Hebrews 7:20-22

The apostle had warned the Hebrews before, that he had “many things to say,” and those “not easy to be understood,” concerning Melchisedec. And herein he intended not only those things which he expresseth directly concerning that person and his office, but the things themselves signified thereby in the person and office of Christ. And therefore he omits nothing which may from thence be any way represented. So from that one testimony of the psalmist he makes sundry inferences unto his purpose; as,

1. That the Lord Christ was to be a priest; which included in it the cessation of the Levitical priesthood, seeing he was of the tribe of Judah, and not of the tribe of Levi.

2. That he was to be another priest; that is, a priest of another order, namely, that of Melchisedec. And this he variously demonstrates, to prove his pre-eminence above the Aaronical priesthood, as also thereon, that upon his introduction that order was utterly to cease and be disannulled.

3. He observes from the same testimony, unto the same purpose, that he was to be a priest for ever, so as that there should never more, upon his death or otherwise, be any need of another priest, nor any possibility of the return of the former priesthood into the church.

4. Neither yet doth he rest here, but observes moreover the manner how God, in the testimony insisted on, declared his purpose of making the Lord Christ a priest, which was constitutive of his office; and that was by his oath: and thence he takes occasion to manifest how far his priesthood is exalted above that under the law. This is that which now lies before us in these verses. And we have in these things an instance given of what unsearchable stores of wisdom and truth are laid up in every parcel of the word of God, if we have a spiritual light in their investigation.

Hebrews 7:20. Καὶ καθ᾿ ὅσον οὐ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας (οἱ μὲν γὰρ χωρὶς ὁρκωμοσίας εἰσὶν ἱερεῖς γεγονότες, ὁ δὲ μετὰ ὁρκωμοσίας διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν· ῞Ωμοσε Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται· Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ), κατὰ τοσοῦτον κρείττονος διαθήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος ᾿Ινσοῦς.

The words of the 20th verse being elliptical, the sense of them is variously supplied. Most translators carry on the sense unto that which is the midst of the 21st in our translation, “others were made priests without an oath.” The Syriac refers the words unto them foregoing, וְשַׁרְדֵהּ לַן בְּמַוְמָתָא, “and confirmed it” (that is, “the better hope”) “with an oath;” and Beza, “etiam quatenus non sine jurejurando superintroducta est, “inasmuch as [that hope] is not brought in without an oath;” and another since, “et eo potior ilia spes, quatenus non absque jurejurando superintroducta est,” Schmid. But this limits the comparison unto this verse, which the apostle really finisheth Hebrews 7:22. Vulg. Lat., “et quantum est non sinejurejurando;” which the Rhemists render, “and inasmuch as it is not without an oath.” Ours supply, “he was made a priest,” “inasmuch as not without an oath he was made a priest:” no doubt according to the mind of the apostle; for he hath a prospect in these words unto what ensues, where he expressly applies this oath unto the priesthood of Christ, and the consummation thereof.

Καὶ καθ᾿ ὅσον, “etiam quatenus,” “et quatenus;” “and inasmuch.” Καθ ᾿ ὅσον is omitted by the Syriac. Vulg., “in quantum est,” “inasmuch.” Hereunto answereth κατὰ τοσοῦτον, verse 22, “eatenus.”

῾Ορκωμοσία is the same with ὅρκος, “jusjurandum;” an “oath.” But it is here principally applied unto those oaths whereby conventions, compacts, or covenants, were confirmed. Hence ὁρκωμόσια were the “sacrifices” that were offered in the confirmation of sworn covenants. It is three times used here by our apostle on this occasion, verses 20, 21, 28, and nowhere else in the New Testament.

Οἱ μὲν γάρ. Vulg., “alii quidem;” which the Rhemists mend by rendering it, “and the other.” Beza, “nam illi quidem.” And so the Syriac, הָנוּן גֵּיר, “and they.” Ours, “for those priests;” rather, “and truly those priests,” though μὲν γάρ have only the force of a causal conjunction.

Εἰσὶ γεγονότες . Syr., הֲווּ, “were.” But the manner of their being made priests is intended, and so the words are to be expressed fully; “facti sunt,” “were made.” Διὰ τοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς αὐτόν. The Syriac adds, בְּיָד דַּוִיד, “by the hand of David.” It is not the giving of the oath, but the recording of it in the psalm, that he intendeth.

Οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται, “non pcenitebit.” Syr., וְלָא נְדַגֵּל “and will not lie;” “will not repent,” or change his mind.

Κατὰ τοσοῦτον. Vulg., “in tantum;” to answer “in quantum” before. “Tanto,” “eatenus;” “tanto,” “by so much.” Syr., הָנָא כֻּלהּ “hoc toto,” “by all this;” and so proceeds, “this covenant was more excellent wherein Jesus was made the surety.”

Of the signification of the word ἔγγυος I shall speak afterwards. [9]

ft9 VARIOUS READING. The clause, Σὺ ἱερεὺς usque ad Μελξισεδέκ, is omitted by Tischendorf, on the authority of c, some other manuscripts, and several versions. EXPOSITION. Christ is called a “surety” here, not as the vicarious fulfiller of that which men ought to have performed, but because God on his part gave him to the human race, as a surety for the actual fulfillment of his covenant promise. For this, and this alone, is what is spoken of in the context. Ebrard. Several writers expound it as a paronomasia with ἐγγίζομεν, verse 19; in which case it must include not his relation, as surety, to God only, but to his redeemed also. TRANSLATION. Owen here translates διαθήκη “covenant,” not “testament,” according to the A.V. He is followed by all modern critics, Scholefield, Craik, Stuart, Ebrard, etc. Bleek, however, adheres to the rendering, “testament.” ED.

