be wanting to increase our fears and disorders by his fiery darts, — it cannot but be an unspeakable advantage and encouragement to have all these holy and blessed persons stand about us, testifying unto the folly of our fears, the falseness of all the suggestions of unbelief, and the fraud of Satan’s temptations; as also unto the excellency of the duties whereunto we are called, and the certainty of our success in them through believing. And in this sense do I take the witnesses here intended, both because of the scope of the place, and that we know by experience of what use this kind of testimony is. But if any think better of the former sense, I shall not oppose it. For in the whole verse the apostle doth, as it were, represent believers in their profession as striving for victory as upon a theater. Christ sits at the head or end of it, as the great agonothetes, the judge and rewarder of those that strive lawfully, and acquit themselves by perseverance unto the end. All the saints departed divinely testified unto stand and sit on every side, looking on, and encouraging us in our course; which was wont to be a mighty provocation unto men to put forth the utmost of their strength in their public contests for victory. Both these senses are consistent. [2. Of these witnesses there is said to be a “cloud;” and that not positively only, but a great cloud, — “ so great a cloud.” A cloud in Hebrew is called ςָ ?α that is, “a thing thick, perplexed, or condensed.” And Aristotle says,Τὸνέφοςπάχοςἀτμῶδεςσυνεστραμμένον, De Mundo, cap. iv.; — “A cloud is a thick conglomeration of humid vapours.” So God compares the sins of his people unto “a cloud,” and “a thick cloud,” because of their multitude, the vapor of them being condensed like a cloud, Isaiah 44:22. And in all authors, a thick body of men, or soldiers compacted together, is usually called a cloud of them. So Homer’s Iliad. 4, ῞Αμαδὲνέφοςεἵπετοπεζῶν, — “With him followed a cloud of foot-men.’So Livy, “Peditum equitumque nubes;” — “a cloud of horse and foot.” Wherefore, “so great a cloud,” is a metaphorical expression for ‘so great a number:’‘so great a multitude at once appearing together to witness in this cause.’And he doth at once in this word represent unto us the force of his preceding discourse, wherein he had called out many of his witnesses by name, and then made a conglomeration or gathering of them into one body, like a great cloud, Hebrews 11:32-35, etc.[3. ‘This cloud,’saith he, we are “encompassed with,” — it is placed about us;’where and how is not expressed. But it is placed in the Scripture, wherein it is set round about us to behold. For what is done in the Scripture for our use, is immediately done unto us; and what is spoken in it, is spoken unto us. So verse 5, those words in the Book of Proverbs, “My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,” he affirms to be an exhortation spoken unto us. And the recording of those witnesses in the Scripture is the actual compassing of us with them. For our life and our walk being in the Scripture, that which is placed therein for our use, we are compassed withal. And there is a great emphasis in the expression. For when a great multitude do encompass men, in any cause, drawing about them, and near unto them, to give them encouragement, they cannot but greatly countenance and further them in their way. So doth this cloud of witnesses them that do believe. And as to our own instruction, we may hence observe, — Obs. 1. In all Scripture examples we are diligently to consider our own concernment in them, and what we are instructed by them. — This inference the apostle makes from the collection he had made of them: “Even we also.”Obs. 2. God hath not only made provision, but plentiful provision, in the Scripture for the strengthening of our faith and our encouragement unto duty: “A cloud of witnesses.”Obs. 3. It is an honor that God puts on his saints departed, especially such as suffered and died for the truth, that even after their death they shall be witnesses unto faith and obedience in all generations — They continue, in a sense, still to he martyrs. The faithful collection of their sufferings, and of the testimony they gave therein unto the gospel, hath been of singular use in the church. So hath the Book of Martyrs been among ourselves, though now it be despised by such as never intend to follow the examples contained in it. Obs. 4. To faint in our profession whilst we are encompassed with such a cloud of witnesses, is a great aggravation of our sin. — These things are proposed unto us that we faint not.2. The second thing in the words is the prescription of the means which we must use, that we may discharge the duty we are exhorted unto. And this is, that we “cast off every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us.”There is no doubt but that, in the exposition of these words, respect is to be had unto the metaphor whereby the apostle expresseth the duty exhorted unto; namely, that we should “run with patience the race that is set before us.” Those who were to run in a race did always free themselves from all those things which might hinder them thereinAnd they were of two sorts: (1.) Such as were a weight or burden upon them; any thing that was heavy, which men cannot run withal.(2.) Such as might entangle them in their passage; as long clothing, which cleaving unto them, would be their continual hinderance in every step they should take. In compliance with this similitude, the apostle enjoins our duty under these two expressions, of laying aside,(1.) “Every weight;” and,(2.) “The sin that doth so easily beset us:” and what he intends in particular we must inquire, both as to the manner of laying aside, and then as to the things themselves.(1.) The manner of the performance of this duty is expressed by “laying aside,” or as others render the word, “casting away.” ᾿Αποτίθημι is once used in the New Testament with respect unto things natural: Acts 7:58, “The witnesses ἀπεθεντοτὰἱμάτιααὐτῶν,” — “laid down” (that is, “put off,” and laid down) “their clothes:” which gives light unto the metaphor. In all other places it is used with respect unto vicious habits, or causes of sin, which we are to part with, to cast away, as hinderances in our way and work. So Ephesians 4:22; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:8; James 1:21; 1 Peter 2:1. It is the word wherewith our duty with respect unto all vicious habits of mind, especially such as are effectual hindrances in our Christian course, is expressed. For in every place where it is used it doth not absolutely respect things themselves to be laid aside, but as they are obstructions of our faith and obedience; as the apostle doth here, as we shall further see immediately. Naturally such things are signified as are in us, on us, and do cleave unto us; as are great hindrances in our Christian race. Let no man be confident in himself. He hath nothing of his own, but what will obstruct him in his way of holy obedience. Unless these things are deposed, laid aside, cast away, we cannot run the race with success whereunto we are called. How this is to be done, shall be afterwards declared. (2.) The words wherein the things themselves to be laid aside are expressed being metaphorical, and not used anywhere else in the Scripture unto the same purpose, occasion hath been taken for various conjectures about their sense and precise intendment. Especially the last word, εὐπερίστατος, being used but this once in the New Testament, and scarce, if at all, in any other author, hath given advantage unto many to try their critical skill to the utmost. I shall not concern myself in any of them, to approve or refute them. Those which are agreeable unto the analogy of faith may be received as any shall see reason. This I know, that the true exposition of those words, or the application of them unto the purpose intended, is to be taken from other Scripture rules, given in the same case and unto the same end, with the experience of them who have been exercised with trials for the profession of the gospel. These I shall attend unto alone in the interpretation of them; which will give us a sense no way inconsistent with the precise signification of the words themselves, which is all that, is necessary. [1. That which we are first to lay aside, is “every weight.” The expression will scarce allow that this should be confined unto any one thing, or things of any one kind. No more seems to be intended, but that we part with every thing, of what kind soever it be, which would hinder us in our race. And so it is of the same importance with the great command of self-denial, which our Savior gives in such strict charge to all who take on them the profession of the gospel, as that without which they would not persevere therein, Matthew 16:25; Matthew 16:25. We may have the cross laid upon us, whether we will or no, but we cannot take it up, so as to follow Christ, unless we first deny ourselves. And to deny ourselves herein, or to this purpose of taking up the cross, is to take off our minds from the esteem and value of all things that would hinder us in our evangelical progress. This is to “lay aside every weight” in a metaphorical expression, with respect unto our obedience as a race. And as this sense is coincident with that great gospel-rule given us in the same case, so it is suited unto the experience of them that are called to suffer. They find that the first thing which they have to do, is universally to deny themselves; which if they can attain unto, they are freed from every weight, and are expedite in their course. And this exposition we may abide in. But because there is another great gospel rule in the same case, which restrains this self-denial unto one sort of things, which the word seems to point unto, and which falls in also with experience, it may have here an especial regard. And this rule we may learn from the words of our Savior also, Matthew 19:23; Matthew 19:25,“Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”Nothing but the exceeding greatness of the power of God and his grace can carry a rich man safely, in a time of suffering, unto heaven and glory. And it is confirmed by the apostle, 1 Timothy 6:9-10,“But they that will be rich fall into temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition,” etc.The riches of this world, and the love of them, are a peculiar obstruction unto constancy in the profession of the gospel, on many accounts. These, therefore, seem to be a burden, hindering us in our race in an especial manner. And these things are called a “weight,” not from their own nature, for they are light as vanity, but from the consequent of our setting our hearts and affections upon them. When we so embrace them, so adhere unto them, as to take them into our minds and affections, they are a weight wherewith no man is able to run a Christian race. If when we are called to sufferings, the love of this world, and the things of it, with our lives in the enjoyment of them, be prevalent in us, we shall find them such a weight upon us as will utterly disenable us unto our duty. A man may burden himself with feathers or chaff, as well as with things in themselves more ponderous. That which remains unto the exposition of these words, is, how this weight should be laid aside; which although it be the principal thing to be regarded, yet is it wholly overseen by expositors, as most things practical are. Suppose the weight to be laid aside to be the good things of this life, with the engagement of our affections unto them; then unto this laying them aside, — 1st. It is not ordinarily required that we should absolutely part with them, and forego our lawful possession of them: I say, it is not so ordinarily. But there have been, and may be seasons, wherein that direction of our Savior unto the young man, “Go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow me,” must take place. So many in the primitive times sold their possessions, distributing what they had to the poor, Acts 4. And that example may be obliging, where there is a coincidence of great persecution in any one nation, and great opportunities of propagating the gospel elsewhere, as the case then was. But ordinarily this is not required of us. Yea, there are times wherein some men’s enjoyments and possession of riches may be no hindrance unto themselves, and of great use unto the whole church, by their contributions unto its relief; which are frequently directed by the apostles. And in the discharge of this duty will lie a decretory determination of the sincerity of their faith and profession.2dly. This laying them aside includes a willingness, a readiness, a resolution, to part with them cheerfully for the sake of Christ and the gospel, if called thereunto. So was it with them that “took joyfully the spoiling of their goods.” When this resolution is prevalent in the mind, the soul will be much eased of that weight of those things which would hinder it in its race. But whilst our hearts cleave unto them with an undue valuation, whilst we cannot attain unto a cheerful willingness to have them taken from us, or to be taken ourselves from them, for the sake of the gospel, they will be an intolerable burden unto us in our course. For hence will the mind dispute every dangerous duty, hearken to every sinful contrivance for safety, be surprised out of its own power by every appearing danger, and be discomposed in its frame on all occasions. Such a burden can no man carry in a race. 3dly. Sedulous and daily mortification of our hearts and affections, with respect unto all things of this nature, is that which is principally prescribed unto us in this command of laying them aside as a weight. This will take out of them whatever is really burdensome unto us. Mortification is the dissolution of the conjunction or league that is between our affections and earthly things, which alone gives them their weight and cumbrance. See Colossians 3:1-5. Where this grace and duty are in their due exercise, these things cannot influence the mind into any disorder, nor make it unready for its race, or unwieldy or inexpedite in it. This is that which is enjoined us in this expression; and therefore, to declare the whole of the duty required of us, it were necessary the nature of mortification in general, with its causes, means, and effects, should be opened which because I have[1] done elsewhere at large, I shall here omit. [1] See vol. 6 of the author’s miscellaneous works. — Ed. 4thly. There is required hereunto continual observation of what difficulties and hindrances these things are apt to cast on our minds, either in our general course, or with respect unto particular duties. They operate on our minds by love, fear, care, delight, contrivances, with a multitude of perplexing thoughts about them. Unless we continually watch against all these ways of engaging our minds, to obviate their insinuations, we shall find them a weight and burden in all parts of our race.These are some of the ways and means whereby those who engage their hearts unto a constant, patient perseverance in the profession of the gospel, may so far lay aside the weight of earthly things, and disentangle their affections from them, as that they may comfortably pass on, and go through with their engagement. And the days wherein we live will give us a better understanding of the duty here prescribed unto us, than any we are likely to learn from the conjectures of men at ease about the precise signification of this or that word, which, being metaphorically used, is capable of various applications. But the world is at present filled with fears, dangers, and persecutions, for the gospel. Those who will live godly in Christ Jesus must expect persecution. Loss of goods, estates, liberties, lives, are continually before them. They, and no others, know how far the minds of believers are solicited with these things, what impressions they make on them, and what encumbrance they design to be, and in some measure are, unto them in their progress; and they alone understand what it is to lay aside the weight of them, in the exercise of the graces and duties before mentioned. Faith, prayer, mortification, a high valuation of things invisible and eternal, a continual preference of them unto all things present and seen, are enjoined in this word, of “laying aside every weight.” [2. The second thing to be laid aside, is “the sin that doth so easily beset us.” I intimated before, that by reason this word is nowhere else used in the whole Scripture, many have multiplied their conjectures concerning the meaning of it. I shall, without any great examination of them, make that inquiry into the mind of the Holy Ghost herein which God shall direct and enable unto. 1st. The great variety of translations in rendering the word make it apparent that no determinate sense could be gathered from its precise signification. For otherwise, both in its original and its double composition, the words themselves are ordinary, and of common use. See the various translations before mentioned, whereunto many others may be added, scarce two agreeing in the same words.2dly. We may be satisfied that no bare consideration of the word, either as simple, or in its composition, or its use in other authors, will of itself give us the full and proper signification of it in this place. And it is evident unto me from hence, in that those who have made the most diligent inquisition into it, and traced it through all its forms, are most remote from agreeing what is, or should be the precise signification of it, but close their disquisitions with various and opposite conjecture. And, which is yet worse, that which mostly they fix upon is but a sound of words, which conveys no real sense unto the experience of them that do believe. Howbeit, it was no part of the design of the apostle to give us a perplexity, by the use of an ambiguous word; but the thing he intended was at that time commonly known, and not obscured by the new clothing given it, to accommodate the expression of it unto the present metaphor. 3dly. I shall therefore attend unto the guides before mentioned, namely, other Scripture directions and rules in the same case, with the experience of believers, who are exercised in it, and the use of those other words with which this ἅπαξλεγόμενον is here joined.1st. The word ἀποτίθημι, to “lay aside,” is never used in the Scripture, with respect unto that which is evil and sinful, but with regard unto the original depravation of nature, and the vicious habits wherein it consists, with the effects of them. The places are these alone: Ephesians 4:22, ᾿Αποθέσθαιὑμᾶς, — “That ye put off, concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.” None doubts but that it is the original pravity of our nature that is here intended. Verse 25, Διὸἀποθέμενοιτὸψεῦδος, — “Wherefore put away lying;” a branch springing from the same root. Colossians 3:8, Νυνὶδὲἀποθέσθεκαὶὑμεῖςτὰπάντα,— “But now ye also put off all these;” that is, the things which he discourseth of, or original corruption, with all the fruits and effects of it. James 1:21, Διὸἀποθέμενοιπᾶσανῥυπαρίαν — “Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness;” which is the same. 1 Peter 2:1, ᾿Αποθέμενοιοὐνπᾶσανκακίαν, — “Laying aside all malice;” to the same purpose. Elsewhere this word is not used. It is therefore evident, that in all other places it is applied only unto our duty and acting with reference unto the original pravity of our nature, with the vicious habits wherein it consists, and the sinful effects or consequents of it. And why it should have another intention here, seeing that it is not only suited unto the analogy of faith, but most agreeable unto the design of the apostle, I know not. And the truth is, the want of a due consideration of this one word, with its use, which expositors have universally overlooked, hath occasioned many fruitless conjectures on the place.2dly. The general nature of the evil to be deposed or laid aside, is expressed by ἀμαρτία, and that with the article prefixed, τὴνἁμαρτίαν, “that sin.” Now this, if there be nothing to limit it, is to be taken in its largest, most usual, and eminent signification. And that this is the original depravation of our nature, cannot be denied. So it is in an especial manner stated, Romans 7. where it is constantly called by that name: Verse 13, ἡἁμαρτία, “sin;” that is, the sin of our nature. And the ἡοἰκοῦσαἐνἐμοὶἁμαρτία, verse 17, “the sin that dwelleth in me,” is of the same force and signification with ἡἁμαρτίαευπερίστατος, “the sin that doth so easily beset us;” though the allusions are various, the one taken from within, the other from without. See verses 20,23. But, —3dly. I do not judge that original sin is here absolutely intended, but only with respect unto an especial way of exerting its efficacy, and unto a certain end; namely, as it works by unbelief to obstruct us in, and turn us away from, the profession of the gospel. And so the instruction falls in with the rule given us in the same case in other places of the epistle; as Hebrews 3:12, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” To depart from the living God, and to forsake the course of our profession, are the same. And the cause of them is, an “evil heart of unbelief.” For so it is expounded in the next verse, “That ye be not hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” And the like rule is given us in this chapter, verse 15. The sin therefore intended is indwelling sin; which, with respect unto the profession of the gospel and permanency therein with patience, worketh by unbelief; whereby it exposeth us unto all sorts of temptations, gives advantage unto all disheartening, weakening, discouraging considerations, still aiming to make us faint, and so at length to depart from the living God. These things being fixed, it is all one whether we interpret εὐπερίστατος, “that which doth easily beset us,” that is in a readiness always so to do; or “that doth easily expose us to evil;” which are the two senses of the word with any probability contended for. Both come to the same.There are two things yet remaining for the exposition of these words: 1st. How this sin is said easily to beset us; and, 2dly. How we must lay it aside.1st. And the first is spoken of it, because it hath all advantages to solicit and draw off our minds from this duty, as also to weaken us in the discharge of it. This is confirmed by the experience of all who have been exercised in this case, who have met with great difficulties in, and have been called to suffer for the profession of the gospel. Ask of them what they have found in such cases to be their most dangerous enemy, what hath had the most easy and frequent access unto their minds, to disturb and dishearten them, of the power whereof they have been most afraid: they will all answer with one voice, it is the evil of their own unbelieving hearts. This hath continually attempted to entangle them, to betray them, in taking part with all outward temptations. When this is conquered, all things are plain and easy unto them. It may be, some of them have had their particular temptations, which they may reflect upon; but any other evil by sin, which is common unto them all, as this is unto all in the like case, they can fix on none. And this known experience of the thing in this case I prefer before all conjectures at the signification of the word, made by men who either never suffered, or never well considered what it is so to do. This sin is that which hath an easy access unto our minds, unto their hinderance in our race, or doth easily expose us unto danger, by the advantage which it hath unto these ends. For, — (1st.) It is always present with us, and so never wanting unto any occasion. It stands in need of no help or furtherance from any outward advantages to attempt our minds. Dwelling in us, abiding with us, cleaving unto us, it is always ready to clog, to hinder, and disturb us Doth any difficulty or danger appear in the way? it is at hand to cry, “Spare thyself,” working by fear. Is any sinful compliance proposed unto us? it is ready to argue for its embracement, working by carnal wisdom. Doth the weariness of the flesh decline perseverance in necessary duties? it wants not arguments to promote its inclinations, working by the dispositions of remaining enmity and vanity. Doth the whole matter and cause of our profession come into question, as in a time of severe persecution? it is ready to set all its engines on work for our ruin; fear of danger, love of things present, hopes of recovery, reserves for a better season, the examples of others esteemed good and wise, shall all be put into the hands of unbelief, to be managed against faith, patience, constancy and perseverance. (2dly.) It hath this advantage, because it hath a remaining interest in all the faculties of our souls. It is not in us as a disease that attempts and weakens one single part of the body, but as an evil habit that infects and weakens the whole. Hence it hath a readiness to oppose all the actings of grace in every faculty of the soul. “The flesh,” always and in all things, “lusteth against the Spirit.” But the whole discourse, which I have long since published, of the Nature and Power of the Remainders of Indwelling Sin in Believers, being only a full exposition of this expression, “The sin that doth[2] so easily beset us,” I shall not further here again insist on it. [2] See vol. 6 of miscellaneous works. — Ed. 2dly. The last inquiry is, how we may “lay it aside,” or put it from us. One learned man thinks it a sufficient reason to prove that the sin of nature is not here intended, because we cannot lay that aside whilst we are in this life. But I have showed that the word is never used, when a duty is in it enjoined unto us, but it is with respect unto this sin. Wherefore, —(lst.) We are to lay it aside absolutely and universally, as unto design and endeavor. We cannot in this life attain unto perfection in holiness, yet this is that which we are to endeavor all the days of our lives: so, though we cannot absolutely and perfectly destroy the body of death, crucify the old man in its lusts utterly by a total death, and so lay aside indwelling sin, yet it is our duty to be endeavoring of it all our days. So the apostle proposeth both these equally unto us, 2 Corinthians 7:1, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all pollution of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” We must equally watch unto both, and work for both, though in neither we can attain absolute perfection in this life. This we are always to aim at, and pray for, 1 Thessalonians 5:23.(2ndly.) We ought actually to lay it aside in such a measure and degree, as that it may not be a prevalent hindrance unto us in any of the duties of Christian obedience. For it may have various degrees of power and efficacy in us, and hath so, according as it is neglected or is continually mortified. And it ofttimes takes advantage, by a conjunction with outward temptations, unto our unspeakable prejudice. We ought to labor in the lessening of these degrees, in the weakening of its strength, so as that, although it will fight and rebel against the law of the Spirit of life in our minds, it shall not prevail to hinder, entangle, or weaken us in any spiritual duty, nor either so vex us or defile us as to deprive us of that holy confidence in our walk before God which we ought to preserve. And this is actually attainable in this life; and it is from our woful neglect and sin, where it is otherwise. And if the mortification of it be neglected in any one branch, or any of its puttings forth of power, if any one sin be indulged unto, it will ruin all strength and resolution in and for suffering on the account of the gospel. So we see by daily experience; one is ruined by one lust, another by another. Hence after the apostle hath given in charge this mortification in general, he applies it unto all sorts of particular sins, Ephesians 4:22-32. And we may observe, —Obs. 5. That universal mortification of sin is the best preparative, preservative, and security, for constancy in profession in a time of trial and persecution. — Whatever may be our purposes, resolution, and contrivances, if unmortified sin in any prevalent degree, as love of the world, fear of man, sensual inclinations to make provision for the flesh, do abide in us, we shall never be able to hold out in our race unto the end.Obs. 6. Whereas the nature of this sin, at such seasons, is to work by unbelief towards a departure from the living God, or the relinquishment of the gospel and profession of it, we ought to be continually on our watch against all its arguings and actings towards that end. — And no small part of our spiritual wisdom consists in the discovery of its deceitful working; which the apostle gives us severe cautions about, Hebrews 3 : And the way whereby it principally manifests itself, is by the clogs and hindrances which it puts upon us in the constant course of our obedience. Hence many think, that whereas it is said “easily to beset us,” that is, unto our let and hinderance, an allusion is taken from a long garment; which if a man wear in the running of a race, it will hinder, perplex, and entangle him, and sometimes cast him to the ground; so that unless he east it away he can have no success in his race. 3. The last thing expressed is the duty itself directed and exhorted unto, “Let us run with patience the race that is set before us.” What is the duty in general intended hath been sufficiently declared; but whereas the terms wherein it is expressed, all but that word, “with patience,” are metaphorical, they must be opened. (1.) That with respect whereunto we are exhorted, is ἀγών, “certamen,” — “a strife or conflict.” It is used for any thing, work or exercise, about which there is a striving and contending unto the utmost of men’s abilities, — such as were used when men contended for mastery and victory in the Olympic games: and so it is applied unto all earnest spiritual endeavors in any kind, Philippians 1:30; Colossians 2:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 Timothy 6:12. In all which places it is used to express the earnest endeavors of the preachers and ministers of the gospel for the conversion of souls and edification of the church, in the midst of all difficulties, and against all oppositions. And the apostle expresseth the whole course of his ministry and obedience by it, 2 Timothy 4:7, Τὸνἀγῶνατὸνκαλὸνἠγώνισμαι: which we render, “I have fought a good fight;” ‘I have gone through that contest, against all oppositions, which is allotted unto me, unto a victory.’Here the sense of the word is restrained unto the particular instance of a race, because we are enjoined to run it; which is the means of success in a race. But it is such a race as is for a victory, for our lives and souls; wherein the utmost of our strength and diligence is to be put forth. It is not merely “cursus,” but “certamen.” And by the verb our whole contest for heaven is expressed, Luke 13:24, ᾿Αγωνίζεσθεεἰσελθεῖν, — “Strive to enter.” We render it, “striving for the mastery,” 1 Corinthians 9:25; where the apostle hath the same allusion unto the Olympic games. And in the same allusion it is called a “wrestling.” ῎Εστινἡμῖνἡπάλη, — “There is a wrestling assigned unto us,” appointed for us, Ephesians 6:12; which was the principal contest in the old trials for mastery. And what is required thereunto the apostle doth most excellently declare in that place, verses 10-13. Wherefore sundry things are intimated in this metaphorical expression, of our Christian obedience and perseverance therein. [1. That it is a matter of great difficulty, whereunto the utmost exercise of our spiritual strength is required. Contending with all our might must be in it; without which all expectation of success in a race for mastery is vain and foolish. Hence the apostle prescribes, as a means of it, that we be “strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might,” Ephesians 6:10; giving us his own example in a most eminent manner, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.[2. It is such a race as wherein we have all those things to consider which they had who strove for mastery in those games, from whence the allusion is taken: as there is the judge or βραβευτής, the “rewarder” of them which overcome, — which is Christ himself’; and there is the reward proposed, — which, as the apostle tells us, is an incorruptible crown of glory; and there are encouraging spectators, even all the holy angels above, and the church below; with sundry other things which might be usefully improved. [3. It being a race, it is of no advantage for any one merely to begin or make an entrance into it. Every one knows that all is lost in a race, where a man doth not hold out unto the end. (2.) This race is said to be “set before us.” It is not what we fall into by chance, it is not of our own choice or projection; but it is set before us. He that sets it before us is Christ himself, who calls us unto faith and obedience. And a double act of his is intended in this setting of the race before us:[1. Preparations, or his designing, preparing, and appointing of it. He hath determined what shall be the way of obedience, limiting the bounds of it, and ordering the whole course, with all and every one of the duties that belong thereunto. There are races that men have chosen, designed, prepared for themselves; which they run with all earnestness. Such are the ways of will-worship, superstition, and blind, irregular devotion, that the world abounds with. [Believers attend unto that race alone which Christ hath designed and prepared for them; which is therefore straight and holy. [2. Proposition: it is by him proposed unto us, it is set before us in the gospel. Therein he declares the whole nature of it, and all the circumstances that belong unto it. He gives us a full prospect of it, of all the duties required in it, and all the difficulties we shall meet withal in the running of it. He hides nothing from us, especially not that of bearing the cross; that our entrance into it may be an act of our own choice and judgment. Whatever, therefore, we meet withal in it, we can have no cause of tergiversation or complaint. And both these he confirms by his own example, as the apostle shows in the next verse. This is that which believers both reprove and refresh themselves withal, when at any time they fall into tribulation for the gospel ‘Why do you faint? why do you recoil? Hath he deceived you, who calls you to follow him in obedience? Did he hide any thing from you? Did he not set these tribulations before you, as part of the race that you were to run?’So they argue themselves into a holy acquiescency in his wisdom and will. This is the great encouragement and assurance of believers in their whole course of obedience, that whatever they are called unto is appointed for them and prescribed unto them by Jesus Christ. Hence the apostle affirms, that he did not “fight uncertain]y, as one beating the air,” because he had an assured path and course set before him. ‘This is that which Christ hath appointed for me; this is that which at my first call he proposed to me, and set before me,’are soul-quieting considerations. (3.) Our whole evangelical obedience being compared to a race, our performance of it is expressed by “running,” which is proper and necessary unto a race. And the obedience of faith is often so expressed: Psalms 119:32; Son 1:4; Isaiah 40:31; 1 Corinthians 9:24; Galatians 2:2; Philippians 2:16; Galatians 5:7. And there are two things required unto running:[1. Strength; [2. Speed; the one unto it, the other in it. There is nothing that more strength is required unto than unto running in a race: “Rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race,” Psalms 19:5. He had need be a strong man, who undertakes to run a race for a prize or victory. And speed is included in the signification of the word. To “run,” is to go swiftly and speedily. The first is opposed unto weakness, and the other to sloth and negligence. And these are the things required unto our Christian race:[1. Strength in grace; [2. Diligence with exercise. The due performance of gospel obedience, especially in the times of trial and temptation, is not a thing of course, is not to be attended in an ordinary manner. Spiritual strength, put forth in our utmost diligence, is required unto it. Seeing, therefore, that we are called unto the running of a race, we should greatly consider the things which may enable us so to do, that we may “so run as that we may obtain.” But our weakness, through our want of improving the principles of spiritual life, and our sloth in the exercise of grace, for the most part, cannot sufficiently be bewailed; and I am sure are inconsistent with this exhortation of the apostle. (4.) The last thing to be considered in the words, is the necessary adjunct or concomitant of this running the race, namely, that it be “with patience.” Patience is either a quiet, submissive suffering of evil things, or a quiet waiting for good things future with perseverance and continuance, unto the conquest of the one, or the enjoyment of the other. The word here used is by most translated “tolerantia,” and so principally respects the suffering of evil and persecution, which they were to undergo. But these things may be distinguished, though they cannot be separated, where patience is a fruit of faith. He who suffereth quietly, submissively, with content and satisfaction, what he is called unto for the profession of the gospel, doth also quietly wait for and expect the accomplishment of the promises made unto them which so suffer, which are great and many.There are sundry things supposed unto this prescription of patience in our race; as, [1. That the race is long, and of more than ordinary continuance. So it is, and so it seems unto all that are engaged in it. [2. That we shall be sure to meet with difficulties, oppositions, and temptations in this race. [3. That these things will solicit us to desist, and give over our race. With respect unto them all, patience is prescribed unto us; which, when it hath its “perfect work,” will secure us in them all. See the exposition on Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 6:15. And, —Obs. 7. The reward that is proposed at the end of this race is every way worthy of all the pains, diligence, and patience, that are to be taken and exercised in the attainment of it. The apostle here riseth unto the highest direction, encouragement, and example, with respect unto the same duty, whereof we are capable. Hitherto he hath proposed unto us their example who had and professed the same faith with ourselves; now, he proposeth Him who is the author and finisher of that faith in us all. And therefore their faith is only proposed unto us for our imitation; his person is proposed unto us as a ground also of hope and expectation. Hebrews 12:2. — ᾿Αφορῶντεςεἰςτὸντῆςπίστεωςἀρχηγὸνκαὶτελειωτὴν᾿Ιησοῦν·ὅςἀντὶτῆςπροκειμένηςαὐτῷχαρᾶς, ὑπέμεινεσταυρὸν, αἰσχύνηςκαταφρονήσας, ἐνδεξιᾷτετοῦθρόνουτοῦΘεοῦἐκαθισεν.᾿Αφορῶντες. Vulg. Lat., “aspicientes;” Eras., “respicientes;” Bez., “intuentes;” Syr., επְ ?ηεּ ?ψ, “et respiciamus;” “looking: “ we want a word to express that act of intuition which is intended. Εἰς, “in,” “ad;” “on, unto;” “looking on;” or as we better, “unto.” ᾿Αρχηγόν. Vulg. Lat., “auctorem,” the “author;” “ducem,” the ‘captain,” the “leader.” Syr., γְּ ?δָ ?εηֲ ?εָּ ?ΰψִ ?ιωָׁ ?ΰ“who was,” or “who was made, the beginning” or the “prince.”Τελειωτήν, “consummatorem,” “perfectorem.” Syr., βָ ?ξεψָ ?ΰ, “the completer” or “perfecter.” Rhem.,” the consummator,” “the finisher.” The word is commonly used in this epistle for that which is complete or perfect in its kind.᾿Αυτί is omitted by the Vulg.; and the sentence is rendered by the Rhem. “who, joy being proposed unto him.” “Pro,” it may be for ἕνεκα. The meaning of it must be considered.Προκειμένηςαὑτῶ. Syr., γִּ ?ΰιϊδֲ ?εָ ?ΰμֵ ?δּ,”which he had,” which was unto him, proposed unto him. Αἰσχύνηςκαταφρονήσας. Vulg. Lat., “confusione contempta.” Rhem,, “contemning confusion” Syr., εְ ?ςַ ?μαְּ δַ ?ϊְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰΰַ ?ξְ ?ρַ ?ψ, “and exposed himself unto confusion.” “He despised the shame.’ “Ignominid contempta,” “scornful shame.” Hebrews 12:2. — Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of the faith; who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.Herein, as I said, the apostle issues his encouraging exhortation unto perseverance in the faith and obedience of the gospel. He had before gathered up particular instances for our example, from the beginning of the world. And he chose out those persons which were most eminent, and those things wherein their faith was most eminent, wherein they have witnessed unto the truth which he confirms. Some did it by doing, and some by suffering; some one way, some another. But he ascends now unto Him who had all in himself, and gave a universal example of faith and obedience in every kind. From our companions in believing he leads us unto “the author and finisher of our faith.” And therefore he doth not propose him unto us in the same manner as he did the best of them, as mere examples, and that in this or that particular act of duty; but he proposeth his person in the first place, as the object of our faith, from whom we might expect aid and assistance for conformity unto himself, in that wherein he is proposed as our example. And I shall first open the words, and then show wherein the force of the apostle’s argument and exhortation doth consist. 1. There is a peculiar way or manner of our respect unto him prescribed; which is not so with respect unto the witnesses before called out. This is “looking” to him. And being put in the present tense, a continued act is intended. In all that we do, in our profession and obedience, we are constantly to be looking unto Christ.“Looking,” in the Scripture, when it respects God or Christ, denotes an act of faith or trust, with hope and expectation. It is not a mere act of the understanding, or consideration of what we look on; but it is an act of the whole soul in faith and trust. See Psalms 34:4-6. Isaiah 45:22, “Look unto him, and be saved, all the ends of the earth;” that is, by faith and trust in him. Such is the look of believers on Christ as pierced, Zechariah 12:10. See Hebrews 11:10, Micah 7:7, “I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me.” Wherefore the Lord Jesus is not proposed here unto us as a mere example to be considered of by us; but as him also in whom we place our faith, trust, and confidence, with all our expectation of success in our Christian course. Without this faith and trust in him, we shall have no benefit or advantage by his example. And the word here used so expresseth a looking unto him, as to include a looking off from all other things which might be discouragements unto us. Such are the cross, oppositions, persecutions, mockings, evil examples of apostates, contempt of all these things by the most. Nothing will divert and draw off our minds from discouraging views of these things but faith and trust in Christ. Look not unto these things in times of suffering, but look unto Christ. Wherefore, — Obs. 1. The foundation of our stability in faith and profession of the gospel, in times of trial and suffering, is a constant looking unto Christ, with expectation of aid and assistance; he having encouraged us unto our duty by his example, as in the following words. — Nor shall we endure any longer than whilst the eye of our faith is fixed on him. From him alone do we derive our refreshments in all our trials. 2. The object of this act or duty is proposed unto us:(1.) By his name, “Jesus.”(2.) By his office or work; “the author and finisher of our faith.”(1.) He is here proposed unto us by the name of “Jesus.” I have before observed more than once, that the apostle in this epistle makes mention of him by all the names and titles whereby he is called in the Scripture, sometimes by one, and sometimes by another; and in every place there is some peculiar reason for the name which he makes use of. The name Jesus minds us of him as a Savior and a sufferer: the first, by the signification of Mat 1:21; the latter, in that it was that name alone whereby he was known and called in all his sufferings in life and death, — that is, in that nature signified in that name. As such, under this blessed consideration of his being a Savior and a sufferer, are we here commanded to look unto him: and this very name is full of all encouragements unto the ‘duty exhorted unto. Look unto him as he was Jesus; that is, both the only Savior and the greatest sufferer. (2.) He is proposed by his office or work: “The author and finisher of our faith.” He is so, and he alone is so; and he may be said so to be on various accounts. [1. Of procurement and real efficiency. He by his obedience and death procured this grace for us. It is “given unto us on his account,” Philippians 1:29. And he prays that we may receive it, John 17:19-20. And he works it in us, or bestows it on us, by his Spirit, in the beginning and all the increases of it from first to last. Hence his disciples prayed unto him, “Lord, increase our faith,” Luke 17:5. See Galatians 2:20. So he is the “author” or beginner of our faith, in the efficacious working of it in our hearts by his Spirit; and “the finisher” of it in all its effects, in liberty, peace, and joy, and all the fruits of it in obedience: for “without him we can do nothing.”[2. He may be said to be so with respect unto the revelation of the object of our faith, that which under the gospel we are bound to believe. So “grace and truth came by him,” in that “no man hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” John 1:17-18. So he affirms of himself, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world,” John 17:6. And in distinction from all revelations made by the prophets of old, it is said, that: “in these last days God hath spoken unto us by his Son,” Hebrews 1:1-2. Hence he is called “The apostle of our profession,” Hebrews 3:1. See the exposition. So he began it, or was the author of that faith which is peculiarly evangelical, in his prophetical office, — the word which “began to be spoken by the Lord,” Hebrews 2:3; and which he hath so finished and completed that nothing can be added thereunto. But this alone is not sufficient to answer these titles. For if it were, Moses might be called the author, if not the finisher also, of the faith of the old testament. [3. Some think that respect may be had unto the example which he set us in the obedience of faith, in all that we are called to do or suffer by it or on the account of it. And it was so, a full and complete example unto us; but this seems not to be intended in these expressions, especially considering that his example is immediately by itself proposed unto us. [4. He is so by guidance, assistance, and direction. And this is certainly intended; but it is included in that which was in the first place insisted on. It is true, that in all these senses our faith from first to last is from Jesus Christ. But that [mentioned] in the first place is the proper meaning of the words; for they both of them express an efficiency, a real power and efficacy, with respect unto our faith. Nor is it faith objectively that the apostle treats of, the faith that is revealed, but that which is in the hearts of believers. And he is said to be “the author and finisher of the faith;” that is, of the faith treated on in the foregoing chapter, in them that believed under the old testament, as well as in themselves. And, — Obs. 2. It is a mighty encouragement unto constancy and perseverance in believing, that He in whom we do believe is “the author and finisher of our faith.” — He both begins it in us, and carries it on unto perfection. For although the apostle designs peculiarly to propose his sufferings unto us for this end, yet he also shows from whence his example in them is so effectual, namely, from what he is and doth with respect unto faith itself.Obs. 3. The exercise of faith on Christ, to enable us unto perseverance under difficulties and persecutions, respects him as a Savior and a sufferer, as the author and finisher of faith itself.3. The next thing in the words, is the ground or reason whereon Jesus did and suffered the things wherein he is proposed as our example unto our encouragement; and this was, “for the joy that was set before him.”The ambiguous signification of the preposition ἀντί hath given occasion unto a peculiar interpretation of the words. For most commonly it signifies, “in the stead of,” one thing for another. Thereon this sense of the words is conceived, ‘Whereas all glory and joy therein did belong unto him, yet he parted with it, laid it aside; and instead thereof chose to suffer with ignominy and shame.’So it is the same with Philippians 2:5-8. But there is no reason to bind up ourselves unto the ordinary use of the word, when the contexture wherein it is placed requires another sense not contrary thereunto. Wherefore it denotes here the final moving cause in the mind of Jesus Christ for the doing what he did. He did it on the account of “the joy that was set before him.” And we are to inquire, (1.) What this “joy” was; and,(2.) How it was “set before him.”(1.) “Joy” is taken for the things wherein he did rejoice; which he so esteemed and valued as on the account of them to “endure the cross and despise the shame;” that is, say some, his own glorious exaltation. But this is rather a consequent of what he did, than the motive to the doing of it; and as such is expressed in the close of the verse. But this joy which was set before him, was the glory of God in the salvation of the church. The accomplishment of all the counsels of divine wisdom and grace, unto the eternal glory of God, was set before him; so was the salvation of all the elect. These were the two things that the mind of Christ valued above life, honor, reputation, all that was dear unto him. For the glory of God herein was and is the soul and center of all glory, so far as it consists in the manifestation of the infinite excellencies of the divine nature, in their utmost exercise limited by infinite wisdom. This the Lord Christ preferred before, above, and beyond all things. And that the exaltation of it was committed unto him, was a matter of transcendent joy unto him. And so his love unto the elect, with his desire of their eternal salvation, was inexpressible. These things were the matter of his joy. And they are contained both of them in the promise, Isaiah 53:10-12, “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand,” etc. See how he expresseth his joy herein, Hebrews 10:5-9, with the exposition.(2.) Our second inquiry is, How was joy “set before him? “ It is an act, or acts of God the Father, the sovereign Lord of this whole affair, that is intended. And respect may be had unto three things herein:[1. The eternal constitution of God, that his suffering and obedience should be the cause and means of these things; namely, the eternal glory of God, and the salvation of the church. In this eternal decree, in this counsel of the divine will, perfectly known unto Jesus Christ, was this joy set before him, as unto the absolute assurance of its accomplishment. [2. Unto the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, wherein these things were transacted and agreed, as we have at large elsewhere declared. [3. To all the promises, prophecies and predictions, that were given out by divine revelation, from the beginning of the world. In them was this joy set before Christ. Whence he makes it the ground of his undertaking, that in the volume, or head of the Book of God, it was written of him, that he should do his will, Hebrews 10. Yea, these things were the principal subject and substance of all divine revelations, 1 Peter 1:11-12. And the respect of Christ unto these promises and prophecies, with his doing things so as that they might be all fulfilled, is frequently mentioned in the evangelists. So was the joy set before him, or proposed unto him. And his faith of its accomplishment, against oppositions, and under all his sufferings, is illustriously expressed, Isaiah 50:6-9.Obs. 4. Herein is the Lord Christ our great example, in that he was influenced and acted, in all that he did and suffered, by a continual respect unto the glory of God and the salvation of the church. And, — Obs. 5. If we duly propose these things unto ourselves, in all our sufferings, as they are set before us in the Scripture, we shall not faint under them, nor be weary of them.4. The things themselves wherein the Lord Jesus is proposed as bur example are expressed: “He endured the cross, and despised the shame.” Pain and shame are the two constituent parts of all outward sufferings. And they were both eminent in the death of the cross. No death more lingering, painful, and cruel; none so shameful in common reputation, nor in the thing itself, wherein he that suffered was in his dying hours exposed publicly unto the scorn and contempt with insultation of the worst of men. It were easy to manifest how extreme they were both in the death of Christ, on all considerations, of his person, his nature, his relations, disciples, doctrine, and reputation in them all And the Scripture doth insist more on the latter than on the former. The reproaches, taunts, cruel mockings, and contempt, that were cast upon him, are frequently mentioned, Psalms 22, 69. But we must not here enlarge on these things. It is sufficient that under these heads a confluence of all outward evils is contained, — the substance of all that can befall any of us on the account of the profession of the gospel. Neither Paganism nor Popery can go farther than painful death, shameful hanging, and the like effects of bloody cruelty. With respect unto the first of these, it is said “he endured it.” He “patiently endured it,” as the word signifies. The invincible patience of our Lord Jesus Christ, enduring the cross, was manifested, not only in the holy composure of his soul in all his sufferings to the last breath, expressed by the prophet, Isaiah 53:7; but in this also, that during his torments, being so unjustly, so ungratefully, so villanously dealt withal by the Jews, he neither reviled, reproached, nor threatened them with that vengeance and destruction which it was in his power to bring upon them every moment; but he pitied them, and prayed for them to the last, that if it were possible their sin might be forgiven, Luke 23:34; 1 Peter 2:21-23. Never was any such example of patient enduring given in the world, before nor since; nor can any equal to it be given in human nature. Obs. 6. This manner of Christ’s enduring the cross ought to be continually before us, that we may glorify God in conformity thereunto, according to the measure of our attainments, when we are called unto sufferings. — If we can see the beauty and glory of it, we are safe.As unto the second, or shame, “he despised it.” Unto invincible patience he added heroic magnanimity. is “ignominy, contempt, shame, from reproach and scorn;” such as the Lord Jesus in his death was exposed unto. An ignominy that the world, both Jews and Gentiles, long made use of, to countenance themselves in their unbelief. This he “despised;” — that is, he did not succumb under it; he did not faint because of it; he valued it not, in comparison of the blessed and glorious effect of his sufferings, which was always in his eye. Obs. 7. This blessed frame of mind in our Lord Jesus in all his sufferings, is that which the apostle proposeth for our encouragement, and unto our imitation. And it is that which contains the exercise of all grace, in faith, love, submission to the will of God, zeal for his glory, and compassion for the souls of men, in their highest degree. And, —Obs. 8. If he went so through his suffering, and was victorious in the issue, we also may do so in ours, through his assistance, who is “the author and finisher of our faith.” And, —Obs. 9. We have the highest instance that faith can conquer both pain and shame. Wherefore, —Obs. 10. We should neither think strange of them nor fear them, on the account of our profession of the gospel, seeing the Lord Jesus hath gone before, in the conflict with them and conquest of them; — especially considering what is added in the last place, as unto the fruit and event of his sufferings, namely, that he is “set down at the right hand of the throne of God;” in equal authority, glory, and power with God, in the rule and government of all. For the meaning of the words, see the exposition on Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1. In the whole, we have an exact delineation of our Christian course in a time of persecution: 1. In the blessed example of it, which is the sufferings of Christ.2. In the assured consequent of it, which is eternal glory: “If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.”3. In a direction for the right successful discharge of our duty: which is the exercise of faith on Christ himself for assistance,(1.) As a sufferer and a Savior;(2.) As the author and finisher of our faith.4. An intimation of the great encouragement, which we ought to fix upon under all our sufferings; namely, the .joy and glory that are set before us, as the issue of them. And the apostle carries on the same argument, with respect unto an especial improvement, of it in this verse. Hebrews 12:3. — ᾿Αναλογίσασθεγὰρτὸντοιαύτηνὑπομεμενηκόταὑπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶνεἰςαὑτὸνἀντιλογίαν, ἵναμὴκάμητε, ταῖςψυχαῖςὑμῶνἐκλυόμενοι.᾿Αναλογίσασθε. Syr., ηֲ ?ζַ ?ε, “see,” “behold.” Vulg., “recogitate.” Rhem., “think diligently on;” not unfitly. Beza, “reputate quis ille sit,” “counting,” “reckoning,” “judging who he is;” referring it to the person of Christ.Γάρ. Vulg., “enim.” Syr., ηָ ?λִ ?ιμ, “therefore;” for in some copies of the Greek it is ου῏ν: but when γάρ is a note of inference from what was said, and not redditive of the reason of what was said, it is better rendered in Latin by “nam” than “enim,” and includes the force of οὗν, “therefore.”Τοιαύτηνἀντιλογίαν. Syr., λְּ ?ξָ ?ΰ“quantum” or “quanta,” “how great things;” referring unto the sufferings of Christ. And indeed ἀντιλογία signifies not only a “contradiction in words,” but an “opposition in things” also, or else the translator quite left out this word, rendering τοιαύτην by λְּ ?ξָ ?ΰ. Vulg., “talem contradictionem,” “such contradiction.”῾Υπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶν. Syr., ξֵ ?οηַ ?θָ ?ιֵ ?ΰηָ ?πεּ ?ο, “from those wicked ones;” referring it to them by whom he was crucified. Εἰςαὑτὸν, “adversus semet ipsum,” “against himself.” The Syriac here departs from the original, γְּ ?δָ ?πεּ ?οδֲ ?εεּ ρַ ?χεּ ?αְ ?μָ ?ΰμְ ?πַ ?τְ ?ωְׁ ?ηεּ ?ο, “who were enemies” or “adversaries unto their own souls;” intimating the ruin that the persecutors of him brought on themselves.῞Ιναμὴκάμητε. Syr., γְּ ?μָ ?ΰϊִּ ?ΰξַ ?ομְ ?λεּ ?ο, “that ye be not weary,” that it be not irksome unto you. Vulg. Lat., “ut ne fatigemini.” Rhem., “that ye be not wearied,” in a passive sense: “fatiscatis,” “faint not.”᾿Εκλυόμενοι, “deficientes,” “fracti,” “remissi;” “faint,” “be broken in your minds.” We read the words, “lest ye be wearied, and faint in your minds;” but “and” is not in the original, and the introduction of it leads from the sense of the words: for that which is exhorted against is expressed in κάμητε, to be “wearied,” or “faint;” and the other words express the cause of it, which is the sinking of our spirits, or the breaking of our resolution, or fainting in our minds. Hebrews 12:3. — For consider him [call things to account concerning him] that endured such [so great] contradiction of sinners against himself, that ye be not wearied through fainting in your minds.The introduction of the close of this exhortation from the looking unto Jesus, is by γάρ. This renders not a reason of what was spoken before, but directs unto an especial motive unto the duty exhorted unto. Some copies read ου῏ν, “therefore,” in a progressive exhortation.The peculiar manner of the respect of faith unto Christ is expressed by ἀναλογίσασθε, which we render “consider.” So we are directed to consider him, Hebrews 3:1. But there in the original it is κατανοήσασθε, — a word of another form, used again Hebrews 10:24. So we also render θεωρεῖτε, Hebrews 7:4. This word is nowhere else used in the New Testament. ᾿Αναλογία, from whence it is taken, is so once only, Romans 12:6; where we render it “proportion,” “the proportion of faith:” and so is the word used in mathematical sciences, whereunto it doth belong; the due proportion of one thing unto another; so that the verb is to compare things by their due proportion one to another. Whether it respects the person of Christ, or his sufferings, we shall see immediately.The object of this consideration is, “him that endured.” Of this enduring we spake in the verse foregoing. But whereas mention is made of him who endured, and of what he endured, we must inquire where the emphasis lies that determines the object of the computation by proportion whereunto we are directed, though neither of them be excluded. In the first way, the force of the apostle’s exhortation is taken from the person of Christ; in the latter, from his sufferings. As, 1. ‘“Consider him;” “qualis sit;” make a just estimate between him and us. If he suffered, if he endured such things, why should not we do so also? For he is the Son of God, “the author and finisher of our faith.” He had all glory and power in his own hand.’And, 2. As to the event of his sufferings, he is set down at the right hand of God.’Compute thus with yourselves, that if he, being so great, so excellent, so infinitely exalted above us, yet “endured such contradiction of sinners,” ought we not so to do, if we are called thereunto?In the latter way, supposing the proposal of his person unto us in the foregoing verse, he calls us unto the consideration of what he suffered in particular, as unto the “contradiction of sinners;” “such,” so great “contradiction.” And the word is applied unto all manner of oppositions, and not to contradiction only, and so may include all the sufferings of Christ. These he calls us to consider, by comparing our own with them. And this sense the following words incline unto, ‘“For ye have not yet resisted unto blood,” as he did.’ But although these things are thus distinguished, yet are they not to be divided. Both the person of Christ, and what he suffered, are proposed unto our diligent consideration and computation of them, with respect unto us and our sufferings. There is in this verse, 1. A caution against, or a dehortation from, an evil that is contrary to the duty exhorted unto, and destructive of it; “that ye be not wearied.”2. The way whereby we may fall into this evil; and that is by “fainting in our minds.” 3. The means to prevent it, and to keep us up unto our duty; which is the diligent consideration of the Lord Christ, whom we are to look unto: and that,(1.) As unto the excellency of his person; and,(2.) As unto his sufferings in one peculiar way, of “enduring the contradiction of sinners.”(3.) As unto the greatness of that contradiction, — “such contradiction,” or so great.4. The force of this consideration unto that end is to be explained.1. That which we are cautioned about is, “that we be not wearied.” Κάμνω is “to labor so as to bring on weariness;” and “to be sick,” which is accompanied with weariness, James 5:15, Σώσειτὸνκάμνοντα, — “Shall save the sick;” and “to be spent with labor, so as to give over:” so here, and Revelation 2:3; in which places alone the word is used. Κεκμηκότες, in war and games for victory, are opposed to ἀκμῆτες, “those that are courageous and successful;” signifying “such as despond, faint, and give over.” Lucian in Hermot. cap. 40: Καίἔστιτοῦτοοὐμικρὰεὐτυχίατοῦἀθλητοῦτὸμέλλεινἀκμῆτατοῖςκεκμηκόσισυμπεσεῖσθαι, — “It is no small good fortune of a champion, when he that is bold and courageous, falls in contention with faint-hearted persons.” And the apostle treating before of a race, and our conflict therein, may easily be supposed to have respect unto such as fainted through weariness in those contests. But the sense of the word is fully explained in that other place, where it is used in the same case, Revelation 2:3,“Thou hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake, hast labored, and hast not fainted.”To abide and persevere in suffering and labor for the name of Christ, is, not to faint or be wearied. Wherefore, to be “wearied” in this case, is to be so pressed and discouraged with the greatness or length of difficulties and trials as to draw back, to give over partially or totally from the profession of the gospel. For there is such a weariness, as whereon men do not absolutely give over the work or labor wherein they are engaged, but it grows very uneasy and tedious unto them, that they are even ready so to give over. And this I judge to be the frame of mind here cautioned against by the apostle, name]y, the want of life, vigor, and cheerfulness in profession, tending unto a relinquishment of it. And it is hence evident, — Obs. 1. That such things may befall us, in the way of our profession of the gospel, as are in themselves apt to weary and burden us, so as to solicit our minds unto a relinquishment of it. — Such, in particular, are the mentioned reproaches and contradictions of men, making way unto further sufferings. Obs. 2. When we begin to be heartless, desponding, and weary of our sufferings, it is a dangerous disposition of mind, towards a defection from the gospel. So it hath been with many, who at first vigorously engaged in profession, but have been wrought over unto a conformity with the world, by weariness of their trials. And, —Obs. 3. We ought to watch against nothing more diligently than the insensible, gradual prevailing of such a frame in us, if we intend to be faithful unto the end. 2. There is the way whereby we fall into this dangerous condition, in the last words of the verse; it is by “fainting in our minds.” For so I take the mind of the apostle to be. Τῇψυχῇἐκλύεσθαι, is “animo defici et concidere;” “to have the strength and vigor of the mind dissolved, so as to faint and fall;” to be like a dying man, to whom “solvuntur frigore membra,” by a dissolution of all bodily strength. And wherein this doth consist we must inquire.There is a spiritual vigor and strength required unto perseverance in profession in the time of persecution. Hence our duty herein is prescribed unto us under all the names and terms of preparation for a severe fight or battle. We are commanded to “arm ourselves with the same mind that was in Christ,” 1 Peter 4:1; to “take to ourselves the whole armor of God, that we may be able to resist and stand,” Ephesians 6:13; to “watch, to stand fast in the faith, to quit ourselves like men, to be strong,” 1 Corinthians 16:13. And it is the constant, vigorous acting of faith that is required in all these things. Wherefore this “fainting in our minds,” consists in a remission of the due acting of faith by all graces, and in all duties. It is faith that stirs up and engageth spiritual courage, resolution, patience, perseverance, prayer, all preserving graces and duties. If it fail herein, and our minds are left to conflict with our difficulties in their own natural strength, we shall quickly grow weary of a persecuted profession. Here lies the beginning of all spiritual declensions, namely, in the want of a due exercise of faith in all these graces and duties. Hereon our spiritual strength is dissolved, and we wax weary. And, — Obs. 4. If we design perseverance in a time of trouble and persecution, it is both our wisdom and our duty to keep up faith unto a vigorous exercise; the want whereof is the fainting in our minds. — This is like the hands of Moses in the battle against Amalek.3. The third thing in the words is that which is laid down in the beginning of the verse; which is, the way and means of our preservation from this evil frame, and danger thereon. And this is, the diligent consideration of the person of Christ and his sufferings, or of his person in his sufferings. The meaning of the words hath been before spoken unto. The duty itself enjoined is built on the direction in the foregoing verse, to look unto him. So look unto him, as to consider diligently both who he is, and what he suffered; and so consider it as to make application of what we find in him and it unto our own case. Are we called to suffer? let us weigh seriously who went before us herein. The excellency of his person, with respect unto his sufferings, is in the first place to be called unto an account, and adjusted as unto our sufferings. This our apostle fully proposeth unto us, Philippians 2:5-11.And as unto his sufferings, he proposeth the consideration of them in one especial instance, and therein every word is emphatical: (1.) It was contradiction he underwent.