which remains in the words, is the way that God took, and the means that he used, for the removal of that hinderance, and the effectual accomplishment of his design. This in general was, first, the making, Tηs Kaivng dia‡ŋknç, 'of a new testament.' He had fully proved before, that this could not be done by that covenant against which the sins were committed, neither by the priests, nor sacrifices, nor any other duties of it. Therefore had he promised the abolition of it, because of its weakness and insufficiency unto this end, as also the introduction of a new covenant to supply its defects, as we have seen at large in the exposition of the foregoing chapter. For it became the wisdom, goodness, and grace of God, upon the removal of the former for its insufficiency, to establish another that should be every way effectual unto his purpose, namely, the communication of an eternal inheritance unto them that are called. But then the inquiry will be, how this covenant or testament shall effect this end; what is in it, what belongs unto it that should be so effectual, and by what means it might attain this end. All these are declared in the words. And,

Sixthly. In general, all this arose from hence, that it had μEOTIIS, ' a mediator,' and that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, was this mediator. The dignity of his person, and thereon both the excellency and efficacy of his priestly office, whereunto alone respect is had in his being called here a mediator, he had abundantly before demonstrated. Although the word in general be of a larger signification, as we have declared on chap. viii. 6, yet here it is restrained to his priestly office, and his acting therein. For whereas he had treated of that alone in the foregoing chapter, here declaring the grounds and reasons of the necessity of it, he says, 'for this cause is he the mediator.' And proceeding to show in what sense he considers him as a mediator, doth it by his being a testator, and dying, which belongs to his priestly office alone. And the sole end which in this place he assigns to his mediatory office, is his death; that by means of death.' Whereas therefore there were sins committed under the first covenant and against it, (and would have been so for ever, had it continued,) which it was no way able so to take away as that the called might receive the inheritance, the Lord Christ undertook to be the mediator of that covenant, which was provided as a remedy against these evils. For herein he undertook to answer for and expiate all those sins. Whereas therefore, expiation of sin is to be made by an act towards God, with whom alone atonement is to be made, so as that they may be pardoned, the mediation of Christ here intended, is that whereby, suffering death in our stead, in the behalf of all that are called, he made atonement for sin.

But moreover, God had a further design herein. He would not only free them that are called from that death which they deserved, by their sins against the first covenant, but give them also a right and title to an eternal inheritance, that is, of grace and glory. Wherefore the procurement hereof also depends on the mediation of Christ. For by his obedience to God in the discharge thereof, he purchased for them this inheritance, and bequeathed it to them as the mediator of the new testament. The provision of this mediator of the new testament,

is the greatest effect of the infinite wisdom, love, and grace of God. This is the centre of his eternal counsels. In the womb of this one mercy, all others are contained. Herein will he be glorified to eternity.

I. The first covenant of works was broken and disannulled, because it had no mediator.

2. The covenant at Sinai had no such mediator as could expiate sin. Hence,

3. Both of them became means of death and condemnation.

4. God saw that in the making the new covenant, it was necessary to put all things into the hand of a mediator, that it also might not be frustrated.

5. This mediator was not in the first place to preserve us in the state of the new covenant, but to deliver us from the guilt of the breach of the former, and the curse thereon. To make provision for this end, was the effect of infinite wisdom.

Seventhly. The especial way and means whereby this effect was wrought by this mediator, was by death. Oavatov yɛvoμɛvov, Morte obita, facta, interveniente, intercedente, by means of death,' say we. Death was the means, that whereby the mediator procured the effect mentioned. That which in the foregoing verse is ascribed to the blood of Christ, which he offered as a priest, is here ascribed to his death, as a mediator. For both these really are the same: only in the one, what he did and suffered with respect to the curse of the first covenant, it was death; in the other, the manner of it, it was by blood; in the one, what he did and suffered with respect to the curse of the first covenant, it was death; in the other, the ground of his making expiation for sin by his death, or how it came so to do, namely, not merely as it was death or penal, but as it was a voluntary sacrifice or oblation. was therefore necessary to the end mentioned, that the mediator of the new testament should die; not as the high priest of old died, a natural death for themselves; but as the sacrifice died that was slain and offered for others. He was to die that death which was threatened to transgressions against the first covenant, that is, death under the curse of the law. There must therefore be some great cause and end why this mediator being the only begotten of the Father, should thus die. This was, say the Socinians, that he might confirm the doctrine that he taught. He died as a martyr, not as a sacrifice.