Hebrews 7:20. And inasmuch as not without an oath: (for they truly were made without an oath; but this with an oath, by him that said unto him, The Lord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) by so much was Jesus made surety of a better covenant.

The same argument is pursued as in the foregoing verses, only with a new medium, and that such as leads on towards the conclusion of the whole disputation. The introduction of a new priesthood, the cessation or abolition of the old, with the advantage of the church thereby, because of its dignity, pre-eminence, and stability, above that which was to give place unto it, are the things which the apostle is in the proof and confirmation of. There are three things in these three verses:

1. A proposition of a new medium for the confirmation of the principal argument before insisted on, Hebrews 7:20.

2. An illustration and proof of what is asserted in that proposition, Hebrews 7:21.

3. An inference from its being so established and proved, Hebrews 7:22. In the proposition three things may be considered:

1. The connection of it unto the preceding discourse, by the conjunction καί.

2. The modification of the proposition, in the manner of its introduction; καθ᾿ ὅσον , “quanto,” “quatenus,” “in quantum;” “inasmuch.”

3. The proposition itself, expressed negatively: Οὐ χωρίς, “Not without,” etc.

1. The note of connection, καί , may respect Hebrews 7:17, where the same testimony now insisted upon is introduced, and so may intimate a further pursuit of the same argument. If so, the other two verses, 18, 19, are inserted as a parenthesis, comprising an inference of what the apostle had before proved, with the reason of it: for whereas before he had only made use of the words of the Father unto Christ, “Thou art a priest for ever,” and thereon showed what would thence follow; he now proceeds to declare the manner how those words were spoken, namely, “with an oath.” Or it may respect the words immediately foregoing, namely, “the bringing in of a better hope;” for it was brought in “by an oath:” and this sense is followed by most translators, who supply the defect in these words by the repetition of “a better hope.” But although neither of these suppositions concerning the connection of the words doth prejudice the sense or design of them, yet, as we have observed before, καί oftentimes is as much as “moreover,” as it is rendered, “etiam,” by Beza; and then it denotes not an immediate connection with, or dependence on what went before in particular, but only a process in the same general argument. And so it is here a note of introduction of a new, special consideration, for the confirmation of the same design. Hence our translators supply the words, not with any thing that went before, but with what follows after, which the apostle designed now in particular to speak unto, “he was made a priest.”

2. The modification of the proposition is in these words, Καθ᾿ ὅσον, “eatenus quantum,” “in quantum;” “inasmuch,” “so much.” Hereunto answers κατὰ τοσοῦτον, Hebrews 7:22, “in tantum,” “quanto,” “tanto.” The excellency of the covenant whereof Christ was made mediator above the old covenant, had proportion with the pre-eminence of his priesthood above that of Aaron, in that he was made a priest by an oath, but they were not so. And we may observe in general, that,

Obs. 1. The faith, comfort, honor, and safety of the church, depend much on every particular mark that God hath put upon any of the offices of Christ, or whatever belongs thereunto.

We have lived to see men endeavoring their utmost to render Christ himself, and all his offices, of as little use in religion as they can possibly admit, and yet retain the name of Christians. And it is to be feared that he is as little valued by some in their practice as he is by others in their notions. This is not the way of the Scripture. Therein every concernment of him and his offices is particularly insisted on; and the apostle in this chapter makes it manifest what important mysteries depend on such minute considerations as some would think were little to be regarded. But all things concerning him are full of divine mysteries; and every word about them that drops from infinite wisdom ought to be an object of faith and admiration. When, therefore, we cease to inquire with all diligence into all the revelations made concerning Christ or his offices, or any thing which belongs unto them, we do really cease to be Christians. And there can be no greater evidence of our want of faith in him and love unto him, than if we neglect a due consideration of all things that the Scripture reveals and testifies concerning him.

3. The proposition itself is in these words: “Not without an oath.” Two things the apostle supposeth in this negative proposition:

(1.) That there were two ways whereby men either were or might be made priests; namely, they might be so either with or without an oath. And he expresseth the latter way, applying it negatively unto Christ, that he might include a negation of the former way with respect unto the priests under the law; both which he afterwards expressly mentioneth.

(2.) That the dignity of the priesthood depends on, and is declared by the way whereby God was pleased to initiate men into that office. These two things being in general laid down, as those which could not be denied, the apostle makes application of them in the next verse distinctly, unto the priests of the law on the one hand, and Christ on the other, in a comparison between whom he is engaged. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 2. Nothing was wanting on the part of God that might give eminency, stability, glory, and efficacy, unto the priesthood of Christ: “Not without an oath.” For,

1. This was due unto the glory of his person. The Son of God in infinite grace condescending unto the susception of this office, and the discharge of all the duties of it, it was meet that all things which might contribute any thing unto the glory or efficacy of it should accompany his undertakings. For being in himself “the image of the invisible God, by whom all things were created,” it was meet that in his whole work he should “in all things have the pre-eminence,” as our apostle speaks, Colossians 1:15-16; Colossians 1:18. He was, in every thing that he undertook, to be preferred and exalted above all others, who ever were employed in the church, or ever should be; and therefore was he made a priest “not without an oath.”