(2.) It was such, or so great, as is not easy to be apprehended.(3.) It was the contradiction of sinners.(4.) It was against himself immediately.(1.) He endured “contradiction.” The word, as was observed, is used for any kind of opposition, in things as well as words, and so may include the whole suffering of Christ from men, both in the cross and in the shame thereof; but no doubt the apostle hath peculiar respect unto the revilings and reproaches which he underwent, the opposition made unto his doctrine and ministry, proclaiming himself to be a deceiver, and his doctrine to be a fable. And yet more especially, regard may be had to their triumphing over him when he was crucified: “Let the King of Israel come down from the cross, and we will believe. He saved others, himself he cannot save.” Thus was it with him. And, —(2.) The apostle intimates the severity and cruelty of those contradictions; and herein he refers us unto the whole story of what passed at his death. “Such contradiction,” — so bitter, so severe, so cruel: whatever the malicious wits of men, or suggestions of Satan could invent or broach, that was venomous and evil, was cast upon him.(3.) It was the “contradiction of sinners;” that is, such as gave no bounds to their wrath and malice. But withal, the apostle seems to reflect on them as unto their state and condition. For it was the priests, the scribes, and Pharisees, who from first to last managed this contradiction; and these all boasted themselves to be just and righteous, yea, that they alone were so, all others in comparison with them being sinners. Herewith they pleased themselves, in the height of their contradiction to Jesus Christ. And so it hath been and is with all their successors in the persecution of the church. But they did deceive themselves; they were sinners, the worst of sinners, — and had the end of sinners. (4.) It was an aggravation of his suffering, that this contradiction against him was immediate, and as it were unto his face. There is an emphasis in that expression, εἰςαὑτόν, “against himself” in person: so they told him openly to his face that he had a devil, that he was a seducer, etc.All this he “patiently endured,” as the sense of the word was declared on the foregoing verse. 4. Lastly, The consideration hereof, namely, of the Lord Christ’s patient enduring these contradictions against himself, is proposed as the means to preserve us from being weary and fainting in our minds.It is so, (1.) By the way of motive; for if he, who in himself and in his own person was infinitely above all opposition of sinners, as the apostle states the case, Philippians 2:5-8, yet for our sakes would undergo and conflict with them all, it is all the reason in the world that for his sake we should submit unto our portion in them.(2.) By the way of precedent and example, as it is urged by Peter, 1 Peter 2:21-22. (3.) By the way of deriving power from him; for the due consideration of him herein will work a conformity in our minds and souls unto him in his sufferings, which will assuredly preserve us from fainting. And we may observe, —Obs. 5. That the malicious contradiction of wicked priests, scribes, and Pharisees, against the truth, and those that profess it, on the account thereof, is suited to make them faint, if not opposed by the vigorous acting of faith on Christ, and a due consideration of his sufferings in the same kind.Obs. 6. Whoever they are, who by their contradictions unto the truth, and them that do profess it, do stir up persecution against them, let them pretend what they will of righteousness, they are sinners, and that in such a degree as to be obnoxious unto eternal death. Obs. 7. If our minds grow weak, through a remission of the vigorous acting of faith, in a time of great contradiction unto our profession, they will quickly grow weary, so as to give over, if not timely recovered.Obs. 8. The constant consideration of Christ in his sufferings is the best means to keep up faith unto its due exercise in all times of trial. Οὔτωμέχριςαἵματοςἀντικατέστητεπρὸςἁμαρτίανἀνταγωνιζόμενοι.Hebrews 12:4. — Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.Having proposed the great example of Jesus Christ, and given directions unto the improvement of it, the apostle proceeds unto more general arguments, for the confirmation of his exhortation unto patience and perseverance in the times of suffering. That in this verse is taken from the consideration of their present state, and what yet they might be called unto, in the cause wherein they were engaged. For what can redeem them from ruin under greater trials who faint under the less? The argument being taken from comparing their present state with what they might justly expect, the consideration of the things ensuing is necessary unto the exposition of the words: 1. What was their present state with respect unto troubles. 2. What they might; yet be called unto. 3. The cause whence their present and future sufferings did and were to proceed. 4. The way of opposing these evils, or danger from them. 5. The force of the argument that is in the words unto the end of the exhortation.1. The first of these, or their present state, is expressed negatively: “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood.” He grants that they had met with many sufferings already; but they had been restrained, so as not to proceed unto blood and life. And he hath respect unto what he had affirmed of their past and present sufferings, Hebrews 10:32-34. See the exposition of the place. In all these they had well acquitted themselves, as he there declares. But they were not hereby acquitted and discharged from their warfare; for, — 2. He intimates what they might yet expect; and that is blood. All sorts of violent deaths, by the sword, by tortures, by fire, are included herein. This is the utmost that persecution can rise unto. Men may kill the body; but when they have done so, they can do no more. Blood gives the utmost bounds to their rage. And whereas the apostle says, “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood,” two things are included: (1.) That those who are engaged in the profession of the gospel have no security, but that they may be called unto the utmost and last sufferings, by blood, on the account of it. For this is that which their adversaries in all ages do aim at, and that which they have attained to effect in multitudes innumerable. And God hath designed, in his infinite wisdom, that for his own glory, the glory of Christ, and of the gospel, and of the church itself, so it shall be.(2.) That whatever befall us on this side blood, is to be looked on as a fruit of divine tenderness and mercy. Wherefore I do not think that the apostle doth absolutely determine that sufferings amongst those Hebrews would come at length unto blood; but argues from hence, that whereas there is this also prepared in the suffering of the church, namely, death itself in a way of violence, they who were indulged, and as yet not called thereunto, ought to take care that they fainted not under those lesser sufferings whereunto they were exposed. And we may see, —Obs. 1. That the proportioning the degrees of sufferings, and the disposal of them as unto times and seasons, are in the hand of God. Some shall suffer in their goods and liberties, some in their lives, some at one time, some at another, as it seems good unto him. Let us therefore every one be contented with our present lot and portion in these things. Obs. 2. It is highly dishonorable to faint, in the cause of Christ and the gospel, under lesser sufferings, when we know there are greater to be undergone, by ourselves and others, on the same account.3. The third thing, is the cause of their suffering, or rather the party with whom their contest was in what they suffered; and this was “sin.” The apostle abides in his allusion unto strife or contest for victory in public games. Therein every one that was called unto them had an adversary, whom he was to combat and contend withal. So have believers in their race; and their adversary is sin. It was not their persecutors directly, but sin in them, that they had to conflict withal But whereas sin is but an accident or quality, it cannot act itself but in the subjects wherein it is. This, therefore, we may inquire, namely, in whom it is that this sin doth reside, and consequently what it is. Sin, wherewith we may have a contest, is either in others or in ourselves. These others are either devils or men. That we have a contest, a fight in our profession, with sin in devils, the apostle declares, Ephesians 6:12, ῎Εστινἡμῖνἡπάλη, — “Our wrestling,” “our contest, is with,” or “against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickednesses in high places.” In this sort of persons, that is, wicked angels, sin continually puts forth, and acts itself for the ruin and destruction of the church. Especially it doth so in stirring up persecution against it. “The devil shall cast some of you into prison,” Revelation 2:10. Against sin in them, and all the effects produced thereby, we are to strive and contend. So is it with men also, by whom the church is persecuted. They pretend other reasons for what they do; but it is sin acting itself in malice, hatred of the truth, blind zeal, envy, and bloody cruelty, that engageth, influenceth, and ruleth them in all they do. With all the effects and fruits of sin in them also believers do contend.Again; they have a contest with sin in themselves. So the apostle Peter tells us, that “fleshly lusts” do “war against the soul,” 1 Peter 2:11. They violently endeavor the overthrow of our faith and obedience. How we are to strive against them, was fully declared in the exposition of the first verse. So the apostle seems to have respect unto the whole opposition made unto our constancy in profession by sin, in whomsoever it acts unto that end, ourselves or others. And this is a safe interpretation of the word, comprehensive of a signal warning and instruction unto the duty exhorted unto. For it is a subtle, powerful, dangerous enemy which we have to conflict withal, and that which acts itself in all ways and by all means imaginable. And this answers the comparison or allusion unto a public contest, which the apostle abideth in. Yet I will not deny, but that not only the sin whereby we are pressed, urged, and inclined, but that also whereunto we are pressed and urged, namely, the sin of defection and apostasy, may be intended. This we are to contend against. But these things are not separable. And we may observe, — Obs. 3. That signal diligence and watchfulness are required in our profession of the gospel, considering what enemy we have to conflict withal This is sin, in all the ways whereby it acts its power and subtlety, which are unspeakable. Obs. 4. It is an honorable warfare, to be engaged against such an enemy as sin is. — This is all the enemy that Christians have, as such. It works in devils, in other men, in themselves; yet nothing but sin, and that as sin, is their enemy. And this being the only contrariety that is to the nature and will of God himself, it is highly honorable to be engaged against it.Obs. 5. Though the world cannot, or will not, yet Christians can distinguish between resisting the authority of men, whereof they are unjustly accused; and the resistance of sin, under a pretense of that authority, by refusing a compliance with it.4. The way or manner of the opposition to be made unto sin, in and for the preservation of our profession, is to be considered. And this is by “resisting” and “striving.” They are both military terms, expressing fortitude of mind in resolution and execution. There is included in them a supposition of a vigorous and violent assault and opposition, such as enemies make in fight or battle. It is not a ludicrous contest that we are called unto. It is our lives and souls that are fought for; and our adversary will spare neither pains nor hazard to win them. Hereunto, therefore, belong all the instructions that are given us in the Scripture, to “arm ourselves, to take to ourselves the whole armor of God, to watch, to be strong, to quit ourselves like men.” They are all included in the sense of these two words. And, —Obs. 6. There is no room for sloth or negligence in this conflict.Obs. 7. They do but deceive themselves, who hope to preserve their faith in times of trial, without the utmost watchful diligence against the assaults and impressions of sin. Yea, —Obs. 8. The vigor of our minds, in the constant exercise of spiritual strength, is required hereunto.Obs. 9. Without this, we shall be surprised, wounded, and at last destroyed, by our enemy.5. Lastly, The force of the argument in these words, unto the confirmation of the present exhortation, ariseth from the application of it unto the present state of these Hebrews. For whereas, in taking upon them the profession of the gospel, they had engaged to bear the cross, and all that was comprised therein, they were not yet come or called unto the utmost of it, namely, a resistance unto blood; so that to faint in their present state, under lesser trials, was exceedingly unbecoming of them. And, — Obs. 10. They that would abide faithful in their profession in times of trial, ought constantly to bear in mind and be armed against the worst of evils that they may be called unto on the account thereof. — This will preserve them from being shaken or surprised with those lesser evils which may befall them, when things come not to an extremity. Καὶἐκλέλησθετῆςπαρακλήσεως, ἥτιςὑμῖνὡςυἱοῖςδιαλέγεται·Υἱέμου, μὴὀλιγώρειπαιδείαςΚυρίου, μηδὲἐκλύουὑπ᾿αὐτοῦἐλεγχόμενος.Παρακλήσεως. Vulg. Lat., “consolationis,” “of the comfort” or “consolation;” which is another signification of the word, but not proper to this place. Syr., μιεּ ?μτָ ?πָ ?ΰΰֵ ?ιπָ ?ΰ, “of that doctrine.” “Exhortationis,” “adhortationis;” “of·the exhortation.”῞Ητις. The Syriac having rendered the word by “that doctrine,” adds next, “which we have spoken unto you, as unto children;” referring it unto some instructions given by the apostle.Παιδείας. Vulg., “disciplinam,” “the discipline.” Syr., .ξιְ ?γεּ ?ϊֵ ?δּ, “correction,” “rebuke;” “castigationem,” “the chastisement.” ᾿Εκλύου Vulg., “ne fatigemini;” “be not weary;” “ne sis remissus;” “faint not.”᾿Ολιγώρει, Vulg., “ne negligas:” so others, “neglect not:” we, “despise not,” properly; for not only doth the word itself signify “to set light bye” but the Hebrew ΰμΰּ ?ϊִּ ?ξְ ?ΰָ ?ρ, Proverbs 3:11, is “to repudiate, to reject and contemn.” And ξεּ ?ρָ ?ψ is properly “correction.”Hebrews 12:5. — And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint [or wax weary] when thou art rebuked of him.The apostle in these words proceeds unto a new argument, whereby to press his exhortation unto patience and perseverance under suffering. And this is taken from the nature and end, on the part of God, of all those sufferings which he sends or calls us unto. For they are not only necessary, as testimonies unto the truth, but as unto us they are chastisements and afflictions, which we stand in need of, and wherein God hath a blessed design towards us. And this argument he enforceth, with sundry considerations, unto the end of verse 13. Obs. 1. This is a blessed effect of divine wisdom, that the sufferings which we undergo from men, for the profession of the gospel, shall be also chastisements of love from God, unto our spiritual advantage. And, — Obs. 2. The gospel never requires our suffering, but if we examine ourselves, we shall find that we stand in need of the divine chastisement in it. And, —Obs. 3. When, by the wisdom of God, we can discern that what we suffer on the one hand is for the glory of God and the gospel, and on the other is necessary unto our own sanctification, we shall be prevailed with unto patience and perseverance. And, — despond, if they find themselves called to suffer for the gospel, when they seem to be unfit and unprepared for it; seeing it is the design of God, by those sufferings whereunto they are called, on a public account, to purify and cleanse them from their present evil frames.This multitudes have found by experience, that their outward pressing sufferings, between them and the world, have been personal, purifying chastisements between God and their souls. By them have they been awakened, revived, mortified unto the world, and, as the apostle expresseth it, made partakers of the holiness of God, unto their inexpressible advantage and consolation. And, — Hereby doth God defeat the counsels and expectations of the world, having a design to accomplish by their agency which they know nothing of. For those very reproaches, imprisonments, and stripes, with the loss of goods, and danger of their lives, which the world applies unto their ruin, God at the same time makes use of for their refining, purifying, consolation, and joy. In all these things are the divine wisdom and goodness of God, in contriving and effecting all these things unto the glory of his grace and the salvation of the church, for ever to be admired. In the words we may consider, 1. The connection of them unto those foregoing. 2. The introduction of a new argument, by a reference unto a divine testimony; and the nature of the argument, which consists in an exhortation unto duty. 3. Their former want of a due consideration of it. 4. The manner of the exhortation; it “speaketh as unto sons:” and, 5. The matter of it, expressed in two branches, containing the substance of the duty exhorted unto.1. The connection is in the conjunctive particle, “for.” It denotes a reason given of what went before. Wherefore there is in the foregoing words a tacit rebuke, namely, in that they were ready to faint under the lesser trials wherewith they were exercised. And the apostle gives here an account how and whence it was so with them; and makes that the means of the introduction of the new argument which he designed; as is his manner of proceeding in this whole epistle. ‘The reason,’saith he, ‘why it is so with you, that you are so ready to faint, is, because you have not attended unto the direction and encouragement which are provided for you.’And this, indeed, is the rise of all our miscarriages, namely, that we attend not unto the provision that is made in the Scripture for our preservation from them. 2. The introduction of his argument is by reference unto a divine testimony of Scripture, wherein it is contained, and that appositely unto his purpose; for it is proposed in the way of an exhortation. And as this was of great force in itself, so the Hebrews might see therein that their case was not peculiar; that it was no otherwise with them than with others of the children of God in former ages; and that God had long before laid in provision for their encouragement: which things give great weight unto the argument in hand. And it hath force also from the nature of it, which is hortatory in the name of God. For divine exhortations unto duty, — wherein He entreats who can and doth command, — are full of evidences of love, condescension, and concernment in our good. And it is the height of pride and ingratitude not to comply with God’s entreaties. 3. The apostle reflects on their former want of a due consideration of this exhortation, “Ye have forgotten.” What we mind not when we ought, and as we ought, we may justly be said to have forgotten. So was it with these Hebrews in some measure; whether by “the exhortation” we understand the divine words themselves, as recorded in the Scripture, or the things exhorted unto, the subject-matter of them. Under their troubles and persecutions they ought in an especial manner to have called to mind this divine exhortation, for their encouragement, and preservation from fainting. This, it seems, they had not done. And, —Obs. 5. The want of a diligent consideration of the provision that God hath made in the Scripture for our encouragement unto duty and comfort under difficulties, is a sinful forgetfulness, and of dangerous consequence unto our souls. — We shall be left to fainting. For “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope,” Romans 15:4.Again; in their trials, and to prevent their fainting, the apostle sends these Hebrews unto the Scriptures: which, as it proves that they ought to be conversant in them, demonstrates the springs of all spiritual strength, direction, and consolation, to be contained in them. And if this be the mind of Christ, then he that would deprive the people of the constant, daffy use of the Scriptures, is Antichrist. 4. In the manner of the exhortation, “Which speak eth unto you as unto children,” there are sundry things very remarkable.(1.) It is said to speak. The Scripture is not a dumb and silent letter, as some have blasphemed. It hath a voice in it, — the voice of God himself. And speaking is frequently ascribed unto it, John 7:42; John 19:37; Romans 4:3; Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; Galatians 4:30; James 4:5, And if we hear not the voice of God in it continually, it is because of our unbelief, Hebrews 3:7; Hebrews 3:15.(2.) The word which was spoken so long before by Solomon unto the church in his generation, is said to be spoken unto these Hebrews For the Holy Ghost is always present in the word of the Scripture, and speaks in it equally and alike unto the church in all ages. He doth in it speak as immediately unto us as if we were the first and only persons unto whom he spake. And this should teach us with what reverence we ought to attend unto the Scripture, namely, as unto the way and means whereby God himself speaks directly unto us.(3.) The word here used is peculiar, and in this only place applied unto the speaking of the Scripture. Διαλέγεται, — it “argues,” it “pleads,” it maintains a holy conference with us It presseth the mind and will of God upon us. And we shall find the force of its arguing, if we keep it not off by our unbelief.(4.) There is the infinite condescension of God in it, that “he speaketh unto us as sons:” which is proved by the application of the text, “My son.” The words are originally the words of Solomon; not as a natural father, speaking to his own son after the flesh; but as a prophet and teacher of the church, in the name of God, or of the Holy Ghost, which speaks in him and by him. It is a representation of the authority and love of God as a father. For whereas these words have a respect unto a time of trouble, affliction, and chastisement, it is of unspeakable concernment unto us to consider God under the relation of a father, and that in them he speaks unto us as sons. The words spoken by Solomon, were spoken by God himself. Although the words, “My son,” are used only to denote the persons to whom the exhortation is given, yet the apostle looks in the first place unto the grace contained in them. ‘He speaketh unto us as unto sons.’This he puts a remark upon, because our gratuitous adoption is the foundation of God’s gracious dealings with us. And this, if any thing, is meet to bind our minds unto a diligent compliance with this divine exhortation, namely, the infinite condescension and love of God, in owning of us as sons, in all our trials and afflictions. And, — Obs. 6. Usually God gives the most evident pledges of their adoption unto believers when they are in their sufferings, and under their afflictions. — Then do they most stand in need of them; then do they most set off the love and care of God towards us.“My son,” is an appellation that a wise and tender father would make use of, to reduce his child to consideration and composure of mind, when he sees him nigh unto disorder or despondency, under pain, sickness, trouble, or the like: ‘“My son,” let it not be thus with thee.’God sees us, under our afflictions and sufferings, ready to fall into discomposures, with excesses of one kind or another; and thereon applies himself unto us with this endearing expression, “My children.” ‘But if God have this kindness for believers, and no affliction or suffering can befall them but by his ordering and disposition, why doth he not prevent them, and preserve them in a better state and condition?’I answer, that the wisdom, the love, the necessity of this divine dispensation, is that which the apostle declares in the following verses, as we shall see. 5. The exhortation itself consisteth of two parts:(1.) “Not to despise the chastening of the Lord.”(2.) “Not to faint when we are rebuked of him.”Although it be God himself principally that speaks the words in the first person, yet here he is spoken of in the third; — “of the Lord,” and “of him;” for “my,” and “by me: “ which is usual in Scripture, and justifieth our speaking unto God in prayer sometimes in the second, sometimes in the third person. All our miscarriages under our sufferings and afflictions may be reduced unto these two heads. And we are apt to fall into one of these extremes, namely, either to despise chastisements, or to faint under them. (1.) Against the first we are cautioned in the first place; and the word of caution being in the singular number, we have well rendered it, “Despise not thou,” that every individual person may conceive himself spoken unto in particular, and hear God speaking these words unto him. And we may consider,[1. What is this “chastening of the Lord.” [2. What it is to “despise it.” [1. The word is variously rendered,” doctrine,” “institution,” “correction,” “chastisement,” “discipline.” And it is such correction as is used in the liberal, ingenuous education of children by their parents, as is afterwards declared. We render it “nurture,” Ephesians 6:4; where it is joined with νουθεσία, that is, “instruction.” And 2 Timothy 3:16, it is distinguished both from “reproof” and “correction;” whence we render it “instruction.” And παιδεύω, the verb, is used in both these senses; sometimes “to teach,” or “to be taught, learned, instructed,” Acts 7:22, 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:25 : sometimes “to correct” or “chastise,” Luke 23:16; Luke 23:22; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Revelation 3:19. Wherefore it is a “correction for instruction.” So it is expressed by the psalmist: “Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law,” Psalms 94:12. So doth God deal with his children; so is it necessary that he should do. It is needful that divine institution or instruction should be accompanied with correction. We stand in need of it in this world.But that which I would principally look on in the words, is the application of this exhortation unto us under sufferings, troubles, and persecutions for the gospel, which is here used by the apostle. For whereas we can see nothing in them but the wrath and rage of men, thinking them causeless, and perhaps needless; they are indeed God’s chastisements of us, for our education and instruction in his family. And if we duly consider them as such, applying ourselves to learn what we are taught, we shall pass through them more to our advantage than usually we do. Let us bend our minds unto that which is the proper work that in our persons we are called unto, and we shall find the benefit of them all. [2. That which we are cautioned against, with respect unto chastening for this end, is, that we “despise it not.” The word is nowhere used in the Scripture but in this place only. It signifies “to set lightly by, to have little esteem of, not to value any thing according to its worth and use.” The Hebrew word which the apostle renders hereby is ξָ ?ΰַ ?ν; which is commonly tendered by ἀποδοκιμάζειν, “to reprobate, to reject, to despise;” sometimes by ἐξουθενεῖν, “pro nihilo reputare,” “to have no esteem of.” We render the apostle’s word by “despise;” which yet doth not intend a despising that is so formally, but only interpretatively. Directly to despise and contemn, or reject, the chastisements of the Lord, is a sin that perhaps none of his sons or children do fall into. But not to esteem of them as we ought, not to improve them unto their proper end, not to comply with the will of God in them, is interpretatively to despise them. Wherefore the evil cautioned against is, 1st. Want of a due regard unto divine admonitions and instructions in all our troubles and afflictions. And that ariseth either from,(1st.) Inadvertency; we look on them, it may be, as common accidents of life, wherein God hath no especial hand or design: or,(2dly.) Stout-heartedness; it may be they are but in smaller things, as we esteem them, such as we may bear with the resolution of men, without any especial application unto the will of God in them.2dly. The want of the exercise of the wisdom of faith, to discern what is of God in them; as, (1st.) Love unto our persons;(2ndly.) His displeasure against our sins;(3dly.) The end which he aims at, which is our instruction and sanctification.3dly. The want of a sedulous application of our souls unto his call and mind in them;(1st.) In a holy submission unto his will;(2dly.) In a due reformation of all things wherewith he is displeased; (3dly.) In the exercise of faith for supportment under them, etc. Where there is a want of these things, we are said interpretatively to “despise the chastening of the Lord;” because we defeat the end and lose the benefit of them no less than if we did despise them.Obs. 7. It is a tender case to be under troubles and afflictions, which requires our utmost diligence, watchfulness, and care about it. — God is in it, acting as a father and a teacher. If he be not duly attended unto, our loss by them will be inexpressible.(2.) The second caution is, that we “faint not when we are reproved;” for this is the second evil which we are liable unto, under troubles and afflictions.[1. The word, both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, signifies “a reproof by rational conviction.” The same thing materially with that of “chastisement” is intended; but under this formal consideration, that there is in that chastisement a convincing reproof. God, by the discovery unto ourselves of our hearts and ways, it may be in things which we before took no notice of, convinceth us of the necessity of our troubles and afflictions. He makes us understand wherefore it is that he is displeased with us. And what is our duty hereon is declared, Habakkuk 2:1-4; namely, to accept of his reproof, to humble ourselves before him, and to betake ourselves unto the righteousness of faith for relief.[2. That which we are subject unto, when God makes his chastisements to be reproofs also (which is not always, but when we are uncompliant with his will in a peculiar manner, for which we are reproved) is to “faint.” The word hath been opened on verse 3. And this fainting under God’s reproofs consists in four things: 1st. Despondency and heartless dejection in our own minds; which David encourageth himself against, Psalms 42:5-6; Psalms 43:5.2dly. Heartless complaints, to the discouragement of others. See Hebrews 12:12-13.3dly. Omission, or giving over our necessary duty; which befalls many in times of persecution, Hebrews 10:25-26. 4thly. In judging amiss of the dealings of God, either as unto the greatness or length of our trials, or as unto his design in them. Isaiah 40:27-31.And we may learn, — Obs. 8. That when God’s chastisements in our troubles and afflictions are reproofs also, when he gives us a sense in them of his displeasure against our sins, and we are reproved by him; yet even then he requires of us that we should not faint nor despond, but cheerfully apply ourselves unto his mind and calls. — This is the hardest case a believer can be exercised withal, namely, when his troubles and afflictions are also in his own conscience reproofs for sin.Obs. 9. A sense of God’s displeasure against our sins, and of his reproving us for them, is consistent with an evidence of our adoption, yea, may be an evidence of it, as the apostle proves in the next verses.The sum of the instruction in this verse is, that, — Obs. 10. A due consideration of this sacred truth, namely, that all our troubles, persecutions, and afflictions, are divine chastisements and reproofs, whereby God evidenceth unto us our adoption, and his instructing us for our advantage, is an effectual means to preserve us in patience and perseverance unto the end of our trials. — They who have no experience of it, have no knowledge of these things. ῞ΟνγὰρἀγαπᾷΚύριος, παιδεύει·μαστιγοῖδὲπάνταυἱὸνὅνπαραδέχεται.The apostle, proceeding with the divine testimony unto his purpose recorded by Solomon, retaining the sense of the whole exactly, changeth the words in the latter clause. For instead of ιִ ?ψְ ?φֶ ?δεּ ?λְ ?ΰָ ?αΰֶ ?ϊΰּ ?αֵּ ?ο, “and as a father the son in whom he delighteth,’with whom he is pleased; he supplies μαστιγοῖδὲπάνταυἱὸνὅνπαραδέχεται, “and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” In the Proverbs the words are exegetical of those foregoing, by an allusion unto an earthly parent: “For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth, even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” In the apostle they are further explanatory of what was before affirmed; but the sense is the same. And the reason of the change seems to be, because the apostle would apply the name of “son,” from whence he argues, unto them principally intended, namely, the children of God; and not unto them who are occasionally mentioned in the allusion, which are the children of earthly parents. Or we may say, that the apostle makes this addition, confirming what was before spoken; seeing he fully explains the similitude of the latter clause in the original, in the following verses. However, the sense in both places is absolutely the same. The Syriac in the latter clause reads μαְּ ?πָ ?ιֵּ ?ΰ, in the plural number, “the sons;” and in the last words retain the Hebraism, αְּ ?δεּ ?ογְּ ?δָ ?εφָ ?αֵ ?ΰ, “in whom he willeth,” from ψָ ?φָ ?δ, that is, “is well pleased.”There may be a double distinction in reading of the last clause. Some place the incisum, or note of distinction, at πάντα; and then the sense is, “He scourgeth every one, whom he receiveth or acknowledgeth as a son:” some at υἱόν, as we render it, “every son whom he receiveth;” which is the better reading. Hebrews 12:6. — For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.There is a reason given us in these words why we should not faint under divine chastisements, as the redditive conjunction “for,” signifies. And this reason consists in a general rule, whereby what is spoken before is confirmed as highly reasonable, and way is made for what ensues. And this rule is of that nature, as is suited to answer all objections against the doctrine of afflictions, and God’s dealing with us in them; which, when we come to the trial, we shall find to be many. And this rule is, that all these things are to be referred unto the sovereignty, wisdom, and goodness of God. ‘This,’saith he, ‘is the way of God; thus it seems good to him to deal with his children; thus he may do because of his sovereign dominion over all. May not he do what he will with his own? This he doth in infinite wisdom, for their good and advantage; as also to evidence his love unto them and care of them.’And this is that which we are principally taught in these words, namely, — Obs. 1. That in all our afflictions, the resignation of ourselves unto the sovereign pleasure, infinite wisdom, and goodness of God, is the only means or way of preserving us from fainting, weariness, or neglect of duty. — After all our arguings, desires, and pleas, this is that which we must come unto: whereof we have an illustrious instance and example in Job. See Job 33:12-13; Job 34:18-19; Job 34:23; Job 34:31-33; Job_42:-6First, In the first part of the testimony given unto the sovereignty and wisdom of God, in the ways and methods of his dealing with his children, we are instructed, —Obs. 2. That love is antecedent unto chastening: he chastens whom he loves. — So it is with any father. He hath first the love of a father, before he chastens his son. Whatever, therefore, is the same materially with the chastisement of children, if it be where the love of adoption doth not precede, is punishment. The love, therefore, here intended, is the love of adoption; that is, the love of benevolence, whereby he makes men his children, and his love of complacency in them when they are so.Obs. 3. Chastising is an effect of his love. — It is not only consequential unto it, but springs from it. Wherefore there is nothing properly penal in the chastisements of believers. Punishment proceeds from love unto justice, not from love unto the person punished. Chastisement is from love to the person chastised, though mixed with displeasure against his sin. Obs. 4. Unto chastisement is required that the person chastised be in a state wherein there is sin, or that he be a sinner; but he is not properly chastised because he is a sinner, so as that sin should have an immediate influence unto the chastisement, as the meritorious cause of it, whence the person should receive a condignity of punishment thereunto. But the consideration of a state of sin is required unto all chastisement; for the end of it is to take away sin, to subdue it, to mortify it, to give an increase in grace and holiness, as we shall see. There is no chastisement in heaven, nor in hell. Not in heaven, because there is no sin; not in hell, because there is no amendment. Chastisement is a companion of them that are in the way, and of them only.Obs. 5. Divine love and chastening are inseparable. — “Whom he loveth;” that is, whomsoever he loveth. None goes free, as the apostle declares immediately. It is true, there are different degrees and measures of chastisements; which comparatively make some seem to have none, and some to have nothing else: but absolutely the divine παιδεία, or instructive chastisement, is extended unto all in the family of God, as we shall see.Obs. 6. Where chastisement evidenceth itself (as it doth many ways, with respect unto God the author of it, and those that are chastised) not to be penal, it is a broad seal set to the patent of our adoption: which the apostle proves in the following verses.Obs. 7. This being the way and manner of God’s dealing with his children, there is all the reason in the world why we should acquiesce in his sovereign wisdom therein, and not faint under his chastisement.Obs. 8. No particular person hath any reason to complain of his portion in chastisement, seeing this is the way of God’s dealing with all his children, 1 Peter 4:12; 1 Peter 5:9.Secondly, the latter clause of this divine testimony, as expressed by the apostle, “And scourgeth every son whom he receiveth,” if it were, as it is generally understood, the same with the former assertion, expressed with somewhat more earnestness, would need no further exposition, the same truth being contained in the one and the other. But I confess, in my judgment, there is something peculiar in it; which I shall propose, and leave it unto that of the reader. And, — 1. The particle δέ is nowhere merely conjunctive, signifying no more but “and,” as we and others here render it. It may rather be “etiam,” “even;” or” also,” “moreover.”2. The verb, “scourgeth,” argues at least a peculiar degree and measure in chastisement, above what is ordinary; and it is never used but to express a high degree of suffering. A scourging is the utmost which is used in παιδεία, or “corrective instruction.” Wherefore the utmost of what God inflicts on any in this world is included in this expression.3. By παραδέχεται, “receiveth, accepteth, owneth, avoweth,” the apostle expresseth ιִ ?ψְ ?φֶ ?δ in the original; the word whereby God declares his rest, acquiescency, and well-pleasing in Christ himself, Isaiah 42:1. So that anespecial approbation is included herein.4. “Every son,” is not to be taken universally, for so every son is not scourged; but it is restrained unto such sons as God doth so accept.On these considerations, I am induced to judge this to be the meaning of the words, namely, ‘Yea, even (also) he severely chastiseth, above the ordinary degree and measure, those sons whom he accepts, and delights in a peculiar manner.’For, 1. This gives a distinct sense to this sentence, and doth not make it a mere repetition in other words of what went before.2. The introductive particle and meaning of the words themselves require that there be an advancement in them, above what was before spoken.3. The dealings of God in all ages, as unto sundry instances, with his children, have been answerable hereunto.4. The truth contained herein is highly necessary unto the supportment and consolation of many of God’s children. For when they are signalized by affliction, when all must take notice that they are scourged in a peculiar manner, and suffer beyond the ordinary measure of the children of God, they are ready to despond, as Job was, and David, and Heman, and be utterly discouraged. But a due apprehension hereof, (which is a truth, whether intended here or no, as I judge it is,) namely, that it is the way of God to give them the severest trials and exercises, to scourge them, when others shall be more lightly chastened, whom he loves, accepts of, and delights in, in a peculiar manner, will make them lift up their heads, and rejoice in all their tribulations. See Romans 5:3-5; Romans 8:35-39; 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, 2 Corinthians 6:4-10; 2 Corinthians 11:23-28.The reasons and ends of God’s dealing thus with those whom he owneth and receiveth in a peculiar manner, with that provision of heavenly consolation for the church, with holy weapons against the power of temptations in such cases as that complained of by Heman, Psalms 88, which are treasured up in this sacred truth, are well worthy our enlargement on them, if it were suitable unto our present design. Εἰπαιδείανὑπομένετε, ὡςυἱοῖςὑμῖνπροσφέρεταιὁΘεὸςτίςγάρἐστινυἱὸςὅνοὐπαιδεύειπατήρ;Παιδείανὑπομένετε. Vulg. Lat., “in disciplina perseverate;” Rhem., “persevere ye in discipline:” neither to the words nor to the sense of the place.῾ΥμῖνπροσφέρεταιὁΘεός. “Vobis offert se Deus,” Vulg.; “God doth offer himself unto you.” “Exhibebit,” or “exhibet.” Syr., φֵ ?ιΰγְ ?ιλεּ ?ογֵּ ?ΰֵ ?ικְ γַּ ?μְ ?εָ ?ϊαְּ ?πָ ?ιֵ ?ΰρָ ?ςֵ ?ψ, “dealeth with you as with children.”Πατήρ, ΰֲ ?αεּ ?δִ ?ι, “his father.”Tremellius renders the Syriac, “Endure therefore chastisement, because God dealeth with you as with children;” which somewhat alters the sense of the original but gives that which is good and wholesome. Hebrews 12:7. — If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?It is not a new argument that is here produced, but an inference from and an especial application of that foregoing, and the exhortation confirmed by it. There are three things in the words: 1. A supposition of the performance of the duty exhorted unto:” If ye endure,” etc. 2. The benefit or advantage obtained thereby: “God dealeth,” etc. 3. An illustration of the whole, by a comparison with men in their dealings: “For what son,” etc.As to the First, the Vulgar reads, as we observed, “Persevere ye in discipline;” probably for εἰ reading εἰς, and taking ὑπομένετε in the imperative mood. But as ὑπομένεινεἰςπαιδείαν is no proper Greek expression, so the sense is obscured by it. There is therefore a supposition in the words, ‘If you do comply with the exhortation.’Both the words have been opened before. Schlichtingius, Grotius, etc., would have ὑπομένετε to signify only “to undergo,” “to endure the sorrow and pain of afflictions, without respect unto their patience or perseverance in enduring of them.” And so, saith Grotius, is the word used James 1:12; which is quite otherwise, as every one will discern that doth but look on the text. Nor is it ever used in the New Testament but to express a grace in duty, a patient endurance. So is it twice used in this chapter before, Hebrews 11:1-2. And there is no reason here to assign another sense unto it. Besides, a mere suffering of things calamitous, which is common unto mankind, is no evidence of any gracious acceptance with God. “If ye endure;” that is, with faith, submission, patience, and perseverance, so as not to faint.The chastisement intended, we have before declared. This, therefore, is that which the apostle designs: ‘If,’saith he, afflictions, trials, and troubles, do befall you, such as God sends for the chastisement of his children, and their breeding up in his nurture and fear; and you undergo them with patience and perseverance, if you faint not under them, and desert your duty, etc.’And, — This patient endurance of chastisements is of great price in the ,sight of God, as well as of singular use and advantage unto the souls of them that believe. For, — Secondly, Hereon “God dealeth with you as with sons.” The word προσφέρεται is peculiar in this sense. ‘He offereth himself unto you in the σχέσις, the “habit” of a father to his children.’‘He proposeth himself unto you [as a father,] and acteth accordingly; not as an enemy, not as a judge, not as towards strangers; but as towards children.’I think, “He dealeth with you,” doth scarce reach the importance of the word. Now, the meaning is not, ‘That hereupon, on the performance of this duty, when you have so done, God will act towards you as sons;’for this he doth in all their chastisements themselves, as the apostle proves: but, ‘Hereby it will evidently appear, even unto yourselves, that so God deals with you; you shall be able, in all of them, to see in him the discipline and acting of a father towards his sons. As such, he will present himself unto you.’ Wherefore, — Obs. 1. Afflictions or chastisements are no pledges of our adoption, but when and where they are endured with patience. — If it be otherwise with us, they are nothing but tokens of anger and displeasure. So that, — Obs. 2. It is the internal frame of heart and mind under chastisements that lets in and receives a sense of God’s design and intention towards us in them. — Otherwise “no man knoweth love or hatred, by all that is before him;” no conclusion can be made one way or other from hence, that we are afflicted. All are so, the best and worst, or may be so. But it is unto us herein according unto our faith and patience. If the soul do carry itself regularly and obedientially under its trials, every grace will so act itself as to beget in it a secret evidence of the love of God, and a view of him, as of a father. If our hearts tumultuate, repine, faint, and are weary, no sense of paternal love can enter into them, until they are rebuked and brought into a composure. Obs. 3. This way of dealing becomes the relation between God and believers, as father and children; namely, that he should chastise, and they should bear it patiently. — This makes it evident that there is such a relation between them. And this the apostle illustrates from the way and manner of men in that relation one to another. Thirdly, “For what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?” ‘Think not strange hereof; it is that which necessarily follows their relation, “for what son.”’The apostle doth not take his allusion from matter of fact, but from right and duty: for there are many, too many sons, that are never chastised by their fathers; which commonly ends in their ruin. But he supposeth two things:1. That every son will more or less stand in need of chastisement. 2. That every wise, careful, and tender father will in such cases chasten his son.Wherefore the illustration of the argument is taken from the duty inseparably belonging unto the relation of father and son; for thence it is evident that God’s chastening of believers is his dealing with them as sons. Εἰδὲχρωίςἐστεπαιδείας, ἧςμέτοχοιγεγόνασιπάντες, ἄρανόθοιἐστὲ, καὶοὐχυἱσί.Νόθοι. Syr., πּ ?εּ ?λְ ?ιָ ?ιֵ ?ΰ “aliens,” “foreigners,” “strangers.” Vulg. Lat.,” adulteri;” which the Rhem. render “bastards,” because of the palpable mistake in the Latin. Bez., “supposititil;” which, as Renius on Valla observes, is ὑποβολιμαῖοι, properly “spurii,” “bastards,” children illegitimate, who have no right to the inheritance.Hebrews 12:8. — But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.The rule which the apostle hath laid down concerning chastisements, as a necessary, inseparable adjunct of the relation between father and son, is so certain in nature and grace, that to the inference which he hath made on the one hand unto the evidence of sonship from them, he adds here another no less unto his purpose on the other; namely, that those who have no chastisements are no sons, no children. There is in the words, 1. A supposition of a state without chastisement; 2. An application of the rule unto that state, “All sons are chastised;”3. An inference from both, that such persons are “bastards, and not sons:” whereunto we must add the force of this reasoning unto his present purpose.1. The introduction of the supposition by εἰδέ, “but if,” declares that what he speaks is of another, contrary nature unto that before proposed: ‘But if it be otherwise with you, namely, that ye are without chastisement.’ Take “chastisement” materially for every thing that is grievous or afflictive, and no man is absolutely without it. For all men must die, and undergo the weaknesses or troubles that lead thereunto; and commonly this is most grievous unto them who have had least trouble in their lives. But comparatively, some even in this sense are freed from chastisement. Such the psalmist speaks of, “There are no bands in their death, but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued like other men,” Psalms 73:4-5 : which he gives as a character of the worst sort of men in the world.But this is not the chastisement here intended. We have showed before that it is an eruditing, instructive correction; and so doth the design of the place require that it should here signify. And this some professors of Christian religion may be without absolutely. Whatever trouble they may meet withal, yet are they not under divine chastisements for their good. Such are here intended. Yet the apostle’s design may reach farther; namely, to awaken them who were under troubles, but were not sensible of their being divine chastisements, and so lost all the benefit of them. For even such persons can have no evidence of their sonship, but have just ground to make a contrary judgment concerning themselves. 2. To confirm his inference, the apostle adds the substance of his rule: “Whereof all are partakers.” The Syriac reads it, “Wherewith every man is chastised;” but it must be restrained to “sons,” whether the sons of God or of men, as in the close of the foregoing verse. This, therefore, the apostle is positive in, that it is altogether in vain to look for spiritual sonship without chastisement. They are all partakers of it, every one of his own share and portion. There is a general measure of afflictions assigned unto the church, Head and members, whereof every one is to receive his part, Colossians 1:24.3. The inference on this supposition is, that such persons are “bastards, and not sons” Their state is expressed both positively and negatively, to give the greater emphasis unto the assertion. Besides, if he had said only, ‘Ye are bastards,’it would not have been so evident that they were not sons, for bastards are sons also; but they are not such sons as have any right unto the paternal inheritance. Gifts they may have, and riches bestowed on them by their fathers; but they have no right of inheritance by virtue of their sonship. Such doth the apostle here declare them to be who are without chastisement. And we may hence observe, — Obs. 1. That there are no sons of God, no real partakers of adoption, that are without some crosses or chastisements in this world. — They deceive themselves, who expect to live in God’s family and not to be under his chastening discipline. And this should make every one of us very well contented with our own lot and portion, whatever it be. Obs. 2. It is an act of spiritual wisdom, in all our troubles, to find out and discern divine, paternal chastisements; without which we shall never behave ourselves well under them, nor obtain any advantage by them. — So should we do in the least, and so in the greatest of them.Obs. 3. There are in the visible church, or among professors, some that have no right unto the heavenly inheritance. — They are bastards; sons that may have gifts and outward enjoyments, but they are not heirs. And this is a great evidence of it in any, namely, that they are not chastised; — not that they are not at all troubled, for they may be in trouble like other men, (for “man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward,”) but that they are not sensible of divine chastisement in them; they do not receive them, bear them, nor improve them, as such. Obs. 4. The joyous state of freedom from affliction is such as we ought always to watch over with great jealousy, lest it should be a leaving of us out of the discipline of the family of God. — I do not say, on the other hand, that we may desire afflictions, much less cruciate ourselves, like some monastics or Circumcelliones; but we may pray that we may not want any pledge of our adoption, leaving the ordering and disposal of all things unto the sovereign will and pleasure of God.Lastly, There is great force from this consideration added unto the apostle’s exhortation, namely, that we should not faint under our trials and afflictions: for if they are all such divine chastisements as without which we can have no evidence of our relation unto God as a father, yea, as without a real participation wherein we can have no right unto the eternal inheritance, it is a thing unwise and wicked to be weary of them, or to faint under them. Ει῏τατοὺςμὲντῆςσαρκὸςἡμῶνπατέραςεἴχομενπαιδευτὰς, καὶἐνετρεπόμεθα·οὐπολλῷμᾶλλονὑποταγησόμεθατῷΠατρὶτῶνπςευμάτων, καὶζήσομεν; Οἱμὲνγὰρπρὸςὀλίγαςἡμέρας, κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοῖς, ἐπαίδευον·ὁδὲἐπὶτὸσυμφέρον, εἰςτο, μεταλαβεῖντῆςἀγιότητοςαὐτοῦ.Ει῏τα. Syr., εֵ ?ΰο, “and if;” that is, εἰδέ: which Beza judgeth the more commodious reading; which is undoubtedly a mistake, for the apostle intimates a progress unto a new argument in this word. Vulg. Lat., “deinde;” and so Beza, properly; which we render “furthermore,” or “moreover.” Some, “ira;” “so,” “in like manner.”Τοὺςμὲντῆςσαρκός, etc. Some refer σαρκός to παιδευτάς, and not to πατέρας. So the sense should be, “we have had fathers, chasteners of the flesh.” But the opposition between “fathers” in the first place, and the “Father of spirits” afterwards, will not admit hereof, And the Syriac determines the sense, γְּ ?αֶ ?ρְ ?ψָ ?ΰψָ ?γִ ?ιοδֲ ?εεּ μַ ?οΰֲ ?αָ ?διִּ ?ο“and if the fathers of our flesh have chastised us”᾿Ενετρεπόμεθα. Vulg. Lat., “reverebamur cos,” “reveriti sumus;” “we gave them reverence.” All supply “them” unto the text. Syr., “we were affected with shame for them;” as all correction is accompanied with an ingenuous shame in children.Πρόςὀλίγαςἡμέρας. Vulg., “in tempore paucorum dierum.” Rhem., “for a time of few days,” a short time. Syr., μζְ ?αָ ?οδεּ ζְ ?ςεּ ?ψ, “Ad paucos dies,” “for a few days.” “for a little while.” Κατὰτὸδοκοῦναὐτοῖς. Vulg., “secundum voluntatem suam,” “according to their will.” Syr., ΰֵ ?ικְ γְּ ?φָ ?αִ ?ιοηֲ ?εεּ, “according as they would.” [Beza,] “prout ipsis videbatur,” “as it seemed good unto them.” We, “after their own pleasure;” without doubt improperly, according to the usual acceptation of that phrase of speech. For it intimates a regardlessness to right and equity, whereof there is nothing in the original. “According to their judgment,” “as they saw good,” or supposed themselves to have reason for what they did. ᾿Επὶτο, συμφέρον, “ad id quod utile est,” “unto that which is profitable.” Syr., for ὁδέ, ΰַ ?μָ ?ηָ ?ΰγֵּ ?ιο, “but God,” who is intended; μְ ?ςεּ ?γְ ?ψָ ?πַ ?ο, “unto out’aid” or “help.” “Ad commodum,” that is, “nostrum;” “for our profit.”Εἰςτὸμεταλαζεῖντῆςἁγιότητοςαὐτοῦ. Vulg., “in recipiendo sanctificationem ejus;” Rhem., “in receiving of his sanctification;” missing the sense of both the words. Sanctification is ἀγιασμός, not ἁγιότης; and εἰςτό expresseth the final cause.Hebrews 12:9-10. — Moreover, we have had fathers of our flesh, who chastened [us,] and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened [us,] as it seemed good unto them; but he for [our] profit, that [we] might partake of his holiness.The design of these words is further to evince the equity of the duty exhorted unto, namely, the patient enduring of divine chastisement; which is done on such cogent principles of conviction as cannot be avoided. It is a new argument that is produced, and not a mere application or improvement of the former; as the word ει῏τα, “furthermore,” or “moreover,” doth signify. The former was taken from the right of parents, this is taken from the duty of children.And the argument in the words is taken from a mixture of principles and experience. The principles whereon it proceeds are two, and of two sorts: the first is from the light of nature, namely, that children ought to obey their parents, and submit unto them in all things; the other is from the light of grace, namely, that there is the same real relation between God and believers as is between natural parents and their children, though it be not of the same nature. The whole strength of the argument depends on these undoubted principles. For the confirmation of the first of these principles, common experience is produced. ‘It is so, for it hath been so with us; we ourselves have had such fathers,’etc. As for the manner of the argument, it is “a comparatis,” and therein “a minori ad majus.” ‘If it be so in the one case, how much more ought it to be so in the other.’ In each of the comparates there is a supposition consisting of many parts, and an assertion on that supposition: in the first, as to matter of fact, in the latter, as unto right; as we shall see. The supposition in the first of the comparates consists of many parts; as, 1. That “we have had fathers of our flesh;” those from whom we derived our flesh by natural generation. This being the ordinance of God, and the way by him appointed for the propagation of mankind, is the foundation of the relation intended, and that which gives parents the right here asserted. That learned man did but indulge to his fancy, who would have these “fathers” to be the teachers of the Jewish church; which how they should come to be opposed unto “the Father of spirits,” he could not imagine.2. That they were chasteners: “They chastened us.” They had a right so to do, and they did so accordingly.3. The rule whereby they proceeded in their so doing is also supposed, namely, they used their judgment as unto the causes and measure of chastisement; they did it “as it seemed good unto them.” It is not said that they did it for or according to their pleasure, without respect unto rule or equity; for it is the example of good parents that is intended: but they did it according to their best discretion; wherein yet they might fail, both as unto the causes and measure of chastisement.4. The exercise of this right is “for a few days.” And this may have a double sense:(1.) The limitation of the time of their chastisement, namely, that it is but for a little while, for a few days; to wit, whilst we are in infancy, or under age. Ordinarily corporal chastisements are not longer continued. So “a few days,” is a few of our own days. Or,(2.) It may respect the advantage which is to be obtained by such chastisement; which is only the regulation of our affections for a little season.The case on the one hand being stated on these suppositions, the duty of children, under the power of their natural parents, is declared. And the word signifies “an ingenuous, modest shame, with submission;” opposite unto stubbornness and frowardness. We add the word “them” unto the original, which is necessary; “we had them in reverence.” ‘We were kept in a temper of mind meet to be applied unto duty. We did not desert the family of our parents, nor grow weary of their discipline, so as to be discouraged from our duty.’And, — Obs. 1. As it is the duty of parents to chastise their children, if need be, and of children to submit thereunto; so, —Obs. 2. It is good for us to have had the experience of a reverential submission unto paternal chastisements; as from hence we may be convinced of the equity and necessity of submission unto God in all our afflictions. For so these things are improved by the apostle. — And they arise from the consideration of the differences that are between divine and parental chastisements. For, —1. He by whom we are chastised is “the Father of spirits.” He is a father also, but of another kind and nature than they are. “The Father of spirits; that is, of our spirits: for so the opposition requires; the fathers of our flesh, and the Father of our spirits. And whereas the apostle here distributes our nature into its two essential parts, the flesh and the spirit; it is evident that by the “spirit,” the rational soul is intended. For although the flesh also be a creature of God, yet is natural generation used as a means for its production; but the soul is immediately created and infused, having no other father but God himself. See Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1; Jeremiah 38:16. I will not deny but that the signification of the word here may be farther extended, namely, so as to comprise also the state and frame of our spirits in their restoration and rule, wherein also they are subject unto God alone; but his being the immediate creator of them is regarded in the first place.And this is the fundamental reason of our patient submission unto God in all our afflictions, namely, that our very souls are his, the immediate product of his divine power, and under his rule alone. May he not do what he will with his own? Shall the potsherd contend with its maker? 2. It is supposed from the foregoing verses, that this Father of our spirits doth also chastise us; which is the subject-matter treated of.3. His general end and design therein, is “our profit” or advantage. This being once well fixed, takes off all disputes in this case. Men, in their chastisements, do at best but conjecture at the event, and are no way able to effect it: but what God designs shall infallibly come to pass; for he himself will accomplish it, and make the means of it certainly effectual. But it may be inquired, what this “profit,” this benefit or advantage, is; for outwardly there is no appearance of any such thing. This is declared in the next place. 4. The especial end of God in divine chastisements, is, “that he may make us partakers of his holiness.” The holiness of God, is either that which he hath in himself, or that which he approves of and requires in us. The first is the infinite purity of the divine nature; which is absolutely incommunicable unto us, or any creature whatever. Howbeit we may be said to be partakers of it in a peculiar manner, by virtue of our interest in God, as our God: as also by the effects of it produced in us, which are his image and likeness, Ephesians 4:24; as we are said to be made “partakers of the divine nature,” 2 Peter 1:4. And this also is the holiness of God in the latter sense; namely, that which he requires of us and approves in us.Whereas, therefore, this holiness consists in the mortification of our lusts and affections, in the gradual renovation of our natures, and the sanctification of our souls, the carrying on and increase of these things in us is that which God designs in all his chastisements. And whereas, next unto our participation of Christ, by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, this is the greatest privilege, glory, honor, and benefit, that in this world we can be made partakers of, we have no reason to be weary of God’s chastisements, which are designed unto no other end. And we may observe, — Obs. 3. No man can understand the benefit of divine chastisement, who understands not the excellency of a participation of God’s holiness. — No man can find any good in a bitter potion, who understands not the benefit of health. If we have not a due valuation of this blessed privilege, it is impossible we should ever make a right judgment concerning our afflictions.Obs. 4. If under chastisements we find not an increase of holiness, in some especial instances or degrees, they are utterly lost: we have nothing but the trouble and sorrow of them.Obs. 5. There can be no greater pledge or evidence of divine love in afflictions than this, that God designs by them to “make us partakers of his holiness,” — to bring us nearer to him, and make us more like him. 5. The reasons from whence they have their efficacy unto this end, and the way whereby they attain it, are,(1.) God’s designation of them thereunto, in an act of infinite wisdom; which gives them their efficacy. (2.) By weaning us from the world, and the love of it, whose vanity and unsatisfactoriness they openly discover, breaking the league of love that is between it and our souls.