But,

It

1. There was no need that he should die to that end. For, his doctrine was sufficiently confirmed by the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the evidence of the presence of God in him, and the miracles which he wrought.

2. Notwithstanding their pretence, they do not assign the confirmation of his doctrine to his death, but to his resurrection from the dead. Neither indeed do they allow any gracious effect to his death, either towards God or men, but only make it something necessarily antecedent to what he did of that kind. Nor do they allow that he acted any thing at all towards God on our behalf; whereas the Scripture constantly assigns our redemption, sanctification, and salvation to the death and blood of Christ. These persons, 1. Deny that of itself it hath any influence into them: wherefore, 2. They say that Christ by

his death confirmed the new covenant; but hereby they intend nothing but what they do also in the former, or the confirmation of his doctrine, with an addition of somewhat worse. For they would have him to confirm the promises of God as by him declared, and no more, as though he were God's surety to us, and not a surety for us to God. Neither do they assign this to his death, but to his resurrection from the dead. But suppose all this, and that the death of Christ were in some sense useful and profitable to these ends, which is all they plead, yet what use and advantage was it of, with respect to them, that he should die an accursed death, under the curse of the law, and a sense of God's displeasure. Hereof the Socinians, and those that follow them, can yield no reason at all. It would become these men, so highly pretending to reason, to give an account, on their own principles, of the death of the only begotten Son of God, in the highest course and most intense acts of obedience, that may be compliant with the wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God, considering the kind of death that he died. But what they cannot do, the apostle doth in the next words.

For

Eighthly. The death of the mediator of the new testament, was us απολύτρωσιν των παραβάσεων, ' for the redemption of transgressions, and for this end it was necessary. Sin lay in the way of the enjoyment of the inheritance which grace had prepared. It did so in the righteousness and faithfulness of God. Unless it were removed, the inheritance could not be received. The way whereby this was to be done, was by redemption. The redemption of transgressions, is the deliverance of the transgressors from all the evils they were subject to on their account, by the payment of a satisfactory price. The words used to express it, λυτρον, αντίλυτρον, λυτρωσις, απολυτρωσις, Avrρovoa, will admit of no other signification. Here it must answer the purging of conscience by the blood of Christ. And he calls his life a ransom,' or price of redemption. And this utterly destroys the foundation of the Socinian redemption and expiation for sin. they make it only a freedom from punishment by an act of power. Take off the covering of the words, which they use in a sense foreign to the Scripture, and their proper signification, and their sense is expressly contradictory to the sense and words of the apostle. He declares Christ to have been the high priest and mediator of the new testament, in the same acts and duties. They teach that he ceased to to be a mediator, when he began to be a priest. He affirms that the blood of Christ doth expiate sins; they, that he doth it by an act of power in heaven, where there is no use of his blood. He says that his death was necessary to, and was the means or cause of the redemption of transgressions, that is, to be a price of redemption or just compensation for them; they contend that no such thing is required thereunto. And whereas the Scriptures do plainly assign the expiation of sin, redemption, reconciliation and peace with God, sanctification, and salvation, to the death and blood-shedding of Christ; they deny them all and every one to be in any sense effects of it, only they say it was an antecedent sign of the truth of his doctrine in his resurrection, and an antecedent condition of his exaltation and power; which is to reject the whole mystery of the gospel.

Besides the particular observations which we have made on the several passages of this verse, something may yet in general be observed from it. As,

Obs. VIII. A new testament providing an eternal inheritance in sovereign grace, the constitution of a mediator, such a mediator for that testament in infinite wisdom and love, the death of that testator for the redemption of transgressions, to fulfil the law and satisfy the justice of God, with the communication of that inheritance by promise to be received by faith in all them that are called, are the substance of the mystery of the gospel.-And all these are with wonderful wisdom comprised by the apostle in these words.

Obs. IX. That the efficacy of the mediation and death of Christ extended itself to all the called under the old testament, is an evident demonstration of his divine nature, his pre-existence to all these things, and the eternal covenant between the Father and him about them.

Obs. X. The first covenant did only forbid and condemn transgressions; redemption from them is by the new testament alone.