2. God saw that this was needful, to encourage and secure the faith of the church. There were many things defective in the priesthood under the law, as we have partly seen already, and shall yet see more fully in our progress. And it suited the design and wisdom of God that it should be so; for he never intended that the faith of the church should rest and be terminated in those priests or their office. What he granted unto them was sufficient unto the end and use whereunto he had designed it; so as that the church might have all that respect for it which was needful or for their good. But so many defects there were in that administration, as might sufficiently evidence that the faith of the church was not to acquiesce therein, but to look for what was yet to come, as our apostle proves by many instances in this chapter. But upon the introduction of the priesthood of Christ, God really and actually proposeth and exhibiteth unto the church all that they were to trust unto, all that he would do, or was any way needful to be done, for their peace and salvation. No other relief was to be expected for the future; therefore did God, in infinite wisdom and grace, for the stability and security of their faith, grant the highest and most peculiar evidences of the everlasting confirmation of his priesthood. And hereby did he manifest that this dispensation of his will and grace was absolutely unchangeable; so that if we comply not therewithal we must perish for ever. Thus all the whole Scripture, and all contained therein, direct us unto our ultimate hope and rest in Christ alone.

Hebrews 7:21. In the application of this assertion, the apostle affirms that “those priests,” the priests under the law, “were made without an oath.” No such thing is mentioned in all that is recorded concerning their call and consecration; for where they are expressly declared in their outward circumstances, Exodus 28; Exodus 29; there is mention made of no such thing. But their dedication consisted in three things:

1. A call from God, expressed Exodus 28:1. We have showed how necessary this was unto the first erection of any priesthood, though it was to be continued by an ordinary succession. See Hebrews 5:4. It is therefore granted, that in this general foundation of the office, Aaron had it, even as Christ had, though not in the same way or manner; for the call of Christ was far more eminent and glorious than that of Aaron, as hath been showed.

2. It consisted in the appointment and preparation of those peculiar garments and mystical ornaments wherein they were to administer their office; and their unction with the holy anointing oil, when clothed with those garments.

3. In the sacrifices wherewith they were consecrated and actually set apart unto that office whereunto they were called.

And these two were peculiar unto them, there being no use of them in the consecration of Christ: for both of them did declare their whole administration to be external and carnal, and therefore could never make any thing perfect; nor were capable of a confirmation unto perpetuity.

But the promise made unto Phinehas seems to be expressed for an eternity in this priesthood. “Behold,” saith God, “I give unto him my covenant of peace: and he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood,” Numbers 25:12-13. But this proves not a certain absolute perpetuity of this priesthood of Phinehas. For,

1. The covenant intended was not a complete, solemn covenant, confirmed either by oath or sacrifice, but only a naked promise or declaration of the will of God. And that בְּרִית is frequently used for such a promise as wherein the nature of a covenant is not contained, is acknowledged by the Jews themselves.

2. All the special covenants or promises that God made unto or with any under the law, that had respect unto legal administrations, were all of them commensurate unto the duration and continuance of the law itself. Whilst the covenant of the law itself was in force, they also continued; and when that ceased, then also were they to cease; for, the foundation being taken away, the whole building must come to the ground. Now, that this old covenant of the law was to cease, and be taken away by the introduction of another and a better, God did openly and frequently declare under the old testament, as our apostle manifests by one signal instance in the next chapter. And this is the sense of לְעוֹלָם, “for ever,” in this case constantly. It expresseth a certain continuance of any thing, so as not to be changed, or to have another thing substituted in the room of that whereunto it is applied, whilst that legal dispensation continued. And so it was in this promise made unto Phinehas. For although there was an intercision made afterwards, as to the continuance of the priesthood in the line of his family, by the interposition of Eli and his sons, who were of the posterity of Ithamar, yet he returned again unto the enjoyment of this promise, in the person of Zadok, in the days of Solomon, and so continued until the second temple was forsaken of God also, and made “a den of thieves.”

But neither with respect unto him or any other is there any mention of the oath of God; for indeed God did never solemnly interpose himself with an oath, in a way of privilege or mercy, but with direct respect unto Jesus Christ. So he “sware by himself” unto Abraham, that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; whereby he declared the immutability of his counsel, in sending his Son to take his seed upon him. So he “sware unto David by his holiness,” that his seed, namely Christ, should sit on the throne for ever. Wherefore, although God never changeth any real internal acts of his will, or his purposes, for “with him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning,” yet he often works an alteration in some things, which on some conditions, or for some time, he hath proposed and enjoined unto his church, unless they were confirmed by his oath; for this declares them to be absolutely immutable.

This is the account the apostle gives of the Aaronical priests, Καὶ οἱ μέν, “And they truly,” that is, Aaron, and all his posterity that exercised the priest's office in a due manner, “they were all made priests;” that is, by God himself. They did not originally “take this honor unto themselves,” but “were called of God.” For he hath no regard unto them who in those days invaded the priest's office with violence, deceit, or bribery; and so not only corrupting but evacuating the covenant of Levi. Those that entered into and executed their office according to the law are here intended by him. These were all made priests in the way of God's appointment; but neither all of them nor any of them were made priests by an oath. God, into whose sovereign will and pleasure all these things are resolved, granted unto them what he saw convenient, and withheld what seemed good unto him. What he did, was sufficient to oblige the people unto obedience during that dispensation of his will; and what he did not add, but reserved for a further dispensation of his grace, intimated that liberty which he reserved unto himself of making an alteration therein, as he saw good. And we may see that,

Obs. 3. Although the decrees and purposes of God were always firm and immutable, yet there was no fixed state of outward dispensations, none confirmed with an oath, until Christ came. Nor shall we find any rest in any thing, until we come to Christ.