(3.) By calling us unto the faith and contemplation of things more glorious and excellent, wherein we may find rest and peace.That which is required of us, as children, is, that we be “in subjection” unto him, as “the Father of spirits.” This answers unto the having of our earthly parents in reverence, before mentioned; — the same which the apostle Peter calls, “humbling of ourselves under the mighty hand of God,” 1 Peter 5:6. And there may be respect unto the disobedient son under the law, who refused to subject himself to his parents, or to reform upon their correction, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; which I the rather think, because of the consequent assigned unto it, “And live;” whereas the refractory son was to be stoned to death. And this subjection unto God consists in, 1. An acquiescency in his right and sovereignty to do what he will with his own.2. An acknowledgment of his righteousness and wisdom in all his dealings with us.3. A sense of his care and love, with a due apprehension of the end of his chastisements.4. A diligent application of ourselves unto his mind and will, as unto what he calls us unto in an especial manner at that season.5. In keeping our souls, by faith and patience, from weariness and despondency.6. In a full resignation of ourselves unto his will, as to the matter, manner, times, and continuance of our affliction.And where these things are not in some degree, we cast off the yoke of God, and are not in due subjection unto him; which is the land inhabited by the sons of Belial. Lastly, The consequent of this subjection unto God in our chastisements, is, that “we shall live:” “And,” or “for so we shall live.” Though in their own nature they seem to tend unto death, or the destruction of the flesh, yet is it life whereunto they are designed, — which is the consequent, which shall be the effect of them, 2 Corinthians 4:16-18. The increase of spiritual life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, are that whereunto they tend. The rebellious son, who would not submit himself to correction, was to die without mercy; but they who are in subjection unto God in his chastisements, shall live. Πᾶσαδὲπαιδείαπρὸςμὲντὸπαρὸνοὐδοκεῖχαρᾶςει῏ναι, ἀλλὰλύπης·ὕστερονδὲκαρπὸνεἰρηνικὸντοῖςδι᾿αὐτῆςγεγυμνασμένοιςἀποδίδωσιδικαιοσύνης.Καρπόν. Syr., τִּ ?ΰψֵ ?ΰγָּ ?ωְׁ ?μָ ?ξָ ?ΰεַ ?γְ ?ζַ ?γִּ ?ιχεּ ?ηָ ?ΰ, “the fruit of peace and righteousness.” Vulg., “fructum pacatissimum;” “most, peaceable,” Rhem.; and ἀποδίδωσι it renders in the future, “reddet,” for “reddit.”Hebrews 12:11. — Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness, unto them which are exercised thereby.This is the close of the apostle’s dispute and arguing about sufferings and afflictions, with the use of them, and our duty in bearing them with patience. And he gives it us in a general rule, wherein he balanceth the good and evil of them, showing how incomparably the one exceedeth the other. The same argument he insisteth upon, 2 Corinthians 4:17, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.”And he states his rule so as, by a concession, to obviate an objection against a compliance with his exhortation; and this is taken from the trouble and sorrow wherewith chastisement is accompanied. This, therefore, he takes for granted, he will not contend about it; but he takes off all its weight, by opposing the benefit of it thereunto. The literal expression in the original is, “But every chastisement at present seems not to be of joy;” that is, none doth seem so to be. The introduction of the whole is by the particle δέ, which some render by “enim,” some by “autem;” “for” and “but.” There is no more in it (for it is used variously) but an intimation of a progress in discourse. We render it “now,” not as an adverb of time, but as a note of attention.The particle μέν is omitted in our translation. Others render it by “quidem,” “truly.” And where it is so joined in sense with δέ, as here it is, it hath the force of an asseveration, “for truly,” or “now truly.” First, In the concession we may observe, —1. The universality of the expression, “every chastisement,” not any excepted: for what is affirmed is of the nature of chastisements; what is not so is none. If any thing that is evil befall a man, if it be no way dolorous unto him, it may be a judgment on him, it is not a chastisement to him.2. The time wherein a judgment is made of it, wherein this concession is made: “For the present;” — that is, whilst it is actually on us, whilst we suffer under it, especially in its first ingress and assault; whilst the wound it gives unto the mind is fresh, before it be mollified by the ointment of faith and submission unto God.3. Hereof it is affirmed, that “it seemeth not to be joyous, but grievous;” that is, whatever be spoken of the good of chastisement, it represents itself otherwise unto us, it appears with another face unto us, and we cannot but make another judgment of it. The meaning is not, that it only seems so to be, but is not so; but really so it is, and so we do esteem it.And the original is, “It is not of joy, but of sorrow;” that is, say some, there is an ellipsis, to be supplied by ποιητική, or some such word, — ‘It is not effective of joy, but of sorrow.’But this seems not to be the meaning of the words; for it is in the issue really effective of joy also. And the apostle speaks not of it here as unto its effects, but as unto its nature in itself. And so it is not of joy; it belongs not unto things joyous and pleasant. It is not a sweet confection, but a bitter potion. It is of the nature of things sorrowful. It is of sorrow; which we render “grievous.” But that word is of an ambiguous signification in our language. Sometimes we render βαρύς by it, 1 John 5:3, Καὶαἱἐντολαὶαὐτοῦβαρείαιοὐκεἰσίν, — “And his commandments are not grievous;” that is, “heavy, burdensome:” sometimes λύπη, as in this place; that is, “dolorous and sorrowful.” So it is here; a matter of sorrow. It is in the nature of every chastisement to be a matter of sorrow and grief at present unto them that are chastised. This we render, being “in heaviness,” 1 Peter 1:6, — λυπηθέντες; being “afflicted with sorrow, through manifold temptations,” or afflictions. And sundry things we may yet observe, to clear the sense of the place; as, —Obs. 1. When God designeth any thing as a chastisement, it is in vain to endeavor to keep off a sense of it; it shall be a matter of sorrow unto us. — Men are apt in their trials to think it a point of courage and resolution to keep off a sense of them, so as not to be affected with grief about them. It is esteemed a piece of pusillanimity to mourn, or be affected with sorrow about them. It is true, indeed, that so far as they are from men, and am sufferings for the gospel, there is a heroic frame of spirit required to the undergoing of them; so as that it may appear that we are “in nothing terrified by our adversaries.” But there is no pusillanimity in us towards God. It is our duty to take in a deep sense of his rebukes and chastisements. And if he doth design any thing that doth befall us as a chastisement, it is in vain for us to contend that it may not be a matter of sorrow unto us. For if it yet be not so, it is but an entrance into his dealing with us. He will not cease, until he hath broken the fierceness and tamed the pride of our spirits, and hath brought us, like obedient children, to submit ourselves under his mighty hand. Wherefore, — Obs. 2. Not to take in a sense of sorrow in affliction, is through stout-heartedness to “despise the chastening of the Lord;” the evil that we are cautioned against, verse 5.Obs. 3. The sorrow intended, which accompanies chastisement, is that which the apostle terms λύπηκατάΘεόν, 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; “Sorrow according unto God,” or “after a godly sort.” — It is not the wailing of the flesh upon a sense of pain; it is not the disorder of our affections upon their encounter with things grievous to our present state and ease; it is not a heartless despondency under our pressures, enfeebling us unto our duties: but it is a filial sense of God’s displeasure, accompanied with nature’s aversation and declension from things evil unto it and grievous. Obs. 4. The nature and end of afflictions are not to be measured by our present sense of them. — At present they are dolorous; but the great relief under what is grievous at present in them, is the due consideration of their end and tendency, as unto what they are appointed for of God. And, —Obs. 5. All the trouble of afflictions is but “for the present,” at most but for the little while which we are to continue in this world. — Within a very short time we shall leave them and their trouble behind us for evermore. Secondly, In balance against this matter of sorrow in chastisement, the apostle lays the advantage and benefit of it. And this he doth in three things: 1. By showing what that benefit is; 2. When it is received; and, 3. By whom.1. For the benefit of chastisement itself, it is expressed in a three, fold gradation:(1.) That it “yieldeth fruit.”(2.) That this fruit is the “fruit of righteousness.”(3.) That this fruit of righteousness is “peaceable.”(1.) It “yieldeth fruit.” Not, it will do so, as the Vulgar reads; but it doth so; namely, in the season designed. It is not a dead, useless thing. When God purgeth his vine, it is that it may bear more fruit, John 15:2. When he dresseth his ground, it shall bring forth herbs meet for himself, Hebrews 6:7. The whole of God’s dealing and design herein is set forth in an elegant allusion unto a husbandman in the management of his corn, Isaiah 28:23-29. And this fruit in general is of two sorts:[1. The taking away of sin, by the mortification of it: “By this therefore shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged; and this is all the fruit to take away his sin,” Isaiah 27:9.[2. In the increase of righteousness or holiness; which is here expressed. (2.) This fruit, then, is the “fruit of righteousness;” not righteousness itself, not that fruit which righteousness is, but that which it bears or brings forth. Neither our doing nor our suffering is the cause of our righteousness; but they promote it in us and increase its fruit. So the apostle prays for the Corinthians, that God would “increase” in them “the fruits of their righteousness,” 2 Corinthians 9:10 : and for the Philippians, that they might be “filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God,” Philippians 1:11. Wherefore by “righteousness” in this place, our sanctification, or the internal principle of holiness and obedience, is intended; and the “fruits” hereof, are its increase in the more vigorous actings of all graces, and their effects in all duties. Especially, the fruits of righteousness here intended, are patience, submission to the will of God, weanedness from the world, mortification of sin, heavenly-mindedness, purity of heart, readiness for the cross, and the like. See Romans 5:3-5, with John 15:2-4; which places compared, are a full exposition of this.(3.) This fruit of righteousness, which chastisement yieldeth, is “peaceable.” “The work of righteousness shall be peace,” Isaiah 32:17. “The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace,” James 3:18. And it is so on a threefold account: [1. Because it is a pledge and evidence of our peace with God. When we are chastised, especially if our pressures are great or many, we are apt to question what our state is with respect unto God, who seems to be so displeased with us as to make us the peculiar objects of his anger; but when these fruits are brought forth in us, they are high evidence that God is at peace with us, and that he designs our eternal good in all these chastisements, Romans 5:3-5.[2. Because they bring in peace into our own minds. Afflictions are apt to put our minds into a disorder; our affections will tumultuate, and raise great contests in our souls. But by these fruits of righteousness our hearts are quieted, our minds composed, all tumults allayed, and we are enabled to “possess our souls in patience.” [3. With respect unto other men. The next thing which the apostle giveth us in charge, after he hath discharged his discourse about suffering and afflictions, is, that we should “follow peace with all men,” verse 14. Now, the way whereby we may do this, is only by abounding in these fruits of righteousness; for they alone are the way and means of attaining it, if it be possible so to do. And therefore that charge of following peace with all men, is nothing but an injunction to perform all duties of righteousness towards them. This is the advantage which comes by chastisements, which the apostle lays in the balance against all that is grievous in them. 2. There is the season wherein they yield this fruit; and that is, “afterward:” “Nevertheless,” or “but afterward;” — that is, plainly, after we have been a while exercised with them. This effect of them, it may be, doth not appear at first. We have their surprisal, as it was with Job, to conflict withal, which suspends for a while the production of these fruits. So the apostle Peter prays for believers, that ὁλίγονπάθοντας, “after they had suffered a while, God would strengthen and perfect them,” 1 Peter 5:10. And so it is evident in experience. Chastisements do not effectually operate unto this end until after some time of exercise. They first tend to subdue the flesh, to root up weeds, thorns and briers, to break up the stubborn fallow ground, and then to cherish the seeds of righteousness.3. So it is added in the last place, it yieldeth this fruit “unto them,” — that is, only unto them, — “ who are exercised thereby.” The word here used signifies an exercise with diligence and vehemence; there being an allusion in it unto those who stripped themselves naked, so as to put out all their strength in their public games, or contests for mastery. See Hebrews 5:14, with the exposition. Wherefore to be exercised by chastisement, is to have all our spiritual strength, all our faith and patience, tried to the utmost, and acted in all things suitably to the mind of God. So was it with Job. And what remains for the further explication of these words, is contained in these ensuing observations. Obs. 6. Those who cannot see an excellency in the abounding of the fruits of righteousness before described, can never apprehend that there is either good or benefit in chastisements. — For this alone is that which the apostle proposeth to answer all that is grievous or evil in them. But these things believers value above life itself, and can esteem well of every thing, be it never so sharp unto the flesh, that doth promote them in their souls.Obs. 7. We can never find any benefit in chastisements, unless we are “exercised” by them; that is, that all our graces are stirred up by them unto a holy, constant exercise. — For hereby alone do they yield “the peaceable fruit of righteousness.”Obs. 8. It is the fruit of righteousness alone that will bring in peace unto us, that will give us a sense of peace with God, peace in ourselves, and with others, so far as is possible. And, —Obs. 9. Grace in afflictions will at length prevail quietly to compose the mind under the storm raised by them, and give rest with peace unto the soul.Obs. 10. Herein lies the wisdom of faith in this matter, not to pass a judgment on chastisements, from the present sense we have of what is evil and dolorous in them, but from their end and use, which are blessed and glorious. In these verses an entrance is made into the second part of the chapter, which is designed unto the application of the doctrine concerning sufferings, afflictions, and chastisements, before insisted on. And there are three parts of it: 1. A general exhortation unto an improvement of the said doctrine, in a conformity of mind unto it.2. A prescription of sundry important duties, in their joint walking before God unto the same end, verses 14-16. 3. A confirmation of the whole, by an instance or example of one who did all things contrary unto the duties prescribed, namely, Esau; with the severe issue thereon, verses 16,17. The first of these is contained in these two verses.Hebrews 12:12-13. — Διὸτὰςπαρειμέναςχεῖραςκαὶτὰπαραλελυμέναγόναταἀνορθώσατε·καὶτροχιὰςὀρθὰςποιήσατετοῖςποσὶνὑμῶν, ἵναμὴτὸχωλὸνἐκτραπῇ, ἰαθῇδὲμᾶλλον.Hebrews 12:12-13. — Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; and make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. 1. “Wherefore,” διό, “quapropter,” “quamobrem;” it shows that the ensuing exhortation is wholly derived from the preceding discourse.‘Seeing things in this case are as we have declared, this is your duty thereon.’And in no writing of the New Testament is this method so much observed as in this epistle’; namely, to lay down doctrines of truth, to confirm them by divine testimonies and reasons, and then to make the use and application of them. And the reason of it is, because the whole design of the epistle is parenetical, with respect unto practice. 2. For the right understanding of the mind of the Holy Ghost in the words, we must take notice that there is a supposition included in them of some failure in the Hebrews, as unto their courage and constancy in suffering; at least that they were in great danger of it, and that it began to affect the minds of many, and perhaps greatly to prevail in some among them. This he had insinuated before, in the entrance of his discourse on this subject, verses 3-5, and now resumes it as a ground of his exhortation. And, — Obs. 1. It is the duty of all faithful ministers of the gospel to consider diligently what failures or temptations their flocks are liable or exposed unto, so as to apply suitable means for their preservation.3. The words in general contain an exhortation unto duties, flowing directly from the doctrine insisted on in its application unto these Hebrews. And whereas there were two sorts of them (which distinction the apostle frequently intimates in the epistle); (1.) Such as were really guilty of the evils dehorted from; and,(2.) Such as were not so, at least not in such a degree as some others were; the exhortation respects both sorts of them. Unto the first sort it enjoins their own present duty; and directs the latter how to behave themselves towards those who were so defective; as we shall see in the progress.4. That part of the exhortation which is contained in verse 12, is taken Isaiah 35:3, δζְּ ?χεּ ιָ ?γַ ?ιִ ?νψָ ?τεֹ ?ϊεּ ?αִ ?ψְ ?λַּ ?ιִ ?νλּ ?ωְׁ ?μεֹ ?ϊΰַ ?ξֵּ ?φεּ, “Confortate marius remissas, et genua labantia roborate.” The Vulgar Lat. in that place reads, “manus dissolutas,” and “genua debilia;” here, “manus remissas,” and “genua soluta.” The translation of the LXX. renders δַ ?ζְּ ?χεּ ?by ἰοχύσατε, “be ye strong,” speaking to the hands and knees in the second person; and ΰַ ?ξֵּ ?φεּ ?by παρακαλήσατε; unless that word belongs to the following sentence. The apostle useth one word, applying it to both hands and knees, it being equally proper to both.5. The way of the proposal of the exhortation is in continued metaphors, in answer to the first prescription of the duty exhorted unto; which was, to run in a race, or to strive for victory, verse 1. And in the verse foregoing he requires of us, in this case, that we should be γεγυμνασμένοι, “exercised,” like those that were stripped or made naked for a contest; wherefore, — 6. The exhortation is applied unto the parts of the body which are of principal use in gymnastical exercises, namely, the hands, the knees, and the feet, whereby the body putteth forth all its strength to obtain the prize; the hands and knees being the principal seat of strength and activity. And we must consider, (1.) What is the defect blamed in them;(2.) What is the remedy prescribed unto that defect;(3.) What is the spiritual meaning of both.(1.) The defect charged on the hands is, that they “hang down,” LXX., ἀνειμένας, “remissas.” We want a word exactly to express the Hebrew, ψָ ?τεֹ ?ϊIt is not so much “hanging down,” as “weakened and dissolved in their strength, whence they do hang down.” And when it is so with any, they declare themselves weary of what they are engaged in; faint, unready, and giving over.That charged on the knees is, that they are παραλελυμένα, “soluta,” “dissoluta;” or, as in the Hebrew, “labantis” We use a proper word here, and in the prophet, “feeble;” that is, “debilia,” weak, whose nervous vigor is dissolved. So we render λּ ?ωְׁ ?μεּ, Psalms 109:24, “My knees are weak through fasting.” So, in great weakness, fear, and despondency, the knees are said to smite together, Nahum 2:10.In both there is a description of a man heartless or slothful, or so fainting in the running of a race as to be ready to cast off all hopes of success, and to give over. (2.) It is the same kind of distemper which affects these several parts; and therefore the apostle prescribes the same remedy to them both, namely, ἀνορθώσατε, “surripite,” “erigite.” It is not, ‘Elevate,’‘Lift up,’which is proper to the hands only; but, ‘Erect or raise them to a due state, frame and posture; set them right again; apply them to their duty.’So in the cure of the woman that had the infirmity wherewith she was bowed down, we render it, “made straight,” Luke 13:13, or upright again; and by “setting up,” Acts 15:16; in which two places alone, besides this, the word is found. It is therefore a restoration unto their former state that is directed in this word.(3.) Wherefore the spiritual sense of the words, or meaning of the similitudes, is plain; and there is no necessity to make a distribution of parts, as unto what is particularly intended by the hands or knees. For by the same kind of defect in both, the fault of the whole is described. Now this is such a decay in Christian courage and resolution, as brings along with it a great weakness and unreadiness for duty. In our Christian race we are to put forth our utmost spiritual strength and activity. All graces are to be kept up unto their exercise, and all duties to be attended unto with diligence. But where the course is long, or the difficulties are great, we are apt to grow weary, to despond; first to wish it at an end, and then to give over. And this frame ariseth from a composition of two evil ingredients: [1. Despondency as to success; [2. Weariness of duty. In them do our hands hang down, and our knees grow feeble. Obs. 2. This is the great evil which, in all our sufferings and afflictions, we are with all intension of mind to watch against. This is the way whereby multitudes have entered into scandalous backslidings, and many into cursed apostasies.Obs. 3. We are apt to pity men who are weary and fainting in their courage, and under their burdens; and we do well therein, for they have spent all their strength, and have no way of supply; but we are to be no way gentle towards ourselves, in our spiritual weariness and decays; because we have continual supplies of strength ready for us, if we use them in a due manner. See Isaiah 40:28-31.Obs. 4. This exhortation being a conclusion or inference made from the preceding discourse, concerning the nature, use and end of sufferings and afflictions, this instruction is given us in a peculiar manner, namely, that we ought to confirm our minds against all discouragements and despondencies under them, by the consideration of God’s design in them, and the blessed success which he will give unto them.Obs. 5. The recovery of this frame, or the restoration of our spiritual hands and knees to their former vigor, is by stirring up all grace unto its due exercise, which is torpid and desponding under sloth in this frame.As this direction concerns others, other professors, other members of the church, and not so much ourselves, it compriseth all the duties of exhortation, consolation, instruction, and prayer, which are useful unto that end. Hebrews 12:13. — The first part of this exhortation concerns the inward frame of the minds of men, with respect unto themselves and their own souls. That which follows, verse 13, looks unto their ways, walking and conversation, with respect unto others, that they may receive no damage, but benefit by it. And therefore the apostle doth not herein direct us to strengthen our feet, as he doth our hands and knees; but to “make straight paths” for them, wherein we may walk. And the conjunctive καί, “and,” denotes an additional duty.There are two things in the words: 1. A duty prescribed; 2. An enforcement of it from an evil consequent of its omission; both in terms metaphorical. 1. Our feet are those members of our body which carry us on in our course; which is the ability and activity of our minds for spiritual duties. These feet must have a path to walk in, or they can make no progress. According as that path is right and straight, or crooked and uneven, so will our course be. It is therefore highly incumbent on us to look well unto the paths wherein we are going. And this is here prescribed unto us.The direction seems to be taken from Proverbs 4:26, “Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established;” or rather, “all thy ways shall be ordered aright;” which is the sense of this place.In order unto a discovery of the duty here prescribed, we must consider, (1.) What are the paths of our feet;(2.) How we are to make them straight.(1.) Our “paths,” τροχιαί. Τροχός is “a wheel;” and τροχιά is τῶντρόχωνχάραξις,” the mark made by wheels;” “or bits.” So, though it be taken for “semita,” “a path,” yet it is such a path as is marked out for others, that leaves a track wherein we may be followed. The Vulgar renders it by “gressus,” our “steps;” but it is rather the way wherein we tread, which is said to be made straight.Our obedience unto God is called our “walking before him,” namely, all that obedience which he requires in the covenant, Genesis 17:1. The first divine testimony given unto any man, was unto his faith in sacrifice, Genesis 4:4; that is, as expressed with respect unto the atonement to be made by Christ. And the second was unto obedience, under the name of walking with God: “Enoch walked with God,” Genesis 5:24. In these two, thus exemplified from the beginning, faith and obedience, doth the life of God in the church consist. And as this obedience is called our walking, so it is called our path, Psalms 27:11; Psalms 119:35; Psalms 119:105; Isaiah 26:7; Psalms 23:3; Psalms 25:4; Matthew 3:3; Luke 3:4. And these paths are distinguished into the “paths of the righteous” and the upright, and the “paths of the wicked” and the froward; — that is, every one’s course of actions, with respect unto God and his will, is his path.And this is called our path, [1. Because it is that wherein we are continually conversant. [2. Because it is that whereby we tend unto the end which we aim at, and that which will certainly bring us thereunto. [3. Because all the circumstances of our observation of a path, and walking in it, do illustrate the way and manner of our obedience and duties of it, as might be declared. This path of our obedience may be considered either objectively only; and so it is nothing but the will of God revealed unto us, the canon or rule which we are to walk according unto, that we may have peace, Galatians 6:16. And in this sense the path of all men is one and the same, absolutely invariable; nor can we make it straight or crooked: it is absolutely and perfectly straight in itself. Or it may be considered with respect unto them that walk in it; and so there are degrees of its straightness. Men may continue in it, yet fail variously as to its universal rectitude: they may fail in it, though they do not utterly leave it, or fall from it. So it is affirmed of Peter, and those with him, when they failed in the matter of compliance with the Jews, that they did not ὀρθοποδεῖν, Galatians 2:14, — “walk with a right foot.” They continued in the path of the truth of the gospel, but they stumbled in it, they warped in one instance from it. (2.) And hereby we may understand what is here enjoined in way of duty, namely, “to make these paths straight.” For there are two things herein: [1. That we walk uprightly in the paths of obedience. Then are our paths straight, when we walk uprightly in the paths of God. And as this respects our universal obedience, as it doth everywhere in the Scripture, so I doubt not but regard is had unto halting, or taking some crooked steps in profession during trial. Deserting of church assemblies, forbearance of sundry necessary duties that might be provocations to their adversaries, irregular compliances with the Jews in their worship, are things that the apostle intimates them to have been liable unto. Where these things were, though they forsook not utterly the path of the gospel, yet they walked not in it with a right foot; they failed in the way, though they fell not from it. These things the apostle would have rectified. [2. That we walk visibly in these paths, This is included both in the signification of the word τροχιαί, and in the precept to make our paths straight; to wit, that they may be seen and known so to be. For this is necessary unto the end proposed, namely, the preservation of others from being turned out of the way, or their recovery from their wandering.And therefore I do grant, that the duties especially intended in this precept are, courage, resolution, constancy in profession, with a diligent watch against all crooked compliances or fearful relinquishment of duties. And therefore, — Obs. 1. It is our duty not only to be found in the ways of God in general, but to take care that we walk carefully, circumspectly, uprightly, and diligently in them. — Hereon depend our own peace, and all our usefulness towards others. It is a sad thing when some men’s walk in the ways of God shall deter others from them, or turn them out of them. Yet so it falls out in the negligent, careless profession of many. Obs. 2. To make halts or baulks in our way of profession, or crooked paths, in neglect of duty or compliances with the world, in time of trial and persecution, is an evidence of an evil frame of heart, and of a dangerous state or condition.2. The enforcement of the duty required is the next thing in this verse: “Lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.” The apostle continues in the use of metaphors, according as he began this discourse. And having described our careful obedience, by “making straight paths for our feet,” he calls that or those which are defective therein, “lame;” “that which is lame.” The Vulg. reads the words, “ut non claudicans qui erret;” which the Rhemists render, “that no man halting err,” without any good sense. The Syriac, “that the member which is lame.” The principal internal hinderance from walking is lameness. He that is lame can make but slow progress, and is often ready by his halting to stumble out of the way. Lameness, therefore, is some defect that is distinguished from external hinderances, and from mere fainting or weariness, (whereof the apostle had spoken before, which may befall them that are not lame,) which obstructs men in their progress, and makes them be easily turned out of the way: besides, it includes an inward disease and distemper in particular, whence the apostle says, it is to be “healed” And by the way we may observe, that sundry diseases, weaknesses, and lamenesses, are apt to fall out in the flock of God. These he promiseth himself to be tender toward, and to heal, Zechariah 11:15-16; as he severely threatens those shepherds by whom they are neglected, Ezekiel 34:4, etc.Considering what at this time was the state of the Hebrews who had received the doctrine of the gospel, as both this epistle and the story of them in the Acts of the Apostles do declare; as also what fell out afterwards among them; I do judge that by this τὸχωλόν among them, “that which is lame,” the apostle peculiarly intends those that would retain the Judaical ceremonies and worship together with the doctrine of the gospel. For hereby they were made weak and infirm in their profession, as being defective in light, resolution, and steadiness; as also, seemed to halt between two opinions, as the Israelites of old between Jehovah and Baal.This was that which was lame at that time among these Hebrews. And it may, by analogy, be extended unto all those who are under the power of such vicious habits, inclinations, or neglects, as weaken and hinder men in their spiritual progress. The caution concerning this sort of persons is, that they be not “turned out of the way.” To be “turned out of the way,” is to be turned off from the profession of the gospel. This those who were “lame,” as before described, were very liable and subject unto; a small matter would turn them aside, as afterwards many of them were turned off from the truth. The apostle doth not thereon declare a displeasure against them; he is not angry with them, but adviseth others to deal carefully and tenderly with them, avoiding every thing that might give occasion unto their turning aside. And this the apostle extends to their healing: “But rather let it be healed.” “To be healed,” is not opposed to “to be turned aside,” as though that word should signify a ‘further breach or luxation of that which is lame; but it denotes the cure of him that is lame, by a continuation of the same metaphor. ‘Be so far from doing or omitting any thing, which might give them occasion to turn from the way, as that you endeavor the removal of those causes of lameness which you see in them.’And the sense of the words may be included in the ensuing observations. Obs. 3. A hesitation or doubtfulness in or about important doctrines of truth, will make men lame, weak, and infirm in their profession. And,Obs. 4. Those who are so, are disposed unto a total defection from the truth, and are ready on all occasions to go out of the way. Also, in general, —Obs. 5. Every vicious habit of mind, every defect in light or neglect of duty, every want of stirring up grace unto exercise, will make men lame and halt in profession, and easy to be turned aside with difficulties and oppositions,Obs. 6. When we see persons in such a state, it is our duty to be very careful so to behave ourselves as not to give any occasion to their further miscarriages, but rather to endeavor their healing.Obs. 7. The best way whereby this may be done, is by making visible and plain unto them our own faith, resolution, courage, and constancy, in a way of obedience becoming the gospel. Hereby we shall both excite, promote, and direct them, in and unto their duty. For, —Obs. 8. The negligent walking of those professors who are sound in the faith, their weakness and pusillanimity in times of trial, their want of making straight paths for their feet in visible holiness, are a great means of turning aside those that are lame, weak, and halting. Obs. 9. It is good to deal with and endeavor the healing of such lame halters whilst they are yet in the way; when they are quite turned out, their recovery will be difficult, if not impossible. From his exhortation unto patient perseverance in the profession of the gospel, under sufferings and afflictions, the apostle proceeds unto a prescription of practical duties; and although they are such as are absolutely necessary in themselves at all times, yet they are here peculiarly enjoined with respect unto the same end, or our constancy in professing the gospel For no light, no knowledge of the truth, no resolution or courage, will preserve any man in his pro-fcssion, especially in times of trial, without a diligent attendance unto the duties of holiness and gospel obedience. And he begins with a precept general and comprehensive of all others. Hebrews 12:14 — Εἰρήνηνδιώκετεμετὰπάντων, καὶτὸνἁγιασμὸν, οὗχωρὶςοὐδεὶςὅψεταιΚύριον.Διώκετε. Vulg., “sequimini;” others, “sectamini,” which comes nearer the original, and denotes a vehement pursuit. Syr., δψְ ?θεּ αָּ ?ϊַ ?ψ, “run after” peace. We elsewhere translate the same word in the same duty, by “pursue” and “ensue;’Psalms 34:14; 1 Peter 3:11.Hebrews 12:14. — Earnestly follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.The direction here given is general, consisting of two parts; the first whereof contains our duty towards men; and the other our duty towards God, whereby the former is to be regulated. In the first we have, 1. The duty prescribed; which is “peace.”2. The manner of the attaining it, or the way of the performance of the duty enjoined; which is “earnestly to follow it.”3. Those with whom we are to seek peace; which are “all men.”1. The substance of our duty towards all men as men, in all circumstances and relations, is to seek peace with them. And that we may have peace with all men, at least that we may do our duty to attain it, three things are required: (1.) righteousness. “The fruit of righteousness is peace.” To wrong no man, to give everyone his due, to do unto all men as we would have them do unto us, are required hereunto. The want hereof is the cause of all want of peace, of all confusions, disorders, troubles, and wars in the world.(2.) Usefulness. That we may have peace in a due manner, it is not enough that we hurt no man, defraud no man, injure no man; but it is moreover required of us, that in our station and calling, according unto our circumstances and abilities, we be useful unto all men, in all duties of piety, charity, and beneficence. Galatians 6:10, “As we have opportunity, ἐργαζώμεθατὸἀγαθὸνπρὸςπάντας — “let us be useful,” profitable, beneficial, working that which is good, “unto all men.” This is required of us in that divine law of human society under which we are stated.(3.) Avoiding of just offense. “Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles,” 1 Corinthians 10:32.These are the ways and means whereby we must “earnestly follow peace with all men.” We are not to do it by a compliance with them in any evil; — not by a neglect of any duty; not by any thing that intrencheth on holiness towards God. Peace with men is not to be followed nor practiced at any such rate. We must eternally bid defiance unto that peace with men which is inconsistent with peace with God. These ways of following peace with all men are such as carry along with them their own satisfaction and reward, although the end be not attained. For this ofttimes depends on the minds of other men, even such as are “like the troubled sea, whose waters cast up mire and dirt,” who have no peace in themselves, nor will let others be at peace, Psalms 120:6-7. Hence the apostle gives that limitation unto our endeavors for peace: “If it be possible,” and, “what lieth in you, live peaceably with all men,” Romans 12:18. 2. From these difficulties ariseth the injunction of the especial way and manner of seeking it: “Earnestly follow.” We render the same word by “pursue,” Psalms 34:14; and “ensue,” 1 Peter 3:11. And it is in both places spoken of as that which exceeds in earnestness and diligence in the seeking of it. It is that which will fly from us, and which we must with all earnestness pursue, or we shall not overtake it. Both the words, in the Hebrew and Greek, do signify “to persecute;” which we know is the fiercest of prosecution. And this is so expressed, because of the many ways and pretences which most men use to avoid peace with those who profess the gospel. All these, as much as in us lieth, we are to overcome in the pursuit of peace, never giving it over whilst we are in this world. 3. And this we are to do “with all men;” that is, all sorts of men, according as we stand in relation unto them, or have occasion of converse with them. The worst of men are not excepted out of this rule; — not our enemies, not our persecutors; we are still, by all the ways mentioned, to follow peace with them all. Let this alone be fixed, that we are not obliged unto any thing that is inconsistent with holiness, that is contrary to the word of God, that is adverse to the principles and light of our own minds and consciences, for the obtaining of peace with any or all the men in the world, and this rule is absolute and universal. Wherefore, — Obs. 1. A frame and disposition of seeking peace with all men, by the means before laid down, is eminently suited unto the doctrine and grace of the gospel. — A froward spirit, apt and ready for strife and contention, to give and receive provocations, to retain a sense of injuries, to be satisfied with uselessness whilst it is supposed they do no wrong, is quite contrary to what the gospel requireth of us. The glory of the kingdom of Christ therein is frequently promised under the name of peace, with a cessation of wars and contentions among men. And an evidence this is how little of the power of the gospel remains at present in the minds of men in the world, when all things amongst those who are called Christians are filled with hatred, strife, persecutions, and savage warn But this frame is, 1. A great ornament to our profession. A man cannot, in the eyes of men not utterly flagitious and hardened in sin, more adorn the gospel, than by evidencing that in his whole course he doth what in him lies to follow after peace with all men. 2. A great comfort and supportment unto ourselves in our sufferings. For when we have the testimony of our consciences that we have sincerely sought peace with all men, it will not only make us rest satisfied in what they unjustly do unto us, but give us a triumph over them in our minds, in that we have attained a compliance with the will of God above them herein.The second thing enjoined respects our duty towards God. And there are two things in the words: 1. The duty itself enjoined; and that is holiness. 2. The enforcement of it from its absolute necessity in order unto our eternal blessedness; for without it, destitute of it, we shall never see the Lord.1. It refers to the same way of seeking it, namely, to “follow it earnestly,” to pursue it by all ways and means appointed unto that end. Some by “holiness” here understand peculiarly the holiness or purity of chastity; for so is the word used, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication.” There is a peculiar defilement in the sins that are against the body, as the apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 6:18-19. Wherefore the sanctification of the body (1 Thessalonians 5:23) by this grace may be peculiarly called our holiness. Besides, the “seeing of God” here referred unto, is peculiarly promised unto “the pure in heart,” Matthew 5:8; because the mind is thereby peculiarly prepared for the divine vision.But there is no cogent reason why we should restrain the signification of the word. It is universal holiness which is here prescribed unto us. This we are in all things always to follow after. What this evangelical holiness is, what is its nature, wherein it doth consist, what is required unto it, by what means it may be attained and preserved, how it differs from morality, or the virtues of the best of unbelievers; I have declared at large in another[4] discourse, and shall not here again insist upon it. [4] See miscellaneous works, vol. 1:242, 288 — ED. 2. The enforcement of this duty is in these words, “Without which no man shall see the Lord.” It is all one whether we understand God absolutely, or the Lord Christ in an especial manner, by the name “Lord;” for we shall never see the one without the other. Christ prays for us, that we may be where he is, to behold his glory, John 17:24. This we cannot do but when we see God also, or the eternal glory of God in him. This sight of God in Christ, which is intellectual, not corporeal; finite, not absolutely comprehensive of the divine essence; is the sum of our future blessedness.[4] The nature of it I have elsewhere explained. [3] In treatise on the Holy Spirit, vol. 3 of miscellaneous works. — ED. Now this future sight of the Lord doth depend peremptorily on our present holiness. It doth not do so as the meritorious cause of it; for be we never so holy, yet in respect of God we are “unprofitable servants,” and “eternal life is the gift of God by Jesus Christ.” But it doth so on a double account: (1.) Of an eternal, unchangeable, divine constitution. God hath enacted it, as an eternal law, that holiness shall be the way of our attaining and coming to blessedness.(2.) As it is a due preparation for it, the soul being by holiness made meet and fit to come to the sight of the Lord, Colossians l:12,13. And therefore οὗχωρίς is well rendered, “qua destitutus,” whereof whoever is destitute, in whom this holiness is not, he shall never see the Lord. And, —Obs. 2. They are much mistaken in the Lord Christ, who hope to see him hereafter in glory, and live and die here in an unholy state. It is not privileges, nor gifts, nor church office or power, that will give an admission to this state.Obs. 3. If this doctrine be true, that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord,” the case will be hard at last with a multitude of popes, cardinals, and prelates, who pretend that they have the opening of the door into his presence committed unto them.Obs. 4. We may follow peace with men, and not attain it; but if we follow holiness, we shall as assuredly see the Lord, as we shall come short of this without it.Obs. 5. The same means is to be used for the securing of our present perseverance and of our future blessedness, namely, holiness. From a prescription of necessary duties, the apostle proceedeth to give caution and warning against sundry sins and evils that are contrary unto them, and such as, if admitted, would prove ruinous unto their profession. And concerning these he gives his caution not directly unto individual persons, but unto the whole church, or society of professors, with respect unto their mutual duty among themselves. Hebrews 12:15. — ᾿ΕπισκοποῦντεςμήτιςὑστερῶνἀπὸτῆςχάριτοςτοῦΘεοῦμήτιςῥίζαπικρίαςἄνωφύουσαἐνοχλῇ, καὶδιὰταύτηςμιανθῶσιπολλοί.᾿Επισκοποῦντες. Vulg., “contemplantes.” The Rhemists more properly, “looking diligently.” Syr., εδֲ ?εַ ?ιְ ?ϊιּ ?οζְ ?δִ ?ψִ ?ιο, “and be ye watchful,” “take ye, heed.” “Prospicientes,” “superintendentes,” “using diligent inspection and oversight.” Μήτιςὑστερῶν, “ne quis desit gratiae Dei.” Rhem., “lest any man be wanting to the grace of God;” which mistake in the translation some expositors of the Roman church make use of to prove that all the efficacy of divine grace depends on the use of our free-will in compliance with it. Syr., “lest a man” (any man) “be found among you γּ ?δρִ ?ιψξֵ ?οθַ ?ιְ ?αεּ ?ϊָ ?ΰγַּ ?ΰμָ ?δָ ?ΰ” “destitute or forsaken of the grace of God.” “Ne quis deficiat a gratia Dei;” “come behind,” “come short,” or “fail.” We put “fall from” in the margin; which the word doth not signify.῾Ρίζαπικρίας, “radix amaritudinis,” “radix amara;” that is, εְ ?μַ ?ςֲ ?πָ ?δωֹׁ ?ψֶ ?ωׁ τֹּ ?ψֶ ?δψΰֹ ?ωׁ, Deuteronomy 29:17, “a root that beareth gall” (or “poison”) “and wormwood.”Hebrews 12:15. — Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you], and thereby many be defiled.What is required of us in our own persons was before prescribed in positive duties; here is declared what is our work and duty towards others, with respect unto sins contrary to those duties. For this and the ensuing instructions concern the body of the church, or society of the faithful, as unto what is mutually required of them and amongst them. And although the practice be always lost in the world, the rule abides for ever. There are two things in the words: 1. A duty enjoined, “Looking diligently.”2. A double evil cautioned against, to be prevented by the exercise of that duty:(1.) “Any man’s failing of the grace of God: “ wherein we must inquire,[1. What is meant by “the grace of God;”[2. How any man may “fail” of it. (2.) A “root of bitterness springing up,” etc: and hereof we must inquire,[1. What is this “root of bitterness;” [2. What is the progress of the evil contained in it; as, 1st. It “springeth up;”2dly. It “troubles all;”3dly. It “defiles many.”And there is a progress in evil intimated, from the less to the greater. It is a less evil for any one to “fail of the grace of God” in his own person, (though the greatest of evils unto himself,) than to be a “root of bitterness to trouble and defile others” also. And the apostle would have us obstare principiis, to hinder the entrance of this evil, and so effectually to prevent its progress. 1. The duty prescribed is, to “look diligently” after this matter. The word is only twice used in the Scripture, here and 1 Peter 5:2. And in that place of Peter it denotes the discharge of the office-duty of the elders of the church, in their care and oversight of the flock. Here it respects the common charitative duty of all believers, as they are called unto it by occasions and circumstances. So there are sundry other duties, which are given in charge unto the officers or guides of the church, to be authoritatively attended unto, and discharged by virtue of their office, which yet, being in themselves of a moral nature, are incumbent on all believers in a way of love or charity. But this looking diligently unto the good of others, and to prevent their evil, is not here prescribed as a moral duty, whereunto we are obliged by the light of nature and royal law of love, but as that which is also an especial institution of Christ, to be observed in his church. The Lord Christ hath ordained, that the members of the same church or society should mutually watch over one another, and the whole body over all the members, unto their edification. This therefore is here prescribed unto these Hebrews; and that the practice of it is so much lost as it is, is the shame and almost ruin of Christianity. The word signifies a careful inspection unto a certain end. And hereof there are two parts: first, The promotion of spiritual good; secondly, The prevention of all that is spiritually or morally evil. Hereunto it is peculiarly applied by the apostle in this place. And he instanceth in four things in this and the following verse: (1.) Failing of the grace of God;(2.) The springing up of a bitter root;(3.) Fornication;(4.) Profaneness: wherein he compriseth the principal sins of the flesh and of the spirit which professed Christians are in danger of.And he doth it in a regular gradation, from the lowest declension from grace unto the highest contempt and defiance of it; as we shall see in the opening of the words. 2. (1.) The first evil to be obviated by this church- inspection, is failing of the grace of God: “Lest any man fail of the grace of God.”[1. By the “grace of God,” God’s gracious favor and acceptance in Christ, as it is proposed and declared by the gospel, is intended. Herein all spiritual mercies and privileges, in adoption, justification, sanctification, and consolation, do consist. For these things proceeding from the love, grace, and goodness of God in Christ, and being effects thereof, are called “the grace of God.” The attaining and participation of these things, is that which in the faith and profession of the gospel men aim at and design; without which both the one and the other are in vain. [2. This grace, under all their profession of the gospel, men may “fail of;” which is the evil cautioned against. The word ὑστερέω, signifies sometimes “to want, or be deficient in any kind,” Matthew 19:20; Luke 15:14; Luke 22:35 : sometimes “to come behind,” 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 11:5 : sometimes “to be destitute,” Hebrews 11:37 : sometimes “to fail or come short of,” as Romans 3:23; Hebrews 4:1. See the exposition of that place. It nowhere signifies to fall from: so that the inquiries of men about falling from grace, as unto these words, are impertinent. Wherefore, to “fail of grace,” is to come short of it, not to obtain it, though we seem to be in the way thereunto. See Romans 11:7; Romans 9:30-31. So also to “fall from grace,” Galatians 5:4, is nothing but not to obtain justification by the faith of Christ.This, therefore, is that which the apostle intimates, namely, that there were, at least there might be, in the church, some or many, who, under the profession of the truth of the gospel, yet, through their sloth, negligence, formality, unbelief, or some other vicious habits of their minds, might not attain unto the grace and favor of God, exhibited therein unto sincere believers. For this comes not to pass without their own guilt. And the mind of the Holy Ghost in the words may be comprised in the ensuing observations. Obs. 1. The grace, love, and good-will of God, in the adoption, justification, sanctification, and glorification of believers, is proposed unto all in the gospel, as that which may infallibly be attained in the due use of the means thereunto appointed; namely, sincere faith in Christ Jesus.Obs. 2. The outward profession of the gospel, with the performance of the duties and enjoyment of the privileges thereunto belonging, will not of themselves instate any man in the grace of God, or an assured interest therein— Men deceive themselves when they rest in these things. And multitudes do so; yea, the most are angry if they are told that there is any more required of them. Obs. 3. There is no man who, under the profession of the gospel, comes short of obtaining the grace and favor of God, but it is by reason of himself and his own sin. — The proposal of it, on the terms expressed in the gospel, is sure, and none shall ever fail of it who embrace it on these terms. This is included in the word, which hath a charge in it of a vicious deficiency in seeking after this grace. Obs. 4. Negligence and sloth, missing of opportunities, and love of sin, all proceeding from unbelief, are the only causes why men under the profession of the gospel, do fail of the grace of God.Now this is the first thing which the apostle enjoins believers to exercise their church-inspection about, namely, lest there should be amongst them unsound professors; such as, through their negligence, carelessness, and fostering the love of some sin, or of the world, were not like to attain unto the grace of God, on the terms of the gospel. These they were to consider in all their circumstances and temptations, to instruct, exhort, warn, and admonish, that they might be brought unto sincerity in faith and obedience. This was their charitative episcopacy; this was the duty, this was the practice of the members of churches of old: and it is not to be admired if many churches now come short of them in faith and holiness, seeing the very duties whereby they might be preserved and promoted are lost or despised. Whatever is pretended to the contrary, if any one should endeavor the reduction of some such known duties into the practice of churches, he would be laughed to scorn. This is the first and the least degree of men’s miscarriage under the profession of the gospel; yet is it that from whence all the rest of the evils mentioned do arise and proceed. For of this sort of men it is, — from them that fail of the grace of God under the profession of the gospel, as unto a real interest therein, — that those who fall into the ensuing crimes do come. (2.) The next evil cautioned against, is the “springing up of the root of bitterness.” And we must inquire,[1. What is this “root of bitterness; [2. How it ‘springeth up;” [3. How it “troubles” all; [4. How it “defileth many:” which is the progress here assigned unto it by the apostle. [1. As to the first, all agree that the apostle hath respect unto the words of Moses, Deuteronomy 29:18, “Lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood.” Gall, or hemlock, was a poisonous weed in the eastern countries, as Hosea 10:4; and these names are applied unto poisonous sins, Amos 6:12; Deuteronomy 32:32. Now it is evident, that, in the words of Moses, by this “root,” a person, or persons inclining to apostasy and departure from God are intended. So the foregoing words do make it manifest, “Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations;” that is, “Lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood.” ‘Be it one or more, “man or woman, family or tribe,” that is thus affected, it is a “root of bitterness” among you.’Hence it is evident what or who it is that the apostle intendeth. It is not any evil in the abstract, any heresy or sin, but persons guilty of this evil, which he intends. And this is that which in another place he expresseth by “an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God;” which he cautioneth these Hebrews to exercise their mutual inspection about, as he doth in this place, Hebrews 3:12-15. See the exposition. Wherefore this “root of bitterness,” is persons in the church whose hearts are inclined and disposed unto apostasy from the gospel, on one pretense or another, with a return either to Judaism or sensuality of life, as the following instances do also intimate. And this exactly answers the sin condemned in Moses, of a “heart turning away from the LORD our God.” And it is evident that there were many such at that time among the professing Hebrews. And this evil is called a “root of bitterness:” (1st.) Because at the beginning it is hidden in the hearts of men, where it cannot be discovered. So speaks Moses, “Whose heart turneth away.” So it is with roots, until they discover themselves by springing up.(2dly.) Because from hence, from this “evil heart of unbelief,” doth the whole evil of apostasy in every way proceed, as fruit from its proper root. And2dly. It is called a root of “bitterness,” because of its noxious and poisonous qualities in them in whom it is, and unto others also.[2. Towards the completing of the evil intended, it is said that this root “springeth up.” This is the natural way whereby a root discovers itself, both where it is and of what nature. Generally, when men’s hearts are inclined unto apostasy from the gospel, as then to Judaism, and now to Popery, they conceal it for a season, like a root in the earth; but as they have opportunity they begin to discover what is within. And several ways they do so. Commonly they begin the discovery of themselves in the neglect of church assemblies and duties, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 10:25; Hebrews 10:25; thence they proceed to perverse disputings, and contentions against the truth, 1 Timothy 6:5; and so go on to manifest themselves in practices, as occasions, opportunities, and advantages are ministered. This root will not always lie covered, this evil heart will manifest itself: which is the springing up which is here intended.[3. The first effect hereof in the church is trouble springing up; “do trouble you.” It doth so, it will do so, in and upon its springing up. The word is nowhere used in the Scripture but in this place. It is “to give trouble by bringing things into disorder, tumult, and confusion.” And a threefold trouble is, or may be, given unto the church by this means: 1st. A trouble of sorrow and grief, for the evil, sin, and eternal ruin, of those who have been united with them in the same society of the profession of the gospel It is no small trouble, unto them who have the bowels of Christian compassion, to see men wilfully ruining their own souls, as they do in this case, Hebrews 10:26-29.2dly. When those in whom this root is are either confident or many, they will trouble the church, disorder it, and cast things into confusion, by wrangling disputes, speaking perverse things, endeavoring to draw disciples, to corrupt and deceive; as is the way and manner of all apostates.3dly. They trouble the church, by bringing an evil report upon it, for divisions, contentions, and instability; ofttimes also, by one means or another, exposing it to external trouble and persecution. This is the first effect which the springing up of this root of bitterness in churches, or among professors of the gospel, doth produce; it troubleth them. And herein the apostle includeth an argument unto the diligent inspection which he exhorts unto, namely, the prevention of this trouble in the church.[4. The last effect of it, the utmost of its progress, is, that “many be defiled” by it. “And thereby,” — by this root, so springing up, and bearing this fruit of trouble. A dangerous thing it is to have such things fall out in churches; namely, that there be amongst them a man or woman, a family or tribe, few or more, that on any pretences incline unto a departure from the truth of the gospel. It seldom stops with themselves. The ignorance, negligence, darkness, but especially the want of experience of the power of the truth of the gospel, are easily imposed on by them, and thereby they are defiled. And thus it often falls out, not with one or two, but with “many.” Ofttimes whole churches have been ruined by this means; yea, hereby a fatal apostasy was introduced in all the visible churches of the world. There is no difficulty in the expression of the apostle, of their being “defiled;” as though it were not proper to be defiled by a root springing up. For the apostle doth not speak of the manner of its operation and infection, but of the effect it produceth; and this is, that men who have been cleansed by baptism, and the profession of the truth, should be again contaminated with abominable errors, or filthy lusts, as it is fully declared, 2 Peter 2:18-22. And we may observe, — Obs. 5. That the root of apostasy from God and the profession of the gospel may abide invisibly in professing churches — So our apostle declares it at large, 2 Timothy 2:16-21; with the reason of it. And we may hence infer,1. That we ought not to be surprised when any such root discovereth itself by springing up; it is no more but what we are warned of.2. That in such a season it is divine election that secures true believers from apostasy and defilement, 2 Timothy 2:19, Matthew 24:24.Obs. 6. Spiritual evils in churches are progressive. — From small, imperceptible beginnings, they will grow and increase to the worst of evils, 2 Timothy 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:13. And it will hence follow, that it is the duty of churches to watch against the first risings and entrances of such evils amongst them; which is here given them in charge.Obs. 7. It is the duty of churches, what in them lies, to prevent their own trouble, as well as the ruin of others.Obs. 8. There is a latent disposition in negligent professors to receive infection by spiritual defilements, if they are not watched against, — “Many will be defiled.”Obs. 9. That church-inspection is a blessed ordinance and duty, which is designed by Christ himself as a means to prevent these contagious evils in churches. — And the neglect of it is that which hath covered some of them with all manner of defilements. Μήτιςπόρνοςἢβέβηλοςὡς᾿Ησαῦ, ὅςἀντὶβρώσεωςμιᾶςἀπέδοτοτὰπρωτοτόκιααὑτοῦ·ἴστεγὰρὅτικαὶμετέπειταθέλωνκληρονομῆσαιτὴνεὐλογίανἀπεδοκιμάσθη·μετανοίαςγὰγτόπονοὐχεὗρε, καίπερμετὰδακρύωνἐκζητήσαςαὐτήν.Μήτιςπόρνος. Syr., “lest any man should be found among you who is a fornicator.” ῎Ηβέζηλος. Syr., εψְ ?τֵ ?ΰ, and “fainting,” or a backslider. ᾿Αντὶβρώσεωςμιᾶς. Vulg., “propter unam escam.” Rhem., “one dish of meat.” Bez., “uno edulio;” “one morsel,” something to be eaten at once. We say, “one morsel of meat;” but it was “broth,” which is no less “edulium” than meat.”῎Ιστεγάρ. Vulg., “scitote enim.” “For know ye,” imperatively. “For ye do know.” Syr., ιָ ?ψְ ?ςִ ?ιοΰַ ?πְ ?ϊּ ?εּ ?ο, “you are knowing of it.”Hebrews 12:16-17. — Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.The apostle proceeds to give other instances of such evils as whereby Christian societies would be corrupted, and way made for total apostasy; which were to be diligently heeded and carefully watched against. And the end hereof is, that either such evils may be prevented, or those who are guilty of them be recovered, (the difficulty whereof in the latter instance is declared), or be cast out of the church, that it be not defiled; which are the ends of this inspection. He puts together “fornication” and “profaneness;” and that probably for these three reasons: 1. Because they are, as it were, the heads of the two sorts of sins that men may be guilty of, namely, sins of the flesh, and sins of the mind, Ephesians 2:3. 2. Because they usually go together. Fornicators, — that is, those who are habitually so, — do always grow profane; and profane persons, of all other sins, are apt to set light by fornication. These things are written with the beams of the sun in the days wherein we live.3. They are the especial sins whose relinquishment by sincere repentance is most rare. Few fornicators or profane persons do ever come to repentance.It is one of these alone, namely, profaneness, whereof we have an instance in Esau. The Scripture mentioneth nothing of his fornication. His taking of wives from among the Hittites, — who seem to have been proud, evil, idolatrous persons, in that they were “a grief of mind,” or a bitter provocation, “unto Isaac and to Rebekah,” Genesis 26:34-35, —cannot be called fornication, as the sense of the word was then restrained, when the evil of polygamy was not known. There is in the words, 1. The evils to be watched against, in the way and manner before declared.2. An effectual motive to abstain from the latter of them, taken from the example of one who was guilty of it, and the success of that guilt; which was Esau.3. In that example we may observe,(1.) That he is charged with this sin of profaneness;(2.) The way whereby he manifested himself so to be, or wherein his profaneness did consist;(3.) The issue of it;(4.) His vain attempt to recover himself from that condition whereinto he was cast by his profaneness: all which must be opened.1. The first evil mentioned is “fornication.” But the caution is given, as unto the church, with respect unto persons in the first place: “That there be no fornicator.” Reference is had unto the former charge: ‘Look ye to it diligently, that there be no fornicator in your society. Take care that no persons fall into that sin; or if they do, let them be removed from among you. The sin is evil unto them, but the communion of their persons is evil unto you.’ Now, because the apostle placeth this evil, with that which follows, at the door of final apostasy, and doth more than intimate the difficulty, if not the moral impossibility, of the recovery of those who are guilty of them, we must inquire into the nature of it, and thereon its danger. And, — (1.) This sin is most directly and particularly opposite unto that holiness which he is exhorting them unto, as that without which they shall not see the LORD. And some do judge, that by “holiness” in that place, the contrary habit unto fornication is intended. However, this is peculiarly opposite unto gospel holiness and sanctification, as the apostle declares, 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. And it is that sin which men who are forsaking the profession of holiness do usually fall into, as experience testifieth. (2.) Though here and elsewhere the sin of fornication be severely interdicted, yet in this place the apostle doth not intend every such person as may, through temptation, be surprised into that sin, nor will one fact give this denomination; but those who live in this sin, who are fornicators habitually, — such as are placed at the head of them that shall never inherit the kingdom of God, 1 Corinthians 6:9. Such are to be excluded out of the church, as a certain pledge and token of their exclusion out of heaven. It is no wonder, therefore, if the apostle intimates a great difficulty of the recovery of such. (3.) Under this name of “fornicator,” or fornication, all sins of the same kind are intended. For the Scripture calls all conjunction with women, not in lawful marriage, by the name of fornication, 1 Corinthians 5:9-12; Ephesians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:10. So that by “fornicators,” whoremongers and adulterers, as it is expressed, Hebrews 13:4, or all such as sin against their own bodies, be it in or out of the state of wedlock, be it with single or married persons, are intended. Wherefore the warning doth not respect the practice of the Gentiles at that time, wherein the fornication of single persons was lightly set by; nor the licentiousness of the Jews, who thought it no sin to accompany with a heathen, at least if she were not in wedlock; but it is general, as unto all who are so guilty of uncleanness as to come under this denomination.(4.) This is a sin, which when men are habitually given up unto, they are never, or very rarely, recovered from it. When any sensual lust hath obtained a habitual predominancy in any, it doth contract so intimate a league with the flesh, as it is hardly eradicated. Such sins do usually keep men secure unto the future judgment,. Hence God, for the punishment of idolatry, gave some up unto uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, Romans 1:24-26, namely, that by them they might be secured unto that eternal vengeance which they had deserved.(5.) There is no sort of sinners that would be so scandalous unto churches, should they be tolerated in them, as fornicators. And therefore the Pagans endeavored, in the utmost of their malice and false accusations, to fasten the charge of adulteries, incests, promiscuous lusts and uncleanness, on Christians in their assemblies. For they knew full well, that let them pretend what else they pleased, if they could fix this stain upon them, they would be the common hatred and scorn of mankind. For the higher men’s pretences are unto God and religion, if they issue in such vile lusts, they are the more contemptible, and the more to be abhorred. Whereas, therefore, the church doth make a peculiar profession of a separation and dedication unto God, in holiness, purity of heart and life, nothing can be a greater reproach unto it than that fornicators should be found in its communion. And the carelessness of the visible church herein for some ages, suffering licentiousness of life in the lusts of the flesh to diffuse itself greatly amongst its members, being promoted in the clergy by an interdiction of lawful marriage unto them, proved its ruin. And, — Obs. 1. That church which tolerates in its communion men living in such gross sins as fornication, is utterly, as unto its discipline, departed from the rule of the gospel. And it is also hence evident, that, —Obs. 2. Apostatizing professors are prone to sins of uncleanness. — For being overcome of the flesh, and brought into bondage, as 2 Peter 2:19, they are slaves and debtors unto it, to serve it in the lusts of uncleanness.2. The second evil to be watched against is “profaneness;” or that there be no profane person among them. For it is persons that are firstly intended, as is evident in the instance of Esau. To be “profane,” may be taken passively or actively. In the first sense, it is a person or place separated and cast out from the society of things sacred. So holy things are said to be profaned, when men take off the veneration that is due unto them, and expose them to common use or contempt. “To profane,” is to violate, to corrupt, to prostitute to common use, things sacred and holy, either in their nature or by divine institution. “Profane” actively, is one that despiseth, sets light by, or contemneth sacred things. Such as mock at religion, or who lightly regard its promises and threatenings, who despise or neglect its worship, who speak irreverently of its concerns, we call profane persons; and such they are, and such the world is filled withal at this day. This profaneness is the last step of entrance into final apostasy. When men, from professors of religion, become despisers of and scoffers at it, their state is dangerous, if not irrecoverable. 3. An instance of this evil is given us in Esau: “A profane person, as Esau.” ‘That is,’say some, ‘he was the type of a profane person; it doth not appear that he was such himself.’But the apostle calls him expressly, a “profane person,” and declares how he evidenced himself so to be, or wherein his profaneness did consist. And the truth is, there are very few in the Scripture concerning whom more evidences are given of their being reprobates. And this should warn all men not to trust unto the outward privileges of the church. He was the first-born of Isaac, circumcised according to the law of that ordinance, and partaker in all the worship of God in that holy family; yet an outcast from the covenant of grace and the promise thereof. 4. The way whereby he exerted and manifested his profaneness is declared: “Who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” Many expositors, in the consideration of the sin of Esau, as it is recorded, Genesis 25:29-34, reflect on many crimes in him, especially intemperance and gluttony; as far as I can see, without cause. His desire of food from his own brother, when he was hungry and faint, might be harmless. But he fell into his sin on the occasion that then fell out; which the apostle here reports as unto the matter of fact, and chargeth on profaneness. The matter of fact is known, and we must inquire wherein his profaneness acted itself. And it did so, — (1.) In a readiness to part with his birthright, with whatsoever was contained in it and annexed unto it. Though I suppose he was then very young, for the story is added immediately after these words, “And the boys grew,” verse 27; yet being bred in the family of Isaac, he could not but know what did belong to that birthright, and what was annexed unto it by divine institution. And whereas, as we shall see, this had something in it that was sacred, the undervaluing it was a high profaneness; we must inquire hereon, what this birthright was, and how he sold it, and wherein he manifested himself to be profane thereby. He sold τὰπρωτοτόκιααὑτοῦ, “suum jus primogeniti,” Bez;. “his right of the first-born.” “Jus primogeniturae suae, “the right of his own primogeniture;” the things belonging unto him as the first-born.It is evident in the Scripture, that there were many rights and privileges of primogeniture in the church; some of them arising from the light of nature, and so common amongst all mankind; and some of them of divine institution. Among these, the Jews, many of them, do reckon the priesthood; and they are followed herein by most of our expositors. But I am much mistaken if, by “the priesthood of the first-born,” the Jews intend any thing but their dedication unto God by virtue of the law of the sanctification of every male that opened the womb, Exodus 13:2; Exodus 22:29; Exodus 34:19 : whence they were changed for the Levites, who were taken into the sacred office, Numbers 8:16-18. The priesthood, therefore, being settled in that tribe, which God took in exchange for the first-born, who were dedicated by the law of opening the womb, they called their state a priesthood. But it doth not appear that there was any ordinary office of the priesthood until the institution of that of Aaron, to be typical of the priesthood of Christ; only there was one person before extraordinarily called unto that office, unto the same purpose, namely, Melchizedek. But the reader, if he please, may consult our Exercitations on the Priesthood of Christ, prefixed unto the second volume of this Exposition, where these things are handled at large, Exercitations 25-34., I shall not therefore admit this among the privileges of the birthright, and can give arguments sufficient to disprove it. But this is not a place to insist on these things. A double portion of the paternal inheritance was ascertained unto the first- born by the law, Deuteronomy 21:17. And this was but the determination of the light of nature unto a certain measure; for a natural reason is given for it: “He is the beginning of his strength: the right of the first-born is his.” So when Reuben forfeited his birthright, the double portion was given unto Joseph and his sons, 1 Chronicles 5:1. This right, therefore, was certainly sold, what lay in him, by Esau.There was also in it a right of rule and government, ever the rest of the children of the family; which was transferred to Judah on the forfeiture made by Reuben, 1 Chronicles 5:2. And therefore when Isaac had transferred the birthright and blessing unto Jacob, he tells Esau, “I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants,” Genesis 27:37.These things did ordinarily, yea constantly, belong unto the firstborn. [But moreover, there was a blessing that from Abraham ran in the patriarchal line, which was communicated from father unto son, containing an enclosure of all church privileges, and the preservation of the promised Seed. This, I confess, was distinct from the birthright, and so it was distinguished by Esau, who in his complaint of his brother, cried out, “He hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing,” Genesis 27:36.But although it was not annexed inseparably unto the birthright, yet there was a just expectation that it should be conveyed according to the primogeniture. Hence not only Esau calls it his blessing, “He hath taken away my blessing,” verse 36, but Isaac calls it so too, “He hath taken away thy blessing,” verse 35. It was not his by divine destination, as appeared in the issue; nor had he made it his by obtaining an especial interest in the promise by faith, for he had it not; but in the ordinary course it was to be his, and in the purpose of his father it was his, and so in his own expectation: but God cut off the line of succession herein, and gave it unto Jacob. Now, as Jacob, in his whole design, aimed not at personal riches and power, wherein he was contented to see his brother far exceed him, as he did; but at an inheritance of the patriarchal blessing, wherein the promised Seed and the church-state were contained, whereinto the birthright was an outward entrance, a sign and pledge of it: so Esau, by selling his birthright, did virtually renounce his right unto the blessing, which he thought annexed thereunto. (2.) But it may be inquired how he sold this birthright, or how he could sell that which was not in his own power. The word is ἀπέδοτο, “he gave away,” or “he gave up;” but whereas he did it on a price which he esteemed a valuable consideration for it, and did make an express bargain about it, the sense intended in the word is, that he sold it, as it is expressed, Genesis 25:33.He could not by any contract change the course of nature, that he who was the first-born should really not be so; but it was his right by virtue thereof that he parted withal. Now, although this was not absolute, or immediately vested in him, seeing the father, yet living, might on just causes disinherit the first-born, as Jacob did Reuben; yet he had a right unto it, “jus ad rein,” and an assured interest in it, as unto his father’s affections. This he renounced; and hereby also he virtually parted with the blessing. But this he directly apprehended not. Wherefore although he never sought the recovery of the birthright, whose renunciation he had confirmed with an oath, yet he hoped that he might retain the blessing still. (3.) It is evident how in all this action he carried it profanely. For,[1. He discovered an easiness and readiness to part with his birthright, and all that was annexed thereunto by divine institution. Had he placed his principal interest therein, had he considered aright the privilege of it, had he by faith entertained the promise that went along with it, he would not have been so facile, nor so easily surprised into a renouncing of it. But being a man given wholly to his pleasures, and the love of present things, he seems scarce ever to have entertained serious thoughts about what it was significant of, in things spiritual and heavenly. [2. In that he did it on so slight an occasion, and valued it at so small a rate as one “mess of pottage,” or one “morsel of meat;” that is, of what was to be eaten. [3. In that, without further deliberation, he confirmed the sale with a solemn oath; whereby he discovered the highest contempt of what he had parted withal. [4. In his regardlessness of what he had done, after the power of his present temptation was over: for it is said, “He did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way,” as a man utterly unconcerned in what he had done; whereon the Holy Ghost adds this censure, “Thus Esau despised his birthright.” He did not only sell it, but despised it, Genesis 25:31-34.This was the profaneness of Esau. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 3. Evil examples proposed in Scripture-light, divested of all colors and pretences, laid open in their roots and causes, are effcacious warnings unto believers to abstain from all occasions leading unto the like evils, and much more from the evils themselves. — To this end is the sin of Esau here called over. Obs. 4. Where there is in any a latent predominant principle of profaneness, a sudden temptation or trial will let it out unto the greatest evils, as it was with Esau; and we see it daily verified to amazement.Obs. 5. This principle of profaneness, in preferring the morsels of this world before the birthright privileges of the church, is that which at this day threatens the present ruin of religion. — What is it that makes so many forsake their profession in a time of trial or persecution? It is because they will not be hungry for the gospel; they will have their morsels, which they prefer before the truth and privileges thereof. What makes the profession of religion in some nations to totter at this day? Is it not because of the morsels of outward peace, with, it may be, dignities and preferments that lie on the other side, and some present hunger or supposed want of earthly things, that they may fall into? Let men pretend what they please, it is from a spirit of profaneness that they forsake the privileges and assemblies of the church for any outward advantage; and what will be their success, we shall see in the next verse. Hebrews 12:17. — “For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place for repenance, though he sought it carefully with tears.”1. The efficacy of the example proposed consists in the due consideration of the consequent of the sin exemplified. ‘Such was the sin of Esau, which ye ought to watch against in yourselves and others; for ye know what ensued thereon.’This the particle, “for,” declares to be the reason of the following account of it.2. The way is expressed whereby they understood this consequent of Esau’s sin: “Ye know.” They knew it from the Scripture, where it is recorded. He supposeth them acquainted with the Scriptures, and what is contained in them; as they were; in like manner as he says of Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:15; as it is the duty of all Christians to be. Besides, there is a peculiar force of persuasion and conviction, when we argue from men’s own knowledge and concessions. ‘Ye know this yourselves; ye know it full well from the Scripture, and therefore let it be of great weight and consideration with you.’ 3. The general force of the exhortation from the consideration of the event of Esau’s profaneness, is taken from the surprisal that befell him when he found what his sin had brought him unto. For he is represented as a man under great amazement, as if he had little thought to fall into such a condition. And thus at one time or another it will befall all profane persons, who have refused the mercy and privileges of the gospel; they shall at one time or other fall under dreadful surprisals, in life, or at death, or at the last day. Then shall they see the horror of those crimes which before they made nothing of. Wherefore the Hebrews are here warned, and all professors of the gospel with them, that they decline not from their profession, lest they fall into the like surprisals, when it is too late to seek for deliverance out of them.4. What he did upon this surprisal, with the effects of it, are declared, —(1.) The time wherein he did it is noted; it was “afterward.” This afterward was not less, perhaps, than forty or fifty years. For he sold his birthright when he was young; now, when he designed the receiving of the blessing, Isaac was old, namely, about an hundred and forty years old, Genesis 27:2. So long did he live in his sin, without any sense of it or repentance for it. Things went prosperously with him in the world, and he had no regard in the least of what he had done, nor of what would be the end of it. But falling now into a new distress, it fills him with perplexity. And so it is with all secure sinners. Whilst things go prosperously with them, they can continue without remorse; but at one time or other their iniquity will find them out, Genesis 42:21-22.(2.) What he designed; and that was, to inherit the blessing: “He would have inherited the blessing.” He esteemed himself the presumptive heir of the patriarchal blessing, and knew not that he had virtually renounced it, and meritoriously lost it, by selling his birthright. So the apostle here distinguisheth between the birthright and the blessing. He “sold” birthright, but would have inherited the blessing; esteemed it to belong unto him by right of inheritance, when he had himself destroyed that right. So he distinguished himself: “He took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing,” Genesis 27:36. He had, no doubt, an apprehension that there were many excellent things contained in it; especially, a flourishing state and condition in this world, in a multiplication of posterity, and power over enemies, which were express in the promise made unto Abraham, Genesis 22:17. This made him put in his claim for the blessing, without the least sense of the spiritual privileges of it; for he was a “profane person.” And herein he was a type of the unbelieving Jews at that time; for they adhered to the outward things of the blessing, the carcass of it, unto the rejection of Him who was the whole life, soul, and power of it. And it is not unusual, that men should earnestly desire the outward privileges of the church, who value not the inward grace and power of them; but they are profane persona (3.) The event of this attempt was, that “he was rejected.” “He was reprobated.” So translators generally. Not that his eternal reprobation is hereby intended, (but this open, solemn rejection of him from the covenant of God, and the blessings thereof, was an evidence of his being reprobated of God, whence he is proposed as the type of reprobates, Romans 9:11-12), but the refusal of his father to give him the patriarchal blessing is that which is here intended. (4.) There is his behavior under this rejection, and the event thereof: “He sought it diligently with tears,” but “he found no place of repentance.” For that which the apostle intends fell out after his rejection, when his father had declared unto him that his blessing was gone for ever, Genesis 27:33-38. It is all one whether we refer αὐτήν, in the close of the verse, unto the remote antecedent, “the blessing,” or unto the next, which is “repentance;” for that which he sought for in repentance, namely, the repentance of his father, or the change of his mind, was the blessing also. For it is now generally agreed by all, that there is nothing in the words which should in the least intimate that he sought of God the grace of repentance; nor is there any thing in the record that looks that way. And I shall rather interpret this word, with Beza, of the blessing, than of the repentance of Isaac; because his cry in the story was immediately and directly for the blessing.(5.) The manner how he sought the blessing, is, that “he did it diligently with tears.” So the apostle expresseth the record, Genesis 27:38, “And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice and wept:” as those also of verse 34. No man, considering the intense affections that were between them, can express that conflict of nature which was on this occasion between Isaac and Esau. But in the one, grace and submission unto the will of God overcame all natural reluctancy; in the other, resolution for further sin offered itself for relief, — “he said in his heart that he would slay his brother,” verse 41. So it is in all like cases. Things that are most terrible and convulsive to nature, in them that believe, are brought into order in due time by grace and resignation unto the will of God; and on the other hand, sin, with its deceitful contrivances, will not cease to offer its reliefs unto unbelievers in distress, until all hopes are cut off and vanished for ever. But because here is an appearance of somewhat more than ordinary severity, in the peremptory denial of a divine blessing unto one who so earnestly sought and cried for it, the manner of his seeking it must be considered. And, — [1. He did it when it was too late. For he had not only forfeited his right unto it long before, and lived in impenitency under that forfeiture, but the sacred investiture of another in that blessing was solemnly past, which could not be recalled. So speaks Isaac even under his surprisal: “I have blessed him; yea, and he shall be blessed,” Genesis 27:33.Whatever men may pretend, whatever presumptuous sinners may flatter themselves withal, there is a limited time of the dispensation of grace, beyond which men shall not be admitted unto a participation of it, nor shall ever use the right way of attaining it. And this they may do well to consider who spend their lives in continual procrastination of their conversion to God. They may live, yet their time may be past, and a caveat entered against them, that they shall never enter into God’s rest. See Hebrews 3:11-15, with the exposition. [2. He sought it not at all in a due manner. Outward vehemency in expressions, and tears, may be influenced by such considerations as not to be an evidence of inward sincerity. He sought it not of God, but only of him that was the minister of it. And according to the law of God’s institution, the ministers of gospel blessings may be limited from a communication of them; but there is no law or bounds put unto the infinite treasures of divine goodness, if application be made thereunto in a due manner. But he sought the end without the means: he would have the blessing, but he used not the means for the attaining of it; namely, faith and repentance. For notwithstanding all his sorrow and trouble upon his disappointment, he entertained no thought about any repentance in himself; for he immediately fell into a resolution to follow Cain in his rejection, and to kill his brother. Yet herein lies the great folly that the generality of men are betrayed into through the deceitfulness ,of sin, namely, that they would have the end, the blessing of mercy and glory, without the use of the means, in faith, repentance, and obedience. But it is in vain to desire or endeavor a separation of those things which God, by an immutable constitution, hath conjoined and put together. Lastly, The reason of this event is expressed: “He found no place for repentance.” That is, notwithstanding his pretended right, his claim of it, his earnestness with tears about it; notwithstanding the inexpressible affection of Isaac unto him, and his trembling surprisal at an apprehension that he had missed the blessing; yet Isaac did not, could not, might not, change his mind, or repent him of what he had done, in conferring the blessing on Jacob, which God approved of. This sad event had the profaneness of Esau. And we may observe, — Obs. 1. This example of Esau cuts off all hopes by outward privileges, where there is an inward profaneness of heart. — He had as much to plead for the blessing, and as fair a probability for the attaining it, as ever any profane hypocrite can have in this world. And, —Obs. 2. Profane apostates have a limited season only, wherein the recovery of the blessing is possible. For although here be no intimation of a man’s seeking of repentance from God in a due manner, and being rejected, — which is contrary to the nature of God, who is a rewarder of all that diligently seek him, — yet there is an indication of severity, in leaving men in an irrecoverable condition, even in this life, who are guilty of such provocations. ordinance for the preservation of them that believe, and the edification of the whole church, Romans 11:22.Obs. 4. Sin may be the occasion of great sorrow, where there is no sorrow for sin; as it was with Esau. — Men may rue that in the consequents, which yet they like well enough in the causes.Obs. 5. No man knows whereunto a deliberate sin may lead him, nor what will be the event of it. Esau little thought, when he sold his birthright, that he had utterly forfeited the eternal blessing. Obs. 6. Profaneness and despising spiritual privileges, is a sin that God at one time or other will testify his severity against; yea this, on many accounts, is the proper object of God’s severity. It shall not be spared in the eldest son and most dearly beloved of an Isaac. Obs. 7. Steadfastness in faith, with submission unto the will of God, will establish the soul in those duties which are most irksome unto flesh and blood. — Nothing could prevail with Isaac to change his mind, when he knew what was the will of God. The discourse from hence unto the end of the chapter is of great weight, and accompanied with sundry difficulties, of which expositors do scarcely so much as take notice. Hence many different interpretations are given concerning the design of the apostle, and the principal things intended in the words. And because on the whole it gives the best rule and guidance for its own interpretation, in all the particulars of it, I shall premise those general considerations which will direct us in its exposition, taken from the scope of the words and nature of the argument in hand; as, — 1. The whole epistle, as we have often observed, is, as unto the kind of writing, parenetical. The design of the apostle in it, is to persuade and prevail with the Hebrews unto constancy and perseverance in the profession of the gospel For herein they seem at this time to have been greatly shaken. To this end he considers the means and causes of such backslidings as he warned them against. And these may be referred unto four heads:(1.) An evil heart of unbelief, or the sin that doth easily beset them; (2.) An opinion of the excellency and necessity of Mosaical worship and the old church-state;(3.) Afflictions and persecutions for the gospel;(4.) Prevalent lusts and sins, such as profaneness, fornication, and the like: all which we have spoken unto in their respective places, Hereunto he adds a prescription of that universal obedience, and those especial duties of holiness, which their profession required, and which were necessary to the preservation of it.2. The main argument which he insists on in general unto this end, and wherein the didactical part of the epistle doth consist, is the excellency, glory, and advantage, of that gospel-state whereunto they were called. This he proves from the person and office of its Author, his priesthood and sacrifice, with the spiritual worship and privileges belonging thereunto. All these he compareth with things of the same name and place under the law, demonstrating the excellency of the one above the other; and that especially on this account, that all the ordinances and institutions of the law were nothing but prefigurations of what was for to come. 3. Having insisted particularly and distinctly on all these things, and brought his especial arguments from them unto an issue, he makes in the discourse before us a recapitulation of the whole: for he makes a brief scheme of the two states that he had compared, balanceth them one against the other, and thereby demonstrates the force of his argument and exhortation from thence unto constancy and perseverance in the faith of the gospel. It is not therefore a new argument that here he proceeds unto; it is not an especial confirmation of his dehortation from profaneness, by the example of Esau, that he doth design: but as Hebrews 8:1, he gives us the κεφάλαιον, the “head” or sum of the things which he had discoursed concerning the priesthood of Christ; so here we have an ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, or “recapitulation” of what he had proved concerning the two states of the law and the gospel.4. This summary way of arguing he had before touched on in his passage, as Hebrews 2:2-3; Hebrews 3:1-3, etc., Hebrews 4:1. And he had more distinctly handled the antithesis in it on an alike occasion, Galatians 4:21-28. But here he makes use of it as a close unto his whole disputation, adding nothing unto it but a prescription of particular duties.5. It must be observed, that the great honor and privilege of the Judaical church-state, whereon all particular advantages did depend, was their coming unto and station at mount Sinai, at the giving of the law. There were they taken into covenant with God, to be his peculiar people above all the world; there were they formed into a national church; there had they all the privileges of divine worship committed unto them. Hereon theirs was “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,” as the apostle speaks, Romans 9:4. This is that glory which they boast of unto this day, and whereon they rely in their unbelief and rejection of the gospel.6. Wherefore the apostle, allowing all this communication of privileges unto them at Sinai, observes, that it was done in such a way of dread and terror as that sundry things are manifest therein; as,(1.) That there was no evidence, in all that was done, of God’s being reconciled unto them, in and by those things. The whole representation of him was as an absolute sovereign and a severe judge. Nothing declared him as a father, gracious and merciful. (2.) There was no intimation of any condescension from the exact severity of what was required in the law; or of any relief or pardon in case of transgression.(3.) There was no promise of grace, in a way of aid or assistance, for the performance of what was required. Thunders, voices, earthquakes, and fire, gave no signification of these things.(4.) The whole was hereby nothing but a glorious ministration of death and condemnation, as the apostle speaks, 2 Corinthians 3:7; whence the consciences of sinners were forced to subscribe to their own condemnation as just and equal.(5.) God was here represented in all the outward demonstrations of infinite holiness, justice, severity, and terrible majesty, on the one hand; and on the other, men in their lowest condition of sin, misery, guilt, and death. If there be not, therefore, something else to interpose between God and men, somewhat to fill up the space between infinite severity and inexpressible guilt, all this glorious preparation was nothing but a theater, set up for the pronouncing of judgment and the sentence of eternal condemnation against sinners. And on this consideration depends the force of the apostle’s argument: and the due apprehension and declaration of it are a better exposition of verses 18-21 than the opening of the particular expressions will amount unto; yet they also must be explained.7. It is hence evident, that the Israelites, in the station of Sinai, did bear the persons of convinced sinners under the sentence of the law. There might be many of them justified in their own persons by faith in the promise, but as they stood and heard and received the law, they represented sinners under the sentence of it, not yet relieved by the gospel. And this we may have respect unto in our exposition, as that which is the final intention of the apostle to declare, as is manifest from the description which he gives us of the gospel-state, and of those that are interested therein.These things are necessary to be premised, unto a right understanding of the design of the apostle in the representation he gives us of the original of the old church-state. And one thing must be observed concerning his description of the gospel-state, which doth ensue. And this is, — 8. That all spiritual things of grace and glory, in heaven and earth, being recapitulated in Christ, as is declared Ephesians 1:10, all brought unto a head and all centring in him, our coming unto him by faith gives us an interest in them all; so as that we may be said to come unto them all and every one, as it is here expressed. There is not required a peculiar acting or exercise of faith distinctly in reference unto every one of them; but by our coming unto Christ we come unto them all, as if every one of them had been the especial object of our faith, in our initiation into the gospel-state. Hence is the method or order in their expression; he and his mediation being mentioned in the close of the enumeration of the other privileges, as that upon the account whereof we are interested in them all, or as the reason of our so being. 9. The remainder of this discourse consists of two things: —(1.) The enforcement of the exhortation from the balancing of these states, and comparing them together. And this falls under a double consideration:[1. Of the things themselves on the part of the gospel: and this is from the eternal sanction of it, namely, the certain, infallible salvation of them that do believe, and the no less certain destruction of unbelievers and apostates. [2. Of the comparison itself between the two states, which confirms that part of the exhortation which is taken from the certain destruction of unbelievers, by evidencing the aggravation of their sin above theirs who despised the law, Hebrews 12:25. (2.) He issues and closeth the whole argumentative part of the epistle, here summarily represented, with a declaration of the end and issue of the two states which he had so compared; namely, that one of them was speedily to be removed and taken out of the way, and the other to be established for ever, Hebrews 12:26-27. And hereon he closeth the whole with a direction how to behave ourselves in the evangelical worship of God, in the consideration of his glorious majesty and holiness, both in giving the law and the gospel.A due attendance unto these rules will guide us in the exposition of this whole context. Hebrews 12:18-19. — Οὐγὰρπροσεληλύθατεψηλαφωμένῳὅρει, καὶκεκαυμένῳπυρὶΈκαὶγνόφῳ, καὶσκότῳ, καὶθυελλῃ, καὶσάλπιγγοςἤχῳ, καὶφωνῇ, ῥημάτων, ἧςοἱἀκούσαντεςπαρῃτήσαντομὴπροστεθῆναιαὑτοῖςλόγου. Προσεληλύθατε. is the word constantly used by our apostle to express a sacred access, or coming unto God in his worship. See Hebrews 10:1.Υηλαφωμένῳὅρει. “the mountain,” is not in the Syriac translation, nor the Arabic; but they retain, “which may be touched,” referring it to the fire, “to the fire which burned, and might be touched.” But the failure is evident; for that of touching relates unto the order about the mount, and not to the fire, which would also be improper. Vulg., “ad tractabilem montem;” Rhem., “a palpable mount;” improperly. Bez., “contrectabilem.” “Tactus sensui expositum.”Κεκαυμένῳ. Vulg., “accessibilem ignem;” Rhem., “an accessible fire: “ probably “accensibilem” was intended, whence the Rhemists put “kindled or burning” in the margin; for the fire was inaccessible. Bez., “et ardentem ignem.” “Ignem incensum.” Some refer κεκαυμένῳ to ὅρει, as we do, “the mount that burned;” some join it with πυρί, “the fire that burned,” which I rather choose.Καὶσάλπιγγοςἤχω. Syr., μְ ?χָ ?μָ ?ΰγְּ ?χַ ?ψְ ?πָ ?ΰ“to the voice of the horn;” alluding to the rams’horns whereof they made a kind of trumpets. Hebrews 12:18-19. — For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, [or the fire that burned,] nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of the trumpet, and the voice of words, which [voice] they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more.The general scope of the words must be first opened, and then the particular expressions contained in them. The principal design in hand is a description of that evangelical state whereinto the Hebrews were called, which they were come and entered into; for from thence the apostle infers his ensuing exhortation. But this their coming he expresseth negatively, to introduce a description of the church-state under the old testament, and the manner of the people’s entrance into it; whence he confirms both his argument and his exhortation: “Ye are not come.” And two things are included in that negative expression: 1. What their fathers did. They came, as we shall see, unto the things here mentioned. 2. What they were delivered from by their call unto the gospel. They were no more concerned in all that dread and terror. And the consideration of this deliverance was to be of moment with them, — with respect unto their perseverance in the faith of the gospel; for this is the fundamental privilege which we receive thereby, namely, a deliverance from the terror and curse of the law.And we may observe some few general things, in this proposal of the way of the people’s approach unto God at Sinai, before we open the several passages contained in the words; as,— 1. The apostle in this comparison, between their coming of old into the legal church-state, and our admission into the state of the gospel, includes a supposition of the way and manner whereby they approached unto God in the giving of the law. This was by the sanctification of themselves, the washing of their clothes, (as an outward sign thereof,) with other reverential preparations, Exodus 19:10-11. Whence it will follow, that, the gospel church-state being so much more excellent than that of old, God himself being in it in a more glorious and excellent manner, we ought to endeavor a more eminent sanctification and preparation, in all our approaches unto God therein. And therefore he closeth his discourse with an exhortation thereunto: “Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear,” verse 28. This therefore he teacheth us in the whole, namely, that the grace, love, and mercy of God, in the dispensation of the gospel, requires an internal sanctification and due preparation, with holy fear and reverence, in all our approaches unto him in his worship; answerable unto the type of it in the people’s preparation for the receiving of the law, and the fear that was wrought in them by the terror of God therein Our fear is of another kind than theirs was; yet ought it to be no less real and effectual in us, unto its proper end. 2. As unto the appearance of the divine Majesty here declared, we may observe, that all such apparitions were still suited unto the subject-matter, or what was to be declared of the mind of God in them. So he appeared unto Abraham in the shape of a man, Genesis 18:1-2; because he came to give the promise of the blessing Seed, and to give a representation of the future incarnation. In the like shape he appeared unto Jacob, Genesis 32:24; which was also a representation of the Son of God as incarnate, blessing the church. Unto Moses he appeared as a fire in a bush which was not consumed, Exodus 3:2-6; because he would let him know that the fire of affliction in the church should not consume it, because of his presence in it. “He dwelt in the bush.” Unto Joshua he appeared as an armed man, with his sword drawn in his hand, Joshua 5:13; to assure him of victory over all his enemies. But here he appears encompassed with all the dread and terror described; and this was to represent the holiness and severity of the law, with the inevitable and dreadful destruction of sinners who betake not themselves unto the promise for relief.3. These appearances of God were the glory of the old testament, the great fundamental security of the faith of believers, the most eminent privilege of the church. Yet were they all but types and obscure resemblances of that which was granted in the foundation of the gospel church-state: and this was, that “God was manifest in the flesh;” “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us;” or the incarnation of the Son of God. For therein “the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily,” Colossians 2:9; that is, really and substantially, whereof all other appearances were but shadows.4. We may also observe some things in general concerning this appearance of the divine Majesty, which intimate the glory and terror of it; as,(1.) It was on the top of a high mountain, not in a plain. As this had a great appearance of the throne of majesty, so, it being above the people, as it were over them, it was meet to fill them with dread and fear. They looked up, and saw the mountain above them full of fire and smoke; the whole mount quaking greatly, thunders and terrible voices being heard in the air, Exodus 19:18; Exodus 20:18; Deuteronomy 4:11. They could have no other thoughts hereon, but that it was a fearful thing to come to judgment before this holy God. And one view of that terror of the Lord’s holiness and severity, which were here represented, is enough to make the stoutest sinner to quake and tremble.(2.) To increase the reverence due to this appearance, the people were commanded their distance, and straitly forbidden an approach beyond the bounds fixed unto them.(3.) This prohibition was confirmed with a sanction, that every one who transgressed it should be stoned, as detestable and devoted unto utter destruction. These things, accompanied with the dreadful spectacles here mentioned by the apostle, did all lead to ingenerate an awful fear and reverence of God, in his giving of the law. This was the way whereby those under the old testament entered into their church-state; which begot in them a spirit of bondage unto fear, during its continuance. That expression, “They came,” included in this, “Ye are not come,” compriseth all the sacred preparation which, by God’s direction, the people made use of when they approached unto the mount; concerning which the reader may see our Exercitations in the first volume of the Exposition, Exercitations 19. There are two things in the remaining words: first, What the people so came unto; secondly, What effect it had upon them, especially as unto one instance. 1. The things that they came unto, as recorded by the apostle, are seven:(1.) The mount that might be touched.(2.) The fire that burned.(3.) Blackness. (4.) Darkness. (5.) Tempest.(6.) The sound of the trumpet.(7.) The voice of words.2. The event was, that they entreated that the words might be spoken to them no more.FIRST, They came to,1. “The mount that might be touched.” This mount was Sinai, in the wilderness of Horeb, which was in the deserts of Arabia So saith our apostle, “mount Sinai in Arabia,” Galatians 4:25. And the apostle mentions this in the first place, because with respect unto this mountain all the laws and directions of the people’s approach unto God were given, Exodus 19.Of this mount it is said, “It might be touched.” Ψηλαφάω is “to feel, to touch, to handle,” Luke 24:39; 1 John 1:1; and it is sometimes applied to any means of attempting the knowledge of what we inquire after, Acts 17:27. And the apostle observes this concerning the mountain, that “it might be touched,” felt, or handled, — that it was a sensible, carnal thing, exposed to the outward senses, to the most earthly of them, namely, feeling, — from the prohibition given, that none should touch it: for unless it might have been touched naturally, none could have been morally prohibited to touch it. And he makes this observation for two ends: (1.) To manifest how low and inferior the giving of the law was, in comparison of the promulgation of the gospel, which was from heaven; as we shall see afterwards, verse 25. It was that which might be touched with the hands of men, or by beasts themselves.(2.) To intimate the bondage and fear the people were then in, who might not so much as touch the mountain where were the signs of God’s presence, though it was in itself a thing exposed to the sense of all creatures.And there is much of divine wisdom, that manifests itself in the choice of this place for the giving of the law. For, (1.) It was an absolute solitude, a place remote from the habitation and converse of men. Here the people could neither see nor hear any thing but God and themselves. There was no appearance of any relief, or place of retreat; but there they must abide the will of God. And this teacheth us, that when God deals with men by the law, he will let them see nothing but himself and their own consciences: he takes them out of their reliefs, reserves, and retreats. For the most part, when the law is preached unto sinners, they have innumerable diversions and reliefs at hand, to shield themselves from its terror and efficacy. The promises of sin itself are so, and so are the promises of future amendment; so also are all the businesses and occasions of life which they betake themselves unto. They have other things to do than to attend unto the voice of the law; at least it is not yet necessary that they should so do. But when God will bring them to the mount, as he will here or hereafter, all these pretences will vanish and disappear. Not one of them shall be able to suggest the least relief unto a poor guilty sinner. His conscience shall be kept to that which he can neither abide nor avoid. Unless he can make the great plea of an interest in the blood of Christ, he is gone for ever. And God gave herein a type and representation of the great judgment at the last day. The terror of it consists much in this, that sinners shall be able to see nothing but God and the tokens of his wrath. Nor doth the law represent any thing else unto us. (2.) It was a barren and fruitless desert, where there was neither water nor food. And, answerably thereunto, the law in a state of sin, would bring forth no fruit, nothing acceptable unto God nor useful unto the souls of men. For there was nothing on Sinai but bushes and brambles; whence it had its name. These made an appearance at a distance of some fruitfulness in the place; but when it came to be tried, there was nothing but what was fit for the fire. And so is it with all that are under the law. They may seem to perform many duties of obedience, yea, such as they may trust unto, and make their boast of: but when they are brought unto the trial, they are no other but such as God speaks of, Isaiah 27:4 :“Who would set the briers and thorns against me in battle? I would go through them, I would burn them together.”Other fruit the law will not bring forth. Nor was there any water in that desert of Horeb, to make it fruitful. That which the people lived on was brought out of the rock; and “that rock was Christ.” From him alone are all refreshments to them that are under the law. (3.) No place in the habitable world hath been ever since more desolate and forsaken; and such it continueth unto this day.And thereby we are taught, [1. That although there was a necessity for the renovation of the law at that season, to give bounds unto sin, yet that that dispensation should not be continued, but be left for ever as it is under the gospel. [2. That those who will abide under the law, shall never have any token of God’s presence with them, but shall be left to desolation and horror. God dwells no more on Sinai. Those who abide under the law, shall neither have his presence nor any gracious pledge of it. And all those things are spoken, to stir us up to seek for an interest in that blessed gospel-state which is here proposed unto us. And thus much we have seen already, that without it there is neither relief from the curse of the law, nor acceptable fruit of obedience, nor pledge of divine favor, to be obtained. [3. It manifests that the holiness of things and places is confined unto their use; which when it ceaseth, they become common. What more holy place than Sinai, during the presence of God on it? What now more desolate, forlorn, and despised? For although the superstition of latter ages hath built a house or monastery on the top of this hill, for a mere superstitious devotion, yet God in his providence hath sufficiently manifested his regardlessness of it, and the casting it out of his care. And he denounceth sentence herein on all that superstition and idolatry which are in the church of Rome, in their veneration of relics, and pilgrimages to places of a supposed holiness, though utterly forsaken of all pledges of the divine presence. 2. The second thing they came unto was “the fire that burned;” for so I rather read the words, than “the mount that burned with fire.” For the fire was of itself a distinct token of God’s presence, and a distinct means of filling the people with dread and fear. This fire is mentioned, Exodus 19:18, “The LORD descended on the mount in fire;” and Deuteronomy 4:12, “The LORD spake out of the midst of the fire.” It is said, indeed, that “the mountain burned with fire;” that is, fire burned on the mountain. And this fire had a double appearance: (1.) That which represented the descent of God on the mount: “The LORD descended in fire.” The people saw the token of God’s presence in the descent of fire on the mount.(2.) Of the continuance of his presence there, for it continued burning all the while God spake: “He spake out of the fire.” And it was a flaming fire, which raised a smoke, like the smoke of a furnace, Exodus 19:18; which our apostle seems to express by “blackness,” in the next word. Yea, this fire flamed, and “burned unto the midst of heaven,” Deuteronomy 4:11. This fire was an emblem of the presence of God; and of all the appearances on the mount, it was of the greatest terror unto the people. And therefore, in their request to be freed from the dread of the presence of God, they three times mention this fire as the cause of their fear, Deuteronomy 5:24-26. And God is often in the Scripture represented by fire, Deuteronomy 4:24; Isaiah 30:33; Isaiah 33:14. And his severity in the execution of his judgments is so called, Isaiah 66:15; Amos 7:4; Ezekiel 1:4. And although here the light, purity, and holiness of the nature of God, may also be represented by it, yet we shall confine it unto the interpretation given of it in the Scripture itself. And first, as unto God himself, it signified his jealousy. So Moses expounds it, Deuteronomy 4:24, for he closeth his discourse hereof with these words, “For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.” And the jealousy of God is his holy severity against sin, not to leave it unpunished. And with respect unto the law which he then gave, — “From his right hand went a fiery law for them,” Deuteronomy 33:2, — it signified its inexorable severity and efficacy to destroy its transgressors. And we may add hereunto, that it declared the terror of his majesty, as the great legislator. Hence in the Scripture he is often said to be accompanied with fire. See Psalms 18:9-12. Psalms 1:3, “A fire shall devour before him.” Psalms 97:3. “A fire goeth before him.” Daniel 7:10, “A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him.” For there is nothing more apt to fill the hearts of men with a majestic awe than a fire absolutely prevalent above the power of all creatures.This is the first thing which the people beheld when they came to the mount. And when men under the law have to deal with God, their first apprehensions of him are his holiness and severity against sinners, with his anger and displeasure against sin. There the law leaves them; and thence they must be consumed, without relief by Jesus Christ. These things are hid from sinners, until they are brought to the law, or the law to them. They have no views, no notices of them in a due manner. Hence, until the law comes, they are alive; that is, at peace and in security, well satisfied with their own condition. They see not, they think not of the fire, that is ready to consume them; yea, for the most part they have quite other notions of God, Psalms 50:21, or none at all. But this is the second work of the law: when it hath by its convictions brought the sinner into a condition of a sense of guilt which he cannot avoid, — nor will any thing tender him relief, which way soever he looks, for he is in a desert, — it represents unto him the holiness and severity of God, with his indignation and wrath against sin; which have a resemblance of a consuming fire. This fills his heart with dread and terror, and makes him see his miserable, undone condition. Infinite holiness, inexorable justice, and fiery indignation, are all in this representation of God. Hence the cry of those who find not the way of relief wilt one day be, ‘Who among us shall dwell with that devouring fire? Who shall inhabit with those everlasting burnings?’ This is the way and progress of the work of the law on the consciences of sinners: First, when they are brought unto it, “it stops their mouths,” makes them “guilty before God,” or subject to his judgment, Romans 3:19; it “shuts them all up in unbelief,” Romans 11:32; it “concludes,” or shuts them up, “under sin,” Galatians 3:22, — gives them to see their lost condition, without help, without relief. They are in a wilderness, where is none but God and themselves. And, secondly, in this condition they see the fire: God is represented unto them therein in his jealousy and severity against sin; which fills their hearts with dread and terror. O this fire will consume them! If they continue to hear the voice out of the fire, they shall die! Somewhat hereof, in some degree, is found in all on whom the law hath its proper and effectual work, in order unto the bringing of them unto Christ, the deliverer. And all others shall find it in the highest degree, when it will be too late to think of a remedy. 3. Unto “fire” the apostle adds “blackness,” as we render the word; whereto follow “darkness and tempest.” Before we speak unto the words and things signified in particular, we must consider the consistency of the things that are spoken. For, whereas fire is light in itself, and giveth light, how is it said that together with it there was blackness and darkness?Some distinguish the times, and say there was an appearance of fire at first, and afterwards of blackness and darkness. But this is directly contrary to the text, which frequently assigns the continuance of the fire unto the end of God’s speaking unto the people. Others would have respect to be had unto several distinct parts of the mountain; so as that the fire appeared in one part, and the darkness in another. But it is evident, in the description given by Moses, that they were mingled all together. For he affirms sometimes, that God spake in and out of the fire; sometimes out of the thick darkness, Deuteronomy 5:22-24. “The LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness,” Deuteronomy 5:22. “The voice out of the midst of the thick darkness,” Deuteronomy 5:23. “The voice out of the midst of the fire,” Deuteronomy 5:24. And the same is fully expressed, Deuteronomy 4:11-12. So that it is evident there was a mixture of them all together; and so it is described by David, Psalms 18:8-13. And nothing can be conceived of greater dread and terror, than such a mixture of fire, and darkness, and tempest, which left nothing of light unto the fire but its dread and terror. For by reason of this blackness and darkness, the people had no useful light by the fire. This filled them with confusion and perplexity.The word γνόφος, here used by the apostle, is intended by some “turbo;” Syr., ηְ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?λָ ?ΰ, “tenebrae,” “darkness;” but that is σκότος, the word following. “Turbo” is a “storm or tempest.” The apostle by these words expresseth those of Moses, ηωֶׁ ?κְ ςָ ?πָ ?ζεַ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?τֶ ?μ, Deuteronomy 4:11, which we render, “darkness, clouds, and thick darkness;” the LXX. using the same words with the apostle, but not in the same order, Γνόφος, saith Eustathius, is from νέφος; νόφος, “a cloud,” in the AEolic dialect. Wherefore the apostle in this word might have respect unto that blackness which was caused by the thick cloud wherein God descended, Exodus 19:9, “Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud;” which cloud abode upon the mount, verse 16, the blackness of it being not taken away by the fire that was in it, every part of the appearance reserving its own terror. Or he might have respect unto the smoke caused by the fire, which was “as the smoke of a furnace,” verse 18; for he doth not mention it in particular. But the Syriac and Arabic, with other translations, put the words in construction, and render them, “the blackness” or obscurity “of the cloud;” which probably is intended in this word and that following. But this γνόφος, “blackness” or obscurity, had evidently three things in it:(1.) As it was mixed with fire, it increased the dread of the appearance.(2.) It hindered the people from clear views of the glory of God in this dispensation. With respect hereunto, it is often said that “clouds and darkness are round about him, Psalms 98:2.(3.) It declared the dread of the sentence of the law, in fire and utter darkness.And this is a third thing in the progress of the work of the law on the consciences of sinners: When they are shut up under guilt, and begin to be terrified with the representation of God’s severity against sin, they cannot but look to see if there be any thing in the manifestation of God and his will by the law that will yield them relief. But here they find all things covered with blackness, or obscurity. The glory of God, in his design in bringing them unto the law, or the law to them, is hid and covered under the veil of this blackness. The design of God herein is not death, though the law in itself be “the ministration of death;” but he deals thus with them to drive them to Christ, to constrain them to flee for refuge unto him. But this design, as unto the law, is covered with blackness; the sinner can see nothing of it, and so knows not how to order his speech towards God by reason of darkness, Job 37:19. It is the gospel alone that reveals this design of God in the law. But instead hereof, this blackness insinuates into the mind a dread of worse things than yet it can discern. When men see blackness in a cloud, they are apt to expect that thunder will break out of it every moment. So is it with sinners; finding all things covered with blackness, in the view they would take of God by the law, it increaseth their dread, and lets them into the things that follow. Wherefore, — Obs. 1. A view of God as a judge, represented in fire and blackness, will fill the souls of convinced sinners with dread and terror. — How secure soever they may be at present, when God calls them forth unto the mount their hearts cannot endure, nor can their hands be strong.4. Unto this “blackness” the apostle adds “darkness.” Blackness is a property of a thing in itself; darkness is its effect towards others. This blackness was such as withal caused darkness, with respect unto them unto whom it was presented. So we may distinguish between the blackness and darkness of a thunder cloud. It is black in itself, and causeth darkness unto us. But this darkness is mentioned distinctly, as a part of the appearance: Exodus 20:21, “Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was;” and Deuteronomy 4:11, “Darkness, clouds, and thick darkness.” What this darkness was, we cannot well apprehend. But this it teacheth us, that notwithstanding the revelation that God made of himself in this dispensation of the law, he was, as unto his glory in the purposes of his grace and mercy, in thick darkness unto the people; they could not see him nor discern him. Sinners can see nothing thereof, in or by the law. How this darkness was removed by the ministry of Christ and the gospel, how this cloud of darkness was scattered, and the face of God as a father, as a reconciled God, uncovered, revealed, and made known, is the subject of the writings of the New Testament. Hence the execution of the law is called “blackness of darkness,” Jude 1:13.5. Hereunto the apostle adds, “and tempest.” And in this word he compriseth the thundering, lightning, and earthquake, that were then on and in the mount, Exodus 19:16; Exodus 19:18; Exodus 20:18. These increased the terror of the darkness, and made it ςֲ ?ψָ ?τֶ ?μ, “a thick darkness,’as it is in Moses.As it was without in the giving of the law, so it is within in the work of the law; it fills the minds of men with a storm, accompanied with darkness and perplexity. This is the issue that the law brings things unto in the minds and consciences of sinners. Its work ends in darkness and tempest. It hath these two effects: First, it brings the soul into darkness, that it knows not what to do, nor how to take one step towards its own relief. It can see no light, either for its direction or consolation. And hereon it either tires and wearies itself with vain endeavors for relief by its own works and duties, or else sinks into heartless despondencies and complaints; as is the manner of men in darkness. And secondly, it raiseth a tempest in the mind, of disquieting, perplexing thoughts; ofttimes accompanied with dread and terror. In this state the law leaves poor sinners; it will not accompany them one step towards deliverance; it will neither reveal nor encourage them to look after any relief. Yea, it declares that here the sinner must die and perish, for any thing that the law knows or can do. This, therefore, is the place and season wherein Christ interposeth, and cries unto sinners, “Behold me! behold me!” Now, though all these things tend unto death, yet God was, and God is, exceedingly glorious in them. Yea, this administration of them was so. “The ministration of death” and condemnation “was glorious;” though “it had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth,” namely, in the dispensation of the gospel, 2 Corinthians 3:7; 2 Corinthians 3:10-11. Howbeit in itself it did, and it doth, manifest the glory of the holiness, justice, and severity of God; wherein he will be glorified, and that unto eternity.These things, with all their dreadful effects, the apostle minds the Hebrews of their deliverance from by Jesus Christ and his gospel, to oblige them unto constancy and perseverance in the profession of the faith; which we shall speak somewhat unto afterwards. Hebrews 12:19. — 6. They came to “the sound of the trumpet.” This is called χεֹ ?μωֹׁ ?τָ ?ψ, “the voice of the trumpet,” Exodus 19:16; Exodus 19:19; and was of great use in that solemnity. It is well rendered by the apostle, “the sound of a trumpet;” for it was not a real trumpet, but the sound of a trumpet, formed in the air by the ministry of angels, unto a degree of terror. So it “waxed louder and louder,” to signify the nearer approach of God. This sound of the trumpet, or an allusion unto it, is of great use in sacred things. Here it was used in the promulgation of the law. And there was under the law “a memorial of blowing of trumpets,” on the first day of the seventh month, to call the people unto the solemn day of expiation, Leviticus 23:24; which was a type of preaching the gospel, and a declaration of the remission of sins by the atonement made in the sacrifice of Christ. But the principal solemnity hereof was in the proclamation of the jubilee, every fiftieth year, Leviticus 25:7-9, when liberty was proclaimed throughout all the land, to all the inhabitants thereof, verse 10; which was fulfilled in the ministry of Christ, Isaiah 61:1-2. Whence the people were blessed that heard that joyful sound, Psalms 89:15. So it is frequently applied unto the promulgation of the gospel. It is also used as an indication of the entrance of divine judgments on the world, Revelation 8:6. And lastly, it is used as the means of summoning all flesh to judgment at the last day, 1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16.Here it had a treble use, and a double typical signification: (1.) It was to intimate the approach of God, to prepare the hearts of men with a due reverence of him.(2.) It was to summon the people to an appearance before him, as their lawgiver and judge; for on the sound of the trumpet, “Moses brought forth the people to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount,” Exodus 19:17.(3.) It was the outward sign of the promulgation of the law, with the sanction of it; for immediately upon the sound of the trumpet God spake unto them. And as unto its typical signification, it was,(1.) A pledge of the future judgment, when all flesh shall be summoned before the judgment-seat of Christ, to answer the terms of the law. And,(2.) As it was changed in the following institution of the feast of expiation, and in the year of jubilee, it was, as was observed, a type of the promulgation of the gospel in the ministry of Christ himself. And, —Obs. 2. When God calls sinners to answer the law; there is no avoiding of an appearance; the terrible summons and citation will draw them out, whether they will or no. — In some the word is made effectual in this life, to bring them into the presence of God with fear and trembling; but here the whole matter is capable of a just composure in the blood of Christ, unto the glory of God and eternal salvation of the sinner. But those that here escape must answer for the whole, when the final summons shall be given them by the trumpet at the last day.Obs. 3. It is a blessed change, to be removed from the summons of the law to answer for the guilt of sin, unto the invitation of the gospel to come and accept of mercy and pardon. — He that shall compare this terrible citation of sinners before the throne of God, to receive and answer the law, with those sweet, gracious, heavenly invitations, with proclamations of grace and mercy, given by Christ in the gospel, Matthew 11:28-30, may apprehend the difference of the two states here insisted on by the apostle. And thus are things stated in the consciences of sinners, with respect unto the different sounds of the trumpet: The summons of the law fills them with dread and terror. Appear they must before God, there is no avoidance; but stand before him they cannot. They are like Adam, when he could no longer hide himself, but must appear and answer for his transgression. They have no refuge to betake themselves unto. The law condemns them; they condemn themselves; and God is represented as a judge full of severity. In this state, when mercy is designed for them, they begin to hear the voice of the trumpet for the promulgation of the gospel, and of grace and mercy by Jesus Christ. This “proclaims liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound,” Isaiah 61:1; that is, to such poor condemned creatures as they are. At first they are not able to believe it, it is so contrary to the summons which was given them by the law; but when it is made manifest unto them that the charge of the law is answered, and thereon mercy and peace are freely tendered unto them, it is as life from the dead, Habakkuk 2:1-4.Under this dreadful summons of the law the gospel finds us; which exceedingly exalts the glory of the grace of God and of the blood of Christ, in the consciences of believers, as the apostle declares at large, Romans 3:19-26. 