Obs. XI. The glory and efficacy of the new covenant, and the assurance of the communication of an eternal inheritance by virtue of it, depend hereon, that it was made a testament by the death of the mediator, which is farther proved in the following verses.

VER. 16, 17. Όπου γαρ διαθηκη, θανατον αναγκη φέρεσθαι του διαθεμένου. Διαθήκη γαρ επι νεκροις βεβαια επει μη ποτε ισχύει ότε ζῃ ὁ διαθέμενος.

ОavаTOν avaукn pɛpɛσSaι, Syr., the death of him is declared,' shown, argued, or proved. Mors intercedat necesse est. Necesse est mortem intercedere. Ar. Necesse est mortem ferri; which is not proper in the Latin tongue; however, there is an emphasis in pepeσai, more than is expressed by intercedo. Aia eμevov, Syr. 77 of him that made it;' of the testator. Em vεKoos, Syr. by

,דעבדה

in him that is dead,' in mortuis, among them that are dead.' BeCaia, Vulg. confirmatum est; and so the Syriac: ratum est, more proper. Mn TOTE LOXVEL, Syr. w, there is no use, profit, or benefit in it. Ar. nunquam valet; quandoquidem nunquam valet; nondum valet; it is not yet of force.

VER. 16, 17.-For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be brought in the death of the testator. For a testament is firm (or ratified) after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force whilst the testator liveth.

There is not much more to be considered in these verses, but only how the observation contained in them doth promote and confirm the argument which the apostle insists upon. Now this is to prove the necessity and use of the death of Christ, from the nature, ends, and use of the covenant, whereof he was the mediator. For it being a testament, it was to be confirmed with the death of the testator. This is proved in these verses, from the notion of a testament, and the only use of it amongst men. For the apostle in this Epistle, doth argue se

veral times, from such usages amongst men, as proceeding from the principles of reason and equity, were generally prevalent among them. So he doth in his discourse concerning the assurance given by the oath of God, ch. vi. And here he doth the same from what was commonly agreed upon; and suitable unto the reason of things, about the nature and use of a testament. The things here mentioned, were known to all, approved by all, and were the principal means of the preservation of peace and property in human societies. For although testaments, as unto their especial regulation, owe their original unto the Roman civil law; yet, as unto the substance of them, they were in use amongst all mankind, from the foundation of the world. For a testament is the just determination of a man's will, concerning what he will have done with his goods, after his decease. Or, it is the will of him that is dead. Take this power from men, and you root up the whole foundation of all industry and diligence in the world. For what man will labour to increase his substance, if, when he dies, he may not dispose of it to those, to whom, by nature, affinity, or other obligations, he hath most respect? Wherefore, the foundation of the apostle's arguing from this usage amongst men, is firm and stable.

Of the like nature is his observation, that a testament is of no force whilst the testator liveth; the nature of the thing itself, expounded by constant practice, will admit no doubt of it. For by what way soever a man disposeth of his goods, so as that it shall take effect whilst he is alive, as by sale, or gift, it is not a testament, nor hath any thing of the nature of a testament in it. For that is only the will of a man concerning his goods when he is dead.

These things being unquestionable, we are only to consider, whence the apostle takes his argument to prove the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the mediator of the new testament.

Now this is not merely from the signification of the word diaŋên, which yet is of consideration also, as hath been declared; but, whereas he treats principally of the two covenants, it is the affinity that is between a solemn covenant and a testament, that he hath respect unto. For he speaks not of the death of Christ, merely as it was death, which is all that is required unto a testament properly so called, without any consideration of what nature it is; but he speaks of it also as it was a sacrifice by the effusion of his blood, which belongs to a covenant, and is no way required unto a testament. Whereas, therefore, the word may signify either a covenant or a testament precisely so called, the apostle hath respect unto both the significations of it. And having in these verses mentioned his death, as the death of a testator, which is proper unto a testament in the 14th verse, and those that follow, he insists on his blood as a sacrifice, which is proper unto a covenant. But these things must be more fully explained, whereby the difficulty which appears in the whole context, will be removed.

be

Unto the confirmation or ratification of a testament, that it may BeCaia, 'sure, stable, and of force,' there must be death, the death of of the testator, επι νεκροις βεβαια. But there is no need that this should be by blood, the blood of the testator, or any other. Unto the consideration of the covenant, blood was required, the blood of the