The apostle in the next words declares in particular and positively what he had in general and negatively before laid down: “But this with an oath;” ὁ δέ , “but he,” “this man,” he who was to be “a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” He was made μεθ᾿ ὁρκωμοσίας, “with an oath.” This is first asserted, and then proved by the testimony of the psalmist. And the assertion may have a double signification:

1. That this oath was constituent of his office. Therein his call and consecration did consist.

2. That his call, constitution, or consecration, was confirmed and ratified with an oath. And the latter sense is intended; for so doth the antithesis require.

‘Those legal priests had a divine constitution and call; but they had no confirmation by the addition of an oath; God used not an oath in or about any thing that belonged unto them. Wherefore this man was also to have another call unto and constitution of his office; but he was to be confirmed therein by an oath.'Wherein this call of Christ unto his office did consist, what were the acts of the divine will thereabout, and what was the manifestation of them, I have declared at large in the exercitations about the priesthood of Christ. Two things are to be considered in this oath:

1. The form; and,

2. The matter of it.

The form of it is in these words, “The Lord sware, and will not repent.” And the matter of it is, that he in his own person should be “a priest for ever.”

1. The person swearing is God the Father, who speaks unto the Son in Psalms 110:1. “The LORD said unto my Lord.” And the oath of God is nothing but the solemn, eternal, and unchangeable decree and purpose of his will, under an especial way of declaration. So the same act and counsel of God's will is called his “decree,” Psalms 2:7. Wherefore, when God will so far unveil a decree and purpose as to testify it to be absolute and unchangeable, he doth it in the way of an oath; as hath been declared, Hebrews 6:13-14. Or, to the same purpose, God affirms that he hath sworn in the case.

If, then, it be demanded, when God thus sware unto Christ, I answer, We must consider the decree itself unto this purpose, and the peculiar revelation or declaration of it; in which two this oath doth consist. And as to the first, it belongs entirely unto those eternal federal transactions between the Father and the Son, which were the original of the priesthood of Christ, which I have at large explained in our exercitations. And as for the latter, it was when he gave out that revelation of his mind in the force and efficacy of an oath, in the psalm by David.

It is, therefore, not only a mistake, but an error of danger in some expositors, who suppose that this oath was made unto Christ upon his ascension into heaven. For this apprehension being pursued, will fall in with the πρῶτον ψεῦδος of the Socinians in this whole cause, namely, that the kingly and priestly offices of Christ are not really distinct. Moreover, it supposeth the principal discharge of the priesthood of Christ, in his sacrifice, to have been antecedent unto this oath; which utterly enervates the apostle's argument in these words. For if he were made a priest and discharged his office without an oath, as he must be and do on this supposition, that the oath of God was made unto him after his ascension (or that his death and oblation therein belonged not unto his priestly office), he had no pre-eminence herein unto the Aaronical priests. He might so have a subsequent privilege of the confirmation of his office, but he had none in his call thereunto.

Wherefore this oath of God, though not in itself solely the constituent cause of the priesthood of Christ, yet it was, and it was necessarily to be, antecedent unto his actual entrance upon or discharge of any solemn duty of his office.

That additional expression, “And he will not repent,” declares the nature of the oath of God and of the purpose con firmed thereby. When God makes an alteration in any law, rule, order, or constitution, he is or may be said, ἀνθρωποπαθῶς, to repent. This God by this word declares shall never be; no alteration or change, no removal or substitution, shall ever be made in this matter. ever.” He was not only made a priest with an oath, which they were not, but a priest for ever. This adds unto the unchangeableness of his office, that he himself in his own person was to bear, exercise, and discharge it, without substitute or successor.

And this “for ever” answers unto the “for ever” under the law, each of them being commensurate unto the dispensation of that covenant which they do respect; for absolute eternity belongs not unto these things. The “for ever” of the old testament was the duration of the dispensation of the old covenant. And this “for ever” respects the new covenant, which is to continue unto the consummation of all things, no change therein being any way intimated or promised, or consistent with the wisdom and faithfulness of God; all which were otherwise under the law. But at the end of the world, together with the dispensation of the new covenant, an end will be put unto all the mediatory offices of Christ, and all their exercise. And there are four things which the apostle declareth and evinceth in this observation:

1. That our high priest was peculiarly designed unto and initiated into his office, by the oath of God, which none other ever was before him.

2. That the person of the high priest is hereby so absolutely determined, as that the church may continually draw nigh unto God the fall assurance of faith.

3. That this priesthood is liable to no alteration, succession, or substitution.

4. That from hence ariseth the principal advantage of the new testament above the old, as is declared in the next verse; and we may observe,

Obs. 4. That although God granted great privileges unto the church under the old testament, yet still in every instance he withheld that which was the principal, and should have given perfection unto what he did grant. He made them priests, but without an oath.

In all things there was a reserve for Christ, that he in all might have the pre-eminence.

Obs. 5. God by his oath declares the determination of his sovereign pleasure unto the object of it. What he proposeth and pre- scribeth unto us, he declares no more of his mind and his will about but that he requireth and approveth of our obedience unto it; but it and about it that seem good unto him. Nothing, therefore, in the whole legal administration being confirmed by the oath of God, it was always ready for removal at the appointed season.