7. Hereunto is added, “the voice of words.” It is said that “God spake by a voice,” Exodus 19:19; that is, an articulate voice, in the language of the people, that might be understood by all. Hence he is said to speak with the people, Exodus 20:19. “The LORD spake unto them out of the midst of the fire,” and “they heard the voice,” Deuteronomy 4:12; Deuteronomy 5:23. Now, the words that were uttered with this voice were “the ten words,” or “ten commandments,” written afterwards in the two tables of stone, and no more. This the people all of them heard of the voice of God, and this only:Deuteronomy 5:22, “These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly” (speaking of the ten commandments) “in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice, and he added no more: and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me;” — that is, afterwards.Wherefore, from the midst of the dreadful appearance of fire, clouds, and darkness, all other noises of thunder and the trumpet ceasing, God caused a voice, speaking the words of the ten commandments articulately in their own language, to be heard by the whole congregation, men, women, and children, in the station wherein they were placed at the foot of the mount And this voice was so great and terrible as that the people were not able to bear it; for although it is evident that they were terrified with the dreadful appearances on the mount, yet was it this speaking of God himself that utterly overwhelmed them. This law, for the substance of it, was written in the hearts of mankind by God himself in their original creation; but being much defaced, as to the efficacious notions of it by the entrance of sin and the corruption of our nature, and greatly affronted as unto the relics of it in the common practice of the world, God gave it in the church this becoming renovation with terror and majesty. And this he did, not only to renew it as a guide unto all righteousness and holiness, as the only rule and measure of obedience unto himself and of right and equity amongst men, and to give check, by its commands and sanction, unto sin; but principally to declare in the church the eternal establishment of it, that no change or alteration should be made in its commands or penalties, but that all must be fulfilled to the uttermost, or sinners would have no acceptance with God: for it being the original rule of obedience between him and mankind, and failing of its end through the entrance of sin, he would never have revived and proclaimed it, in this solemn, glorious manner, if it had been capable of any abrogation or alteration at any time. Therefore these words he spake himself immediately unto the people, and these only. His will concerning alterable institutions, he communicated by revelation unto Moses only. How this law is established and fulfilled, is declared in the gospel. See Romans 10:1-4.The unchangeable nature and sanction of this law, as unto its rewards and punishments, were eternally secured in the hearts and consciences of mankind; for it was so inlaid with the principles of our nature, so ingrafted on all the faculties of our souls, that no flesh is able utterly to subduct itself from under its power. Though sinners find it contrary unto them in all their desires and designs, and that which continually threatens their ruin, yet are they not able to cast off the yoke of it; as the apostle declares, Romans 2:14-15. But there are many additional evidences given hereunto, in this solemn renovation of it. For, (1.) It was for the promulgation of this law alone that there was all that dreadful preparation for the presence of God on mount Sinai. (2.) These were the first words that God spake unto the people; yea, (3.) The only words he spake.(4.) He spake them with a voice great and terrible; and,(5.) Wrote them with his own finger on tables of stone.By all these ways did God confirm this law, and sufficiently manifest that it was liable neither to abrogation nor dissolution, but was to be answered and fulfilled to the utmost. And, — Obs. 4. Let no man ever think or hope to appear before God with confidence or peace, unless he have an answer in readiness unto all the words of this law, all that it requires of us. And they who suppose they have any other answer, as their own works, merits, suffrages, and supererogations of others, masses, indulgences, and the like, any thing but the substitution of the Surety of the covenant in our stead, with an interest by faith in his mediation, blood, and sacrifice, will be eternally deceived., The last thing in this verse is the event of this sight and hearing on the part of the people. There was a voice of words; whereon it is said, “They that heard the voice entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more.” The story hereof is recorded, Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:23-25.1. Those spoken of are those that then heard that voice, — that is, the whole assembly or congregation; of all which, those that were above the age of twenty years, and so able to understand the matter and personally engage in the covenant, except two persons, died in the wilderness under the displeasure of God. So that, —Obs. 5. No outward privilege, such as this was, to hear the voice of God, is sufficient of itself to preserve men from such sins and rebellions as shall render them obnoxious unto divine displeasure. — For notwithstanding all the things that they had seen, all those signs and great miracles, “the LORD had not given them an heart to perceive, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear,” Deuteronomy 29:2-4. In hearing they heard not, in seeing they perceived not; and did therefore “alway err in their heart,” not knowing the ways of God, Hebrews 3:10. Forunto a right improvement of such outward privileges it is moreover required that God should “circumcise our hearts, to love the LORD our God with all our heart, and all our soul,” Deuteronomy 30:6, by the administration of efficacious grace.2. “They entreated that the word should not be spoken unto them any more;” or that the speech, namely, of God, should not be continued unto them immediately. The word here rendered by “entreated,” we express by “refusing,” verse 25. And in all other places it signifies to excuse one’s self from doing any thing, Luke 14:18; “to refuse,” Acts 25:11; “to decline, avoid and turn from,” 1 Timothy 4:7; 1 Timothy 5:11, 2 Timothy 2:23, Titus 3:10. Wherefore such an entreaty is intended as included a declension and aversation of mind from what they spake about. They deprecated the hearing of the word in that manner any more. And they did this, no doubt, by their officers and elders. For both themselves being terrified, and observing the dread of the whole congregation, they made request for themselves and the rest unto Moses. And because they did it with a good intention, out of a reverence of the majesty of God, without any design of declining obedience, it was accepted and approved of by Deuteronomy 5:28-29.“They entreated that the word might not be added to them.” Λόγος is both the speech and the thing spoken. And although they could not bear the latter either, as we shall see on the next verse, yet it is the former, the speech itself, or the immediate speaking of God himself unto them, which they did deprecate. So they express themselves, “If we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, then we shall die,” Deuteronomy 5:25. This voice, this word, this speech, proceeding immediately from God, out of the fire and darkness, was that which heightened their fear and dread to the utmost. And we may see, —Obs. 6. Then is the sinner utterly overwhelmed, when he hath a sense of the voice of God himself in the law. — When he finds God himself speaking in and unto his conscience, he can no longer bear it.Obs. 7. That the speaking of the law doth immediately discover the invincible necessity of a mediator between God and sinners — The people quickly found that there was no dealing with God for them in their own persons, and therefore desired that there might be one to mediate between God and them. And, — Obs. 8. If the giving of the law was so full of terror that the people could not bear it, but apprehended that they must die, if God continued to speak it to them; what will be the execution of its curse in a way of vengeance at the last day!Hebrews 12:20-21. — (Οὐκἔφερονγὰρτὸδιαστελλόμενον·κἃνθηρίονθίγῃτοῦὄρους, λιθοβοληθήσεται, ἤβολίδικατατοξευθήσεται. Καί, οὕτωφοβερὸνη῏ντὸφανταζόμενον, Μωϋσῆςει῏πεν, ῎Εκφοβόςεἰμικαὶἔντρομος.)Οὐκἔφερον. Vulg., “non portabant;” “they did not bear.” “Non ferebant,” Bez. Syr., μָ ?ΰβֵּ ?ιψξֶ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?δִ ?ιοδֲ ?εεּ μַ ?ξְ ?ρַ ?ιְ ?αָ ?ψεּ, “for they were not able to sustain,” or “bear.” We, “to endure.”Τὸδιαστελλόμενον. Vulg., “quod dicebatur,” “that which was spoken.” There is more in the word. Syr., “quod praecipiebatur;” “that was commanded, enjoined.” “Edicebatur,” “which was spoken out, enacted.” Bez., “interdicebatur,” “that was forbidden or interdicted,” referring it unto the following words. We, “was commanded.”῎Ηβολίδικατατοξευθήσεται. These words are omitted both in the Vulgar and in the Syriac and Arabic. But they are in all the best Greek copies; and they are necessary, as being a part of the original interdict. Nor is it absolutely true that such beasts should be stoned; for they were to be “stoned, or thrust through with a dart,” Exodus 19:12-13. These words, therefore, are necessary in this place. “Sagitta configetur.” Τὸφανταζόμενον. Vulg., “quod videbatur,” “that which was seen.” Syr., δֶ ?ζְ ?εָ ?ΰ, “the vision.” Bez., “visum quod apparebat,” “the sight that appeared.” The sense of the whole sentence seems somewhat defective, for want of a note of connection between the parts of it: “And so terrible was the sight, Moses said, I exceedingly fear.” We supply that; “that Moses said.” Beza joins Moses immediately unto “and” in the beginning, putting a distinction between it and οὕτω, “so:” “Et Moses, adeo horrendum erat visum, dixit;” — “And Moses, so terrible was the sight, said:” which is the true construction of the words.῎Εχφοζος, “exterritus,” “expavefactus;” “I exceedingly fear,” or “I am[5] exceedingly afraid.” [5] VARIOUS READING. — ῎Ηβολίδικατατοξευθήσεται are omitted by Bengel, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The insertion of them is contrary to the authority of all the uncial manuscripts, by far the most of the cursive manuscripts, and all the versions. . — No modern critic agrees with Owen in supposing τὰδιαστελλόμενον to be the law, and not the particular interdict immediately quoted. As to the exclamation attributed to Moses, in regard to which Owen appears somewhat at a loss, as it is not recorded in Old Testament history, Knapp, Tholuek, Ebrard, Conybeare and Howson, explain it by reference to the phrase of the Septuagint in Deuteronomy 9:19, ἐκφοβόςεἰμι. “It was the remembrance,” observe the two last-mentioned authors, “of this terrible sight which caused Moses to say this; much more must he have been terrified by the reality.” — ED. Hebrews 12:20-21. — For they could not endure [bear] that which was commanded. And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned or thrust through with a dart. And so terrible [dreadful] was the sight [which appeared], [that] Moses said, I exceedingly fear and tremble.The law about the beast is not distinct, as here proposed, but it is a part of the general prohibition: “Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death,” Exodus 19:12. This concerns the people only: but in the prescription of the manner of the death to be inflicted it is added, “There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through: whether it be beast or man, it shall not live,” verse 13. Which manner of its introduction we respect in our translation, “If so much as a beast;” which was not at first named, but added in the repetition of the law. The word αְּ ?δֵ ?ξָ ?δsignifies all sorts of cattle; which the apostle renders by θηρίον, to include those also which were of a wild nature. No living creature was allowed to come to the mount.For the opening of the words, we must inquire, 1. What it was that was commanded. 2. How they could not endure it. 3. What further evidences there were that it was not to be endured by them; which are added unto the assertion laid down in the beginning of the 20th verse.First, “That which was commanded:” “The edict;” or as some, “the interdict.” For it may relate unto that which follows, that which was commanded, namely, that “if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it should be stoned, or thrust through with a dart.” Respect is had herein unto the whole charge given unto the people of not touching the mount or passing the bounds fixed unto them; wherein beasts also were included. And this, no doubt, was a great indication of severity, and might have occasioned danger unto the people, some or more of them. But this is not intended herein, nor hath this word respect unto what followeth, but unto what goeth before. For, —1. The note of connection, γάρ, “for,” intimates that a reason is given in these words of what was asserted before: “They entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: for they could not endure that which was commanded.” 2. The interdict of touching the mount was given three days before the fear and dread of the people, as is evident in the story: so as no respect could be had thereunto in what they said afterwards, when they were surprised with fear. 3. Though there was in it an intimation of the necessity of great reverence in their approach unto God, and of his severity in giving of the law, yet the people did not look on it as a matter of terror and dread, which they could not bear. For they came afterwards unto the bounds prescribed unto them, with confidence; nor did they begin to fear and tremble until the mount was all on fire, and they heard the voice of God out of the midst of it.4. Even the words of Moses, repeated in the next verse, were before the people had declared their dread and terror.So that both these things are added only as aggravating circumstances of the insupportableness of what was commanded. “That,” therefore, “which was commanded,” was nothing but the law itself. Secondly, Hereof it is said, “They could not endure it,” or, “They could not bear it,” or stand under it. And there were three things that concurred to convince them of their disability to bear the command:1. The manner of its delivery; which they had a principal respect unto in their fear, and desire that it might be spoken unto them no more. This is plain in the story, and so they directly express themselves, Deuteronomy 5:23-26.2. It was from the nature of the law itself, or the word that was spoken, with respect unto its end. For it was given as a rule of justification, and of acceptance with God: and hereon they might easily see how unable they were to beat it.3. There was administered with it “a spirit of bondage unto fear,”Romans 8:15, which aggravated the terror of it in their consciences.These are the effects which a due apprehension of the nature, end, and use of the law, with the severity of God therein, will produce in the minds and consciences of sinners. Thus far the law brings us; and here it leaves us. Here are we shut up. There is no exception to be put in unto the law itself; it evidenceth itself to be holy, just, and good. There is no avoidance of its power, sentence, and sanction; it is given by God himself. The sinner could wish that he might never hear more of it. What is past with him against this law cannot be answered for; what is to come cannot be complied withal: wherefore, without relief in Christ, here the sinner must perish for ever. This, I say, is the last effect of the law on the consciences of sinners: It brings them to a determinate judgment that they cannot bear that which is commanded. Hereon they find themselves utterly lost; and so have no expectation but of fiery indignation to consume them. And accordingly they must eternally perish, if they betake not themselves unto the only relief and remedy. Thirdly, Of this terror from the giving of the law, and the causes of it, the apostle gives a double illustration.The first whereof is in the interdict given as unto the touching of the mount. For this was such as extended unto the very beasts: “Si vel bestia,” — “And if so much as a beast.” For so was the divine constitution, “Whether it be beast or man, it shall not live,” Exodus 19:13. I doubt not but that divine Providence removed from it such brute creatures as were not under the power of men, such as might be wild about those mountainous deserts, or the fire consumed them, to the least creeping thing; but the prohibition respects the cattle of the people, which were under their power and at their disposal. And besides being an illustration of the absolute inaccessibleness of God, in and by the law, it seems to intimate the uncleanness of all things which sinners possess, by their relation unto them. For unto the impure all things are impure and defiled. Therefore doth the prohibition extend itself unto the beasts also. The punishment of the beast that did touch the mount, was, that it should die. And the manner of its death (and so of men guilty in the like kind) was, that “it should be stoned, or thrust through with a dart? It is expressed in the prohibition, that no hand should touch that which had offended. It was to be slain at a distance with stones or darts. The heinousness of the offense, with the execrableness of the offender, is declared thereby. No hand was ever more to touch it; either to relieve it (which may be the sense of the word), or to slay it, lest it should be defiled thereby. And it showeth also at what distance we ought to keep ourselves from every thing that falls under the curse of the law. Hebrews 12:21. — The second evidence which he gives of the dreadful promulgation of the law, and consequently of the miserable estate of them that are under its power, is in what befell Moses on this occasion. And we may consider, 1. The person in whom he giveth the instance. 2. The cause of the consternation ascribed unto him. 3. How he expressed it.1. The person is Moses. The effect of this terror extended itself unto the meanest of beasts, and unto the best of men. Moses was,(1.)A person holy, and abounding in grace above all others of his time; —the meekest man on the earth. (2.) He was accustomed unto divine revelations, and had once before beheld a representation of the divine presence Exodus 3.(3.) He was the internuncius, the messenger, the mediator between God and the people, at that time. Yet could none of these privileges exempt him from an amazing sense of the terror of the Lord in giving the law. And if with all these advantages he could not bear it, much less can any other man so do. The mediator himself of the old covenant was not able to sustain the dread and terror of the law: how desperate then are their hopes who would yet be saved by Moses! 2. The cause of his consternation was the sight, it was “so terrible:” “Visum quod apparebat;” — that which appeared, and was represented unto him. And this takes in not only what was the object of the sight of his eyes, but that of his ears also, in voices, and thundering, and the sound of the trumpet. The whole of it was “terrible,” or “dreadful.” It was “so dreadful,” unto such an incomprehensible degree.3. His expression of the consternation that befell him hereon is in these words, “I exceedingly fear and tremble.” He said so; we are assured of it by the Holy Ghost in this place. But the words themselves are not recorded in the story. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ IN the close of the epistle, contained in this chapter, the apostle gives us new instances of that divine wisdom wherewith he was actuated in writing of the whole; which the apostle Peter refers unto, 2 Peter 3:15. And as it will communicate an inexpressible sense of itself unto every intelligent reader, who meditates upon it with that faith and reverence which are required in the perusal of these holy writings; so we may give, at our entrance into the exposition of the chapter, some few instances in general wherein it doth eminently appear.1. Having solidly laid the foundations of faith and obedience, in the declaration of the mystery of the person and offices of Christ, he descends unto his exhortation with respect unto evangelical and moral duties, which he proposes unto the church in one distinct view throughout this chapter. And herein,(1.) He prescribes by his own example, as he also doth in most of his other epistles, the true order and method of preaching the gospel; that is, first to declare the mysteries of it, with the grace of God therein, and then to improve it unto practical duties of obedience. And they will be mistaken, who in this work propose unto themselves any other method; and those most of all, who think one part of it enough, without the other. For as the declaration of spiritual truths, without instruction how they are the vital, quickening form of obedience, and the application of them thereunto, tends only unto that “knowledge which puffeth up, but doth not edify;” so the pressing of moral duties, without a due declaration of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, which alone enables us unto them, and renders them acceptable unto God, with their necessary dependence thereon, is but to deceive the souls of men, and lead them out of the way, and off from the gospel.(2.) Issuing all his discourses in this exhortation unto spiritual or evangelical obedience, he declares that the science or knowledge of divine mysteries is partly practical, as unto its next and immediate end in the minds and souls of men. It is so far from truth, that by the liberty of the gospel we are freed from an obligation unto spiritual and moral duties, that the use of all the truths revealed in it, is, as to direct us unto their right performance, so to lay more and new obligations on us to attend with all diligence unto them. (3.) In this place, insisting at large on the doctrine of the gospel, he doth but name the heads of the duties which he exhorts unto: for they were for the most part known and confessed amongst the Hebrews, whereas the other was greatly exposed and contradicted. And herein also he hath set an example unto the preachers of the gospel, as unto the times and circumstances of their work. For therein ought they to labor with most diligence, where they find the greatest opposition made unto the truth, or the greatest difficulty in the admission of it.(4.) He manifests, in this method of his procedure, that it is to no purpose to deal with men about duties of obedience, before they are well fixed in the fundamental principles of faith. Herein he labors for the instruction and confirmation of these Hebrews, before he engages on his prescription of duties.2. In the enumeration of duties which he designs, — because it was not possible that he should make mention of all those which are necessary in our Christian course, — he fixes on them in particular which he knew were most necessary for the Hebrews to attend unto with diligence in their present circumstances; as we shall see in our consideration of them. And herein also ought he to be our example in the work of our ministry. Circumstances ofttimes make it necessary that some duties be more diligently pressed on our people than others, in themselves of no less importance than they.3. His divine wisdom doth manifest itself in the intermixture of evangelical mysteries with his exhortation unto duties; whereby he both effectually presses the duties themselves, and manifests that the most mystical parts of divine truths and institutions are instructive unto duties, if rightly understood. The consideration hereof also we shall attend unto in our progress.4. It doth so in that solemn prayer for a blessing on and due improvement of his whole doctrine; wherein he briefly comprises the sum and substance of the most mysterious truths, concerning the person, office, and sacrifice of Christ, which he had before insisted on; wherein, according to our ability, we ought to follow his example. For the parts of this chapter, (the whole being hortatory,) they are these: 1. An injunction of, and exhortation unto, several duties of obedience; with especial enforcements given unto some of them, Hebrews 13:1-6.2. Unto faith, and stability therein, from the instrumental cause and especial object of it; with a warning to avoid what is contrary thereunto, Hebrews 13:7-12. 3. An exhortation, occasioned by what was spoken in confirmation of the preceding exhortation, unto self-denial and patient bearing of the cross, Hebrews 13:13-14.4. A renewed charge of sundry duties, with respect unto God, their church- relation, one another, and himself, Hebrews 13:15-19.5. A solemn prayer for the complement of the blessed work of the grace of God in Christ towards them all, Hebrews 13:20-21. 6. The conclusion of the whole, in sundry particulars, Hebrews 13:22-25. In the first part, the duties exhorted unto are,(1.) Brotherly love, Hebrews 13:1.(2.) Hospitality, Hebrews 13:2.(3.) Compassion towards those that suffer for the gospel, Hebrews 13:3. (4.) Chastity, with the nature and due use of marriage, Hebrews 13:4. (5.) Contentment, with the grounds and reasons of it, Hebrews 13:5-6. ῾Ηφιλαδελφίαμενέτα.Vulg. Lat., “charitas fraternitatis,” “the love of the brotherhood;” not so properly. Syr., “love of the brethren.” And unto μενέτω, both add, “in vobis,” “in you.” “Amor fraternus,” “charitas fraterna.” Μενέτω, “maneat;” that is, “constans maneat.” Why it is thus enjoined, we shall inquire.Hebrews 13:1. — Let brotherly love continue, [abide constant.]The duty commanded is “brotherly love;” and the manner of the injunction of it is, that it “remain,” or “continue.” First, Love is the fountain and foundation of all mutual duties, moral and ecclesiastical; wherefore it is here placed in the head of both sorts, which are afterwards prescribed. And thereon the apostle immediately subjoins the two principal branches of it in duties moral, namely, hospitality and compassion; wherein he comprises all acts of mutual usefulness and helpfulness, instancing in such as principally stood in need of them; namely, strangers and sufferers. All love hath its foundation in relation. Where there is relation there is love, or there ought so to be; and where there is no relation there can be no love, properly so called. Hence it is here mentioned with respect unto a brotherhood. There is a threefold brotherhood, or fraternity: — 1. Natural; 2. Civil; 3. Religious.1. Natural brotherhood is either universal or more restrained.(1.) There is a universal fraternity of all mankind: “God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” Acts 17:26. Hence every one, by the law of nature, is every one’s neighbor and every one’s brother, his keeper and helper. Wherefore all strife, envy, hatred, wrong, oppression, and bloodshed among mankind, is of the evil one, 1 John 3:12. There is a love, therefore, due unto all mankind, to be exercised as opportunity and circumstances do require. We are to “do good unto all men,” Galatians 6:10. And where this love is wanting in any, (as it is in the most,) there dwells no real virtue in that mind.(2.) Again, this natural brotherhood is restrained; and that,[1. With reference unto some stock or spring, from whence a people or nation did originally proceed, being therein separated from other nations or people. So there was a brotherhood among all the Israelites, who descended from the same common stock; that is, Abraham. Hence they esteemed themselves all brethren, and called themselves so: “My brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,” Romans 9:3. So they are constantly called brethren in the law, in the prescription of duties unto them: “He is thy brother,” etc. [2. With respect unto a near stock, as the children of the same parents; which in the Scripture is constantly extended unto grandfathers also. Hence they are commonly in the Scripture called brethren and sisters who are descendants from the same grandfather or grandmother; on which account some are called the brethren of Jesus, Matthew 12:46-47. The love required in this relation is known; but it is not here intended.2. There is a civil fraternity. Persons voluntarily coalescing into various societies, do constitute a political brotherhood; but this hath here no place.3. This brotherhood is religious. All believers have one Father, Matthew 23:8-9; one elder Brother, Romans 8:29, who is not ashamed to call them brethren, Hebrews 2:11; — have one Spirit, and are called in one hope of calling, Ephesians 4:4; which being a Spirit of adoption, interesteth them all in the same family, Ephesians 3:14-15, whereby they become “joint-heirs with Christ,” Romans 8:17. See the exposition on Hebrews 3:1. This is the brotherhood principally intended in the duty of love here prescribed. For although there was the natural relation also among these Hebrews, yet it was originally from their coalescency into one sacred society, by virtue of their covenant with God, that they became brethren of one family, distinct from all others in the world. And this relation was not dissolved, but further confirmed, by their interest in the gospel; whence they became “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,” Hebrews 3:1.This brotherhood is the foundation of the love that is here enjoined; for “every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him,” 1 John 5:1. It is not convenient to our purpose to insist long on the declaration of the nature of this grace and duty. It hath also been spoken unto in the exposition on Hebrews 6:10-11. Here I shall observe some few things only concerning it, and they are those wherein it differs from the natural love, or that which hath only moral or civil motives or causes. For, (1.) The foundation of it is in gratuitous adoption: “Ye are all brethren, and one is your Father, which is in heaven,” Matthew 23:8-9. And it is by adoption that they. are all taken into and made brethren in the same family, 1 John 3:1.(2.) It is a peculiar grace of the Spirit: “The fruit of the Spirit is love;” and therefore it is frequently, almost constantly, joined with faith in Christ Jesus, Philemon 1:5; 1 John 3:23. It is that which no man can have in nor of himself; it must be “given us from above.”(3.) It is peculiar in its example; which is the love of Christ unto the church, 1 John 3:16; which gives it a different nature from all love that ever was in the world before.(4.) And it is so in the commandment, given for it by Christ himself, with the ends that he hath assigned unto it. He calls it his commandment in a peculiar manner, John 15:12, and thence “a new commandment,” John 13:35. 1 John 2:7-8; 2 John 1:5; — that wherein he will be owned above all others And he designs the ends of it to be, the special glory of God, and an evidence unto the world that we are his disciples, John 13:35.(5.) It is so in its effects, both internal and external: such are pity, compassion, joy in prosperity, prayer, usefulness in all things, spiritual and temporal, as occasion doth require patience, forbearance, delight, readiness to suffer for, and lay down our lives towards and for each other; which are all frequently inculcated and largely declared in the Scripture. And two things I shall only hence observe: —Obs. 1. That the power and glory of Christian religion are exceedingly decayed and debased in the world. — Next unto faith in Christ Jesus, and the profession thereof, the life and beauty of Christian religion consist in the mutual love of them who are partakers of the same heavenly calling, which all pretend unto. And this is that whereon the Lord Christ hath laid the weight of the manifestation of his glory in the world, namely, the love that is among his disciples; which was foretold as the peculiar glory of his rule and kingdom. But there are only a few footsteps now left of it in the visible church; some marks only that there it hath been, and dwelt of old. It is, as unto its lustre and splendor, retired to heaven, abiding in its power and efficacious exercise only in some corners of the earth, and secret retirements. Envy, wrath, selfishness, love of the world, with coldness in all the concerns of religion, have possessed the place of it. And in vain shall men wrangle and contend about their differences in opinions, faith, and worship, pretending to design the advancement of religion by an imposition concerns of religion will more and more run into ruin. The very name of a brotherhood amongst Christians is a matter of scorn and reproach; and all the consequents of such a relation are despised. But it is marvellous how any men can persuade themselves that they are Christians, and yet be not only strangers, but enemies unto this love. Obs. 2. Where the pretense of this love is continued in any measure, yet its nature is unknown, and its effects are generally neglected. — Such a love as arises from a joint interest in gratuitous adoption, powerfully infused into the mind and wrought in the heart by the Spirit thereof, effectually inclining unto its exercise, both internal and external, with a spiritual sense of a fraternal relation by the same new nature created in them all, of whom this love is required; extending itself not only unto all duties of mercy, bounty, compassion, and delight, but even unto the laying down of our lives for each other when called thereunto; is neither known by many nor much inquired after. Secondly, The manner of the prescription of this duty is, that it should “continue,” or “abide constant;” which is peculiar. For he supposes that this love was already in them, already exercised by them; and he doth not therefore enjoin it, but only press its continuance. So he treateth them in like manner, Hebrews 6:9-12. And this insinuation or concession is of great force in the present exhortation. Men are free and willing to be pressed to continue in doing that which of themselves they have chosen to do. And it belongs unto ministerial wisdom, in exhortations unto duty, to acknowledge what is found of it already in them with ‘whom they treat.For the owning of any duty is an encouragement, due unto them by whom it is performed. Besides, the apostle in this charge seems to give an intimation of the difficulty that there is in the preservation of this grace, and the performance of this duty. So the word is used, and so rendered by many, “to abide constant;” that is, against difficulties, and temptations. It is not merely, ‘Let it continue,’but, ‘Take care that it. be preserved;’for it is that which many occasions will be apt to weaken and impair. When men are first called into that relation which is the foundation of this duty, they are usually warmly which are seated in the affections are apt of themselves to decay, if not renewed by fresh supplies from above. Against all those things which might weaken mutual love amongst them, the apostle gives them caution in this word, “Let it abide constant.” And, — Obs. 3. We are especially to watch unto the preservation of those graces, and the performance of those duties, which in our circumstances are most exposed unto opposition.. In particular, —Obs. 4. Brotherly love is very apt to be impaired and decay if we endeavor not continually its preservation and revival. This is evident in the sad event of things before mentioned. And, —Obs. 5. It is a part of the wisdom of faith to consider aright the ways and occasions of the decay of mutual love, with the means of its preservation. Without this we cannot comply with this caution and injunction in a due manner.1. The causes of the decay of this love, whence it doth not continue as it ought, are,(1.) Self-love:(2.) Love of this present world;(3.) Abounding of lusts in the hearts of men;(4.) Ignorance of the true nature both of the grace and the exercise of it, in its proper duties;(5.) Principally, the loss of a concernment, in the foundation of it, which is an interest in gratuitous adoption, and the participation of the same Spirit, the same new nature and life.Where this is not, though conviction of truth and the profession of it may for a season make an appearance of this brotherly love, it will not long continue. 2. The occasions of its decay and loss are,(1.) Differences in opinion and practice about things in religion;(2.) Unsuitableness of natural tempers and inclinations;(3.) Readiness to receive a sense of appearing provocations;(4.)Different, and sometimes inconsistent, secular interests;(5.) An abuse of spiritual gifts, by pride on the one hand, or envy on the other; (6.) Attempts for domination, inconsistent in a fraternity: which are all to be watched against.3. The means of its continuance or preservation are,(1.) An endeavor to grow and thrive in the principle of it, or the power of adopting grace(2.) A due sense of the weight or moment of this duty, from the especial institution and command of Christ; and,(3.) Of the trial which is committed thereunto, of the sincerity of our grace and the truth of our sanctification; for by this we know that we are passed from death unto life:(4.) A due consideration of the use, yea necessity, of this duty unto the glory of God and edification of the church; and,(5.) Of that breach of union, loss of peace, disorder and confusion, which must and will ensue on the neglect of it:(6.) Constant watchfulness against all those vicious habits of mind, in self- love or love of the world, which are apt to impair it:(7.) Diligent heed that it be not insensibly impaired in its vital acts; such as are patience, forbearance, readiness to forgive, unaptness to believe evil; without which no other duties of it will be long continued:(8.) Fervent prayer for supplies of grace enabling us thereunto: with sundry others of a like nature. And if we judge not this duty of such importance as to be constant in the use of these means for the maintenance of it, it will not continue. The continuance of the church depends in the second place on the continuance of brotherly love. It doth so in the first place on faith in Christ Jesus, whereby we hold the Head, and are built on the Rock; but in the second place, it doth so on this mutual love. All other pretences about the succession and continuance of the church are vain. Where this faith and love are not, there is no church; where they are, there is a church materially, always capable of evangelical form and order. It is not improbable but that the apostle might also have a respect unto the especial condition of those Hebrews. They had all relational foundations of mutual love among them from the beginning, in that they were all of one common natural stock, and were all united in the same sacred covenant for the worship of God. Hereon they had many divine commands for mutual love, and the exercise of all its effects, as became a natural and religious fraternity. Accordingly, they had an intense love towards all those who on these accounts were their brethren. But in process of time they corrupted this, as all other divine orders and institutions. For their teachers instructed them that the meaning of the command for mutual love did include a permission, if not a command, to hate all others. So they interpreted the law of love recorded Leviticus 19:18, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy,” Matthew 5:43. And the people practiced accordingly, not thinking themselves obliged to show the least kindness unto any but their own countrymen. Hereon they grew infamous in the world. So Tacitus affirms of them:“Apud ipsos, tides obstinata, misericordia in promptu; adversus omnes alios hostile odium.” — Hist, lib. 5. And the satirist: “Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti, Quaesitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos.” — Juv. Sat. 14:103.This horrible corruption and abuse of the law, which exposed them to reproach, whereas the due observance of it was their glory, our Savior corrected as unto the doctrine of it, Matthew 5:43-44; and rectified as unto its practice in the parable of the Samaritan, Luke 10:30-31, etc. But yet their mutual love, on the grounds and reasons mentioned, was good, useful, and commendable. But whereas by the gospel their original brotherhood was as it were dissolved, the Gentiles being taken into the same sacred communion with them, some of them might suppose that the obligation unto mutual love which they were under before was now also ceased. This the apostle warns them against, giving in charge that the same love should still continue in all its exercise, but with respect unto that new fraternity which was constituted by the gospel. Τῆςφιλοξενίαςμὴἐπιλανθάνεσθε·διὰταύτηςγὰρἔλαθόντινεςξενίσαντεςἀγγέλους.Φιλοξενίας. Syr., ψְ ?ηֶ ?ξְ ?ϊָ ?ΰγַּ ?ΰλְ ?ρְ ?πָ ?ιֵ ?ΰ, “the compassionate love of strangers.” “Hospitalitatis,” “hospitality.” We have well rendered it, “to entertain strangers.” Πολυξενία, is “a promiscuous entertainment of all,” — the keeping, as we call it, of an open house; ἀξενία, is “a defect in entertainment,” through covetousness or roughness of nature; both condemned by the heathen: Μηδὲπολύξεινον, μηδ᾿ἄξεινονκαλεέσθαι, Hesiod.῎Ελαθον. Most copies o£ the Vulgar read “placuerunt;” which was put in by them who understood not the Grecism of “latuerunt,” for “inscii,” “unawares,” not knowing (that is, at first) who they were whom they entertained.The Syriac thus reads the whole verse: “Forget not love unto strangers; for by this some were worthy, when they perceived it not, to receive angels.” Hebrews 13:2. — Be not forgetful [forget not] to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.There are plainly in the words, first, A prescription of a duty; and, secondly, The enforcement of it by an effectual motive or reason. 1. The duty itself prescribed, which is to “entertain strangers;” and, 2. The manner of its prescription, “Forget not to do it;” be not forgetful of it.1. The duty prescribed is the “entertaining of strangers:” Φιλοξενία. The word is generally rendered by “hospitality;” and may well be so, if we consider the original of the word; but in its use it is somewhat otherwise applied among us. For it respects such as are strangers indeed, and unknown unto us as unto other circumstances, and so such as really stand in need of help and refreshment; but with us it is applied unto a bountiful, and, it may be, profuse entertainment of friends, relations, neighbors, acquaintances, and the like. The original word hath respect not so much unto the exercise of the duty itself, as to the disposition, readiness, and frame of mind, which are required in it and unto it. Hence the Syriac renders it, “the love of strangers,” and that properly. But it is such a love as is effectual, and whose proper exercise consisteth in the entertainment of them; which comprises the help and relief which strangers stand in need of, and which is the proper effect of love towards them. Hence we render it, “to entertain strangers.” It is known what is meant by “entertainment;” even the receiving of them into our houses, with all necessary accommodations, as their occasions do require. In those eastern countries, where they traveled wholly or in part barefoot, washing of their feet, and setting meat before them, as also their lodging, are mentioned. Strangers, even among the heathen, were counted sacred, and under the peculiar protection of God. So speaks Eumaeus unto Ulysses, when he entertained him as a poor unknown stranger: — Ξεῖν, ᾿οὔμοιζέμιςἔστ, ᾿οὐδ᾿εἰκακίωνσέθενἔλθοι, Ξεῖνονἀτιμῆσαι·πρὸςγὰρΔιὸςεἰσὶνἅπαντεςΞεῖνοίτεπτωχοίτε. — Hom. Odyss. 14:56.“O stranger! it is not lawful for me, though one should come more miserable than thou art, to dishonor or disregard a stranger; for strangers and poor belong to the care of God.” And there was among some nations δίκηκακοξενίας, a punishment appointed for those that were inhospitable.The Scripture frequently prescribes or commands this duty. See Deuteronomy 10:19; Isaiah 58:7; Matthew 25:35; Luke 14:13; Romans 12:13; 1 Peter 4:9; James 1:27.This entertaining of unknown strangers, which was so great a virtue in ancient times, is almost driven out of the world by the wickedness of it. The false pretences of some with wicked designs, under the habit and pretense of strangers, on the one hand, and pretences for sordid covetousness, on the other, have banished it from the earth. And there are enough, who are called Christians, who never once dreamed of any duty herein. It is granted, therefore, that there is prudence and care to be used herein, that we be not imposed on by such as are unworthy of any entertainment. But it doth not follow that therefore we should refuse all who are strangers indeed; that is, whose circumstances we know not but from themselves. It must also be acknowledged, that whereas provision is now made in all civilized nations for the entertainment of strangers, though at their own cost, things are somewhat, in this case altered from what they were in the younger days of the world. But there was a peculiar reason, taken from the then present circumstances of the church, expecially of the Hebrews in their dispersions who belonged thereunto: whereon the apostle adjoins the prescription of this duty of entertaining strangers as the first branch of that brotherly love which he had before enjoined, as the first and most eminent way of its acting itself. For there were two things that make this duty more necessary than at other times. For the church was then under great persecution in sundry places, whereby believers were driven and scattered from their own habitations and countries, Acts 8:1. And hereon, following the direction of our blessed Savior, when they were persecuted in one city, to flee unto another, they did so remove into other parts and places wherein they were strangers, and where there were for the present some peace and quietness. For God is pleased so to order things, in his holy, wise providence, that for the most part persecution shall not be absolutely at any time universal, but that there may be some places of a quiet retirement, at, least for a season, unto them, or some of them, whose destruction is designed and endeavored in the places of their own habitation. So, under the furious papal persecution in this nation in the days of Queen Mary; many cities and places beyond the seas were a refuge for a season unto them who fled from hence for the preservation of their lives. God in such cases makes a double provision for his church, namely, a refuge and hiding-place for them that are persecuted and an opportunity for them that are at peace to exercise faith and love, yea, all gospel graces, in their helpful kindness towards them. And in case persecution at any time be universal (which state is at this time aimed at), and there be none to receive his outcasts, he himself will be their refuge and hiding-place: he will carry them into a wilderness, and feed them there, until the indignation be over-past. But in the state of the church wherein it was when the apostle wrote this epistle, those believers who were yet in peace and rest in their own habitations, had many obligations upon them to be ready to entertain strangers, who resorted unto them in their wanderings and distress. Obs. 1. Especial seasons are directions and constraining motives unto especial duties. — And he who on such occasions will forget to receive strangers, will not long remember to retain any thing of Christian religion.Again; at that time there were sundry persons, especially of the converted Hebrews, who went up and down from one city, yea, one nation unto another, on their own cost and charges, to preach the gospel. “They went forth for the sake of Christ” (to preach the gospel), “taking nothing of the Gentiles,” unto whom they preached, 3 John 1:7. And these were only “brethren,” and not officers of any church, 3 John 1:5. The reception, entertainment, and assistance of these, when they came unto any church or place as strangers, the apostle celebrates and highly commends in his well- beloved Gaius, 3 John 1:5-6. Such as these, when they came to them as strangers, the apostle recommends unto the love and charity of these Hebrews in a peculiar manner. And he who is not, ready to receive and entertain such persons, will manifest, how little concernment be hath in the gospel, or the glory of Christ himself.Now, whereas this grace or duty in general is much decayed among the professors of Christian religion we are greatly to pray, that, upon the returnal of the especial occasions it, which he at, the door, yea, are entered in many places, it, may be revived in the hearts and lives of all true believers. 2. The manner of the prescription of this duty is expressed in that word, “Forget it not,” be not umindful of it; which is peculiar. Another duty, of the same nature, in general with this, he gives in charge with the same expression, “Forget it not,” verse 16. And he doth there confirm his injunction with a peculiar reason “To do good and to communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased:” as here, “For thereby some have entertained angels” which intimates some peculiar concerns of these duties.There is no doubt but that a positive command is included in the prohibition, “Forget not;” that is, “Remember.” There are some duties whereunto our minds ought always to be engaged by an especial remembrance; and they are such, for the most part, against which either much opposition ariseth, or many pretences are apt to be used for a countenance of their omission. Such is the observation of the Sabbath, the institution and command whereof are prefaced with a solemn injunction to remember it. And three things seem to be respected in this expression: — (1.) That we should endeavor to keep up our hearts in and unto a constant readiness for it. The word itself, φιλοξενία, respects more the frame of the mind and heart, their constant disposition unto the duty, than the actual discharge of it in particular instances. Unless the mind be preserved in this disposition, we shall fail assuredly in particular eases. “The liberal deviseth liberal things,” Isaiah 32:8. The mind is to be disposed and inclined habitually by the virtue of liberality, or it will not seek and lay hold on occasions of doing liberal things. And the reason why we find men so unready unto such duties as that here enjoined, is because they do not remember to keep their minds in a constant disposition towards them.Obs. 2. Our hearts are not to be trusted unto in occasional duties, if we preserve them not in a continual disposition towards them. — If that be lost, no arguments will be prevalent to engage them unto present occasions.(2.) With respect unto surprisals. Seasons and occasions for this duty may befall us at unawares, and we may lose them before we are well composed to judge what we have to do. To watch against such surprisals is here given us in charge.(3.) It respects a conquest over those reasonings and pretences which will arise against the discharge of this duty, when we are tried with especial instances. Some of them we have mentioned before, and others not a few will arise to divert us from our duty herein.With respect unto these and the like difficulties or diversions, we are charged “not to forget,” that is, always to remember, to be in a readiness for the discharge of this duty, and to do it accordingly; for which reason, also, the command is enforced by the ensuing encouragement. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 3. The mind ought continually to be upon its watch, and in a gracious disposition towards such duties as are attended with difficulties and charge; such as that here commanded unto us: without which, we shall fail in what is required of us. The second thing in the words is the enforcement given unto the command, from the consideration of the advantage which some formerly had received by a diligent observance of this duty: “For thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” “For thereby,” ‘for by this philoxeny;’— the virtue inclining and disposing the mind unto the entertainment of strangers is in the first place intended. ‘And hereby some being in a readiness for the discharge of this duty, had the privilege of receiving angels under the appearance of strangers.’Had they not been so disposed, they had neglected the opportunity of so great divine grace and favor. So, the mind inlaid with virtue and grace, is equally prepared to perform duties, and to receive privileges. “Some” did so. This is usually referred unto Abraham and Lot, whose stories to this purpose are recorded, Genesis 18:1, etc., 19:1, etc. And there is no doubt but they are referred unto in an especial manner, as what they did is recorded expressly by the Holy Ghost. Yet I dare not ascribe it unto them alone, exclusively unto all others. For I question not but that in those ancient times, wherein God so much used the ministry of angels about the church, sundry other believers were visited by them “unawares” in like manner; as also, that they were disposed unto the receiving of this privilege by their readiness on all occasions to entertain strangers. But those instances left on the sacred record are sufficient unto the purpose of the apostle.Now this reception of angels was a great honor unto them that received them; and so intended of God. And herein lies the force of the reason for diligence in this duty, namely, that some of them who were so diligent, had the honor, the favor, the privilege, of entertaining angels. Those angels stood in no need of their hospitality, nor did make any real use of the things that were provided for them; but they honored them in a particular manner with their presence, and gave them thereby a pledge of the especial care and favor of God. How could they have any greater, than by sending his glorious angels to abide and confer with them? And both of them, upon this entertainment of angels, were immediately made partakers of the greatest mercies whereof in this life they were capable. And, — Obs. 4. Examples of privileges annexed unto duties, (whereof the Scripture is full,) are great motives and incentives unto the same or the like duties. — For the motive used by the apostle does not consist in this, that we also, in the discharge of this duty, may receive angels, as they did; nor are we hereby encouraged to expect any such thing: but he shows hereby how acceptable this duty is unto God, and how highly it was honored; whereon we may, in the discharge of the same duty, hope for divine approbation, in what way soever it seems good to God to signify it unto us. This they did “unawares.” Of the meaning of the Greek phrase, and the corruption of the Vulgar Latin, reading “placuerunt” for “latuerunt,” we have spoken before. It is observed, that at the appearance of these angels unto Abraham in the heat of the day, “he sat in the door of his tent,” Genesis 18:1 : and at their appearance unto Lot in the evening, “he sat in the gate of Sodom,” where strangers were to enter, Genesis 19:1. Probably both of them at those seasons had so disposed themselves on purpose, that if they saw any strangers, they might invite and receive them; whereon they did so on the first occasion that offered itself. And this also shows their readiness and disposition unto this duty, which they waited and sought occasion for.This they did unawares, not knowing them to be angels; — that is, they did not so when first they invited and entertained them; for afterwards they knew what they were. But at first, both of them made such entertainments for them of bread and meat, as they knew well enough that angels stood in no need of. And this may be laid in the balance against all those fears and scruples which are apt to arise in our minds about the entertainment of strangers, namely, that they are not so good as they appear or pretend to be, seeing some were so much better and more honorable than what at first they seemed to be. And in some likeness hereunto, the poet, Odyss P, after he hath discoursed sundry things excellently about poor and strangers, with the care of God over them, adds, as the highest consideration of them, — ΚαίτεθεοὶξέινοισινἐοικότεςἀλλοδαποῖσιΠαντοῖοιτελέθοντες, ἐπιστρωφᾶσιπόληας᾿Ανθρώπωνὕζριντεκαὶεὐνομίηνἐφορῶντες — Odyss, 17:485. “The gods themselves, like unto wandering strangers, (seeing they are everywhere,) do come and visit cities, beholding what is done right or wrong among men.” Those that appeared unto Abraham are called “three men,” because of the outward shape they had assumed, and the manner of their communication. Two of them were angels by nature, one of them by office only; for he was the of God: for he is called Jehovah, Genesis 18:1; Genesis 13:17. And he deals with him in his own name, as unto the worship and covenant-obedience which he required of him, Genesis 13:17-18. And when the other angels departed, who entered Sodom at even, Genesis 19:1, he continues still with Abraham: “But, Abraham stood yet before the LORD,” Genesis 18:22. And all the passages between them were such, that if a divine person be not openly avowed therein, we can have no assurance that God ever spake or transacted any of those things which are ascribed unto him in the Scripture, as the making of the world, and the like. So Abraham entertained angels, two of them who were so by nature, and him who was then so by office; but when they appeared unto him, they are not in the Scripture called angels, though those two of them which came to Sodom are so, Genesis 19:1.Schlichtingius, to oppose the appearance of the Son of God in that place unto Abraham, takes great pains to confute an opinion, “That those three men were the three persons of the Trinity; and because Abraham spake unto one, that signified the unity of the divine essence in them all.” The same notion doth Kimchi oppose on the place; so doth Enjedinus in his explications: which makes me think that some have expressed themselves unto that purpose. And indeed there are passages in some of the ancients intimating such a sense of the words; but it is universally rejected long ago. And by these men it is raised again, for no end but that they may seem to have something to say against the appearances of the Son of God under the old testament, Neither hath Schlichtingius here any one word but only exceptions against that opinion, which no man owns or defends. But it is plain, that he who appeared here unto Abraham, who also appeared unto Jacob, Moses, and Joshua, is expressly called Jehovah, speaks and acts as God, in his own name, hath divine works and divine worship assigned unto him, was adored and prayed unto by them unto whom he appeared; and in all things so carries it, in assuming all divine properties and works unto himself, as to beget a belief in them unto whom he appeared of his being God himself. And we may observe, — Obs. 5. Faith will make use of the highest privileges that ever were enjoyed on the performance of duties, to encourage unto obedience, though it expects not any thing of the same kind on the performance of the same duties. Obs. 6. When men, designing that which is good, do more good than they intended, the shall, or may, reap more benefit thereby than they expected. The first branch of the exercise of brotherly love, enjoined Hebrews 13:1, is towards strangers, Hebrews 13:2; the next is towards sufferers, Hebrews 13:3. Hebrews 13:3 — Μιμνήσκεσθετῶνδεσίωνὡςσυνδεδεμένοι, τῶνκακουχουμένωνὡςκαὶαὐτοὶὄντεςἐνσώματι.Μιμνήσκεσθε, “mementote.” Vulg. “memores estote,” be mindful of;” it is more than a bare remembrance that is intended.Κακουχουμένων. Vulg. “laborantium,” “of them that labor;” that is, under distresses. But the word is of the passive voice, and not well rendered by the active. “Eorum qui malli premuntur,” Bez.; “malis afficiuntur;” that are pressed or affected with evils or sufferings. See Hebrews 11:37, where the same word is used in the same sense. ῾Ωςκαὶαὐτοὶὅντεςἐνσὡματι. Syr., “as men who are clothed with flesh;” not amiss. “Ae si ipsi quoque corpoe afflieti essctis,” Bez.; “as if ye yourselves were afflicted in the body:” which interpretation we must afterwards examine. “Tanquam et ipsi in corpore existentes,” “as being yourselves in the body.”Hebrews 13:3. — Remember [be mindful of] them that are in bonds [or bound,] as bound with them; [and of] them which suffer adversity, [are pressed with evils,] being yourselves also in the body.This is the second branch of the duty of brotherly love, enjoined in the first verse: the first concerned strangers; this concerns sufferers. And because strangers are unknown as unto their persons, before the exercise of the duty of love towards them, the injunction respects the duty in the first, place, “Forget not the duty of entertaining strangers.” But sufferers were known, and therefore the immediate object of the command is their persons: “Be mindful of them that are bound of them that suffer.” By “Then that are bound and suffer,” not all that are so, or do so are intended; there are those who are bound for their crimes; and suffer as evil- doers. There is a duty required towards them also, as we have occasion; but, not that here intended by the apostle. They are those only which are bound and suffer for the gospel whom he, recommends unto our remembrance in this place. Those who then suffered for the gospel, (as it is now also,) were in a twofold outward condition. Some were in prisons, or bonds, — the devil had cast them into prison; and some were variously troubled, in their name, reputation, goods, and enjoyments, — some being deprived of all, all of some of these things. And so it is at this day. The apostle mentions them severally and distinctly, varying his charge concerning them, as the consideration of their several conditions was meet to influence the minds of those who did not yet so suffer unto their duty towards them, as we shall see. In the first clause of the verse there is, 1. The object of the duty enjoined; that is, “those that are bound,” or “in bonds.” 2. The duty itself; which is, to be “mindful of them.” And, 3. The manner of its performance; “as bound with them.”1. The object of the duty required, is “those that are bound.” The word signifies any that are in prison, whether they are actually bound with chains or no, because in those days all prisoners were usually so bound, Acts 16:26. To be thus “in bonds,” or a prisoner, was esteemed a thing shameful, as well as otherwise penal; for it was the estate of evil-doers. But the introduction of a new cause made it an honorable title; namely, when any were made “prisoners of Christ,” or “prisoners for Christ.” So this apostle, when he would make use of a title of especial honor, and that which should give him authority among those with whom he had to do, so styles himself, and that emphatically, Ephesians 3:1, ᾿ΕγὼΠαῦλοςὁδέσμιοςτοῦΧριστοῦ᾿Ιησοῦ, — “I Paul, vinctus ille, that prisoner of Christ Jesus;” and so again, Ephesians 4:1. See 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1:9.This kind of punishment for the profession of the gospel began early in the world, and it hath continued throughout all ages, being most frequent in the days wherein we live. But “the word of God,” as the apostle speaks, “is not bound,” 2 Timothy 2:9. The devil was never able by this means to obscure the light, or stop the progress of the gospel; — nor ever shall be so. He and his agents do but labor in vain. Men may, but the word of God cannot, be bound. Those therefore that were in bonds, were all that were in prison for the profession of the gospel. And observe, — Obs. 1. Are we called unto this kind of suffering? let us not think strange of it, it is no new thing in the world.Obs. 2. Bonds and imprisonment for the truth were consecrated to God and made honorable by the bonds and imprisonment of Christ himself; and commended unto the church in all ages by the bonds and imprisonment of the apostles and primitive witnesses of the truth.Obs. 3. It is better, more safe and honorable, to be in bonds with and for Christ, than to be at liberty with a brutish, raging, persecuting world.2. The duty enjoined with respect unto those that are bound is, that we “remember them,” or “be mindful of them,” It seems those that are at liberty are apt to forget Christ’s prisoners, that they had need to be enjoined to be mindful of them; and for the most part they are so. And we are said to “remember” them, as we are desired to “remember the poor;” that is, so to think of them as to relieve them according to our ability. It is better expressed by being “mindful of them,” which carries a respect unto the whole duty required of us, and all the parts or acts of it. And they are many; I shall name the principal of them.(1.) The first is care about their persons and concernments; opposed to that regardlessness which is apt to possess the minds of those that are at ease, and, as they suppose, free from danger. This the apostle commends in Philippians 4:10.