Obs. 6. Christ's being made a priest for ever by the oath of God, is a solid foundation of peace and consolation to the church. For,

Obs. 7. All the transactions between the Father and the Son, concerning his offices, undertakings, and the work of our redemption, have respect unto the faith of the church, and are declared for our consolation. Such were his solemn call to his sacerdotal office, and the oath of God whereby he was confirmed therein. I will not say that these things were needless on the part of Christ himself, seeing it became the glory of his person to be thus testified unto in his condescension unto office; yet was it in all these things the good and benefit of the church that was-designed. What the Lord Christ said of his prayer unto God the Father, at least so far as it was vocal, that it was not needful for him, but was only for the confirmation of the faith of others, John 11:41-42, may be spoken of all other transactions between God and him; the faith of others was principally respected in them, and thereunto they were absolutely needful. For,

1. The things which God proposeth unto our faith through Christ are exceeding great and glorious, and such as, being most remote from our innate apprehensions, do need the highest confirmation. Things they are which “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man,” 1 Corinthians 2:9. Things unexpected, great and glorious, are apt to surprise, amaze, and overwhelm our spirits, until they are uncontrollably testified unto. So when Jacob's sons told their father that Joseph was alive, and made governor over all the land of Egypt, Genesis 45:26, the tidings were too great and good for him to receive. But it is added, that when they gave evidence unto their report by the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, “the spirit of Jacob revived,” verses 27, 28. The things of the gospel, pardon of sin, peace with God, participation of the Spirit, grace and glory, are great and marvellous. Men at the hearing of them are like them that dream; the words concerning them seem like the report of the women unto the apostles concerning the resurrection of Christ, “they seemed as idle tales, and they believed them not,” Luke 24:2. Wherefore God discovers the fountains of these things, that we may apprehend the truth and reality of them. His eternal covenant with his Son about them, his oath that he hath made unto him, whereby he was established in his office, and the like glorious transactions of his wisdom and grace, are revealed unto this very end, that we might not be faithless in these things, but believe. For can any thing that is proposed unto us be supposed to exceed the duty of faith, when we see it, either in itself or in its springs and foundation, solemnly confirmed by the oath of God? They are glorious things which we are to expect from the priesthood of Christ, and the discharge of that office. And is it not an unspeakable encouragement thereunto, that God hath confirmed him in that office by his solemn oath unto him? For two things evidently present themselves unto our minds thereon:

(1.) That this is a thing which the infinitely holy, wise God lays great weight and stress upon. And what is he not able to effect when he doth so, and consequently lays out the treasures of his wisdom and en-gageth the greatness of his power in the pursuit of it? And,

(2.) His counsel herein is absolutely immutable, and such as on no emergency can admit of alteration. If, therefore, the engagement of infinite wisdom, grace, and power, will not excite and encourage us unto believing, there is no remedy, but we must perish in our sins.

2. As the things proposed in the gospel, as effects of the priesthood of Christ, are in themselves great and glorious, requiring an eminent confirmation, so the frame of our hearts with respect unto them is such, from first to last, as stands in need of all the evidence that can be given unto them. For there is in us by nature an aversation unto them, and a dislike of them. In the wisdom of our carnal minds, we look on them as foolish and useless. And when this woful enmity is conquered by the mighty power of God, and the souls of sinners wrought over to approve of these effects of divine wisdom and grace, yet no man can recount how many doubts, fears, jealous suspicions, we are, as to our closing with them by faith, obnoxious unto. Every one's own heart, if he have any acquaintance with it, if he be diligent in the examination of it, will sufficiently satisfy him what objections faith in this matter hath to conflict withal. And it is to be feared that he who is insensible of the oppositions that arise against sincere believing, never yet knew what it is so to believe. To encourage and strengthen our hearts against them, to give power unto faith against all oppositions, doth God thus reveal the wisdom of his counsel and the glorious springs of this ministration whereinto our whole faith is principally resolved. And indeed we may try the sincerity of our faith by its respect unto these things. It may be some, for aught I know, may be carried on in such an easy course, and be so preserved from perplexing temptations, as not to be driven to seek their relief so deep as these springs of God's confirmation of the office of Christ by his oath do lie; but yet he that doth not of his own choice refresh his faith with the consideration of them, and strengthen it with pleas in his supplications taken from thence, seems to me to be greatly unacquainted with what it is truly to believe.

Hebrews 7:22. “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”

Κατὰ τοσοῦτον, “by so much,” answers directly to καθ᾿ ὅσον, Hebrews 7:20, “inasmuch.” There is therefore an immediate connection of these words unto that verse. Hence verse 21, wherein a confirmation is interserted of the principal assertion, is justly placed in a parenthesis in our translation. So the sense of the words is to this purpose: ‘And inasmuch as he was not made a priest without an oath, he is by so much made the surety of a better testament.'

And there may be a twofold design in the words:

1. That his being made a priest by an oath made him meet to be the surety of a better testament; or,

2. That the testament whereof he was the surety must needs be better than the other, because he who was the surety of it was made a priest by an oath.

In the one way, he proves the dignity of the priesthood of Christ from the new testament; and in the other, the dignity of the new testament from the priesthood of Christ. And we may reconcile both these senses by affirming, that really and efficiently the priesthood gives dignity unto the new testament, and declaratively the new testament sets forth the dignity of the priesthood of Christ.

It is owned tacitly, that the priesthood of Levi, and the old testament, were good, or these could not be said to be “better,” in way of comparison. And good they were, because appointed of God, and of singular use unto the church during their continuance. But this priesthood and testament are better, by so much as that which is confirmed with an oath is better than that which is not so; which alone gives the proportion of comparison in this place. Many other advantages there were of the priesthood of Christ and of the new testament, in comparison unto those of the old, all which increase the proportion of difference; but at present the apostle considers only what depends on the oath of God. Wherefore the design of the comparison contained in these words, κατὰ τοσοῦτον , is, that whereas this priest after the order of Melchisedec was designed to be the surety of another testament, he was confirmed in his office by the oath of God; which gives a pre-eminence both unto his office and the testament whereof he was to be a surety.

In the assertion itself, that “Jesus was made a surety of a better testament,” we may consider,

1. What is included or supposed in it; and,

2. What is literally expressed.

First, Three things are included and supposed in this assertion:

1. That there was another testament that God had made with his people.

2. That this was a good testament.

3. That this testament had in some sense a surety.

Secondly, As unto what is expressed in these words, there are four things in them:

1. The name of him who was the subject discoursed of; it is “Jesus.”

2. What is affirmed of him; he was “a surety.”

3. How he became so; he was “made” so.

4. Whereof he was a surety; and that is of a “testament” of God: which

5. is described by its respect unto the other before mentioned, and its preference above it; it is a “better testament.”

First, It is supposed,

1. That there was another testament which God had made with his people. This the apostle supposeth in this whole context, and at length brings his discourse unto its head and issue in the eighth chapter, where he expressly compareth the two testaments the one with the other. Now this was the covenant or testament that God made with the Hebrews on Mount Sinai, when he brought them out of Egypt, as is expressly declared in the ensuing chapter, whereof we must treat in its proper place.

2. It is supposed that this was a good testament. It was so in itself, as an effect of the wisdom and righteousness of God; for all that he doth is good in itself, both naturally and morally, nor can it otherwise be. And it was of good use unto the church; namely, unto them who looked unto the end of it, and used it in its proper design. Unto the body of the people, indeed, as far as they were carnal, and looked only on the one hand for temporal benefits by it, or on the other for life and salvation, it was a heavy yoke, yea, the “ministration of death.” With respect unto such persons and ends, it contained “statutes that were not good,” “commandments that could not give life;” and it was every way unprofitable. But yet in itself it was on many accounts “holy, just, and good:”

(1.) As it had an impression upon it of the wisdom and goodness of God.

(2.) As it was instructive in the nature and demerit of sin.

(3.) As it directed unto and represented the only means of deliverance, by righteousness and salvation in Christ.

(4.) As it established a worship which was very glorious and acceptable unto God during its season. But, as we shall show afterwards, it came short in all its excellencies and worth of this whereof Christ is the surety.

3. It is supposed that this testament had a surety; for this new testament having a surety, the other must have so also. But who this was must be inquired into.

(1.) Some would have our Lord Jesus Christ to be the surety of that testament also; for so our apostle affirms in general, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

Be the covenant or testament what or which it will, there is but “one mediator between God and men.” Hence our apostle says of him, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,” Hebrews 13:8. If, therefore, he be the only mediator to-day under the new testament, he was so also yesterday under the old.

Ans. [1.] There is some difference between a mediator at large, and such a mediator as is withal a surety. And however, on any account, Christ may be said to be the mediator of that covenant, he cannot be said to be the surety of it.

[2.] The place in Timothy cannot intend the old covenant, but is exclusive of it; for the Lord Christ is there called a mediator with respect unto the ransom that he paid in his death and blood-shedding. This respected not the confirmation of the old covenant, but was the abolition of it: and the old was confirmed with the blood of beasts, as the apostle expressly declares, Hebrews 9:18-19.

[3.] The Lord Christ was indeed, in his divine person, the immediate administrator of that covenant, the angel and messenger of it on the behalf of God the Father: but this doth not constitute him a mediator properly; for “a mediator is not of one, but God is one.”

[4.] The Lord Christ was a mediator under that covenant, as to the original promise of grace, and the efficacy of it, which were administered therein: but he was not the mediator and surety of it as it was a covenant; for had he been so, he being “the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,” that covenant could never have been disannulled.

(2.) Some assert Moses to have been the surety of the old testament; for so it is said that “the law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator,” Galatians 3:19, that is, of Moses, whom the people desired to be the internuncius between God and them, Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:27; Deuteronomy 18:16.

Ans. [1.] Moses may be said to be the mediator of the old covenant in a general sense, inasmuch as he went between God and the people, to declare the will of God unto them, and to return the profession of obedience from them unto God; but he was in no sense the surety thereof. For, on the one side, God did not appoint him in his stead to give assurance of his fidelity unto the people. This he took absolutely unto himself, in those words wherewith all his laws were prefaced, “I am the LORD thy God.” Nor did he, nor could he, on the other side, undertake unto God for the people; and so could not be esteemed in any sense the surety of the covenant.

[2.] The apostle hath no such argument in hand as to compare Christ with Moses, nor is he treating of that office wherein he compares him with him, and prefers him above him; which was his prophetical office, whereof he had before discoursed, Hebrews 3:4-6. Wherefore,

(3.) It was the high priest alone who was the surety of that covenant. It was made and confirmed by sacrifices, Psalms 50:5; as we shall see more at large afterwards, Hebrews 9:19-20. And if Moses were concerned herein, it was as he executed the office of the priest in an extraordinary manner. Therefore the high priest, offering solemn sacrifices in the name and on the behalf of the people, making atonement for them according to the terms of that covenant, supplied the place of the surety thereof. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 8. How good and glorious soever any thing may appear to be, or really be, in the worship of God, or as a way of our coming to him, or walking before him, if it be not ratified in and by the immediate suretiship of Christ, it must give way unto that which is better; it could be neither durable in itself, nor make any thing per fect in them that made use of it.

Secondly, In what is positively asserted in the words we may observe,

1. The person who is the subject spoken of; and that is “Jesus.” He had in general declared the nature of the priesthood of him who was to have that office, according to the order of Melchisedec ; but he had not yet, in this whole chapter, that is, from the beginning of this discourse, mentioned who that person was, or named him. But here he makes application of the whole unto him. It is Jesus who in all these things was intended. And this he doth suitably unto his design and occasion. For two things were in question among the Hebrews:

(1.) What was the nature of the office of the Messiah?