(2.) Compassion; included in the manner of the duty following, “As if ye were bound with them.” This he commends in these Hebrews with respect unto himself, Hebrews 10:34, “Ye had compassion of me in my bonds.” See the exposition. And this he enjoins them with respect unto others in the same condition. It is a great relief unto innocent sufferers, that there are those who really pity them, and have compassion on them, although they have no actual help thereby. And the want of it is expressed as a great aggravation of the sufferings of our Savior himself, Psalms 69:20, “I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.” (3.) Prayer; as it was in the case of Peter when he was in bonds, Acts 12:12. And indeed this is the principal way wherein we ought to be mindful of them that are in bonds; that which testifies our faith, sincerity, and interest in the same common cause with them; which gives life and efficacy unto every other thing that we do in their behalf. (4.) Assisting of them, as unto what may be wanting unto their relief, unto the utmost of our ability and opportunity. Those who are prisoners for the gospel do not usually suffer only in their restraint. Wants and straits, with respect unto their relations and families, do usually accompany them. To be mindful of them as we ought to be, is to supply their wants according to our ability. (5.) Visiting of them is in an especial manner required hereunto; which the; Lord Christ calls the visiting of himself in prison, Matthew 25:36; Matthew 25:43. And in the primitive times there were some designed to visit those who were in prison; which they did frequently unto the danger, sometimes unto the loss, of their lives.These and the like duties, in particular, are contained in the present injunction. And it is a signal evidence of grace in the church, and in all professors in their particular capacities, when they are thus mindful of those that are in bonds on the account of the gospel; as it is an argument of a hypocritical state, when men, being satisfied with their own liberties and enjoyments, are careless of the bonds of others. See 1 Corinthians 12:25-26. And, — Obs. 4. Whilst God is pleased to give grace and courage unto some to suffer for the gospel unto bonds, and to others to perform their duty towards them, the church will be no loser by suffering.Obs. 5. When some are tried as unto their constancy in bonds, others are tried as unto their sincerity in the discharge of the duties required of them. And, —Obs. 6. Usually more fail in neglect of their duty towards sufferers, and so fall from their profession, than do so fail under and on the account of their sufferings.3. We are thus to be mindful of them that are bound, “as bound with them.” To be mindful of them, as bound with them is an act of union with them. And this is three-fold between suffering believers and those that are at liberty: (1.) Mystical; a union of conjunction in the same mystical body. Being both sorts members of the same body, when one suffers, the other doth so also, as the apostle disputes, 1 Corinthians 12:25-26. And this, some think, is intended peculiarly by the next clause, of “being in the body.” But this union alone will not answer the expression; for men may be in the same body, and yet be neglective of their duty.(2.) A union of sympathy or compassion; — a union by spiritual affection, from a spiritual cognation. Hereby our minds are really affected with grief, sorrow, and trouble, at their sufferings, as if they were our own; as if we felt their chains, were restrained in their durance.(3.) A union of interest in the same cause. Those who are free are equally engaged in the same cause, in all the good and evil of it, with them that are in bonds. These things give us the pleasure of our suffering with others, the frame of our minds, and the principle of our acting toward them, Wherefore, —To suffer with them that are bound, as if we were ourselves in bonds with them, requires, (1.) A union in the same mystical body, as fellow-members of it with them.(2.) The acting of the same common principle of spiritual life in them and us.(3.) A compassion really affecting our minds with that kind of trouble and sorrow which are the effect of suffering.(4.) A joint interest with them in the same common cause for which they suffer.(5.) A discharge of the duties towards them before mentioned.And where it is not thus with us, it argues a great decay in the power of religion. And there are none who are more severely reflected on than those who are at ease while the church is in affliction, Psalms 123:4; Zechariah 1:15.Having given an especial instance of the, exercise of brotherly love towards sufferers for the gospel, namely, the prisoners of Christ, towards whom especial duties are required; that we may not suppose our love and duty with respect unto suffering to be confined unto them alone, he adds unto them under the charge of our mindfulness, all that undergo evil, or trouble of any sort, for the profession of the gospel: “And of them which suffer adversity,” etc. And there is in the remaining words of this verse, 1. A designation of the persons in general whom we ought to be mindful of; and, 2. A motive unto the duty required of us.1. The persons designed are “those that suffer adversity;” those that are, vexed, pressed, troubled with things evil, grievous, and hard to be borne. For the word includes both the things themselves undergone, — they are evil and grievous; and the frame of men’s minds in the undergoing of them, — they are pressed, vexed, and troubled with them. The word is of a large signification, as large as we interpret it, “that suffer adversity;” extending itself unto all that is adverse or grievous unto us, as sickness, pain, losses, want and poverty, as well as other things. But it is here to be restrained unto those evils which inert undergo for the profession of the gospel; and unto all sorts of them it is to be extended: such are reproaches, contempt, scorn, turning out of secular employments, spoiling of goods, stigmatizing, taking away of children, banishment, — every thing which we may undergo in and for our profession. Of all who are pressed or distressed with any of these we are enjoined to be, “mindful,” and that as unto all the ends and purposes before mentioned, according to our ability and opportunity. And by the distinction here used by the apostle between “those that are in bonds,” and “those who suffer other adversities,” yet both laid under the same charge as unto our remembrance, we are taught, that, — Obs. 7. Although there are peculiar duties required of us towards those who suffer for the gospel in an eminent manner, as unto bonds, yet are we not thereon discharged from the same kind of duties towards those who suffer in lesser degrees, and other things. We are apt to think ourselves released from any consideration of sufferings seeming of an inferior nature, if it may be we have had regard unto some prisoners, or the like. And, — Obs. 8. Not only those who are in bonds for the gospel, or suffer to a high degree in their persons, are under the especial care of Christ, but those also who suffer in any other kind whatever, though the world may take little notice of them; and therefore are they all of them commended unto our especial remembrance.Obs. 9. Professors of the gospel are exempted from no sorts of adversity’, from nothing that is evil and grievous unto the outward man in this world; and therefore ought we not to think it strange when we fall into them.2. The motive added unto the diligent discharge of the duty enjoined, is, that “we ourselves are also in the body.” There is a threefold probable interpretation of these words. The first is, that by “the body,” the mystical body of Christ, or the church, is intended. Whereas we are members of the same mystical body with them that suffer, it is just, equal, and necessary, that we should be mindful of them in their sufferings. This is the exposition of Calvin; and it seems to have great countenance given unto it by the discourse of the apostle unto this purpose, 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Corinthians 12:26, etc.,” Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it.” There is therefore a truth in this exposition, though I conceive it be not directly intended in this place. Another is that of Beza, both in his translation and annotations. For in his translation he adds to the text, for its exposition, “afflicti;” — ‘as if ye yourselves were afflicted in the body.’And he expounds it, “as if we suffered the same calamity.” And he gives this reason of his interpretation, namely, that “whereas in the former clause we are enjoined to be mindful of them that are in bonds, as if we were bound with them; so in this, to be mindful of them that suffer adversity, as if we suffered in our own bodies with them.” But neither do I think this reason cogent. For it is indeed those who are bound that suffer in the body in an especial manner; and in this latter exposition those are intended who suffer in any other way. Wherefore the common interpretation of the words is most suited unto the scope of the place: The apostle minds those who are yet at liberty, and free from troubles or afflictions, such as others are pressed and perplexed withal, of what is their own state and condition, namely, that as yet they are in the body; that is, in that state of natural life which is exposed unto the same calamities which others of their brethren do undergo. Whence is it that Satan and the world have this advantage against them, as to load, oppress, and vex them with all manner of evils, as they do? It is from hence alone, that they are yet in that state of being in this life natural which is subject and obnoxious unto all these sufferings. Were they once freed from the body, the life which they lead in it in this world, none of these things could reach unto them, or touch them. ‘Whereas, therefore, ye are yet in the same state of natural life with them, equally exposed unto all the sufferings which they undergo, be they of what kind they will, and have no assurance that ye shall be always exempted from them, this ought to be a motive unto you to be mindful of them in their present sufferings. And this is the sense of the place. And we may observe from hence, — Obs. 10. That we have no security of freedom from any sort of suffering for the gospel whilst we are in this body, or during the continuance of our natural lives — “Ante obitum nemo.” Heaven is the only state of everlasting rest. Whilst we have our bodily eyes, all tears will not be wiped from them. Obs. 11. We are not only exposed unto afflictions during this life, but we ought to live in the continual expectation of them, so long as there are any in the world who do actually suffer for the gospel. — Not to expect our share in trouble and persecution, is a sinful security, proceeding from very corrupt principles of mind, as may be easily discovered on due examination. Obs. 12. A sense of our own being continually obnoxious unto sufferings, no less than those who do actually suffer, ought to incline our minds unto a diligent consideration of them in their sufferings, so as to discharge all duties of love and helpfulness towards them.Obs. 13. Unless it do so, we can have no evidence of our present interest in the same mystical body with them, nor just expectation of any compassion or relief from others, when we ourselves are called unto sufferings. — When we are called to suffer, it will be a very severe self-reflection, if we must charge ourselves with want of due compassion and fellow-suffering with those who were in that condition before us.These are some instances of the acts and duties of that brotherly love which is required among Christians; that love which is so much talked of, so much pretended unto, by some who would have it consist in a compliance with all sorts of men, good and bad, in some outward rites of religion, unto the ruin of it, which is almost lost in the world. Τίμιοςὁγάμοςἐνπᾶσι, καὶἡκοίτηἀμίαντος·πόρνουςδὲκαὶμοιχοὺςκρινεῖὁΘεός.῾Ογάμος, “conjugium,” “connubium;” “marriage,” “wedlock,” the state of it.᾿Ενπᾶσι. Syr., αְּ ?λֻ ?μ“in omnibus.” Bez., “inter quosvis, “inter omnes;’so is ἐν commonly used for “inter.”Κοίτη, “thorus,” “cubile.” Syr., εְ ?ςַ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?δεּ ?ο, “et cubile eorum,” “and their bed.” For so it reads this sentence, “Marriage is honorable in all, and their bed γּ ?αְ ?ιָ ?ΰδִ ?ι,” “is pure, undefiled:” which, as I judge, well determines the reading and sense of the words.Πόρνους. Vulg., “fornicatores;” Bez., “scortatores;” which we render “whoremongers,” not amiss. The difference between them and μοιχούς we shall see.Κρινεῖ. Syr., γָּ ?ΰֵ ?ο, “judicat;” “judicaturus est, judicabit,” “damnabit,” Bez; Arab., “Marriage is every way honorable, and the bed thereof is pure.”Hebrews 13:4. — Marriage [is] honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. There is a double difficulty in the translation of the words of the first proposition, arising from a double defect in the original. The first is of the verb substantive, or the copula of the proposition; which some supply by ἔστι, “is;” others by ἔστω, “let it be,” or be accounted. The other is from the defect of the noun substantive, which πᾶσι, “all,” refers unto: some supply “men,” in all sorts of men; others, “things,” or every manner of way. For the first, the most of late incline to make it preceptive, and not indicative; “Let it be,” “let it be so esteemed.” We follow Beza, and render it indicatively; “it is,” — “Marriage is honorable.”The sole reason used by any for the former interpretation is, that the duties mentioned both before and after are expressed preceptively, by way of command, in words imperative, and there is no reason why this should be inserted in another form. The Vulgar supplies not the defect in the original: and our Rhemists render the words from thence, “Marriage honorable in all;” but in their annotations contend for the preceptive sense, “Let marriage be honorable in all;” hoping thereby to shield their tyrannical law of celibate from the sword of this divine testimony, — but in vain. Neither is the reason which others plead of any force for this exposition. For the other duties mentioned are such as were never by any called in question, as unto their nature, whether they were universally good or no; nor ever were like so to be. There was no need, therefore, to declare their nature, but only to enjoin their practice. But it was otherwise in the case of marriage, for there always had been, and there were then, not a few, both of the Jews (as the Essenes) and of the Gentiles, who had unworthy thoughts of marriage, beneath its dignity, and such as exposed it to contempt. Besides, the Holy Ghost foresaw, and accordingly foretold, that in the succeeding ages of the church there would arise a sort of men that should make laws prohibiting marriage unto some, 1 Timothy 4:3; wherefore it was necessary that the apostle, designing to give unto the Hebrews a charge of chastity and purity of life, should give a just commendation of the means that God had ordained for the preservation of them. And the following words, wherein “the bed undefiled” is entitled unto the same honor with “marriage,” can have no just sense without a relation to the verb in the present tense, as it is accordingly expressed in the Syriac translation.The truth is, the apostle opposeth this blessed declaration of the truth unto some principles and practices that were then current and prevalent in the world. And these were, that marriage was at least burdensome and a kind of bondage unto some men, especially a hinderance unto them that were contemplative; and that fornication at least was a thing indifferent, which men might allow themselves in, though adultery was to be condemned. In opposition unto these cursed principles and practices, the apostle, designing to commend and enjoin chastity unto all professors of the gospel, declares on the one side, the honorable state of matrimony, namely, from divine institution; and on the other, the wickedness of that lasciviousness wherein they allowed themselves, with the certainty of divine vengeance which would befall them who continued therein. There was just reason, therefore, why the apostle should insinuate the prescription of the duty intended by a declaration of the honor of that state which God hath appointed for the preservation of men and women in chastity. And this leads us unto the supply of the other defect, “in all.” The preposition ἐν, applied unto persons, is constantly used in the New Testament for “inter” or “among: “ “among all,” — that is, all sorts of persons; or as Beza, “inter quosvis.” And it will be granted, that if the words be taken indicatively, this must be the sense of them. And persons are here to be taken restricively, for those who duly enter into that state. The apostle doth not assert that marriage; was a thing in good reputation among all men, Jews and Gentiles; for as with some it was, so with others it was not: but he declares that marriage is honorable in all sorts of persons, who are lawfully called thereunto, and do enter into it according to the law of God and righteous laws among men. For by a defect herein it may be rendered highly dishonorable in and unto men, as will appear in the ensuing exposition of the words. From a prescription of duties towards others, the apostle proceeds to give directions unto those wherein our own persons and walking are concerned. And he doth it in a prohibition of the two radical, comprehensive lusts of corrupted nature, namely, uncleanness and covetousness; the first respecting the persons of men in a peculiar manner, the other their conversation. The first, in all the acts of it, is distinguished from all other sins, in that they are immediately against a man’s self, in his own person: “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth” (which is perpetrated in external acts) “is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body,” 1 Corinthians 6:18. And the other influenceth and corrupts all duties of life whatever.His manner of the injunction of the first duty in this verse is peculiar, for the reasons before mentioned. And it consists of two parts: 1. A commendation of the remedy of the evil prohibited, which is marriage; 2. A condemnation of the sins prohibited, with a denunciation of divine judgments against them.And he takes this way of insinuating the necessity of the duty prescribed, 1. Because the remedy was by some despised; and by others, who were called unto the use of it, neglected.2. Because the sins prohibited were thought by many not so highly criminal; and if they were, yet usually were shaded in secrecy from punishment among men. Without the removal of these prejudices, his exhortation could not obtain its due force in the minds of them concerned. In the First place, we have a proposal,1. Of a state of life; that is, “Marriage.”2. Of the duties of that state; “The bed undefiled.” And of them both it is affirmed, that they are “honorable.”1. The first is “marriage.” It is that which is lawful and according to the mind of God which is intended; for there may be marriages, or such conjunctions for the ends of marriage between men and women, so called, that are highly dishonorable. It must be marriage of two individual persons, and no more, according to the law of creation and divine institution (polygamy was never honorable); marriage not of persons within the degrees of consanguinity laid under divine prohibition (incest being no less dishonorable than adultery); marriage in a concurrence of all necessary circumstances both of mind and body in them that are to be married, — such are, power over their own persons, freedom in choice or consent, personal mutual vow or contract, natural meetness for the duties of marriage, freedom from guilt as to the persons intended, and the like. Wherefore, taking marriage for a conjunction of a man and woman, by mutual consent, for all the ends of human life, and it cannot be absolutely pronounced “honorable;” for there may be many things in such a conjunction rendering it sinful and vile. But that marriage is so, which, on the ground and warranty of divine institution, is a “lawful conjunction of one man and one woman, by their just and full consent, into an indissoluble union (whereby they become one flesh), for the procreation of children, and mutual assistance in all things, divine and human.” As the apostle speaks of this marriage in general, as unto its nature and use, so he hath an especial respect unto it in this place as it is the means appointed and sanctified of God for the avoiding and preventing of the sins of fornication and adultery, and all other lusts of uncleanness, which without it the generality of mankind would have rushed into like the beasts of the field. And this marriage he affirms to be “honorable.” It is so on many accounts, and so it is to be esteemed. It is so, (1.) From the consideration of the Author of it, him by whom it was originally appointed; which is God himself, Genesis 2:18; Genesis 2:23-24, Matthew 19:5; and all his works are “honorable and glorious,” Psalms 111:3.(2.) From the manner of its institution, being expressed as a peculiar effect of divine wisdom and counsel for the good of man, Genesis 2:18, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him.” Greater honor could not be put on this institution and state of life. (3.) From the time and place of its institution. It is co-equal with mankind; for although Adam was created in single life, yet he was married in the instant of the production of Eve. Upon the first sight of her he said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” Genesis 2:23 : which she complying with, was the formal cause of their matrimony. And it was in paradise, whilst man and woman were in the state of innocency and beauty: so foolish is the law in the church of Rome prohibiting marriage unto their ecclesiastics, on pretense of an unsuitableness in it unto their holiness; as though they were more pure than our first parents in paradise, where they entered into their married estate. (4.) From the many tokens or pledges of divine favor, communicating honor unto it. God first married and blessed Adam and Eve himself, Genesis 2:22-23. He gave laws for the regulation of it, Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5. He had especial respect unto it in the decalogue; yea, all the commands of the second table arise from and have respect unto this institution. He by his law excluded from all administration of office in the congregation those that were not born in lawful wedlock, Deuteronomy 23:2, etc. And the Lord Christ approved of all these things by his presence at a lawful marriage, and a feast thereon, John 2:1-11. (5.) It is so from the use and benefit of it. The writings of all sorts of wise men, philosophers, lawyers, and Christian divines, have elegantly expressed these things. I shall only say, that as the legitimate and orderly continuation of the race of mankind depends hereon, and proceeds from it, so whatever is of virtue, honor, comeliness or order, amongst men; whatever is praiseworthy and useful in all societies, economical, ecclesiastical, or political, it depends hereon, and hath regard hereunto. To all unto whom children are dear, relations useful, inheritances valuable, and acceptation of God in the works of nature preferred before sordid uncleanness and eternal ruin; this state is, and ought to be, accounted honorable to them. The apostle adds, that it is thus “honorable in all;” that is, amongst all sorts of persons that are called thereunto. ‘There is no sort, order, or degree of men, by reason of any calling, work, or employment, but that marriage is an honorable state in them, and unto them, when they are lawfully called thereunto.’This is the plain sense of the words, as both their signification and occasion in this place do manifest. Some had rather it should be, “in all things,” or “every manner of way;” or “in all ages, at all times;” — none of which do here suit the mind of the apostle. For whereas his design is to give direction for chastity and universal purity of life, with the avoiding of all sorts and degrees of uncleanness, and whereas the proneness unto such sins is common unto all, (though cured in some by especial gift,) he declares that the remedy is equally provided for all who are called thereunto, 1 Corinthians 7:9, as not having received the gift of continency, at least as unto inward purity of mind, without the use of this remedy. However, if it should be rendered “in all things,” or “every manner of way,” the popish celibate can never be secured from this divine testimony against it. For if it be not lawful to call that, common which God hath declared clean, is it lawful for them to esteem and call that so vile as to be unmeet for some order or sort of men among them, which God hath declared to be “honorable in all things,” or every manner of way? The reader may, if it be needful, consult the writings of our divines against the Papists, for the confirmation of this exposition. I shall only say, that their impiety in their law imposing the necessity of single life on all their ecclesiastics, wherein they have usurped divine authority over the consciences of men, hath often been openly pursued by divine vengeance, in giving it up to be an occasion of the multiplication of such horrid uncleannesses as have been scandalous unto Christian religion, and ruinous to the souls of millions, In other persons they make matrimony a sacrament; which, according to their opinion, conferreth grace, though well they know not what: but it is evident, that this law of forbidding it unto their clergy, hath deprived them of that common gift of continence which other men, by an ordinary endeavor, may preserve or attain unto. But it belongs not unto my present purpose to insist on these things. And we may observe, — Obs. 1. That divine institution is sufficient to reader any state or condition of life honorable. Obs. 2. The more useful any state of life is, the more honorable it is. The honor of marriage ariseth much from its usefulness.Obs. 3. That which is honorable by divine institution, and useful in its own nature, may be abused and rendered vile by the miscarriages of men; as marriage may be.Obs. 4. It is a bold usurpation of authority over the consciences of men, and a contempt of the authority of God, to forbid that state unto any which God hath declared “honorable among all.”Obs. 5. Means for purity and chastity not ordained, blessed, nor sanctified unto that end, will prove furtherances of impurity and uncleanness, or worse evils.Obs. 6. The state of marriage being honorable in the sight of God himself, it is the duty of them that enter thereinto duly to consider how they may approve their consciences unto God in what they do. And, —Obs. 7. A due consideration of their call unto it, of their ends in it, that they are those of God’s appointment, prayer for, and expectation of his blessing on it, reverence of him as the great witness of the marriage covenant, with wisdom to undergo the trials and temptations inseparable from this state of life, are required hereunto.2. Unto the state of marriage the apostle adds the consideration of the duties of it, in that expression, “The bed undefiled.” The word κοίτη is three times used by our apostle; — once for the conception of seed in the marriage-bed, Romans 9:10; once for excess in lustful pleasures, Romans 13:13, where we render it “chambering;” and here for the place of marriage duties, “torus,” “lectum,” “cubile.” Its commendation here is, that it is “undefiled.” And two things are intended herein.(1.) An opposition unto the defiled beds of whoremongers and adulterers, from the honorable state of marriage. The bed of marriage is pure and undefiled, even in the duties of it.(2.) The preservation of marriage duties within their due bounds; which the apostle giveth directions about, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7; 1 Corinthians 7:2-5. For there may be many pollutions of the marriage bed, not meet here to be mentioned; and there are some dilated on in the popish casuists, which are not fit to be named among Christians, nor could have been believed, had they not divulged them from their pretended penitents. But that which we are here taught is, that, — Obs. 8. Conjugal duties, regulated by the bounds assigned unto them by natural light, with the general rules of Scripture, and subservient unto the due ends of marriage, are honorable, giving no cause of pollution or shame.From this state and use of marriage, the means appointed of God for the preservation of the purity and chastity of our persons, the argument is cogent unto diligence in our duty therein, and the aggravation great of the contrary sins. For whereas God hath provided such a way and means, for the satisfaction of natural inclination, the procreation of children, and comfort of life in mutual society, as are honorable, and as such approved by himself, so as no way to defile the body or mind, or to leave any trouble on the conscience; who can express the detestable wickedness that is in the forsaking of them, in a contempt of the authority and wisdom of God, by men’s seeking the satisfaction of their lusts in ways prohibited of God, injurious to others, debasing and defiling to themselves, disturbing the whole order of nature, and drowning themselves in everlasting perdition, which the apostle declares in the next words? Secondly, Having confirmed the exhortation unto personal purity or holiness, and chastity, included in the words, from the commendation of the state and duties whereby they may be preserved, with assurance of divine acceptation therein, he further presseth it by declaration of the contrary state and opposite vices of those who, despising this only remedy of all uncleanness, or not confining themselves thereunto, do seek the satisfaction of their lusts in ways irregular and prohibited.This opposition of the two states and acts is declared in the particle δέ, “but:” ‘So it is with marriage and its duties; but as unto others, it is not so with them.’And,1. He declares who are the persons that transgress the rule prescribed, who are of two sorts,(1.) Whoremongers;(2.) Adulterers. 2. He declares their state with respect to God, and what will be their end; “God will judge” or condemn them.1. The distinction between “whoremongers,” or fornicators, and “adulterers,” is allowed by all to be between single persons, and those that are both or one of them in a married state. The sin of the first is fornication; of the other, adultery. And although πορνεύω and πορνεία may sometimes be used to denote any kind of uncleanness in general, and so to comprise adultery also; yet wherever these words are put together, as they are often, they are so to be distinguished, as the one of them to signify fornication, and the other adultery, Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Galatians 5:19. And for the most part, when πόρνος and πορνεία are used alone, they denote precisely the sin of unmarried persons, or at least where the woman is so: that we call fornication, Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25; Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 6:18; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3. Wherefore πόρνοι, which we render here “whoremongers,” as distinguished from adulterers, are persons who in single or an unmarried state of life do know one another carnally, whether it be by single acts or a frequent repetition of them, by the means of cohabitation, without a marriage vow or covenant between them.Some have fallen into that impudence in our days, as to countenance themselves with the opinion and practices of some of the heathen, who thought that this sin of fornication was no sin, or a matter not much to be regarded. But as it is contrary unto the law of creation, and consequently the light of nature, being a filthy spring of other evils innumerable; so it is expressly condemned in the Scripture, as Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Corinthians 6:18, Colossians 3:5, and in the other places before cited. And this one place, where it is said to render men obnoxious to eternal damnation, is enough to determine this case in the minds of men not flagitiously wicked. And shall we suppose, that that religion which condemneth the inward lust of the heart after a woman, without any outward act, as a sin worthy of judgment, doth give countenance, or doth not most severely condemn, the actual abomination of fornication?But whatever may be the judgment of any men, or whatever they may pretend so to be, (for I am persuaded that no man can so far debauch his conscience, and obliterate all impressions of Scripture light, as really to think fornication to be no sin, who thinks there is any such thing as sin at all,) yet the practice of multitudes in all manner of licentiousness this way at present among us, can never sufficiently be bewailed. And it is to be feared, that if magistrates, and those who are the public ministers in the nation, do not take more care than hitherto hath been used, for the reproof, restraint, and suppressing of this raging abomination, divine judgments on the whole nation on the account of it will speedily satisfy men’s scruples whether it be a sin or no. For “adulterers,” who are mentioned in the next place, there is no question amongst any about the heinousness of their sin; and the common interest of mankind keeps up a detestation of it. But it is here, together with fornication, reserved in a peculiar manner unto divine vengeance: (1.) Because for the most part it is kept secret, and so free from human cognizance; and,(2.) Because, although the divine law made it capital, or punishable by death, as did also some laws among the heathens themselves, yet for the most part it ever did, and doth still, pass in the world under a less severe animadversion and punishment. But, —2. Whatever such persons think of themselves, or whatever others think of them, or however they deal with them, God will judge and condemn them.“God will judge,” or “damnabit;” he will “condemn,” he will damn them. It is the final judgment of the last day that is intended; they shall not be acquitted, they shall not be absolved, — they shall be eternally damned. And there is included herein, — Obs. 9. Whatever light thoughts men may have of sin, of any sin, the judgment of God concerning all sin, which is according to truth, must stand forever. — To have slight thoughts of sin, will prove no relief unto sinners. Obs. 10. Fornication and adultery are sins in their own nature deserving eternal damnation. — If the due wages of all sin be death, much more is it so of so great abominations.Obs. 11. Men living and dying impenitently in these sins shall eternally perish; or, a habitual course in them is utterly inconsistent with any spark of saving grace. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Ephesians 5:5; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15. And there is an emphasis in the expression, “God will judge;” wherein we may see, (1.) That the especial aggravation of these sins doth expose men unto a sore condemnation in a peculiar manner, 1 Corinthians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 6:16-19.(2.) All occasions of, all temptations leading unto these sins, are to be avoided, as we take care of our souls.(3.) Although the state of men may be changed, and divine wrath due to these sins may be finally escaped by repentance, yet it may be observed, that of all sorts of sinners, those who are habitually given up unto these lusts of the flesh, are the most rarely called, and brought to effectual repentance. Yet,(4.) Many of those persons, by reason of their convictions, received in the light of a natural conscience, do live in a kind of seeming repentance, whereby they relieve themselves after some acts of uncleanness, until by the power of their lust they are hurried again into them. But I must not here further discourse these things. ῾Αφιλάργυροςὁτρόπος, ἀρκούμενοιτοῖςπαροῦσιν·αὐτὸςγὰρεἴρηκεν, Οὐμήσεἀνῶ, οὐδ᾿οὐμήσεἐγκαταλίπω, ὥστεθαῤῥοῦνταςἡμᾶςλέγειν, ΚύριοςἐμοὶβοηθὸςΈκαὶοὐφοβηθήσομαιτὶποιήσειμοιἄνθρωπος.᾿Αφιλάργυρος. Syr., μָ ?ΰδֲ ?εָ ?ΰψָ ?ηֵ ?νλֶּ ?ρְ ?τָ ?ΰ, “let not [your mind] be loving of silver;” “love not silver,” according to the original signification of the word; but its use is of larger extent, “sine avaritia, alieni ab avaritia;” “not inclined unto, alien from covetousness.” [1][1] . — ᾿Αφιλάργυρος… παροῦσιν. This construction is so remarkable, that it identifies, it has been thought, this epistle as a production of Paul. One nominative absolute in the singular expands into a nominative absolute in the plural, and the only construction parallel to this is to be found in another epistle of Paul, Romans 12:9. — ED. ῾Οτρόπος. Syr., ψςֲ ?ιָ ?πְ ?λεּ ?ο, “your mind;” as τρόπος doth sometimes signify “ingenium, animum, mentem, indolem,” the mind with its bent and inclination. Other interpreters render it by “mores,” and supply “vestri;” “your manners,” ‘the way and manner of your conversation:’as it is well rendered by ours, “your conversation;” though that be properly ἀναστροφή, which we render “conversation,” verse 7; but we have no other word whereby to express the force of the Latin “mores.” Τρόπος is men’s “moral conversation,” or their conversation in morals. So we read χρηστὸς, “honest manners,” an honest conversation; and βέλτιστοςτρόπος, “excellent manners;” and τρόποςδίκαιος, “a just, righteous conversation;” and τρόποςὅσιος, “holy manners;” and on the contrary, πικρὸςτρόπος, “bitter, froward manners.”Hebrews 13:5-6. — [Let your] conversation [be] without [free from] covetousness; [and be] content with [present things] such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord [is] my helper, and I will not fear what man can do unto me.From particular duties, the apostle proceeds unto that which is more general, which relates unto our whole course of walking before God. And the vice prohibited is frequently joined with that foregoing, fornication and covetousness, Ephesians 5:3; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:6 : not that they have any especial affinity one with the other, but that they are both of them such as corrupt the whole Christian profession. There is in the words, 1. A duty prescribed:2. An enforcement of it from its reason and cause:3. An inference from that reason, in an application of it unto all cases wherein the duty is required; the two latter consisting in two divine testimonies, one concerning the promises of God, the other concerning the experience of believers.1. The duty is enjoined,(1.) Negatively, “Let your conversation be without covetousness;” (2.) Positively, “Be content with such things as ye have.” Covetousness and contentment are absolutely opposite, and inconsistent in the same mind.(1.) As unto the manner of expression in the negative precept, it is in the original doubly defective, “Conversation without covetousness;” which we well supply with “your,” and “let it be;” which is the intention of the words. And we must inquire, [1. What is our “conversation.” [2. How it ought to be “without covetousness.” [1. The word here used may be taken in a threefold sense: 1st. For the mind, or the frame and inclination of it in its acting about the things of this life. So it is rendered by the Syriac, “Let your mind.” And respect must be had hereunto, because the evil prohibited is a vice of the mind, and the opposite grace a virtue of the mind.2dly. For accustomed practice; ‘Live, act, trade, do all things without covetousness.’3dly. For the way, and manner, and course we use and take in the getting of a livelihood, or food and raiment. And all these significations of the word are consistent, nor can any of them be excluded from the sense of the place. We render it by “conversation,” which is comprehensive of them all. But it is in this place alone thus used. The word which in all other places we render “conversation,” is ἀναστροφή, Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 4:22; 1 Timothy 4:12; James 3:13, etc.: but the same is plainly here intended, though the word yields somewhat a larger sense than the other. Wherefore, our “conversation” here includes both the frame of our minds and the manner of our acting, as unto the morality of it, in all that we do about the things appertaining unto this life. And because of this restraint of it unto our actings about the things of this life, the apostle useth this word τρόπος, “mos” or “mores,” and not ἀναστροφή, which expresseth our “universal walk before God,” in all holy obedience, Philippians 1:27; Philippians 3:20;[2] James 3:13; 1 Peter 1:15; 2 Peter 3:11. [2] In these two passages, πολιτεύεσθε and πολίτευμα are the words employed. — ED. [2. The ordering of our conversation aright in this matter is of great importance in our Christian profession. And for the direction of it the apostle gives this rule, that it be “without covetousness.” The word is only once more used in the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:3, “Not covetous;” as that which it denies is twice, Luke 16:14, 2 Timothy 3:2; in both which places we render it “covetous.” Φιλαργυρία, the substantive, we render according to its original signification, “the love of money,” 1 Timothy 6:10. The word used constantly in the New Testament for “covetousness” is πλεονεξία, Mark 7:22; Romans 1:29; 2 Corinthians 9:5; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:5. But whereas (as the wise man tells us) “money answereth all things,” Ecclesiastes 10:19, and is therefore the peculiar object of covetous desires, “covetousness” and “the love of money” are the same. Wherefore the word here, being “without the love of money,” is well rendered by “without,” or “alien from covetousness.”Covetousness is an inordinate desire, with a suitable endeavor, after the enjoyment of more riches than we have, or than God is pleased to give unto us; proceeding from an undue valuation of them, or love unto them. So it is described by our apostle, 1 Timothy 6:9-10.A vice this is which, by its effects, manifests itself always to be contrary to the light of nature, as debasing the minds of men, making them useless, and exposing them to all manner of vile practices. Hence it was always stigmatized by sober heathens, as one of the vilest affections of the minds of men. And there is nothing which the Scripture doth more severely condemn, nor denounce more inevitable punishment unto. Two places in our apostle may suffice to confirm it. In the one he tells us, that “covetousness is idolatry,” Colossians 3:5; — that is, such an abominable sin, as there is no name fit to be given unto it but that which intimates a rejection of God himself; or, it may be, respect is also had unto the minds of covetous persons, who even adore their money, and put their trust in it in the stead of God. “The rich man’s riches are his strong tower.” The other Isaiah 1 Timothy 6:9-10, where he affirms that it gives men present perplexing anxieties of mind, and plungeth them into eternal perdition.But hereof there are many degrees. Where it is predominant, the Scripture doth absolutely exclude those in whom it is from life and salvation, amongst the most profligate of sinners. But there may be, and are, lesser degrees of inordinate desires after earthly things, which partake of the nature of this vice, that may abide in believers themselves, and are a subject of mortification all their days. And these inclinations, according to their degree, are obstructive of duties, and means of exposing men unto various temptations at all times, especially in those of persecution. And the apostle seems to have respect here unto such a season. For when men are spoiled of some of their goods, and in danger of losing all, it is apt to stir up in them earnest and inordinate desires after somewhat more than they have, and not to be contented with what is present; which the apostle here declares to be covetousness. This he would have us free from at all times, especially in the times of persecution; which that he hath respect unto, the sixth verse doth plainly declare. And we may hereon observe sundry things; as, — Obs. 1. All covetousness is inconsistent with a Christian conversation, according to the gospel. — It is to be alien in all things from covetousness. Neither is there any thing at this day that doth more stain the glory of our Christian profession. For in the profligate lives of debauched persons, their blasphemies, adulteries, drunkenness, and the like, religion is not concerned. They openly avow themselves to have no interest in it; neither hath that any in them. But whereas covetous men, from the predominancy of that one lust, do ofttimes keep themselves from open sins of the flesh, and withal make a profession of religion, having “a form of godliness,” this vice is a high reproach to their profession.Obs. 2. Covetousness in any degree is highly dangerous in a time of persecution, or suffering for the gospel. — It is with respect unto such a season that we are here warned against it. For there is no sin which so intimidates the spirit, and weakens all resolution, in a time of suffering, as this doth. For sufferings generally in the first place fall on that wherein its power and interest do lie, namely, the riches and possessions of men; whence they are filled with fears about them, disanimating them in all their resolutions. And it constantly riseth up against seasonable duties at such a time; such as contribution unto the wants of other sufferers. It is always accompanied with a distrust of God, as we shall see afterwards, and fixeth the soul in an overvaluation of earthly things; which is directly opposite unto the exercise of all grace whatever. It fills the soul at such a season with anxiety and disquietment of mind, piercing it through with many sorrows, with equal hopes and fears, irregular contrivances for supply, and reserves of trust in what men have, with other evils innumerable. (2.) In opposition hereunto, we are directed and enjoined to be “content with things that are present,” or “such things as we have.” ᾿Αρχέω and the passive are “to suffice,” “to be sufficient,” to be that which is enough, Matthew 25:9; John 6:7. The passive is used here, and 1 Timothy 6:8; to be content or satisfied with what is sufficient in earthly things: whose measure the apostle gives there to consist in “food and raiment.” Αὐτάρκεια is once used to the same purpose; which signifies, not a self-sufficiency, but a satisfaction in ourselves, as to what we have, 1 Timothy 6:6. So also is αὐτάρκης, which we render “content,”Philippians 4:11; that is, satisfied in our condition.This is that which the apostle opposeth unto that covetousness which he doth condemn; and they are inconsistent in the same mind, in any prevalent degree. The assertion Of the one denies the other; and so on the contrary. Wherefore this contentment is a gracious frame or disposition of mind, quiet and composed; without, [1. Complaining or repining at God’s providential disposals of our outward concerns; [2. All envy at the more prosperous condition of others; [3. Fears and anxious cares about future supplies; and, [4. Desires and designs of those things which a more plentiful condition than what we are in would supply us withal. And this contentment is with respect unto “such things as we have;” or “things that are present,” as it is in the original. Now, things present are not here opposed unto things that are future; as though we should be content with them, and not look after the future reward: but they are opposed unto things which are not present with us in our present state and condition, though so they might be; and therefore, as unto the sense, it is tendered by, “such things as ye have.” Yet are not “things” only intended, but in general the state and condition wherein we are, be it of poverty, or affliction, or persecution, or of more enlargement in earthly things. So it is declared by our apostle, Philippians 4:11, “I have learned ἐνοἷςεἰμὶαὐτάρκηχει῏ναι, “in whatever state I am,” say we, “therewith to be content;” — ‘in the condition and circumstances wherein I am, whether it be of abounding or need,’as he explains it in the next verse. And it respects the things that are present with us, such things as we have; namely, for the use of this natural life. And the measure of them, in ordinary cases, is food and raiment, as the rule is given us, 1 Timothy 6:8, “Having food and raiment, let us be therewith content:” not that we are allowed to be discontented if we want them; but that these are such a sufficiency as are a rational obligation unto contentment, — a man need seek no further. But among other evils that we may undergo for the gospel, we may be called unto “hunger and nakedness,” Romans 8:35; by which many witnesses of Christ have been destroyed. And when we are so, we are obliged to be therewithal content also. For contentation, or satisfaction of mind, in things present, doth not arise from, nor depend on, any measure, great or small, of the things themselves which we do enjoy, but on the presence of God with us, and the reward that is therein, as the next words declare. And it may not be impertinent to observe some few things for the declaration of the virtue of it; as, — [1. Contentment with what we have is not exclusive of honest industry, to make an addition unto it, and so enlarge the provision of earthly things for ourselves and our families. Honest industry, even unto this end, is the command of God, who hath given us six days in seven for the exercise of it. Wherefore, — [2. It doth not consist in a slothful neglect of the occasions of this life; nor in a pretended apathy or regardlessness of them; nor in the relinquishment of an industrious course of life, to betake ourselves unto monastic idleness, under a pretense of contempt of the world; but, — [3. It is a gracious disposition of mind, arising solely from trust in and satisfaction with God alone, against all other things whatever that may appear to be evil, as the next words declare. [4. It is utterly exclusive,1st. Of covetousness, or an inordinate inclination of mind and desire after an increase of our present enjoyments, with all the ways and means whereby they usually act themselves;2dly. Of all anxious care, distrust of things future, or complaints of things present;3dly. Of that foolish elation of mind, and contempt of others, which riches give unto men of weak minds; for contentment is a grace in the rich as well as in the poor.1st. Of distress and distrust under an apprehension of want;2dly. Of despondency under oppression, persecution, and suffering the things that men can do unto us, or bring upon us.And both these evils arise from covetousness, or an inordinate desire after and valuation of earthly things. 2. Having prescribed the duty, the apostle adds an enforcement of its practice, from the cause which renders it just and reasonable: “For he hath said,” etc. This is from something that was said or spoken to this purpose: concerning which he proposeth,(1.) Who spake it;(2.) What he spake; wherein is included the consideration of him to whom he spake it, and when, and with reference unto what occasion.(1.) “He hath said.” That this is causal, as unto the duty proposed, is declared in the conjunction “for:” ‘Do so, “for he hath said.”’He nameth not the person that spake; but by the way of eminency calleth him “He.” ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δδεּ ?ΰ— “Thou art He,” Psalms 102:28; which the apostle renders Σὺαὐτὸςει῏ Hebrews 1:12. “Thou art He,” is a name of God; — He who alone hath all being and existence in himself; He who with us, as in himself, is “all, and in all.” Αὐτὸςἔφα was an ascription of honor to a man: but this αὐτὸςεἴρηκεν is infinitely above it. And hereby the apostle refers us to the greatness and power of God. ‘He who is over all, the supreme disposer of all things in heaven and earth, in whose hand and power are all the concerns of men, who can do whatever he pleaseth, He hath said it.’For, — Obs. 3. All the efficacy, power, and comfort of divine promises, arise from, and are resolved into, the excellencies of the divine nature. He hath said it who is truth, and cannot deceive: He who is almighty, etc.(2.) What he hath said unto this purpose: “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” It is observed by all, that there is a vehement negation in the last clause, by a multiplication of the negative particles, two of them are used in the former. And the design hereof is, to obviate all objections which fear and unbelief may raise against the assurance given, from such circumstances as men may fall into: ‘Be they what they will, I will not at any time, on any occasion, for any cause, leave thee, nor forsake thee.’In these negative expressions positive blessings are contained, and those distinct also, as the expressions are. By the first, the continuance of God’s presence is intended; by the other, the continuance of his help, which the apostle takes notice of in the next verse: ‘“I will not leave thee;” — whatever be thy state and condition, I will never withdraw my presence from thee: “I will never forsake thee,” or suffer thee to be helpless in any trouble; my aid and help shall be continued with thee.’Only these things are expressed negatively, directly, and immediately, to obviate the fears which in difficult trials believers are apt to be exercised withal; and they are the principal way of the secret working of unbelief. Wherefore, the vehemency of the expression, by the multiplication of the negative particles, is an effect of divine condescension, to give the utmost security unto the faith of believers in all their trials. That God doth design in general so to do, our apostle declares at large, Hebrews 6:17-18, whereon see the exposition. Obs. 4. Divine presence and divine assistance, which are inseparable, are the spring and cause of suitable and sufficient relief and supplies unto believers in every condition.Obs. 5. Especially, the due consideration of them is abundantly sufficient to rebuke all covetous inclinations and desires, which without it will be prevalent in us in a time of straits and trials. Whereas these words contain a promise made of old unto some or other, we must inquire into the circumstances of it, as unto whom it was made, and when, and on what occasion. There is a promise to this purpose, yea in these very words, given unto Solomon by David, in the name of God: “The LORD God, even my God, will be with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee,” 1 Chronicles 28:20. And it is found frequently repeated unto the church, as unto the substance of it. See Isaiah 41:10-13. But it is generally granted that it is the promise which God made unto Joshua when he gave him in charge the great work of destroying the enemies of the church in the land of Canaan. So are the words of God unto him expressly, Joshua 1:5, “I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” The words, indeed, were used by Moses unto Joshua before, Deuteronomy 31:6; Deuteronomy 31:8; where the translation of the LXX. is much the same with the words used by the apostle in this place: but whereas the apostle refers the words spoken immediately to the speaking of God himself, “For he hath said,” they are taken from that place in the Book of Joshua, where God speaks directly unto him; and not from that in Deuteronomy, which are the words of Moses. Now this promise was personal, and given unto Joshua on the account of that great and difficult undertaking which he was called unto, in the conquest of Canaan. It is not therefore easily to be understood how an application may be made of it unto every individual believer, in all their straits and trials. To clear this difficulty, we may observe, — [1. That the dangers and difficulties which every believer has to undergo in his spiritual warfare, especially in times of trial and persecution, are no less than those that Joshua conflicted withal in his wars, nor do stand in less need of the especial presence and assistance of God to overcome them than his did. And therefore, in using these words unto Joshua, God did but expressly declare, for his encouragement, how he will deal with all believers, in every state and condition that he calls them unto. [2. The faith of all believers stands in need of the same supportment, the same encouragement with that of Joshua, and is resolved into the same principles with his, namely, the presence and assistance of God. Wherefore, — [3. All the promises made unto the church, and every particular member of it, for the use of the church, are made equally unto the whole church, and every member of it, in every age, according as the grace and mercy of them is suited unto their state and condition. There was in many of the promises of old something of especial privilege (as in that of a kingdom to David) and somewhat that respected circumstances, and the state of the people in the land of Canaan, wherein we are only analogically concerned; but as unto the grace, love, and mercy of God in them all, with their accommodation unto all our cases and necessities, they belong unto all believers, no less than they did unto them unto whom they were first given and made. Hence, — [4. Faith sets every believer in the room or place of him or them unto whom the promises were originally made; and as they are recorded in the Scripture, wherein God continues to speak unto the church, they are spoken directly unto every one of them. So the apostle here declares it: ‘“He hath said,” that is, unto you, and every one of you unto whom I speak, “I will never leave thee;”’which is the ground of the inference which he makes in the next verse. Yea, — [5. Whereas those promises which contained especial privileges, (as those made to Abraham and David), and those which respected the interest of the people in the land of Canaan, did proceed from, and were enlivened by, the love and grace of God in the covenant made with the church, or all believers, every one of them may apply unto themselves the same love and grace, to be acted suitably unto their condition, by mixing those promises with faith. For if “whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scripture might have hope,” as Romans 15:4, much more are the promises recorded therein for our use and benefit.There hath not been in our days a more desperate attempt against the life of religion, and the whole covenant-relation between God and the church, than that whereby the application of the promises recorded in the Scripture unto the present state, condition, and wants of believers, hath been opposed and ridiculed. But faith will triumph over such foolish and impious assaults. In brief, all the promises recorded in the Scripture, being nothing but ways and means of the exhibition of the grace of the covenant, which is made with the whole church, with all believers, and the accommodation of it unto their state, condition, and occasions; being all in the ratification of the covenant made “yea and amen in Christ Jesus, unto the glory of God by us;” they do equally belong unto all believers, and what God says in any of them, he says it unto every one that doth truly believe. Herein, then, lieth the force of the apostle’s argument: That if God hath said unto every one of us, what he said unto Joshua, that he will never leave us as to his presence, nor forsake us as to his assistance, we have sufficient ground to cast away all inordinate desires of earthly things, all fears of want, and other pressures, to rest quiet and contented with his undertaking for us. 3. This inference, from this promise given unto us, the apostle declares in the next verse, confirming it with the experience of David; which was not peculiar unto him, but is common to all believers.Hebrews 13:6. — “So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.”We may every one of us say as David did in the like case; for he so spake in confidence of the same promise of the presence and assistance of God, which is given also unto us. The words are taken from Psalms 118:6, “The LORD is on my side, (for me, my helper;) I will not fear what man can do unto me.” To the same purpose the psalmist speaks, Psalms 56:3-4; Psalms 56:11; only for “man,” verse 4, he useth the word “flesh,” — “what flesh can do unto me;” with a great contempt of all the power of his adversaries. He confirms his argument by a divine testimony; wherein we may consider both the manner of its introduction, and the testimony itself. (1.) The former is in these words, “So that we may boldly say;” or, “So as that we are bold to say;” or, “We do boldly say,” or have right so to do: the verb being of the infinitive mood, may be limited either of these ways.“So that,” or “so as that;” — a note of inference, or collection of one thing out of another. ‘By what is said to us, we are enabled and justified thus to say ourselves.’ “Boldly;” — ‘We being hold, using confidence, may say.’This the apostle ascribes to us herein, [1. Because it is evident that David, in uttering those words, did use a more than ordinary boldness and confidence in God. For he spake them first in a time of great distress, “when the Philistines took him in Gath,” and his enemies were continually ready to “swallow him up,” Psalms 56:1-2. In the midst of this distress, with great confidence he expresseth his trust in God, and says, “I will not fear what flesh can do unto me,” Psalms 56:4. And in the same state he was, Psalms 118:6-10. The like confidence in the like condition is required of us.[2. Because an act of high trust and confidence in God is required unto the profession here expressed. The word signifies the frame of mind that is in valiant men when they are preparing with shouts to engage against their adversaries. [3. To intimate our duty on this occasion; which is, to cast out all fears, every thing that may intimidate our spirits, or disquiet our minds, or hinder us from making a cheerful profession of our confidence in God. For that is required of us. We are to “say” what we believe, to profess it; yea, to glory and make our boast in God, against all opposition. Wherefore, — Obs. 6. The cheerful profession of confidence in God, against all opposition, and in the midst of all distresses, is that which believers have a warrant for in the promises that are made unto them.Obs. 7. As the use of this confidence is our duty, so it is a duty highly honorable unto the profession of the gospel. “Degeneres animos timor arguit.”In the application of this testimony, as taken from Psalms 56:4, the apostle supposeth that David spake these words not merely in his own person, and with respect unto his own case, or the especial promises he had about it, but in the person of the whole church, or on the general right of all true believers. For it is the word of God, or the promises therein contained, which are common to all believers, which was the ground of what he said or professed. So the words in the beginning of the verse do testify, “In God I will praise his word.” He would give unto him the glory of his truth and power, by believing. Wherefore, —Obs. 8. Believers having the same grounds of it that he had, may use the same confidence that he did. — For outward circumstances alter not the state of things as unto faith or duty. We may use the same confidence with him, though our case be not the same with his. And, —The apostle, in the application of this testimony, extends the case which he at first applies his exhortation unto. For at first he speaks only with respect unto want and poverty; but here he compriseth in it persecution and oppression, which usually are the causes of distressing want and poverty. (2.) These things being premised, we may proceed to inquire what is in the testimony itself produced, unto the end of the apostle’s exhortation. And we may consider, —[1. That there is an opposition, a conflict, a contest, between distinct parties, supposed in the words. And the persons concerned immediately herein, are believers on the one hand, and man on the other; whereon a third person, namely, God himself, interposeth, and becometh a party in the contest. For, — [2. God is herein on the side of the church: “The LORD is my helper;” ‘a helper unto me.’Respect seems to be had in this expression unto Psalms 118:6-7; though the words also of Psalms 56 are intended. And there are two ways whereby the psalmist asserts this matter: 1st. ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδμִ ?ι, verse 6, ‘ “The LORD is unto me, for me, on my side,” (as we render it,) in this contest.’2dly. ιְ ?δָֹ ?εδμִ ?ιαְּ ?ςֹ ?ζְ ?ψָ ?ι, verse 7, say we, “The LORD taketh my part with them that help me;” ‘the LORD is for me among the helpers.’Both these the apostle compriseth in this one, ἐμοὶβοηθός, “he is my helper.” Wherein the help of God in this case consists, we shall show immediately. In the meantime, it is certain that believers do stand in need of help in that contest which they have with the world. Of themselves they are not able to go through it with success. Yet have we no reason to fear an engagement in what is above our strength or ability, when we have such a reserve of aid and assistance; but in whatever befalls us, “we may say boldly, We will not fear.” For if God be on our side, “if God be for us, who shall be against us?” Let who so will be so, it is all one, the victory is secured on our side.[3. There is a double opposition in the words, giving an emphasis unto the sense of the whole: 1st. Between God and man. “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear what man can do.” And this “man” he calls “flesh,” Psalms 56., “what flesh can do.” 2dly. Between what God will do, “He will help;” and what men can do, expressed in the psalm by an interrogation in way of contempt, “What can flesh do to me?” that is, ‘whilst God is my helper.’[4. This help of God, which believers are assured of in their trials, and under their persecutions, is twofold. 1st. Internal, by supplies of grace, spiritual strength, and consolation, enabling them with a victorious frame of mind to go through all the difficulties and dangers of their conflict with a certain success;2dly. External, in actual deliverance, by the destruction of their adversaries: both which are frequently exemplified in the Scripture, and present experience.[5. There is a double contempt cast on the adversaries of the church: 1st. From their state: they are but “man,” — “what man can do;” which he calls “flesh” in the psalm, — a poor, contemptible, dying worm, compared with the eternal, infinitely powerful God.2dly. From his power: “What can he do?” whatever his will and his desires may be, in his power he is weak and impotent. And that which we are taught from hence is, —Obs. 9. That all believers, in their sufferings, and under their persecutions, have a refreshing, supporting interest in divine aid and assistance. — For the promises hereof are made unto them all equally in their suffering state, even as they were unto the prophets and apostles of old. And, —Obs. 10. It is their duty to express with confidence and boldness at all times their assurance of the divine assistance declared in the promises, to their own encouragement, the edification of the church, and the terror of their adversaries, Philippians 1:28.Obs. 11. Faith duly fixed on the power of God as engaged for the assistance of believers in their sufferings, will give them a contempt of all that men can do unto them.Obs. 12. The most effectual means to encourage our souls in all our sufferings, is to compare the power of God who will assist us, with that of man who doth oppress us — So is it prescribed by our blessed Savior, Matthew 10:28.Obs. 13. That which in our sufferings delivereth us from the fear of men, takes out all that is evil in them, and secures our success. From a prescription of the foregoing duties of morality, and obedience in them, the apostle proceeds unto those which concern faith and worship, laying the foundation of them in that respect which is due unto them that declare unto us the word of truth, for their work’s sake, and on the account of the example which they give unto us. Hebrews 13:7. — ΜνημονεύετετῶνἡγουμένωνὑμῶνΈοἵτινεςἐλάλησανὑμῖντὸνλόγοντοῦΘεοῦ·ὧνἀναθεωροῦντεςτὴνἔκβασιντῆςἀναστροφῆςμιμεῖσθετὴνπίστιν.῾Ηγουμένων. Vulg., “praepositorum.” Rhem., “your prelates;” but yet they interpret the words of saints departed, with such a usual inconsistency as prejudice and interest produce. Syr., “your leaders;” “ductoram,” “dueum.” We, “them that have the rule over you;” as indeed the word is sometimes used to express rule; but it is not proper unto this place, wherein the apostle speaks of them who are departed this life; and so, whatever they had, they have not still the rule over us. ᾿Αναθεωροῦντες, “intuentes,” “contemplantes,” “considerantes;” “looking into.” ῎Εχζασιν, “quis fuerit exitus,” “exitum;” “the end,” “the issue,” what it came to. The Syriac puts another sense on the words, “Search out the perfection of their conversation;” but to the same purpose.Hebrews 13:7. — Remember your guides, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation.That which the apostle designs in the following discourse, is perseverance in the faith and profession of the truth, in opposition unto an infection with, or inclination unto “various and strange doctrines,” as he expresseth it, verse 9. And this, in the first place, he commends unto them from the formal cause of it, or the word of God; and the instrumental cause of it in them, which is the preaching of it, and those that taught it. For this is the method of believing, faith cometh by hearing; hearing by the word of God; and the word of God by them that are sent to preach it, Romans 10:14-17. The duty prescribed hath a threefold object, or there are three distinct parts or considerations of its object: 1. The persons of some men, their “guides;”2. Their “faith;”3. Their “conversation,” with “the end of it.”And so there are three distinct parts of the duty respecting them distinctly: 1. To “remember them,” or their persons. 2. To “imitate their faith.”3. To “consider the end of their conversation.”1. We must consider who are the persons intended. Our translation makes them to be their present rulers, “Them which have the rule over you.” So Erasmus, “Eorum qui vobis praesunt.” But it is an evident mistake. That which seems to have led them into it is, that ἡγούμενος is a participle of the present tense. But it is most frequently used as a noun; and so it is here. But that their present rulers cannot be here intended, is evident, (1.) Because there is another precept given with respect unto them afterwards, verse 17, and that in words suited unto the duty which they owe them whilst alive and present with them: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.”(2.) He describes them as those which had formerly spoken unto them the word of God, and not as those who yet continued so to do.(3.) They were such as had received ἔκβασινἀναστροφῆς, “the event and end of their conversation” in this world.῾Ηγέομαι, is duco, arbitror, existimo; “to think, to esteem,” or “to judge:” and so it is constantly used in the New Testament. But it also signifies praesum, praeeo, duco; “to go before,” “to rule,” “to lead.” And ἡγούμενοι is variously used: sometimes for a ruler, Matthew 2:6, Acts 7:10 : sometimes for a principal person among others; so Judas and Silas are called ἄνδραςἡγουμένουςἐντοῖςἀδελφοῖς, Acts 15:22, — “chief men among the brethren;” which one would have to be bishops over them, very absurdly, for they are reckoned among those brethren of the church who were distinguished from the apostles and elders: and sometimes for them that are chief in any work; so it is said that Paul, when he spake with Barnabas, was ὁἡγούμενοςτοῦλόγου, “the chief speaker,” Acts 14:12, — who was chief or forwardest in speaking. It is used in this chapter only, Hebrews 13:7; Hebrews 13:17; Hebrews 13:24, for an officer or officers in the church; — that is, such as go before, who guide and direct the church; which is the nature of their office. That is, bishops, pastors, elders, that preside in the church, guide it, and go before it; for they have such a rule as consists principally in spiritual guidance.By the description following, it is evident that the apostle intends all that had spoken or preached the word of God unto them, whether apostles, evangelists, or pastors, who had now finished their course; not with any respect unto James, as some think, for he was yet alive, as appears, Hebrews 12:4. Nor doth the apostle, in this case of retaining the truth, give any direction for peculiar regard to Peter, much less to his chair or successors; but unto all that had spoken the word of God unto them.2. What it is so to remember them, to be mindful of them, to bear them in our minds and memories. And this is done two ways:(1.) Naturally; to retain them in our minds, as those whom we highly value and prize. So we are commanded to bear ourselves towards them whilst they are alive; namely, to “esteem them very highly in love, for their work’s sake,” 1 Thessalonians 5:13. And the same respect we are to have for them when they have finished their work. Suddenly to forget them, is an evidence that we have not profited by their labors as we ought to have done.(2.) It is to retain them in our minds morally, with respect to the ends here mentioned. A bare remembrance of them is of little or no use. But to remember them in what they did and taught, so as to follow them in their faith and conversation, this is a duty of no small advantage unto us.In process of time the latter of these, namely, to remember them so as to follow them in their faith and holiness, was much lost among the professors of the Christian religion. But the former was retained, and new ways invented for the continuation of it, which ended in various superstitions. For there were found out unto this end certain religious celebrations of the supposed times of their deaths, with assemblings at their tombs; wherein they placed much devotion, not without a great mixture of heathenish rites; which issued at length in prayer, adoration, and sundry acts of religious worship. But no such thing is here enjoined; — no prayers for them nor to them; no dedications of temples or altars unto their memory; no preservation, much less adoration, of their relics or bones, nor ascription of miraculous cures or operations unto them; yea, the apostle, limiting the end of our remembrance of them unto our imitation of their faith and holiness, doth sufficiently condemn all these superstitions. Obs. 1. This, therefore, is our best, this is our only way of remembering them who have been our guides, leaders, and rulers, in the church, whether they have been apostles, or evangelists, or ordinary pastors, namely, to follow them in their faith and conversation. And, —Obs. 2. This ought to be the care of the guides of the church, namely, to leave such an example of faith and holiness, as that it. may be the duty of the church to remember them, and follow their example. Alas! how many have we had, how many have we, who have left, or are likely to leave, nothing to be remembered by, but what it is the duty of the church to abhor! how many whose uselessness leads them into everlasting oblivion!3. The apostle gives the character of the persons whom he would have them remember; and they are “those who had spoken to them the word of God.” This is the characteristical note of church guides or rulers. Those who do not labor herein unto the edification of the church, let them pretend what they will, are no such guides or rulers, nor are so esteemed by Christ or the church; nor is the remembrance of them any duty. The “word of God” in this place, is the written word, and what is contained therein. Probably some parts of the Scripture, as the epistles of John, and the second of Peter, and certainly the Revelation, were written after this epistle. But what was then written was a sufficient, and the sole rule of faith unto the church. Yet I will not deny but that the vocal speaking of the word of God, by virtue of new revelations in them who were divinely inspired, as the apostles and evangelists, may be comprised herein. And whereas the word of the gospel is principally intended, this speaking may comprise the apostolical writings as well as their vocal preaching. For in and by them they spake, that is, delivered and declared unto them, the word of God, 1 Thessalonians 2:13. What they wrote, what they taught, by divine revelation, what others taught out of their writings and other scriptures, is this word of God. Obs. 3. This word of God is the sole object of the faith of the church, the only outward means of communicating the mind and grace of God unto it. Wherefore upon it, the being, life, and blessedness of the church do depend. — And it is that alone that is to be spoken in and unto it, in all things appertaining unto faith, obedience, or worship, even the whole discipline of Christ. To speak of traditions, canons of councils, human institutions of any sort, unto the church, belongs not unto them who have the rule of it. This they are confined unto in their whole work; nor is the church obliged to attend unto them in any thing else.As they preached nothing but the word of God, so the expression intimates their diligence therein. They “gave themselves unto prayer and the word.” And this is the ground, the cause of the respect that is due from the church unto its guides, and this alone; namely, that they have diligently, carefully, and constantly, spoken the word of God unto them, and instructed them in the way of life thereby. 4. This remembrance of our guides is prescribed with reference unto the duty of following their faith: “Whose faith follow;” — ‘So mind them and their work, in preaching the word of God, as to follow or imitate them in their faith.’Μιμέομαι is “to imitate;” that is, lively to express an example proposed unto us. And it is the word used by the apostle unto that end which we translate “to follow,” 2 Thessalonians 3:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; as μιμητής is constantly for the person performing that duty, which we render a “follower,” 1 Corinthians 4:16; 1 Corinthians 11:1; Ephesians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Hebrews 6:12. So the word is applied unto painting, when one picture is exactly drawn by another, so as in all things to represent it. Hence one wrote under his excellent piece, Μωμήσεταίτιςμᾶλλονἣμιμήσεται, — “It is easier to envy it than to imitate it,” or do the like. So poets and players are said μιμεῖσθαι, “to imitate” the persons whom they represent; and the more accurately they do it, the more exact are they esteemed in their arts. I mention it only to show that there is more intimated in this word than “to follow” in the usual sense seems to express. It is such a following as wherein we are fully conformed unto, and do lively express, that which we are said so to follow. So a scholar may be said to follow his master, when, having attained all his arts and sciences, he acts them in the same manner as his master did. So are we to follow the faith of these guides. Their faith may be considered two ways: (1.) Objectively, for the faith which they taught, believed, and professed, or the truth which they did believe.(2.) Subjectively, for the grace of faith in them, whereby they believed that truth. And it is here taken in the latter sense; for their faith in the other sense is not to be imitated, but professed. Nor doth the apostle, by their faith, intend only the grace of faith in them, but its whole exercise, in all that they did and suffered. Their faith was that which purified their hearts, and made them fruitful in their lives. Especially, it was that whereby they glorified God in all that they did and suffered for the name of Jesus Christ. Wherefore saith the apostle, ‘Remember them; and in so doing, remember their faith, with what it enabled them to do and suffer for the gospel, — their faith in its principle, and all the blessed effects of it.’In the principle, this faith is the same, as unto the nature of it, in all true believers, whether they are rulers or under rule, 2 Peter 1:1. But it differs in its fruits and effects. In these they were eminent. And therefore are the Hebrews here enjoined to secure it in its principle, and to express it in its exercise, even as they did.Herein are we to imitate and follow them. No mere man, not the best of men, is to be our pattern or example absolutely, or in all things, — this honor is due unto Christ alone; but they may be so, we ought to make them so, with respect unto those graces and duties wherein they were eminent. So the apostle proposeth himself as an example to believers, 1 Corinthians 4:16; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:6 : but with this limitation, as he followed Christ, 1 Corinthians 11:1. And, —Obs. 4. A due consideration of the faith of those who have been before us, especially of such who were constant in sufferings, above all, that were so unto death, as the holy martyrs in former and latter ages, is an effectual means to stir us up unto the same exercise of faith, when we are called unto it. And if the imitation of former ages had kept itself within these bounds, they had been preserved from those excesses whereby at length all the memory of them was corrupted and polluted. 5. The last thing in the words, is the motive that the apostle gives unto this duty of following their faith; which ariseth from the consideration of the “end of their conversation,” or what, through their faith, they came or were brought unto. ‘They have,’saith he, ‘finished their course in this world.’ What was their “conversation,” what was the “end” of it, and how it was to be “considered,” and wherein the so doing was a motive to “follow their faith,” lies before us in these words.(1.) ᾿Αναστροφή is the word constantly used in the New Testament to express the way or course of men’s walking and converse in the world, with respect unto moral duties, and the whole of the obedience which God requires of them; which we usually call their “conversation.” And it is used concerning that which is bad and to be disallowed, as well as that which is good and approved. But usually when it is used in the first sense, it hath some discriminating epithet joined with it, as “evil,” “vain,” or “former,” Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 4:22; 1 Peter 1:18. In a good sense we have it, 1 Timothy 4:12; James 3:13; 1 Peter 1:15; 1 Peter 3:2; 1 Peter 3:16. This is that which God enjoins in the covenant: “Walk before me, and be thou upright” Our “conversation” is our walk before God in all duties of obedience.(2.) This conversation of theirs had now received its ἔκβασις. The word is but once more used, and then we render it “an escape:” Σὺντῷπειρασμᾷκαὶτὴνἔκβασιν, 1 Corinthians 10:13; — “Together with the temptation an escape,” or “a way to escape.” It is not therefore merely an “end” that is intended: nor doth the word signify a common end, issue, or event of things; but an end accompanied with a deliverance from, and so a conquest over, such difficulties and dangers as men were before exposed unto. These persons, in the whole course of their conversation, were exercised with difficulties, dangers, and sufferings, all attempting to stop them in their way, or to turn them out of it. But what did it all amount unto, — what was the issue of their conflict? It was a blessed deliverance from all troubles, and conquest over them. And it is not so much their conversation, as this end of it, which the apostle here calls them unto the consideration of; which yet cannot be done without a right consideration of the conversation itself. Consider what it came to. Their faith failed not, their hope did not perish, they were not disappointed, but had a blessed end of their walk and course. (3.) This they are advised to “consider,” ἀναθεωροῦντες. The word is but once more used in the New Testament, where the apostle applies it to express the consideration which he took of the devotion or the altars of the Athenians, Acts 17:23. He looked diligently on them, again and again, with a reiterated inspection, to read and take notice of their inscriptions; which required a curious and careful consideration. Such is here spoken of; not consisting in some slight, transient thoughts, with which we usually pass over such things, but a repeated, reiterated contemplation of the matter, with its causes and circumstances. (4.) And in the last place, by their so doing they would be stirred up to follow their faith. It was a motive to them so to do. For their faith it was which carried them through all their difficulties and all their temptations, and gave them a blessed issue out of them all. See James 5:10-11. Vulg., “Jesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in seculum;” “Jesus Christ, yesterday and to-day,” (where it placeth the comma,)” and he [is] the same for ever.” So Beza; “Jesus Christ yesterday, and to-day, and he is the same for ever.” Others, better, “Jesus Christus heri et hodie, idem etiam est in secula.” So the Syriac, εְ ?δεּ ?ιεּ εַ ?μְ ?ςָ ?μַ ?ν, “is the same, and for ever.” [3] [3] . — This is a distinct sentence, in which the substantive verb is understood. It is often read as if in grammatical construction with the preceding verse, and Jesus Christ were “the end” there mentioned. But the different cases of the two words in the Greek show that this is a mistake. — Turner. Ebrard understands it as a motive to enforce the exhortation in verse 7, enjoinining the imitation of deceased rulers in the church, and adopts the interpretation of Calvin, “The same Christ, trusting in whom those died, still lives to-day, and is also our consolation.” — ED. Hebrews 13:8. — Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Two things are to be considered in these words: first, the occasion of them; and then their sense and meaning. And as unto the occasion of their use in this place, some think that they refer to what went before, in confirmation of it; some unto what follows after, as a direction in it; and some observe their usefulness unto both these ends. But this will be the more clearly discovered when the sense of them is agreed upon. For to me they appear as a glorious light which the apostle sets up to guide our minds in the consideration of his whole discourse, that we may see whence it all proceeds, and whereunto it tends. He is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginner and finisher of our faith, as we shall see. There are various interpretations of the words; of these especially, “yesterday” and “to-day. By “to-day,” all understand the present time, or the time during the dispensation of the gospel. By “yesterday,” Enjedinus says that a short time before is intended; — that which was of late, namely, since the birth of Christ, at most; which was not long before. He is followed by Schlichtingius and all the Socinians. Than this there cannot be a more absurd sense given of the words For when we say of any one that he is of yesterday, χθὲςκαὶπρώην, it is spoken of him in contempt. “We are of yesterday, and know nothing,” Job 8:9. But the design of the apostle is to utter that which tends to the honor of Christ, and not unto his diminution. And the Scripture expressions of him unto this purpose are constantly of another nature. “He was in the beginning, he was with God, and he was God;” “The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way;” “Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” The same Holy Spirit doth not say of him he is of yesterday, — a new god, whom their fathers knew not. Nor is such an intimation of any use unto the purpose of the apostle. Grotius, and he that follows him, would have “yesterday” to denote the time wherein the rulers before mentioned did live, as “today” is the present time of these Hebrews. But this sense also is jejune, and nothing to the mind of the apostle, invented only for an evasion from the testimony supposed to be here given unto the eternity of the person of Christ; which I wonder the other did not observe, who follows not Grotius in such things. “Yesterday,” say some, is used here not only for all time that is past, but unto the spring of it in eternity; as “to-day” signifies the whole course of time to the end of the world; and “for ever,” that everlasting state that doth ensue. Neither is this unconsonant unto what the Scripture affirms of Christ in other places. See the exposition on Hebrews 1:10-12.By “yesterday,” some understand the time of the old testament, that dispensation of God and his grace that was now ceased, and become like the day that is past. And a day it was, Hebrews 3; and it was now as yesterday. And so “to-day” denotes the times of the gospel. Neither is there any thing in this interpretation that is uncompliant with the analogy of faith. But clearly to comprehend the mind of the Holy Ghost herein, sundry things are to be observed; as, 1. That it is the person of Jesus Christ that is spoken of. Nor is this whole name, Jesus Christ, ever used unto any other purpose but to signify his person. It is false, therefore, that it is here taken metonymically for his doctrine, or the gospel; nor is such a sense any way to the purpose of the apostle.2. Where the person of Christ is intended, there his divine nature is always included; for Christ is God and man in one person.3. The apostle speaks not of the person of Christ absolutely, but with respect unto his office, and his discharge of it; or he declares who and what he was therein.4. It is from his divine person, that, in the discharge of his office, he was ὁαὐτὸς, “the same.” So it is said of him, Σὺδὲὁαὐτὸςει῏ Hebrews 1:12, — “But thou art the same;” that is, eternal, immutable, indeficient. See the exposition of that place. 5. Being so in himself, he is so in his office from first to last; so that, although divers alterations were made in the institutions of divine worship, and there were many degrees and parts of divine revelation, yet in and through them all Jesus Christ was still the same. Wherefore,6. There is no need to affix a determinate, distinct sense, as unto the notation of time, unto each word, as “yesterday,” “to-day,” and “for ever;” the apostle designing, by a kind of proverbial speech, wherein respect is had unto all seasons, to denote the eternity and immutability of Christ in them all. To the same purpose he is said to be ὁὧν, καὶὁη῏ν, καὶὁἐρχόμενος, Revelation 1:4; — “he who is, and who was, and who is to come.”7. This, then, is the sense of these words: Jesus Christ, in every state of the church, in every condition of believers, is the same unto them, being always the same in his divine person; and will be so unto the consummation of all things. He is, he ever was, all and in all unto the church. He is “the same,” the author, object, and finisher of faith; the preserver and rewarder of them that believe, and that equally in all generations.Our last inquiry is concerning the connection of these words with the other parts of the apostle’s discourse, and what is the use of the interposition of this assertion in this place. And it is agreed that it may have respect either unto what goes before, or what follows after, or unto both. And this we may comply with; though, as I observed before, there is a great appearance that it stands absolutely by itself, as directing believers, on all occasions of duty such as he insists on, whither they should retreat and repair in their minds for direction, relief, and supportment; namely, unto Jesus Christ, who is always the same for these ends. Whatever difficulties they may meet withal in the duties of their evangelical profession, let them but remember who it is that is concerned in them and with them, and it will give them both strength and encouragement. But the words have a seasonable respect unto what goeth before, and what follows after them. In the preceding verse (for we have no reason to look higher in this series of duties, independent one on another) the Hebrews are enjoined to persevere in the faith of their first apostolical teachers, and to have the same faith in themselves as they had. Now, whereas they had by their faith a blessed and victorious end of their whole conversation, they might consider, that Jesus Christ, who is always the same in himself, would likewise be the same to them, to give them the like blessed end of their faith and obedience. As he was when they believed in him, so he is now unto them; because he is in himself always the same, and forever. No greater encouragement could be given them unto diligence in this duty: ‘You shall find Christ unto you what he was unto them.’As unto that part of his discourse which follows, it is a dehortation from strange doctrines and the observation of Judaical ceremonies. And unto both parts of it this declaration of the nature and office of Christ is subservient. For here a rule is fixed as unto trial of all doctrines, namely, the acknowledgment of Christ in his person and office; which in the like case is given us by the apostle 1 John 4:2-3. Let this foundation be laid, Whatever complies with the revelation hereof is true and genuine; what doth not, is various and strange. And as unto the other part of the dehortation, ‘To what end,’saith the apostle, ‘should men trouble themselves with the distinction of meats, and the like Mosaical observances, whereas in the time wherein they were enjoined they were in themselves of no advantage, though for a season they had their especial ends? for it was Christ alone that even then was all unto the church, as unto its acceptance with God.’And so I hope we have restored these words unto their sense and use. And we may observe, that, — Obs. 1. The due consideration of Jesus Christ, especially in his eternity, immutability, and indeficiency in his power, as he is always the same, is the great encouragement of believers in their whole profession of the faith, and all the difficulties they may meet withal upon the account thereof.Obs. 2. As no changes formerly made in the institutions of divine worship altered any thing in the faith of the church with respect unto Christ, for he was, and is still the same; so no necessitudes we may meet withal in our profession, by oppression or persecution, ought in the least to shake us, for Christ is still the same, to protect, relieve, and deliver us. Obs. 3. He that can in the way of his duty on all occasions retreat unto Jesus Christ, and the due consideration of his person in the discharge of his office, will not fail of relief, supportment, and consolation. Obs. 4. A steadfast cleaving unto the truth concerning the person and office of Christ, will preserve us from hearkening to various and strange doctrines perverting our souls. And, —Obs. 5. Jesus Christ from the beginning of the world was the object of the faith of the church; that is, from the giving of the first promise. And, —Obs. 6. It is the immutability and eternity of Jesus Christ in his divine person that renders him a meet object of the faith of the church in the discharge of his office.All which truths are contained in this assertion of the apostle, with the occasion and use of it in this place. The ensuing context, from hence unto the 17th verse, seems abstruse, and the reasonings of the apostle in it not easy to be apprehended. But expositors do generally overlook it, and attend only unto the exposition of the parts of it severally by themselves. To find out the mind of the Holy Ghost in the whole, we must consider the design of the apostle in it, and how he deduces one thing from another. These things, therefore, we must inquire into; and thereby the way will be prepared for the exposition of the several parts of the discourse itself. And we must take our rise from the occasion of it. 1. There was at this time not only an obstinate adherence unto Mosaical ceremonies amongst many of the Jews who professed the gospel, but also an endeavor to re-enforce their necessity, and to impose their observation upon others. These things the apostle opposeth in the whole epistle; and on the occasion of the mention of Christ with his unchangeableness in the church, he adds in this place a dehortation in general from a continuance in the observance of those rites, or reaching after doctrines concerning them; such as were taught amongst the Gentiles by some out of Judea, Acts 15:1. 2. He adds a reason of this dehortation and warning; which is, their inconsistency with the gospel, the nature of Christian religion, and that great principle of it, namely, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to- day, and for ever.” And he proceedeth herein on sundry acknowledged principles, which he supposeth or expresseth.(1.) He supposeth that the spring of all their observances about meats, eating or not eating, and consequently of the other rites of the same nature, was from the altar. With respect thereunto was the determination of things clean and unclean. For what might be offered on the altar, was clean; and what might not, was not so. And sundry laws there are of what may be eaten of the sacrifices by the priests, and what might not.(2.) That the foundation of religion lies in an altar; for it doth so in an atonement for sin made in it, or upon it. And by it is all our worship to be offered unto God; nor can it be otherwise accepted with him. Wherefore he affirms that we also have an altar; yet not of such a nature as that from thence any distinction of meats should ensue, Hebrews 12:10. (3.) That whatever be the benefits of this altar of ours, the way of the participation of them is not the administration of the services of the old tabernacle; nor could they who administered therein claim a title or right unto them by virtue of any divine institution, but if they rested in that administration, they were excluded from them.3. He adds the reason hereof, taken from the nature of our altar, and the sacrifice thereon; which is a sacrifice of expiation, to sanctify the people by blood. And in the very type of it, it was declared that there was no right of eating or distinction of meats to ensue thereon. For in the solemn sacrifices of expiation and atonement, as we shall see, the blood of them was carried into the holy place, and the bodies of them were burned entirely without the camp, so as that the priests themselves had no right to eat any thing of them, Hebrews 12:11-12. 4. In answer hereunto, the Lord Christ, who is himself both our altar and our sacrifice, in the offering of himself, carried his own blood, in the efficacy of it for atonement, into the holy place of heaven; and suffered in his body “without the gate,” or in the place answering unto that without the camp wherein the bodies of the beasts that were sacrificed were burned, Hebrews 12:12. So that there is no place now left for eating, or distinction of meats. Yea, —5. Hereby a new state of religion, answerable unto the nature of this altar and sacrifice, is introduced, wherewith those observances which depended on the nature and use of the altar at the tabernacle were utterly inconsistent. Wherefore, whoever adhered unto them did therein renounce this altar of ours, and the religion founded thereon; for none can have an interest in two altars at the same time, of such different natures, and drawing after them such different religious observations. And, —6. He adds, in the last place, what we are to learn from the nature and use of our altar and sacrifice, in opposition unto the meats which belonged to the old typical altar. And hereof he instanceth in patient bearing of the cross, or suffering for Christ, verse 13; self-denial, as unto any interest in temporal enjoyments, verse 14; the continual worship of God in and by spiritual sacrifices, made acceptable in Christ, our altar, priest, and sacrifice, verse 15; and usefulness amongst men in all good works of piety and charity, verse 16; these being the only sacrifices that we are now called unto. I hope we have not missed the apostle’s design and reasoning in this analysis of his discourse; which makes his sublime way of arguing in this great mystery plain and evident, and gives us a safe rule for the interpretation of every particular passage in it. Hebrews 13:9. — Διδαχαῖςποικιλαιςκαὶξέναιςμὴπεριφέρεσθε·καλὸνγὰρχάριτιβεβαιοῦσθαιτὴνκαρδίαν, οὐβρώμασιν, ἐνοἷςοὐκὠφελήθησανοἱπεριπατήσαντες.Hebrews 13:9. — Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines; for [it is] good that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have walked in them.There is an inference in these words from what was before asserted concerning the immutability of Christ, and his continuing the same in the church forever; and several things are included in it. 1. A supposition that the truth concerning the person and office of Christ, whereon all other evangelical truths and duties do depend, had been once delivered unto the Hebrews, by them that had spoken unto them the word of God; of whom mention is made Hebrews 13:7.2. That this doctrine is one; whence in the church there is but “one faith,” Ephesians 4:3-6; and that “once delivered unto the saints,” Jude 1:3, in the revelation made of it by Christ and the apostles, Hebrews 2:3-4. Hence whatever agrees not with it, that proceeds not from it, is uncertain, foreign and alien unto the faith of the church. 3. That by this doctrine the hearts of believers were established in peace with God, and assurance of their acceptance with him.4. That as there were direct oppositions made unto this doctrine by the obstinate Jews at that time, so there were amongst those who outwardly professed the Christian religion sundry doctrines broached and maintained that were indeed inconsistent with that one faith, and served to no end but to entangle the minds of believers, and at length to turn them off from the gospel. 5. That experience had already evinced the folly of those new doctrines, inasmuch as the things which they led unto were of no use unto the souls of men. And, —6. In particular, this was the state of those doctrines about Mosaical institutions in the distinction of meats, and things of an alike nature, which many false teachers did then press upon them with great noise and earnestness.This is the design and substance of the apostle’s discourse in this verse, which we shall now consider in particular. The words contain a dehortation from an evil, with the reason or enforcement of it. First, The dehortation is in these words, “Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.” And we must inquire what these “strange doctrines” were; and what it is to be “carried about” with them. 1. It is evident that the doctrines intended were such as did then infest the churches of the Hebrews; others they were not in present danger of. And this is manifest in the especial instance given about meats. And they are called “various,” as it may be on other accounts, (as we shall see,) so because they were not reducible unto that “one faith” which was “once delivered unto the saints.” And they are called “strange,” or “alien,” as being of another kind than they, no way related unto them.And it may be they are said to be “various,” because they had no consistency nor agreement among themselves. For so some think that the apostle had respect unto the doctrines which were controverted in the schools of the Jews, between the followers of Hillel on the one side, and Shammai on the other. But these they kept within themselves, and never troubled the Christian churches withal. Howbeit, because the Jews placed much of their religion in these doctrines, and their contests about them, it may be the apostle here reflects on them, as he doth in other places, Titus 1:14; Titus 3:9; 1 Timothy 1:4. But I rather think he calls them “various” from their object. They were about various things. So he calls, by another word of the same signification, the Jewish rites, “divers” or “various washings,” Hebrews 9:10. The things were many and various, and so were the doctrines concerning them; which are since multiplied in their Talmud and other writings, into such a heap of confusion as is inexpressible. Or he calls them “various,” as those which took off the mind from its stability, tossing it up and down in all uncertainties; as variety of doctrines is apt to do. When once men begin to give ear unto such doctrines, they lose all the rest and composure of their minds; as we see by experience. And they are “strange,” as being concerning things foreign to the gospel, that are uncompliant with the nature and genius of it. Such are all doctrines about religious ceremonies, and the scrupulous observation of them; for “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” Romans 14:17.2. With respect unto these doctrines, the charge in the dehortation is, that they should not be “carried about” with them. To the same purpose he useth the same word, Ephesians 4:14, “Tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” There is an allusion unto ships, and the impression of the wind upon them; for the word joined with this here used, κλυδωνιζόμενος, signifies one that is tossed on the waves of the sea when they are agitated by the wind. And a similitude it is lively expressing both the nature of these strange doctrines, the way of spreading of them, and their effects on the minds of men. In themselves they are light and vain as the wind, or “clouds without water, carried about of winds.” And those who would impose them on others commonly do it with a great and vehement blustering. ‘You must be circumcised, or you cannot be saved!’ as Acts 15:1. ‘Unless you believe and practice these things, you are heretics, or schismatics, and cannot be saved!’All imposition of doctrine is with such a noise and wind. And the effects of them on the minds of men are as those of contrary winds at sea. They toss men up and down; they turn them out of their course, and endanger their destruction. So is it with these doctrines: First, they fill the minds of men with uncertainties, as unto what they have believed, and as unto what is proposed unto them; and then, for the most part, they alter the whole course of their profession; and lastly, endanger their eternal ruin. All these are fully exemplified in the instance of the Galatian churches, which were carried about with these strange doctrines. See Galatians 1:6-7; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 4:9-11; Galatians 5:1-5. Throughout that whole epistle the evil here cautioned against is evidently exemplified.And there are many weighty directions intimated and included in these words, for the use of the church at all seasons; as, — Obs. 1. That there is a revelation of truth given unto the church in the word of God; which is the only doctrinal foundation and rule of faith unto it.Obs. 2. That this doctrine is cognate, and every way suited unto the promotion of the grace of God in believers, and the attainment of their own salvation.Obs. 3. That doctrines unsuited unto this first revelation by Christ and his apostles, as recorded in the Scripture, — alien and foreign from them, — did soon spring up, unto the trouble of the church; they had done so in those days, and continued to do so in all ensuing ages.Obs. 4. That usually such doctrines as are empty of truth and substance, useless and foreign to the nature and genius of evangelical grace and truth, are imposed by their authors and abettors with great noise and vehemency on those who have been instructed in the truth.Obs. 5. Where such doctrines are entertained, they make men double-minded, unstable, turning them from the truth, and drawing them at length into perdition.Obs. 6. The ruin of the church in after ages arose from the neglect of this apostolical caution, in giving heed unto various and strange doctrines; which at length overthrew and excluded the fundamental doctrines of the gospel.Obs. 7. Herein lies the safety of all believers, and all churches, namely, to keep themselves precisely unto the first complete revelation of divine truth in the word of God. — Let men pretend what they will, and bluster whilst they please, in an adherence unto this principle we are safe; and if we depart from it, we shall be hurried and carried about through innumerable uncertainties unto ruin.Secondly, The remaining words give a reason and enforcement of this charge. So the conjunctive particle, “for,” doth declare. And a particular instance is given of those doctrines which he had warned them about, namely, “meats.” And in the words there is, 1. An end proposed which ought to be aimed at in the profession of religion; and that is, “the establishment of the heart.”2. Two ways mentioned whereby, as is pleaded, it may be attained; and they are “grace” and “meats.” 3. A preference given herein unto grace: “It is good that the heart be established with grace, not with meats.”4. A reason is added hereof from the insufficiency of meats unto that purpose: “They have not profited them that walked in them.” All which must be opened.1. The end to be aimed at in the profession of religion, is, that “the heart be established.” The “heart,” that is, of every believer, and so of them all Βεβαιόω is to “confirm,” to “establish;” and is applied both to things and persons. So the word of the gospel is said to be “confirmed” or “established by signs,” Mark 16:20; and the testimony of Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:6; and the promises, by their accomplishment, Romans 15:8. And so it is applied unto persons, 1 Corinthians 1:8, “confirm” or “establish you;” “he that stablisheth us,” 2 Corinthians 1:21; and we are said to be “established in the faith,” Colossians 2:7 : in all which places the same word is used. And “the heart” is here taken for the mind, the soul or spirit, as is usual in the Scripture. Wherefore, to have “the established,” is to be so confirmed in the faith, as to have these two effects wrought thereby:(1.) A fixed persuasion of the mind in the truth; — a just, firm settlement of mind in the assurance of it. This is opposed unto a being “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” Ephesians 4:14. And hereunto it is required that the pure doctrine of the gospel be embraced.(2.) That through the truth the heart do enjoy peace with God; which alone will establish it, giving it firmitude and rest in every condition. It is to be kept in perfect peace, with the mind stayed on God. This is that which we ought to aim at in and by religion Hereby the mind comes to assured peace; which nothing can give but grace, as we shall see. And hereby the heart is rendered unmovable, 1 Corinthians 15:58.2. The heart is thus “established by grace.” “Grace” is a word of various significations. There is one who hath reckoned up a great number of places to prove that by grace the gospel is signified, whereof scarce any one doth prove it. The gospel is indeed sometimes called “the word of God’s grace;” and sometimes it may be metonymically grace, as being the means of the revelation of the grace of God, and the instrument of the communication of it unto believers, “the power of God unto salvation.” Wherefore “grace” here, is the free grace of God in Christ Jesus, for the justification and sanctification of the church, as it is revealed in the gospel. The revelation of it in the gospel is included, but it is the grace of God himself that is principally intended. In brief, “grace” here is to be taken comprehensively, for the grace, good-will, and love of God towards men, as it came by Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in the gospel as the cause of our justification and acceptance with God, in opposition unto the works of the law and the observance of Mosaical rites unto that end. This is the most eminent signification of “grace,” with respect unto the expiation of our sins in the blood of Christ, and the pardon of them thereon, revealed and tendered unto us in the gospel. This is that alone which doth, which can, which will, establish the heart of a sinner in peace with God, Romans 5:1; which will keep it from being moved or tossed up and down with a sense of the guilt of sin, or divine displeasure.That which is opposed hereunto, with respect unto the same end, is meats, “Not with meats.” Not that the heart may be established by meats also; for this the apostle denies in the next words. The meaning is, not that there are indeed two ways whereby the heart may be established, the one by grace, the other by meats; but that grace is the only way thereof, though some foolishly pretended that it might be done by meats. That by “meats,” in this case, the apostle doth constantly intend the religious distinction of meats among the Jews, is openly evident. See Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 8:8; Colossians 2:16; Hebrews 9:10. There is no reason, therefore, to question but that this is the sense of it in this place. And as in other places, so here, by a synecdoche, the whole system of Mosaical institutions is intended, but expressed by “meats,” because of their immediate relation unto the altar, whereof the apostle designs to speak.All distinction of meats among the Jews, as was before observed, arose from the altar. And those meats were of two sorts; such as were enjoined or prohibited by way of duty, and such as were obtained by way of privilege. Of the first sort was the distinction of meats, clean and unclean. For when the apostle speaks of meats, he doth not intend only the eating of meats in a particular way and manner, (though, as we shall see, he intends that also,) but an abstinence also from eating of meats, by virtue of divine prohibition; concerning which were those legal institutions which the apostle expresseth by “Touch not, taste not, handle not,” Colossians 2:21. And in these abstinences from meats the Jews placed so much of their religion, that they would rather die by the cruelest tortures than eat flesh prohibited by the law; and that justly and according to their duty, whilst the divine prohibition was yet in force. And this distinction of meats arose from the altar. The beasts that might be offered at the altar in sacrifice were clean: for therein the first-fruits, or principal part, being dedicated unto God, the whole of the kind became clean unto the people. And what had not the privilege of the altar, was prohibited unto the people. Again, there were meats that were obtained by privilege; and such were the portions taken from the sacrifices, that the priests, and in some cases (as of the thank-offering, Leviticus 7:11-15) other clean persons, might and did eat, by divine institution. And these kinds of meats depended solely on the altar. This institution is mentioned only to show the ground of the apostle’s rejecting all these kinds of meats on this consideration, that we have an altar of another sort, whereon no such institutions do depend, nor can any such differences in meats arise.And hence we may see the reason why the Jews laid so much weight on these meats, namely, because the taking of them away, the distinction about them and the privilege of them, did declare that their altar, which was the life and center of their religion, was of no more use. And hence we may also see the reason of the apostle’s different treating with them in this matter. For speaking of meats in themselves, and in their own nature, he declares that the use or forbearing of them is a thing indifferent, wherein every one is to be left unto his own liberty, to be regulated only by offense or scandal (see Romans 14 throughout); but when he treats of them as unto a necessary observation, as deriving from the altar, he utterly condemns them, and shows that their observance did evacuate the gospel, Galatians 2; Colossians 2:16-23.From this apprehension of their derivation from the altar, the Judaizing Christians had a conceit that they were of use to establish the heart; that is, had an influence into our justification and peace with God. This the apostle here rejects; as he vehemently disputes against it in his whole epistle to the Galatians. 3. The next thing in the words is the way whereby the apostle assigns this whole effect of establishing the heart unto grace, and wholly takes it away from meats, or the manner of the expression used by him, “It is good,” etc. The meaning is, the heart is to be established; and that not only as unto the essence of that duty, or grace, but as unto such degrees of it as may safeguard and preserve it from being “carried about with various and strange doctrines,” or otherwise shaken as unto its peace. ‘This is good, this is excellent,’saith the apostle, ‘when it is done by grace; this is approved of God; this it is our duty to labor after.’And in this positive the comparative is included (the Vulgate renders it by the superlative, “optimus”), — it is so good and excellent as to be far better than a false, pretended settlement by meats. And this the apostle proves in the last place, from the insufficiency of meats unto that end, taken from experience. 4. “Which have not profited them who have walked in them.” To walk in meats, is to assent unto and observe the doctrine concerning them — “Touch not, taste not, handle not.” And he speaketh of the time past, both whilst the distinction of meats was in force, and since it was taken away. For of themselves they profited not those who observed them, even whilst the institutions concerning them were in force; for they were a part of the“yoke” that was imposed on them “until the time of reformation,” Hebrews 9:10. And so far as they were trusted unto as a means of acceptance with God, they were pernicious unto them: which the apostle by a common figure intimates, in that “they did not profit them;” that is, they tended to their hurt. And it was much more so with them who continued to walk in them after the obligation thereunto did cease. They were so far from having their hearts established, as that they received no benefit or advantage, but much hurt and prejudice, by them. And we see, — Obs. 8. That those who decline in any thing from grace, as the only means to establish their hearts in peace with God, shall labor and exercise themselves in other things and ways unto the same end, whereby they shall receive no advantage. — And this is the state of all false worshippers in the world, especially in the papal church, and those that follow its example.Hebrews 13:10. — ῎Εχομενθυσιαστήριον, ἐξοὗφαγεῖνοὐκἔχουσινἐξουσίανοἱτῇσκηνῇλατρεύοντες.Hebrews 13:10. — We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle. The design of the context and the coherence of the words have in general been spoken unto before. The introduction of them, at first view, seems to be abrupt; but whereas he had spoken in the foregoing verse about meats, treating here about a right to eat or not, it is evident that he hath a respect thereunto. Wherefore, having asserted the only way of the establishment of the heart in peace with God, and the uselessness of all distinctions of meats unto that purpose, he here declareth the foundation of the truth on the one side and the other. For whereas the sole ground of all distinction of meats and other ceremonies among the Jews, was the altar in the tabernacle, with its nature, use, and services; he lets them know that that altar being now removed, and taken away, we have an altar of another nature, which requireth and produceth services quite of another kind than those which arose from the altar of old, such as he describes, Hebrews 13:13-15. This is the direct design of the apostle in this place, and the proper analysis of his words. There is in the words, 1. An assertion, “We have an altar.”2. A. limitation of its use, by a rejection of them who had a right unto the privileges of the old altar, “Whereof those have no right,” etc.1. “We have;” — that is, ‘We also, who believe in Christ according to the gospel, and worship God in spirit and truth, we also have an altar; we have every thing in the sub stance, whereof they of old had only the name and shadow.’What this altar is which the Christian church hath and useth, there have been some disputes, occasioned by the superstition of latter ages. For some would have it a material altar made of stone, whereon an unbloody sacrifice of the flesh and blood of Christ is offered by priests every day; plainly of the same kind, nature, and use, with that in the tabernacle. And thence this altar also hath been made the spring of many ceremonial observances, distinction of meats, with such an eating of flesh from it as is indeed destructive of all religion. And some think that the table which the church useth in the celebration of the supper of the Lord is here metaphorically called an altar, because of the communication of the sacrifice of Christ which is made at it. But these things are wholly foreign to the design of the apostle. The altar which we now have is Christ alone, and his sacrifice. For he was both priest, altar, and sacrifice, all in himself; and continueth still so to be unto the church, as unto all the use and efficacy of them. And this is evident in the context. For, — (1.) This altar here is, in its nature, use, and efficacy, opposed unto the altar in the tabernacle, as it is express in the words of this verse; but that which throughout this whole discourse the apostle opposeth unto all the utensils, services, and sacrifices of the tabernacle, is Christ alone, and the sacrifice of himself, as is manifest and undeniable. Besides, the opposition he makes is between signs and things signified, shadows and the substance, types and the reality of the things themselves; but it is fond to imagine that the altar of old was a type, a sign, a shadow of a table in the church, or that any thing but Christ was so [signified].(2.) The apostle doth declare who and what it is that he intends by the altar which we have; namely, that it is Jesus, who, to sanctify the people with his blood, which was to be done at or on the altar, “suffered without the gate,” Hebrews 13:12. And by him, as our altar, we are to offer our sacrifices unto God, Hebrews 13:15. This is Christ and his sacrifice alone.(3.) The sacrifices which we are obliged unto by virtue of this altar are such as have no respect unto any material altar, but are such as are to be offered unto God through Christ alone, as all the Scripture testifieth, Hebrews 13:15; namely, “the sacrifice of praise,” which is “the fruit of our lips, confessing unto his name;” which leads us off from all thoughts and conceptions of any material altar. (4.) In those days, and in some ages after, the Christians had no material altars; and they denied on all occasions that they had any.Estius, one of the soberest expositors of the Roman church, concludes that it is Christ and his sacrifice alone that is intended in this place. But he adds withal, that because the fathers (that is, some of them, for all do not) do expound it of the altar for the sacrament in the church, the heretics are to be urged with their authority for a material altar and sacrifice in the church! — wherein he extremely departs from his wonted modesty. For can any man in his wits suppose that the authority of men asserting a confessed untruth, can be of any weight in way of testimony? If a man should produce witnesses in any cause, and after he hath declared of what credit they are, and how they deserve to be believed, should add, that what they bear witness unto is undoubtedly false, would not his plea of testimonies be weak and contemptible? Yea, is not this sufficient to warrant any man to question their bare authority in other things, when, as it seems, they agree so well in that which is untrue? But thus it falls out frequently with this Estius in his commentaries. When he hath (which he doth frequently, in things of great importance) come nearer the truth than the current expositions of the Roman church will bear, he is forced to countenance himself by some impertinent reflections on Calvin, or Beza, or the sectaries in general, which he hath neither occasion nor countenance for from the context; — so vile a thing is ecclesiastical bondage. The truth is, this place is so far from giving countenance unto the altar and sacrifice on it in the church of Rome, that it sufficiently testifieth that the apostle knew not of any such thing; but proposeth a scheme of Christian profession and worship, utterly inconsistent with them, as we shall see in the ensuing exposition. For whereas their altar, with its sacrifice, is the life and soul of their religion, without which they profess they have none, and contend that there can be none, and that all the mystery and solemnity of their sacred worship consist in the observances and veneration of and at this altar, — whereon they have slain or burned to ashes innumerable Christians for their non-compliance with them in the faith and worship of this altar and its sacrifice, — the apostle here, where, if anywhere, he had occasion to make mention of it, yea, to declare its whole nature and use in the church, and at least give some intimation of its way of observance, wherein all the glory of their worship doth consist, doth not only pass it by in silence, but also, avowing Christ himself to be our altar, and asserting a worship or service thereon of no alliance, as we shall see, unto their altar service, he leaves their altar, its sacrifice, and services, quite out of the compass of our Christian profession. But I return. And we may observe, — Obs. 1. That the Lord Christ, in the one sacrifice of himself, is the only altar of the church of the new testament.Obs. 2. That this altar is every way sufficient in itself for the end of an altar, namely, the sanctification of the people; as Hebrews 13:12.Obs. 3. The erection of any other altar in the church, or the introduction of any other sacrifice requiring a material altar, is derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ, and exclusive of him from being our altar.Obs. 4. Whereas the design of the apostle, in the whole of his discourse, is to declare the glory of the gospel and its worship above that of the law, of our priest above theirs, of our sacrifice above theirs, of our altar above theirs; it is fond to think, that by our altar, he intends such a material fabric as is every way inferior unto that of old. Obs. 5. When God appointed a material altar for his service, he himself enjoined the making of it, prescribed its form and use, with all its utensils, services, and ceremonies, allowing of nothing in it, or about it, but what was by himself appointed; it is not therefore probable, that under the new testament there should be a material altar of equal necessity with that under the old, accompanied in its administrations with various utensils, ceremonies, and services, neither itself nor any of them being of divine appointment. But, —Obs. 6. Sinners under a sense of guilt have in the gospel an altar of atonement, whereunto they may have continual access for the expiation of their sins. — He is the propitiation.2. The limitation of the use of this altar ensues: “Whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle.” The persons excluded from the right mentioned are those who “serve the tabernacle.” The apostle speaks in the present tense, those “who do serve,” or “who are serving” at the tabernacle. For he hath respect unto the original institution of divine worship, and that was in and under the tabernacle; and he takes no notice of the things that ensued on the erection of the temple, which made no alteration in the worship itself. And supposing them in the state wherein they were at first appointed, he expresseth it in the present tense, “that do serve.” “That do serve:” The word is used constantly for the services that are used in sacred worship. So it is here; — those who administered the things belonging unto divine worship in the tabernacle. These were the priests and Levites, in their several orders and degrees. These had a right to eat of the altar in the tabernacle; that is, of the things that were consecrated thereby, and a part whereof was offered thereon. Hereunto they had a right by divine institution. For they who minister about holy things, eat the things of the temple; and they that wait at the altar, partake with the altar, 1 Corinthians 9:13. So also 1 Corinthians 10:18; wherein the apostle had respect unto the institutions of the law giving right unto the priests to eat of things sanctified by the altar. And it was a right which did appropriate this privilege unto them. It was not lawful for any others to eat any thing from the altar, unless it were in the case of the thank-offering, by especial indulgence, or in case of extreme necessity, Matthew 12:3-4.This right, or any other of an alike nature, they had not, to eat of that altar which we have. “Whereof,” “of which;” — the altar, and all the things which are sanctified thereby. “To eat:” Eating was the only way of the participation of meats from the altar; what was every one’s portion was to be eaten. Hence the apostle useth “to eat” here, for any kind of participation. He doth not intend that we have an altar whereof some may eat, namely, of meats taken from it and consecrated by it, which they had no right to do; but only that they have no right to participate of the benefits of our altar in any way or kind. Hereunto they had “no right” or title; that is, they had not by virtue of any divine institution. He doth not absolutely exclude such persons from ever attaining an interest in our altar. But he doth it in two respects: (1.) They had no such right by virtue of their office and relation unto the tabernacle:(2.) That whilst they adhered unto that privilege, and the use of meats thereby for the establishment of their hearts in peace with God, they could have no interest in this altar of ours And we may see, —Obs. 7. That all privileges, of what nature soever, without a participation of Christ, as the altar and sacrifice of the church, are of no advantage unto them that enjoy them.Hebrews 13:11-12. — ῟ΩνγὰρεἰσφέρεταιθώωντὸαἷμαπερὶἁμαρτίαςεἰςτὰἅγιαδιὰτοῦἀρχιερέωςΈτούτωντὰσώματακατακαίεταιἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς. Διὸκαὶ᾿Ιησοῦς, ἵναἁγιάσῃδιὰτοῦἰδίουαἴματοςτὸνλαὸν, ἔξωτῆςπύληςἔπαθε.Hebrews 13:11-12. — For the bodies of those beasts whose blood, [being] a sin-offering, is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest, are burnt without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate The apostle in these words proceeds to the confirmation of his whole present design, in all the parts of it; and they are three: 1. To declare of what nature our altar and sacrifice are; and thereon of what nature and kind the duties of religion are which proceed from them and depend upon them.2. To testify that the removal of all distinction of meats, by virtue of this altar, was signified in the old institutions, which had their accomplishment in this altar and sacrifice.3. To show the necessity of the suffering of Christ without the gate of the city, from the typical representation of it; so to make way for the declaration of the use that we are to make of it. All which will be evidenced in the exposition of the words.Hebrews 13:11. — “For the bodies of those beasts whose blood, [being] a sin-offering, is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest, are burnt without the camp.”1. An instance is given unto the end mentioned, in a sacrifice typical of the sacrifice of Christ. And this is περὶἁμαρτίας, — that is, “a sin-offering.” See Hebrews 10:6, with the exposition.2. Two things are affirmed concerning this sacrifice:(1.) That the blood of the beasts was brought into the sanctuary by the high priest.(2.) That the bodies of the beasts whose blood was so offered for sin were burnt without the camp.1. The sacrifice intended is the sin-offering. For concerning this kind of sacrifice, and this alone, the institution is plain, Leviticus 6:30, “And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation, to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten, it shall be burnt in the fire,” And that the whole body of the beast was to be carried out of the camp, and burnt in a clean place, is ordained, Leviticus 4:12. But the apostle hath especial respect unto the sin-offering on the great day of atonement, which was appointed, by “an everlasting statute, to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a-year,” Leviticus 16:34; for it was the blood of that sacrifice alone that was carried into the most holy place by the high priest, Leviticus 16:14-16. And there was an especial institution for the burning of the bodies of the beasts whose blood was then offered, without the camp, the words whereof the apostle doth here repeat: Leviticus 16:27, “And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin-offering,” (that is, the bodies of the beasts whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place by the high priest,) “shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.” 2. It is therefore evident both what sacrifice is intended, and what are the things affirmed of it; wherein the apostle repeats two divine institutions, the one concerning the blood, the other concerning the bodies, of the beasts that were sacrificed. (1.) For the first of these, or the way and manner of the high priest’s carrying the blood into the holy place to make atonement, see the exposition on Hebrews 9:6-7.(2.) The burning of the bodies was ordained to be “without the camp;” namely, whilst the Israelites were in the wilderness, and abode in tents encamped round about the tabernacle, after the priests and Levites, who pitched immediately about it, Numbers 1:53 : the order and manner of which encamping is appointed and described, Numbers 2; which took up some miles in compass. Unto this camp of the Israelites the city of Jerusalem did afterwards answer, and all the institutions about it were applied thereunto. Wherefore, when this sacrifice was observed in the temple, the bodies of the beasts were carried out of the city to be burned. Hence the apostle makes the suffering of Christ “without the gate,” to answer unto the burning of the bodies of the beasts without the camp, the city and the camp being the same thing in this institution.And sundry things we may here observe, as unto the purpose of the apostle in this place; as, [1. That this sin-offering on the day of atonement was the principal type of Christ and his sacrifice, among all the sacrifices of the law, as hath been before fully demonstrated. [2. That the matter of this sacrifice was totally anathematized and devoted, as that which had all the sins and uncleannesses of the church upon it; whence he that burned the bodies of the beasts was legally unclean, Leviticus 16:28; — to manifest how fully the Lord Christ was made a curse for us.