(2.) Who was the person? For the first of these, he proves unto them, from their own acknowledged principles, that he was to be a priest; as also what was the nature of that priesthood, and what would be the necessary consequence of the setting up of that office in the church, and the exercise of it: this his whole precedent discourse is designed unto. Now he asserts the second part of the difference, namely, that it is Jesus who is this priest; because in him alone do all things concur that were to be in that priest, and he had now discharged the principal part and duty of that office.

It was sufficient for the church of the Jews to believe in the Messiah, and to own the work of redemption which he was to accomplish. Nor did the mere actual coming of Christ make it absolutely necessary that they should all immediately be obliged to believe him to be the person. Many, I doubt not, died after his incarnation and went to heaven without an actual belief that it was he who was their Redeemer. But their obligation unto faith towards that individual person arose from the declaration that was made of him, and the evidences given to prove him to be the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. So he tells those unto whom he preached and who saw his miracles, “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”, John 8:24. It would not now suffice them to believe in the Messiah in general, but they were also to believe that Jesus was he, or they must perish for their unbelief. Howbeit they only were intended who, hearing his words and seeing his miracles, had sufficient evidence of his being the Son of God. Of others in the same church this was not as yet required. Nor, it may be, cloth our Savior oblige them immediately unto faith in this matter; only he declares what would be the event with them who, upon his accomplishment of his work on the earth, and the sending of the Holy Ghost after his ascension, whereby he gave the principal declaration and evidence of his being the Messiah, should continue in their unbelief. Hereon, and not before, the belief in his individual person, in “Jesus, the Son of God,” became the foundation of the church; so that whoever believed not in him did die in their sins. Wherefore the apostles, immediately upon the coming of the Holy Ghost, made this the first and principal subject of their preaching, namely, that “Jesus was the Christ.” See Acts 2-5. So our apostle in this place, having asserted the nature of the office of the promised Messiah, makes an application of it unto his person; as he also had done, Acts 2:9. And we may observe, that,

Obs. 9. All the privileges, benefits, and advantages of the offices and mediation of Christ will not avail us, unless we reduce them all unto faith in his person. Indeed it is not so much what is done, though that be inconceivably great, as by whom it is done, namely, “Jesus, the Son of God,” God and man in one person. It is a matter of somewhat a surprising nature, that divers in these days do endeavor to divert the minds and faith of men from a respect unto the person of Christ. But that the crafts of Satan have made nothing, be it never so foolish or impious in religion, to seem strange, a man could not but admire how such an attempt should be either owned or countenanced. For my part, I must acknowledge that I know no more of Christian religion but what makes me judge that the principal trouble of believers in this world lies herein, that they can no more fervently love, nor more firmly believe in the person of Christ, than what they have as yet attained unto. But this notion hath been vented and carried on among us by persons who, out of an aim after things novel and contrary to the received faith, have suffered themselves to be imposed on by those who have other principles than what they seem to own. For the Socinians, denying the divine nature of Christ, do their utmost, in the pursuit of that infidelity, to take the minds of men from a regard unto his person, and would reduce all religion unto a mere obedience unto his commands. And indeed there can be no place for that divine faith in him, trust on him, and love unto him, which the church has always professed, if it be supposed that he is not God and man in one person. And their reasonings, they are unto this purpose, which some represent unto us, who yet will not avow that principle from whence alone they are taken and do rise. But so long as we can hold the head, or this great foundation of religion, that the Lord Christ is the eternal Son of God, which alone gives life and efficacy unto his whole work of mediation, our faith in all its actings will be reduced unto his person; there it beginneth, there it endeth. It is Jesus who is this mediator and surety of the covenant, in whose person “God redeemed the church with his own blood.”

2. That which is affirmed of this person is, that he was “made a surety.” The way whereby he became so is expressed by γέγονε, he was “made” so. So is this word used with respect unto him, Hebrews 1:4: of the same importance with another translated “appointed,” Hebrews 3:2; and it signifies what is expressed, Hebrews 5:5. The places may be consulted with our exposition of them. Respect is had herein unto the acts of God the Father in this matter. What are those acts of God, whether eternal or temporal, that did concur unto or any way belong unto the investiture of Christ in his offices, I have at large declared on Hebrews 1:1-3. And more particularly for what concerns his priesthood, it hath been handled apart in our exercitations on that subject. But we may here also observe, that,

Obs. 10. The whole undertaking of Christ, and the whole efficacy of the discharge of his office, depend on the appointment of God, even the Father.

3. It is affirmed that he was thus “made,” “appointed,” or “constituted,” that is, by God himself, a “ surety;” which is further declared by the addition of that whereunto his suretiship had a respect, namely, “a better covenant,” κρείττονος διαωθήκνς.

Of the proper signification of the word διαθήκη, and its use, we must treat expressly afterwards. Here we shall only observe, that in this word the apostle takes many things as granted among the Hebrews; as,

(1.) That there was to be another covenant or testament of God with and towards the church, besides that which he made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. The promises hereof are so frequently repeated by the prophets, especially those who prophesied towards the latter end of their church-state, that there could be no question about it, nor could they be ignorant of it.