[3. That in this sacrifice there was no eating, no meats, or distinction of them, or privilege about them; — all was consumed. Hence the apostle proves that meats did never contribute any thing towards the establishment of the heart before God. For there was no use of them in or about that sacrifice whereby atonement was made for sin, whereon the establishment of the heart doth depend. Yea, there was herein a clear prefiguration, that when the great atonement was made, there should be no use of the distinction of meats left in the church. And hereby further way is made for the description of our altar and sacrifice, with the nature of the divine worship ensuing thereon. Hebrews 13:12. — “Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.”This is the altar which we have, this is the sacrifice on that altar, and this is the effect of it, — namely, the sanctification of the people. And the first thing in the words is the note of inference from what was spoken before: ‘“Wherefore Jesus also,” what he did was in compliance with the legal institution mentioned.’There was no obligation on him from that institution; but the end of it being a prefiguration of what he was to do and suffer, it was necessary that he should comply therewith. So, although he did nothing but by his own will and choice, yet this reason of what he did is frequently assigned, namely, “that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.” Being to fulfill all righteousness, and the whole law, what he did was regulated by the predictions of the Scripture, and the typical representations of what was to be done. See Hebrews 3:5, with the exposition. This is the ground of the inference here: “Wherefore Jesus also;” — ‘It must so be, because divine wisdom had given this prefiguration of it.’And, —Obs. 1. The complete answering and fulfilling of all types in the person and office of Christ, testifieth the sameness and immutability of the counsel of God in the whole work of the redemption and salvation of the church, notwithstanding all the outward changes that have been in the institutions of divine worship. — For hence it is manifest, that in the whole “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” And there is not only an inference in this expression, but an intimation of a similitude also, such as is between the type and the thing typified: ‘As was that sacrifice or sin-offering under the law, so was this of Christ;’— “Wherefore Jesus also.” There are sundry truths of great importance in these words, the consideration whereof will give us the just exposition of them; as, — 1. That Jesus in his sufferings did offer himself unto God. This is plain in the words. That he might sanctify the people with his blood, he “suffered;” for in that suffering his blood was shed, whereby the people were sanctified: which utterly overthrows the Socinian figment of his oblation in heaven.2. That in his sufferings he offered himself a sin offering, in answer unto those legal sacrifices whose blood was carried into the holy place, and their bodies burned without the camp; which were sin-offerings only. It answered, indeed, unto all offerings made by blood (for blood was never used but to make atonement, Leviticus 17:11,) yet it had a peculiar representation in the Sin-offering on the day of expiation, Leviticus xvi., as hath been before declared.3. The end of this offering of Christ was, “that he might sanctify the people.” This was “finis operis et operantis;” — “the end of what was done, and of him who did it.” Ινα hath respect to the final cause; and the object of the work wrought is “the people:” not the church and people of the Jews in general, for the most of them were rejected from the benefit of this sacrifice; and to show that he left them herein, he suffered and offered himself without the gate. In the typical sacrifice of expiation, the bodies of the beasts were carried out of the camp, and burned, to show that they were absolutely anathematized; but the blood was shed and offered at the tabernacle, in the midst of the congregation, because the whole congregation was to be sanctified thereby. But the Lord Jesus offered himself and his blood without the city, or the camp, because he designed not either to confine the benefit of his offering unto that people, or to take them in unto it as a camp, a city, a church, or congregation. But this “people” are elsewhere called “his people,” Matthew 1:21, and “church,” or “body,” Ephesians 5:25-27, — that is, all the elect of God, both Jews and Gentiles, 1 John 2:1-2.4. That which he designed and accomplished for this people, was their sanctification. What it is to be sanctified by blood, as offered, hath been before declared; and it is here manifest, by the respect that his had unto the great sacrifice of expiation. It is to have atonement made, or an expiation of the guilt of their sins; an acquitment obtained from the defilement of it, as separating from the favor of God; and a sacred dedication unto him. 5. This is that which the Lord Jesus designed for his church; and he did effect it by his own blood. When the blood of Christ is mentioned in this matter, it is emphatically called “his own blood:” “Purchased his church with his own blood,” Acts 20:28 : “Washed us from our sins in his own blood,” Revelation 1:5. Hebrews 9:12, as in this place. And three things are included therein.(1.) An opposition unto the sacrifices of the high priests under the law, which were of the blood of beasts, and not their own. See Hebrews 9:12, with the exposition. (2.) An evidence of the unspeakable worth and value of this offering, whereon all its efficacy doth depend. Hence it is called God’s own blood, Acts 20:28. See Hebrews 9:15.(3.) A testimony of what it cost the Lord Jesus to sanctify the people, — even his own blood.6. The last thing in the words, is the circumstance of the suffering of Christ, — namely, that it was “without the gate,” that is of the city, namely, of Jerusalem; which answered the camp in the wilderness, after the tabernacle was fixed therein. And sundry things are herein included: (1.) That he left the city and church-state of the Jews; whence he denounced their destruction as he went out of the gate, Luke 23:28-30.(2.) He put an end unto all sacrificing in the city and temple, as unto divine acceptation. All was now finishing.(3.) He declared that his sacrifice and the benefits of it were not included in the church of the Jews, but were equally extended unto the whole world, 1 John 2:2, John 11:52. (4.) He declared that his death and suffering were not only a sacrifice, but a punishment for sin; namely, the sins of the people that were to be sanctified by his blood. For he went out of the city as a malefactor, and died the death which by divine institution was a sign of the curse, Galatians 3:13.By all these things it appears how different our altar and sacrifice are from theirs under the law; and how necessary it is from thence that we should have a worship of another nature than what they had, wherein in particular the distinction of meats should be of no use. And we may observe, — Obs. 2. That the church could no otherwise be sanctified, but by the blood of Jesus, the Son of God. See Hebrews 10:4-7, with the exposition.Obs. 3. The Lord Jesus, out of his incomprehensible love unto his people, would spare nothing, avoid nothing, deny nothing, that was needful unto their sanctification, their reconciliation, and dedication unto God. — He did it “with his own blood,” Ephesians 5:25-27; Galatians 2:20; Revelation 1:5; Acts 20:28.Obs. 4. There was, by divine constitution, a concurrence in the same work of suffering and offering; that satisfaction unto the law and its curse might be made by it, as penal in a way of suffering; and atonement, or reconciliation with God, by the way of a sacrifice or offering. Obs. 5. The whole church is perfectly sanctified by the offering of the blood of Christ, as unto impetration; and it shall be so actually by the virtue of the same blood in its application.Obs. 6. When the Lord Jesus carried all the sins of his own people in his own body unto the tree, he left the city, as a type of all unbelievers, under the wrath and curse of God.Obs. 7. Going out of the city as a malefactor, he bore all the reproach that was due to the sins of the church; which was a part of the curse.Hebrews 13:13-14. — Τοίνυνἐξερχώμεθαπρὸςαὐτὸνἔξωτῆςπαρεμβολῆς, τὸνὀνειδισμὸναὐτοῦφέροντες. Οὐγὰρἔχομενὧδεμένουσανπόλιν, ἀλλὰτὴνμέλλουσανἐπιζητοῦμεν.Hebrews 13:13-14. — Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For we have here no abiding city, but we seek one to come.From the account given of our altar in the suffering and offering of Christ, with the manner thereof, the apostle draws an exhortation unto that general duty which is the foundation of all our Christian profession, Hebrews 13:13; and gives an enforcement of the same exhortation, Hebrews 13:14. 1. The exhortation unto the duty is introduced by a note of inference, which we render “therefore;” which is the sense of the particles τοὶνῦν in conjunction. ‘Seeing the Lord Jesus hath so suffered and offered himself, this now is our duty, that which thereon is required of us; which I therefore exhort you unto.’And for the opening of the words, we must consider,(1.) What is meant by “the camp;”(2.) How we are to “go forth” from it; (3.) How we go to him in our so doing; (4.) In what manner.(1.) The apostle in all this epistle hath respect unto the original institution of the Jewish church-state and worship in the wilderness: therefore he confines his discourse to the tabernacle and the services of it, without any mention of the temple, or the city wherein it was built; though all that he speaks be equally applicable unto them. Now the camp in the wilderness was that space of ground which was taken up by the tents of the people, as they were regularly pitched about the tabernacle. Out of this compass the bodies of the beasts for the sin-offerings were carried and burned. Hereunto afterwards answered the city of Jerusalem, as is evident in this place. For whereas in the foregoing verse Christ is said to “suffer without the gate,” here he is said to be “without the camp;” these being all one and the same, as to the purpose of the apostle. Now the camp and city was the seat of all the political and religious converse of the church of the Jews. To be ‘in the camp,’is to have a right unto all the privileges and advantages of the commonwealth of Israel, and the whole divine service of the tabernacle. For if any lost that right by any means, though but for a season, they were removed out of the camp, Leviticus 13:46; Leviticus 24:23; Numbers 5:2; Numbers 12:15. (2.) How were the Hebrews, on the account of this sacrifice of Christ and the sanctification of the people by his own blood, to go out of this camp? For it is all one whether we read the word, “go out of the camp unto him,” or “go forth unto him without the camp,” namely, who there suffered. Now it is not a local departure out of the city which is intended in the first place; though I am apt to think, from the next verse, that the apostle had some respect also thereunto, for the season was now approaching wherein they were so to depart out of the city before its final destruction. This the apostle may now prepare them for: but that which principally is intended is a moral and religious going forth from this camp. There was nothing that these Hebrews did more value, and more tenaciously adhere unto, than that political and religious interest in the commonwealth of Israel. They could not understand how all the glorious privileges granted of old unto that church and people should so cease as that they ought to forsake them. Hereon the most continued in their unbelief of the gospel; many would have mixed the doctrine of it with their old ceremonies, and the best of them found no small difficulty in their renunciation. But the apostle shows them, that, by the suffering of Christ without the gate or camp, this they were calmed unto; as, — Obs. 1. All privileges and advantages whatever are to be foregone, parted withal, and renounced, which are inconsistent with an interest in Christ and a participation of him; as our apostle shows at large, Philippians 3:4-10.(3.) They were thus to go forth unto him. He went forth at the gate, and suffered; and we must go forth after him, and unto him. And it denotes,[1. A relinquishment of all the privileges of the camp and city for his sake. Leave them, and go to him. [2. A, closing by faith with his sacrifice, and sanctification thereby, in opposition unto all the sacrifices of the law. [3. The owning of him under all that reproach and contempt which were cast upon him in his suffering without the gate, or a not being ashamed of his cross. [4. The betaking ourselves unto him in his office, as the king, priest, and prophet of the church, as unto our acceptance with God, and in his worship; as the apostle directs, Hebrews 12:15. (4.) In our thus doing, we are “to bear his reproach.” See for the exposition hereof, Hebrews 11:26, where the same thing is ascribed unto Moses. In brief, “the reproach of Christ,” is either the reproach that was cast on his person, or the reproach that is cast on our persons for his sake. The first was in the cross, with all the shame, contempt, and reproach, wherewith it was accompanied. This was that great scandal at which the unbelieving world of Jews and Gentiles stumbled and fell. This reproach of Christ we bear, when we own him, believe in him, and make profession of his name; despising this reproach, through a spiritual view of the power of God and the wisdom of God in his cross. The reproach of Christ in the latter sense, is all that contempt, scorn, and despite, with revilings, which are cast upon us for our faith in him and profession of his name. See Hebrews 10:33, with the exposition. This we bear when we patiently undergo it, and are not shaken in our minds in what we suffer by it.In these things consist the first general duties of our Christian profession, which we are called and directed unto by his offering himself, and the manner of it, namely, (1.) In a separation from all ways of religious worship not appointed by himself.(2.) In a relinquishment of all civil and political privileges which are inconsistent with the profession of the gospel.(3.) In avowing the wisdom, grace, and power of God in the cross, notwithstanding the reproaches that are cast upon it.(4.) In giving up ourselves unto him in the discharge of his whole office towards the church. (5.) In conformity unto him in self-denial and suffering. All which are comprised in this apostolical exhortation. And we may observe unto our own instruction, —Obs. 2. That if it was the duty of the Hebrews to forsake those ways of worship which were originally of divine institution, that they might wholly give up themselves unto Christ in fall things pertaining unto God; much more is it ours to forego fall such pretenses unto religious worship as are of human invention. And,— Obs. 3. Whereas the camp contained not only ecclesiastical, but political privileges also, there ought to be a readiness to forego all civil accommodations also, in houses, lands, possessions, converse with men of the same nation, when we are called thereunto on the account of Christ and the gospel.Obs. 4. If we will go forth unto Christ as without the camp, or separated from all the concerns of this world, we shall assuredly meet with all sorts of reproaches.The sum of all is, that we must leave all, to go forth unto a crucified Christ.2. An enforcement of this exhortation, or an encouragement unto this duty, the apostle adds in the next words.Hebrews 12:14. — “For we have here no continuing city, but we seek one to come.”See the exposition on Hebrews 11:10; Hebrews 11:16.The argument is taken from the consideration of the state of believers in this world, which is such as calls and directs them to go out of the camp unto Christ. This is our duty, seeing “we have here no continuing city,” unless we intend to be without rest or refuge. Two things are asserted in this description of the present state of believers: (1.) That “they have here no continuing city.”(2.) That “they seek one to come.”It seems, therefore, that a city is necessary unto all; and those who have none at present must seek for one to come. And, — (1.) It is declared,[1. Where they have it not; not “here,” — that is, in this world, in this life. Their interest in the city of Jerusalem was gone after the Lord Jesus went out of the gate to suffer. And if it had continued, yet was not that an abiding city; for neither could they long continue in it, nor was itself to be of any long continuance, but was speedily to be destroyed. [2. They had not a “city.” A city is the center of men’s interests and privileges, the residence and seat of their conversation. Hereby are they freed from the condition of strangers and pilgrims; and have all that rest and security whereof in this world they are capable. For those who have no higher aims or ends than this world, a city is their all. Now it is not said of believers absolutely that they belonged to no city, had none that was theirs in common with other men; for our apostle himself pleaded that he was “a citizen of no mean city.” And this is intimated, as we shall see, in the restriction of the assertion, “a continuing city.” But it is spoken on other accounts. 1st. They had no city that was the seat of divine worship, whereunto it was confined, as it was before unto Jerusalem. This the Jews boasted of, and the apostle acknowledgeth that the Christians had none such. The Roman pretenses of their sacred city were yet unforged. 2dly. They had no city wherein they did rest, or which was the seat of their polity or conversation; for that is in heaven, Philippians 3:20 : not such a city as should give them their state and rest; the things which they did ultimately aim at: no such city as wherein their lot and portion did lie; such as by whose laws and rules their conversation was regulated. 3dly. They had not an abiding city. Whatever conveniencies they might have here in this world for a season, yet they had no city that was to abide forever, nor which they could for ever abide in.And probably herein the apostle shows the difference and opposition between the state of the Christian church and that under the old testament. For they, after they had wandered in the wilderness and elsewhere for some ages, were brought to rest in Jerusalem; but saith he, ‘With us it is not so; we have no city unto such an end; but we seek one that is to come.’ See the description of the state of pilgrimage here intended, in the exposition on Hebrews 11:9-10; Hebrews 11:13-16.(2.) The second thing in the description given of the present state of believers, is, that “they are seeking one [a city] to come.” They are seeking after it, not as a thing unknown or hard to be found, but endeavoring to attain it, to come unto it. The use of the way and means unto this end is intended, and that with diligence and desire, as the words import.And it was such a city they sought as they did not yet possess, nor could do so whilst they were in this world; it was one that was yet for to come, as unto them and their enjoyment of it: τὴνμέλλουσαν, — “that city;” not one indefinitely, but that city which was to be their eternal habitation. And it is said to be to come, not merely because it was future as unto their state and interest in it, but with respect unto their certain enjoyment of it on the account of divine designation and appointment. And it was,[1. Prepared for them; and what belonged thereunto. See Hebrews 11:16. [2. It was promised unto them. For in this city lies that eternal inheritance which was proposed in the promises from the foundation of the world. [3. The way unto it was prescribed and directed in the scripture of the Old Testament, but now laid open and made plain by Jesus Christ, who “brought life and immortality to light by the gospel.” In brief, it is the heavenly state of rest and glory which is intended by this “city.” And we are taught herein, — Obs. 5. That believers are not like to meet with any such encouraging entertainment in this world, as to make them unready or unwilling to desert it, and to go forth after Christ, bearing his reproach. — For it is a motive in the apostle’s reasoning unto a readiness for that duty, “We have here no continuing city.”Obs. 6. This world never did, nor ever will, give a state of rest and satisfaction unto believers. — It will not afford them a city. It is “Jerusalem above” that is the “vision of peace.” “Arise and depart; this is not your rest.”Obs. 7. In the destitution of a present satisfactory rest, God hath not left believers without a prospect of that which shall be so unto eternity. — We have not, but we seek.Obs. 8. As God hath prepared a city of rest for us, so it is our duty continually to endeavor the attainment of it in the ways of his appointment.Obs. 9. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/owenhebrews/ Of the close of the epistle, which now only remains, there are three parts: 1. The apostle’s request of the prayers of the Hebrews for himself, Hebrews 13:18-19; 2. His solemn benedictive prayer for them, Hebrews 13:20-21;3. An account of the state of Timothy, with the usual salutation, Hebrews 13:22-25. The first of these is contained in — Hebrews 13:18-19. — Προσεύχεσθεπερίἡμῶν·πεποίθαμενγὰρὅτικαλὴνσυνείδησινἔχομεν, ἐνπᾶσικαλῶςθέλοντεςἀναστρέφεσθαι·περισσοτέρωςδὲπαρακαλῶτοῦτοποιῆσαι, ἵνατάχιονἀποκατασταθῶὑμῖν.Hebrews 13:18-19. — Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly. But I beseech [you] the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.From these verses, and those that follow to the end, it is evident that the author of this epistle did not conceal himself from the Hebrews, neither was that the reason why his name was not prefixed unto it, as it is unto all his other epistles. For he plainly declares himself in all his circumstances, as one who was very well known unto them. But the true and only reason why he prefixed not his name and title unto this epistle, as unto all others, was because in them he dealt with the churches merely by virtue of his apostolical authority, and the revelation of the gospel which he had personally received from Jesus Christ; but dealing with these Hebrews, he lays his foundation in the authority of the scriptures of the Old Testament, which they acknowledged, and resolves all his arguments and exhortations thereinto. Hence he gave no title to the epistle, but immediately laid down the principle and authority which he would proceed upon, namely, the divine revelations of the Old Testament. There are in the words, 1. A request made to the Hebrews for prayer; 2. The ground which gave him confidence therein, Hebrews 13:18; 3. A pressing of the same request with respect unto his present state and design, Hebrews 13:19.1. There is his request for prayer: “Pray for us.” It is proposed unto them by the way of request, as is evident from the next words, “I beseech you the rather to do this.” Their duty it was always to pray for him; but to mind them of that duty, and to manifest what esteem he had of it, he makes it a request, as we ought mutually to do among ourselves. He speaks in the plural number, “Pray for us, for we;” yet is it himself alone that he intends, as is usual. And this request of their prayers argues a confidence in their faith and mutual love, without which he would not have requested their prayers for him. And he grants that the prayers of the meanest saints may be useful unto the greatest apostle, both with respect unto his person, and the discharge of his office. Hence it was usual with the apostle to desire the prayers of the churches to whom he wrote, 2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 6:19; Colossians 4:3; 2 Thessalonians 3:1. For in mutual prayer for each other consists one principal part of the communion of saints, wherein they are helpful to one another, in all times, places, and conditions. And he doth herein also manifest what esteem he had of them, whose prayers he thought would find acceptance with God on his behalf. And besides, it is the especial duty of the churches to pray for them who are eminently useful in the work of the ministry; which herein they are minded of.2. He expresseth the ground of his confidence in this request, namely, that he was such an one, and did so walk as that they might engage for him without hesitation. “For,” saith he, “we trust.” And we may observe in the words. —(1.) The manner of his proposal of this ground of his confidence. “We trust,” — We are persuaded that so it is with us: not as though there were any doubt or ambiguity in it, as it is ofttimes with us when we use that kind of expression; but he speaks of himself with modesty and humility, even in things whereof he had the highest assurance.(2.) The thing itself is, that he had “a good conscience;” or, as he elsewhere expresseth it, “a conscience void of offense toward God and man. A sense thereof gives a due confidence both in our persons, and in our requests unto others for their prayers for us. So speaks the psalmist, “If I regard iniquity in my heart,” (which is inconsistent with a good conscience,) “God will not hear me,” Psalms 66:18. And on the other hand, “If our heart condemn us not,” (that is, if we have this good conscience,) “then have we confidence toward God, and whatsoever we ask, we receive of him,” 1 John 3:21-22. And as sincerity in the testimony of a good conscience gives us confidence before God in our own prayers, notwithstanding our many failings and infirmities, so it is requisite in our requests for the prayers of others. For it is the height of hypocrisy to desire others to pray for our deliverance from that which we willingly indulge ourselves in, or for such mercies as we cannot receive without foregoing that which we will not forsake. This therefore the apostle here testifies concerning himself, and that in opposition unto all the reproaches and false reports which they had heard concerning him. The testimony of his having a good conscience consists in this, that he was “willing in all things to live honestly.” A will, resolution, and suitable endeavor, to live honestly in all things, is a fruit and evidence of a good conscience. Being willing, denotes readiness, resolution, and endeavor; and this extends to “all things;” that is, wherein conscience is concerned, or our whole duty towards God and men. The expression of “living honestly,” as it is commonly used, doth not reach the emphasis of the original. A beauty in conversation, or exact eminency therein, is intended. This was the design of the apostle in all things; and ought to he so of all ministers of the gospel, both for their own sakes, as unto what is in an especial manner required of them, as also that they may be examples unto the people. 3. In the 19th verse he is further earnest in his request, with respect unto his present circumstances, and his design of coining in person unto them. Some few things may be observed therein; as,(1.) He had been with them formerly; as it is known that he had been partly at liberty, and partly in prison some good while, yea, for some years, at Jerusalem, and in other parts of Judea.(2.) He desires to be restored unto them; that is, to come unto them again, so as that they might have the benefit of his ministry, and he the comfort of their faith and obedience.(3.) He is earnest in this desire, and therefore the more urgent in requesting their prayers, that his desire might be accomplished. For, (4.) He knew that the Lord Christ did dispense the affairs of his church much according to their prayers, unto his own glory and their great consolation. Yet,(5.) It is uncertain whether ever this desire of his was accomplished or no; for this epistle was written after the close of the apostolical story in the Book of the Acts, and from thenceforward we have little certainty in matters of fact. For,(6.) According unto our present apprehensions of duty, we may lawfully have earnest desires after, and pray for such things as shall not come to pass. The secret purposes of God are not the rule of our prayers.Hebrews 13:20-21. — ῾ΟδὲΘεὸςτῆςεἰρήνης, ὁἀναγαγὼνἐκνεκρῶντὸνποιμένατῶνπροβάτωντὸνμέγαν, ἐναἵματιδιαθήκηςαἰωνίου, τὸνΚύριονἡμῶν᾿ΙησοῦνΧριστὸν, καταρτίσαιὑμᾶςἐνπαντὶἔργῳἀγαθῷ, εἰςτὸποιῆσαιτὸθέλημααὐτοῦ, ποιῶνἐνὑμῖντὸεὐάρεστονἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ, διὰ᾿ΙησοῦΧριστοῦ·ᾧἡδόξαεἰςτοὺςαἰῶναςτῶναἰώνων. ᾿Αμήν. [5] [5] VARIOUS . — Χριστόν is now commonly omitted. Tischendorf also omits τῶναἰώνων. — ED. Hebrews 13:20-21. — Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead that great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well- pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ, to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.Having desired their prayers for him, he adds thereunto his prayer for them, and therewithal gives a solemn close to the whole epistle. A glorious prayer it is, enclosing the whole mystery of divine grace, in its original, and the way of its communication by Jesus Christ. And he prays for the fruit and benefit to be applied unto them of all that he had before instructed them in; for the substance of the whole doctrinal part of the epistle is included in it. And the nature and form of the prayer itself,, with the expressions used in it, evidence its procedure from a spirit full of faith and love. There are some things to be considered in this prayer, for the exposition of the words: 1. The title assigned unto God, suited unto the request to be made. 2. The work ascribed unto him, suitable unto that title. 3. The things prayed for. 4. A doxology, with a solemn closure of the whole.1. The title assigned unto God, or the name by which he calls upon him, is, “The God of peace.” So is he frequently styled by our apostle, and by him Romans 15:33; Romans 16:20; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. And he useth it only in a way of prayer, as shutting up all the instructions given the church in a prayer for a blessing from the God of peace. So also is he said to be the God of grace, mercy, and consolation; for he assumes names and titles to himself from his works, which are his alone, as well as from his essential attributes. And this is proper to him. For,(1.) All things were brought into a state of disorder, confusion, and enmity, by sin. No peace was left in the creation.(2.) There was no spring of peace left, no cause of it, but in the nature and will of God; which justifies this title.(3.) He alone is the author of all peace, and that two ways:[1. He purposed, designed, and prepared it, in the eternal counsels of his will, Ephesians 1:8-10.[2. He is so in the communication of it, by Jesus Christ. So all peace is from him; with himself, in our own souls, between angels and men, Jews and Gentiles, all causes of enmity being taken away from the whole church. And the apostle fixeth faith in prayer on this title of God, because he prays for those things which proceed from him peculiarly as the God of peace; such are, the glorious contrivance and accomplishment of our salvation by Jesus Christ and the blood of the covenant, with the communication of sanctifying grace unto the renovation of our natures unto new obedience, which are the matter of this prayer. These things are from God as he is the God of peace, who is the only author of it, and by them gives peace unto men. But he might have also herein an especial respect unto the present state of the Hebrews. For it is evident that they had been tossed, perplexed, and disquieted, with various doctrines and pleas about the law; and the observation of its institutions. Wherefore, having performed his part and duty, in the communication of the truth unto them, for the information of their judgments, he now, in the close of the whole, applies himself by prayer to the God of peace, that he, who alone is the author of it, who creates it where he pleaseth, would, through his instruction, give rest and peace unto their mind. For, — Obs. 1. When we make application unto God for any especial grace or mercy, it is our duty to direct and fix our faith on such names, titles, or properties of God, as whereunto that grace doth peculiarly relate, and from whence it doth immediately proceed. To this purpose precedents are multiplied in the Scripture. And, —Obs. 2. If this be the title of God, if this be his glory, that he is “the God of peace,” how excellent and glorious is that peace from whence he is so denominated! which is principally the peace which we have with himself by Jesus Christ.Obs. 3. Because every thing that is evil unto mankind, in them all, amongst themselves, with reference unto things temporal and eternal, proceeding as it doth from our original loss of peace with God by sin, and the enmity which ensued thereon; peace, on the other side, is comprehensive of all that is good, of all sorts, here and hereafter; and God being styled “the God of peace,” declares him to be the only fountain and cause of all that is good unto us in every kind.2. The second thing in the words is the work that is ascribed unto God, as the God of peace. And this is, that “he brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” Wherein we must consider,(1.) The person who is the object of this work; who is described,[1. By his relation unto us, “Our Lord Jesus Christ;” [2. By his office, “That great shepherd of the sheep.” (2.) The work itself towards him, “He brought him again from the dead.”(3.) The way whereby this work was wrought; it was “through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”(1.) The person who is the object of this work, is “Jesus Christ, our Lord.” This is he whom the apostle, after his long dispute, reduceth all unto, both as the object of the whole work of God’s grace, as in this place; and the only means of the communication of it unto us, as in the close of the prayer. And, — [1. He expresseth him by his name, significant of his grace and office; and by his relation unto us, he is “our Lord.” And it was towards him, as the anointed Savior and our Lord, that the work mentioned was accomplished. For, — Obs. 4. All the work of God towards Jesus Christ respected him as the head of the church, as our Lord and Savior; and thence we have an interest in all the grace of it.[2. Again, he is described by his office, — under which consideration he was the object of the work mentioned, — “ that great shepherd of the sheep.” As such God brought him again from the dead. The expression in the original is emphatical, by a reduplication of the article, τὸνποιμένα, τὸνμέγαν, which we cannot well express. And it is asserted,1st. That Christ is a shepherd; that is, the only shepherd. 2dly. That he is the great shepherd. 3dly. That he is not so to all, but the shepherd of the sheep.1st. He doth not say he is the great shepherd, but “that great shepherd;” namely, he that was promised of old, the object of the faith and hope of the church from the beginning, — he who was looked for, prayed for, who was now come, and had saved his flock. 2dly. He is said to be “great” on many accounts:(1st.) He is great in his person, above all angels and men, being the eternal Son of God;(2dly.) Great in power, to preserve and save his flock;(3dly.) Great in his undertaking, and the effectual accomplishment of it in the discharge of his office;(4thly.) Great in his glory and exaltation, above the whole creation. He is every way incomparably great and glorious. See our discourse of the Glory of Christ, in his Person, Office, and Grace.[6] And, — [6] See Vol. I. of his miscellaneous works. — Ed. Obs. 5. The safety, security, and consolation of the church, much depend on this greatness of their shepherd. 3dly. He is the “shepherd of the sheep.” They are his own. He was promised, and prophesied of, of old under the name of a shepherd, Isaiah 40:11; Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:24. And that which is signified hereby is comprehensive of the whole office of Christ, as king, priest, and prophet of the church. For as a shepherd he doth feed, that is, rule and instruct it; and being that shepherd who was to lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11, it hath respect unto his priestly office also, and the atonement he made for his church by his blood. All the elect are committed unto him of God, as sheep to a shepherd, to be redeemed, preserved, saved, by virtue of his office. This relation between Christ and the church is frequently mentioned in the Scripture, with the security and consolation which depend thereon. That which we are here taught is, that he died in the discharge of his office, as the “great shepherd of the sheep;” which expresseth both the excellency of his love and the certainty of the salvation of the elect. For, — He is not said to be a shepherd in general, but the “shepherd of the sheep.” He did not lay down his life, as a shepherd, for the whole herd of mankind, but for that flock of the elect which was given and committed to him by the Father, as he declares, John 10:11; John 10:14-16.Obs. 6. On this relation of Christ unto the church doth it live and is preserved in the world. — In particular, this little flock of sheep could not be maintained in the midst of so many wolves and other beasts of prey as this world is filled withal, were it not by the power and care of this great shepherd.(2.) The work of God toward him is, that he “brought him again from the dead.” The God of peace is he who brought him again from the dead. Herein consisted his great acting towards the church, as he is the God of peace; and herein he laid the foundation of the communication of grace and peace unto us.God, even the Father, is frequently said to raise Christ from the dead, because of his sovereign authority in the disposal of the whole work of redemption, which is everywhere ascribed unto him. And Christ is said to raise himself, or to take his life again when he was dead, because of the immediate efficiency of his divine person therein, John 10:18. But somewhat more is intended than that mere act of divine power whereby the human nature of Christ was quickened by a reunion of its essential parts, soul and body. And the word here used is peculiar, not signifying an act of raising, but of reducing or recovery out of a certain state and condition; that is, the state of the dead. Christ, as the great shepherd of the sheep, was brought into the state of death by the sentence of the law; and was thence led, recovered and restored, by the God of peace. Not a real efficiency of power, but a moral act of authority, is intended. The law being fulfilled and answered, the sheep being redeemed by the death of the shepherd, the God of peace, to evidence that peace was now perfectly made, by an act of sovereign authority brings him again into the state of life, in a complete deliverance from the charge of the law. See Psalms 16:10-11.(3.) Hence he is said to do this “through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” “In the blood,” ἐν for διά, which is frequent. And we must see,[1. What “covenant” this is; [2. What was “the blood of this covenant;” [3. How “through it” the Lord Christ was brought again from the dead. [1. This covenant may be the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the church, by his undertaking on its behalf. The nature hereof hath been fully declared in our Exercitations. But this covenant needed no confirmation or ratification by blood, as consisting only in the eternal counsels of Father and Son. Wherefore it is the covenant of grace, which is a transcript and effect of that covenant of redemption, which is intended. Hereof we have treated at large in our exposition of the 8th and 9th chapters. And this is called “everlasting,” as in opposition unto the covenant made at Sinai, which, as the apostle proves, was but for a time, and accordingly waxed old, and was removed; so because the effects of it are not temporary benefits, but everlasting mercies, — grace and glory. [2. The blood of this covenant is the blood of Christ himself, so called in answer to the blood of the beasts, which was offered and sprinkled in the confirmation of the old covenant; whence it is by Moses called “the blood of the covenant,” Exodus 24:8; Hebrews 9:20. See that place, and the exposition. And it is called the blood of the covenant, because, as it was a sacrifice to God, it confirmed the covenant; and as it was to be sprinkled, it procured and communicated all the grace and mercy of the covenant, unto them who are taken into the bond of it. [3. But the principal inquiry is, how God is said to bring Christ from the dead “through the blood of the covenant,” the shedding whereof was the means and the way of his entrance unto death. Now the mind of the Holy Ghost herein will appear in the ensuing considerations. 1st. By the blood of Christ, as it was the blood of the covenant, the whole will of God, as unto what he intended in all the institutions and sacrifices of the law, was accomplished and fulfilled. See Hebrews 10:5-9. And hereby an end was put unto the old covenant, with all its services and promises.2dly. Hereby was atonement made for sin, the church was sanctified or dedicated to God, the law was fulfilled, the threatenings of death executed, eternal redemption obtained, the promises of the new covenant confirmed, and by one offering they who were sanctified are perfected for ever.3dly. Hereon not only way was made for the dispensation of grace, but all grace, mercy, peace, and glory, were purchased for the church, and in the purpose of God were necessarily to ensue. Now the head and well-spring of the whole dispensation of grace, lies in the bringing of Christ again from the dead. That is the beginning of all grace to the church; the greatest and first instance of it, and the cause of all that doth ensue. The whole dispensation of grace, I say, began in, and depends on, the resurrection of Christ from the dead; which could not have been, had not the things before mentioned been effected and accomplished by the blood of the covenant. Without them he must have continued in the state and under the power of death. Had not the will of God been satisfied, atonement made for sin, the church sanctified, the law accomplished, and the threatenings satisfied, Christ could not have been brought again from the dead. It was therefore hereby that he was so, in that way was made for it unto the glory of God. The death of Christ, if he had not risen, would not have completed our redemption, we should have been “yet in our sins;” for evidence would have been given that atonement was not made. The bare resurrection of Christ, or the bringing him from the dead, would not have saved us; for so any other man may be raised by the power of God. But the bringing again of Christ from the dead, “through the blood of the everlasting covenant,” is that which gives assurance of the complete redemption and salvation of the church. Many expositors have filled this place with conjectures to no purpose, none of them so much as looking towards the mind of the Holy Ghost in the words. That which we learn from them is, — Obs. 7. That the bringing back of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the shepherd of the sheep, from the state of the dead, through the blood of the covenant, is the great pledge and assurance of peace with God, or the effecting of that peace which the God of peace had designed for the church.Obs. 8. The reduction of Christ from the dead, by the God of peace, is the spring and foundation of all dispensations and communications of grace to the church, or all the effects of the atonement and purchase made by his blood. — For he was so brought again, as the shepherd of the sheep, unto the exercise of his entire office towards the church. For hereon followed his exaltation, and the glorious exercise of his kingly power in its behalf, with all the benefits which ensue thereon, Acts 5:30-31, Romans 14:9, Philippians 2:8-11, Revelation 1:17-18; and the completing of his prophetical office, by sending of his Holy Spirit to abide always with the church, for its instruction, Acts 2:33; and the discharge of what remains of his priestly office, in his intercession, Hebrews 7:25-26, and his ministering in the sanctuary, to make the services of the church acceptable unto God, Hebrews 8:2; Revelation 8:3-4. These are the springs of the administration of all mercy and grace unto the church, and they all follow on his reduction from the dead as the shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the covenant.Obs. 9. All legal sacrifices issued in blood and death; there was no recovery of any of them from that state. — There was no solemn pledge of their success. But their weakness was supplied by their frequent repetition.Obs. 10. There is, then, a blessed foundation laid of the communication of grace and mercy to the church, unto the eternal glory of God.Hebrews 13:21. — The other verse contains the things which the apostle, with all this solemnity, prayeth for on the behalf of the Hebrews. And they are two:1. That “God would perfect them in every good work to do his will.” 2. That “he would work in them that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.”In this whole prayer we have the method of the dispensation of grace laid before us. For, (1.) The original of it is in God himself, as he is “the God of peace;” that is, as in the eternal counsel of his will he had designed grace and peace to poor sinners, suitably unto his own goodness, wisdom, and grace.(2.) The preparation of it, in a way suitable unto the exaltation of the glory of God, and the original means of its communication, is the mediation of Christ in his death and resurrection.(3.) The nature of it, as unto one principal part, or our sanctification, is expressed under these two heads in this verse.Again, it is evident that this communication of grace here prayed for consists in a real efficiency of it in us. It is here expressed by words denoting not only a certain efficacy, but a real actual efficiency. The pretense of some, that the eventual efficacy of divine grace depends on the first contingent compliance of our wills, which leaves it to be no more but persuasion or instruction, is irreconcilable unto this prayer of the apostle. It is not a sufficient proposal of the object, and a pressing of rational motives thereon, but a real efficiency of the things themselves, by the power of God through Christ, that the apostle prays for. 1. The first part of the prayer, the first thing prayed for us, is, “Perfection in every good work to do the will of God.” “Make you perfect,” or rather, “make you meet,” fit and able. ‘This is a thing which you in yourselves are no way meet, fit, prepared, able for; whatever may be supposed to be in you of light, power, liberty, yet it will not give you this meetness and ability.’It is not an absolute perfection that is intended, nor doth the word signify any such thing; but it is to bring the faculties of the mind into that order, so to dispose, prepare, and enable them, as that they may work accordingly.And this is to be “in every good work;” in, for, unto every good work, or duty of obedience. The whole of our obedience towards God, and duty towards man, consists in good works, Ephesians 2:10. And therefore the end of the assistance prayed for is, that they might do the will of God, which is the sole rule of our obedience. It is hence evident what is the grace that in these words the apostle prayeth for. In general, he designs the application of the grace of God through the mediation of Christ unto our sanctification. And this adapting of us to do the will of God in every good work, is by that habitual grace which is wrought in our souls. Hereby are they prepared, fitted, enabled, unto all duties of obedience. And whereas many, at least of the Hebrews, might justly be esteemed to have already received this grace, in their first conversion unto God, as all believers do, the daily increase of it in them, whereof it is capable, is that which on their behalf he prayeth for. For all this strengthening, thriving, and growing in grace, consists in the increase of this spiritual habit in us. He lets therefore the Hebrews know, that in themselves they are unable to answer the will of God in the duties of obedience required of them; and therefore prays that they may have supplies of sanctifying grace enabling them thereunto. And he doth it after he hath in particular prescribed and enjoined sundry gospel duties unto them, in this and the foregoing chapter; and it may be with especial regard unto the casting out of all contentious disputes about the law, with a holy acquiescency in the doctrine of the gospel; which he therefore prays for from “the God of peace.” 2. But there is yet more required in us besides this habitual disposition and preparation for duties of obedience, according to the will of God; namely, the actual gracious performance of every such duty. For neither can we do this of ourselves, whatever furniture of habitual grace we may have received. This therefore he hath also respect unto: “Working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” This is the way whereby we may be enabled effectually to do the will of God.Our whole duty, in all the acts of it, according to his will, is “that which is well-pleasing unto him,” (so is it expressed, Romans 12:1; Romans 14:18; Ephesians 5:10; Philippians 4:18), — that which is right in his eyes, before him, with respect unto the principle, matter, forms, and end of what is so done. This we are not sufficient for in ourselves, in any one instance, act, or duty.Therefore he prayeth that God would do it, work it, effect it, in them; not by moral persuasion and instruction only, but by an effectual in-working, or working in them. See Philippians 2:13. The efficiency of actual grace in and unto every acceptable act or duty of obedience, cannot be more directly expressed. This the church prays for; this it expects and relies upon. Those who judge themselves to stand in no need of the actual efficiency of grace in and unto every duty of obedience, cannot honestly give their assent and consent unto the prayers of the church. He prays that all may be granted unto them “through Jesus Christ.” This may be referred either to working or to acceptance. If it be so to the latter, the meaning is, that the best of our duties, wrought in us by the grace of God, are not accepted as they are ours, but upon the account of the merit and mediation of Christ: which is most true. But it is rather to be referred unto the former; showing that there is no communication of grace unto us from the God of peace, but in and by Jesus Christ, and by virtue of his mediation; and this the apostle presseth in a peculiar manner upon the Hebrews, who seem not as yet to be fully instructed in the things which belong unto his person, office, and grace. 3. The close of the words, and so of the epistle, is, an ascription of glory to Christ: “To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” So 1 Timothy 1:17; 2 Timothy 4:18. So is it jointly to the Father and the Son, as mediator, Revelation 5:13. See Galatians 1:5. And wherein this assignation of glory to Christ doth consist is there fully declared. And whereas it contains divine adoration and worship, with the ascription of all glorious divine properties unto him, the object of it is his divine person, and the motive unto it is his work of mediation, as I have elsewhere at large declared. All grace is from him, and therefore all glory is to be ascribed to him.As this is due, so it is to be given unto him “for ever and ever.” The expression of εἰςτοὺςαἰώναςτῶναἰώνων, “in secula seculorum,” is taken from the Hebrew, ςεֹ ?μָ ?νεָ ?ςֶ ?γ, Psalms 10:16; ςַ ?γΰּ ?δָ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?νξִ ?οΰּ ?δָ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, Nehemiah 9:5; or μָ ?ςַ ?γμְ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, Psalms 148:6; — “unto eternity,” “without intermission,” “without end.” Hereunto is added the solemn note of assent and attestation, frequently used both in the Old and New Testament, as in this case, Romans 16:27 : “So it is, so let it be, so it ought to be, it is true, it is right and meet that so it should be,” — “Amen.” Thus shall the whole dispensation of grace issue in the eternal glory of Christ. This the Father designed; this is the blessedness of the church to give unto him, and behold; and let every one who says not amen hereunto, be anathema Maranatha. This the apostle hath brought his discourse unto with these Hebrews, that laying aside all disputation about the law and expectations from it, all glory, the glory of all grace and mercy, is now, and eternally, to be ascribed to Jesus Christ alone. Of the nature of this glory, and the manner of its assignation to him, see my discourse of the Mystery of Godliness, where it is handled at large.[7] And unto Him doth the poor unworthy author of this Exposition desire, in all humility, to ascribe and give eternal praise and glory, for all the mercy, grace, guidance, and assistance, which he hath received from Him in his labor and endeavors therein. And if any thing, word, or expression, through weakness, ignorance and darkness, which he yet laboureth under, have passed from him that doth not tend unto His glory, he doth here utterly condemn it. And he humbly prays, that if, through His assistance, and the guidance of His Holy Spirit of light and truth, any thing have been spoken aright concerning Him, His office, His sacrifice, His grace, His whole mediation, any light or direction communicated unto the understanding of the mind of the Holy Ghost in this glorious scripture, He would make it useful and acceptable unto His church, here and elsewhere. And he doth also humbly acknowledge His power, goodness, and patience, in that, beyond all his expectations, He hath continued his life under many weaknesses, temptations, sorrows, tribulations, to bring this work unto its end. To Him be glory for ever and ever. Amen. [7] See Vol. 1 of his miscellaneous works. — Ed. This is the solemn close of the epistle. What follows are certain additional postscripts, which were usual with our apostle in his other epistles; and we shall briefly give an account of them. Hebrews 13:22. — Παρακαλῶδὲὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοὶ, ἀνέχεσθετοῦλόγουτῆςπαρακλήσεως·καὶγὰρδιὰβραχέωνἐπέστειλαὑμῖν.Hebrews 13:22. — And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation; for I have written a letter unto you in few words.The apostle knew that many of the Hebrews were not without great prejudices in the cause wherein he had been dealing with them; as also, that he had been necessitated to make use of some severe admonitions and reprehensions. Having therefore finished his discourse, he adds this word, both in his own justification as unto what he had written, and to caution them that they lost not the benefit of it through negligence or prejudice. And he gives this caution with great wisdom and tenderness, — 1. In his kind compellation by the name of “brethren,” denoting,(1.) His near relation unto them, in nature and grace;(2.) His love unto them;(3.) His common interest with them in the cause in hand: all suited to give an access unto his present exhortation.See Hebrews 3:1, with the exposition. 2. In calling his discourse, or the subject-matter of his epistle, τὸνλόγοντῆςπαρακλήσεως, “a word of exhortation,” or “of consolation;” for it is used to signify both, some- times the one, and sometimes the other, as hath been declared before by instances. Wherefore λόγοςπαρακλήσεως is the truth and doctrine of the gospel applied unto the edification of believers, whether by way of exhortation or consolation, the one of them constantly including the other. Most think that the apostle intends peculiarly the hortatory part of the epistle, in chapters 6,10,12,13; for therein are contained both prescriptions of difficult duties, and some severe admonitions, with respect whereunto he desires that they would “bear” or “suffer it,” as that which had some. appearance of being grievous or burdensome. But I see no just reason why the whole epistle may not be intended; for,(1.) The nature of it in general is parenetical or hortatory; that is, a “word of exhortation,” as hath been often showed.(2.) The whole epistle is intended in the next words, “For I have written a letter unto you in few words.”(3.) There is in the doctrinal part of it that which was as hard to be borne by the Hebrews as any thing in those which are preceptive or hortatory. Wherefore, the whole of it being a “word of exhortation,” or a“consolatory exhortation,” he might use it with confidence, and they bear it with patience. And I would not exclude the notion of “consolation,” because that is the proper effect of the doctrine of the gospel, delivering men from bondage unto the ceremonies of the law; which is the design of the apostle in this whole epistle. See Acts 15:31. Obs. And when ministers take care that the word which they deliver is a word tending unto the edification and consolation of the church, they rosy with confidence press the entertainment of it by the people, though it should contain things, by reason of their weakness or prejudices, some way grievous unto them. 3. In persuading them to “bear,” or “suffer” this word; that is, in the first place, to take heed that no prejudices, no inveterate opinions, no apprehension of severity in its admonitions and threatenings, should provoke them against it, render them impatient under it, and so cause them to lose the benefit of it. But there is more intended, namely, that they should bear and receive it as a word of exhortation, so as to improve it unto their edification. A necessary caution this is for these Hebrews, and indeed for all others unto whom the word is preached and applied with wisdom and faithfulness; for neither Satan nor the corruptions of men’s own hearts will be wanting to suggest unto them such exceptions and prejudices against it as may render it useless. 4. He adds the reason of his present caution, “For I have written a letter unto you in few words.” There are two things in the words warranting his caution:(1.) That out of his love and care towards them he had written or sent this epistle to them; on the account whereof they ought to bear with him and it.(2.) That he had given them no more trouble than was necessary, in that he had “written in a few words.”Some inquiry is made why the apostle should affirm that he wrote this epistle “briefly,” or “in few words,” seeing it is of a considerable length, — one of the longest he ever wrote. A few words will satisfy this inquiry. For considering the importance of the cause wherein he was engaged; the necessity that was on him to unfold the whole design and mystery of the covenant and institutions of the law, with the office of Christ; the great contests that were amongst the Hebrews about these things; and the danger of their eternal ruin, through a misapprehension of them; all that he hath written may well be esteemed but a “few words,” and such as whereof none could have been spared. He hath in this matter written διὰβραχέων, or given us a brief compendium, as the words signify, of the doctrine of the law and the gospel; which they ought to take in good part. Hebrews 13:23. — ΓινώσκετετὸνἀδελφὸνΤιμόθεονἀπολελυμένον, μεθ᾿οὗἐὰντάχιονἔρχηταιὄψομαιὑμᾶς.Hebrews 13:23. — Know ye that [our] brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.[8] [8] . — The reference to Timothy is so much after the manner of Paul, and in such harmony with his other allusions to him, that many found on this verse a proof that the epistle was written by Paul. So reason Lardner, Stuart, and others. Tholuck takes an opposite view. It has been argued that the phrase, “I will see you,” is too peremptory in its tone to have been written by Paul while yet a prisoner, and uncertain of release, as we may gather from verse 19; and if ἀπολελυμένον mean “set at liberty,” there is no other evidence that Timothy was ever in prison, and the apostle never speaks of him as his companion in bonds. These objections, resting chiefly upon premises of a negative character, hardly outweigh the evidence derived from the Pauline complexion of the reference. — ED. Who this Timothy was, what was his relation unto Paul, how he loved him, how he employed him, and honored him, joining him with himself in the salutation prefixed unto some of his epistles, with what care and diligence he wrote unto him with reference unto his office of an evangelist, is known out of his writings. This Timothy was his perpetual companion in all his travels, labors, and sufferings, “serving him as a son serveth his father,” unless when he designed and sent him unto any especial work for the church. And being with him in Judea, he was well known unto them also; as were his worth and usefulness. He seems not to have gone to Rome with Paul, when he was sent thither a prisoner, but probably followed him not long after. And there, as it is most likely, being taken notice of, either as an associate of the apostle’s, or for preaching the gospel, he was cast into prison. Hereof the Hebrews had heard, and were no doubt concerned in it, and affected with it. He was at this present dismissed out of prison; whereof the apostle gives notice unto the Hebrews, as a matter wherein he knew they would rejoice. He writes them the good news of the release of Timothy. He doth not seem to have been present with the apostle at the despatch of this epistle, for he knew not his mind about his going into Judea directly; only, he apprehended that he had a mind and resolution so to do. And hereon he acquaints them with his own resolution to give them a visit; which that he might do he had before desired their prayers for him. However, he seems to intimate that, if Timothy, whose company he desired in his travels, could not come speedily, he knew not whether his work would permit him to do so or no. What was the event of this resolution, God only knows. Hebrews 13:24. — ᾿Ασπάσασθεπάνταςτούςἡγουμένουςὑμῶνκαὶπάνταςτοὺςἁγίους. ᾿Ασπάζονταιὑμᾶςοἱἀπὸτῆς᾿Ιταλίας.Hebrews 13:24. — Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. [9] [9] . — Winer interprets the expression, οἱἀπὸτῆς᾿Ιταλίας, as equivalent to οἱἐντῇ᾿Ιταλίᾳ, “they in Italy.” Lardner, Hug, and Stuart, derive an argument for the Pauline authorship of the epistle from this expression, as Paul writing from Rome, in the name of all the Christians of Italy, might very naturally give this salutation. It has been thought that if he was in prison at Rome, he could not have had any opportunity of ascertaining the desire of the brethren throughout Italy to be included in this expression of Christian friendship to the believing Hebrews; and that the analogy sometimes urged of 1 Corinthians 16:19 will not really hold. The objection, however, proceeds upon the ground, — which is quite untenable, — that in every instance in which he conveyed such salutations from other brethren in his epistles, he required to be formally empowered to do so. If persons are specially named as transmitting through the apostle these friendly greetings, this might have been necessary, but it is reasonable to allow a somewhat wider import in the case of the more general salutations. When he writes, Romans 16:16, “All the churches of Christ salute you,” (for Tischendorf, along with Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, inserts πᾶσαι in the clause,) he might simply intimate his knowledge of the fraternal love which, in the various congregations at Corinth and its ports, or wherever he had been, he had heard expressed towards the Christians to whom the epistle in which the salutation occurred was addressed. — ED. This is given in charge unto them to whom the epistle was sent and committed. For although it was written for the use of the whole church, yet the messengers by whom it was carried, delivered and committed it, according to the apostle’s direction, unto some of the brethren; by whom it was to be presented and communicated unto the church. These he speaks unto peculiarly in this postcript, giving them in charge to salute both their rulers and all the rest of the saints, or members of the church, in his name. To salute in the name of another, is to .represent his kindness and affection unto them. This the apostle desires, for the preservation and continuation of entire love between them. Who these rulers were whom they are enjoined to salute, hath been fully declared on Hebrews 13:17; and all the rest of the members of the church are called “the saints,” as is usual with our apostle. Such rulers and such members did constitute blessed churches. He adds, to complete this duty of communion in mutual salutation, the performance of it by those that were with him, as well as by himself: “They of Italy salute you.” They did it by him, or he did it unto the whole church by them. Hence it is taken for granted that Paul was in Italy at the writing of this epistle. But it is not unquestionably proved by the words. For οἱἀπὸτῆς᾿Ιταλίας may as well be, “those who were come to him out of Italy,” as “those that were with him in Italy.” But in Italy there were then many Christians, both of Jews and Gentiles. Some of these, no doubt, were continually with the apostle; and so knowing his design of sending a letter to the Hebrews, desired to be remembered unto them; it being probable that many of them were their own countrymen, and well known unto them. Hebrews 13:25. — ῾Ηχάριςμετὰπάντωνὑμῶν. ᾿Αμήν.Hebrews 13:25. — Grace [be] with you all. Amen.This was the constant close of all his epistles. This he wrote with his own hand, and would have it esteemed an assured token whereby an epistle might be known to be his, 2 Thessalonians 3:17-18. He varieth sometimes in his expressions, but this is the substance of all his subscriptions, “Grace be with you all.” And by “grace” he intends the whole good-will of God by Jesus Christ, and all the blessed effects of it, for whose communication unto them he prays herein. The subscription in our books is, Πρὸς῾Εζραίουςἐγράφηἀπὸτῆς᾿ΙταλίαςδιὰΤιμοθέου, — “Written to the Hebrews from Italy by Timothy.” This is partly uncertain, as that it was written from Italy; and partly most certainly untrue, as that it was sent by Timothy, as expressly contrary unto what the apostle speaks concerning him immediately before. But these subscriptions have been sufficiently proved by many to be spurious, being the additions of some unskilful transcribers in after ages. [10][10] In regard to this subscription, it is commonly overlooked that it varies in different Mss. In illustration it may be mentioned, that while D has no subscription, c has Πρὸς῾Εβραίους, A adds ἐγράφηἀπὸ῾Ρώμης, and K appends διὰΤιμοθέου. — ED. ΤῷΘεῷδόξα.