(2.) That this new covenant or testament should be better than the former, which was to be disannulled thereby. This carried along with it its own evidence. For after God, in his wisdom and goodness, had made one covenant with his people, he would not remove it, abolish it, and take it away by another, unless that other were better than it; especially declaring so often as he doth that he granted them this new covenant as the highest effect of his grace and kindness towards them. And that indeed it was expressly promised to be a better covenant than the former, we shall see in the next chapter, if we live and God will.

(3.) It is supposed that this better covenant must have a surety. The original covenant that God made with Adam had none, and therefore was it quickly broken and disannulled. The especial covenant made with Israel had no surety, properly so called; only therein the high priest did represent what was to be done by any one that should undertake to be such a surety.

Of the word and its signification we have spoken before. And in our inquiry into the nature of this suretiship of Christ, the whole will be resolved into this one question, namely, ‘Whether the Lord Christ was made a surety only on the part of God unto us, to assure us that the promise of the covenant on his part should be accomplished; or also an undertaker on our part for the performance of what is required, if not of us, yet with respect unto us, that the promise may be accomplished?'The first of these is vehemently asserted by the Socinians, who are followed by Grotius and Hammond, in their annotations on this place.

The words of Schlichtingius are:

“Sponsor foederis appellatur Jesus, quod nomine Dei nobis spoponderit; id est, fidem fecerit Deum foederis promissiones servaturum esse. Non vero quasi pro nobis spoponderit Deo, nostrorumve debitorum solutionem in se receperit. Nec enim nos misimus Christum sed Deus, cujus nomine Christus ad nos venit, foedus nobiscum panxit, ejusque promissiones ratas fore spopondit et in se recepit, ideoque nec sponsor simpliciter sed foederis sponsor nominatur. Spopondit autem Christus pro foederis divini veritate, non tantium quatenus id firmum ratumque fore verbis perpetuo testatus est, sed etiam quatenus muneris sui fidem maximis rerum ipsarum comprobavit documentis, tum perfecta vitae innocentia et sanctitate, tum divinis plane quae patravit operibus, tum mortis adeo truculentae, quam pro doctrinae suae veritate subiit, perpessione.”

After which he subjoins a long discourse about the evidences which we have of the veracity of Christ. And herein we have a brief account of their whole opinion concerning the mediation of Christ. The words of Grotius are:

“Spopondit Christus; i.e., nos certos promissi fecit, non solis verbis, sed perpetua vitae sanctitate, morte ob id tolerata, et miraculis plurimis;”

which are an abridgment of the discourse of Schlichtingius. To the same purpose Dr. Hammond expounds it, that “he was a sponsor or surety for God unto the confirmation of the promises of the covenant.”

On the other hand, the generality of expositors, ancient and modern, of the Roman and Protestant churches, affirm that the Lord Christ, as the surety of the covenant, was properly a surety or undertaker unto God for us, and not a surety or undertaker unto us for God. And because this is a matter of great importance, wherein the faith and consolation of the church are highly concerned, I shall insist distinctly upon it.

(1.) And first, we may consider the argument that is produced to prove that Christ was only a surety for God unto us. Now this is taken neither from the name nor nature of the office and work of a surety, nor from the nature of the covenant whereof he was a surety, nor of the office wherein he was so. But the sole argument insisted on is, “That we do not give Christ as a surety of the covenant unto God, but he gives him unto us; and therefore he is a surety for God and the accomplishment of his promises, and not for us, to pay our debts, or to answer what is required of us.”

But there is no force in this argument; for it belongs not unto the nature of a surety by whom he is or may be designed unto his office and work therein. His own voluntary susception of the office and work is all that is required thereunto, however he may be designed or induced to undertake it. He who of his own accord doth voluntarily undertake for another, on what grounds, reasons, or considerations soever he doth so, is his surety. And this the Lord Christ did in the behalf of the church: for when it was said, “Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings for sin, God would not have,” or accept as sufficient to make the atonement that he required, so as that the covenant might be established and made effectual unto us; then said he, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” Hebrews 10:5-9. He willingly and voluntarily, out of his own abundant goodness and love, took upon him to make atonement for us; wherein he was our surety. And accordingly this undertaking is ascribed unto that love which he exercised herein, Gal 2:20; 1 John 3:16; Revelation 1:5. And there was this in it, moreover, that he took upon him our nature, or the seed of Abraham; wherein he was our surety. So that although we neither did nor could appoint him so to be, yet he took from us that wherein and whereby he was so: which was as much as if we had designed him unto his work, as to the true reason of his being our surety. Wherefore, notwithstanding those antecedent transactions that were between the Father and him in this matter, it was the voluntary engagement of himself to be our surety, and his taking our nature upon him for that end, which was the formal reason of his being instituted in that office .

(2.) We may consider the arguments whence it is evident that he neither was nor could be a surety unto us for God, but was so for us unto God. For,

[1.] ῎Εγγυος, or ἐγγυητής, a “surety,” is one that undertaketh for another wherein he is defective, really or in reputation. Whatever that undertaking be, whether in words of promise, or in depositing of real security in the hands of an arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life and body, it respects the defect of the person for whom any one becomes a surety. Such an one is sponsor, or “fidejussor,” in all good authors and common use of speech. And if any one be of absolute credit himself, and of a reputation every way unquestionable, there is no need of a surety, unless in case of mortality. The words of a surety in the behalf of another, whose ability or reputation is dubious, are, “Ad me recipio, faciet aut faciam.”

And when ἔγγυος is taken adjectively, as sometimes it is, it signifies him who is “satisdationibus obnoxius,” liable to payments for others that are non-solvent.

[2.] God can therefore have no surety properly, because there can be no imagination of any defect on his part. There may be, indeed, a question whether any word or promise be a word or promise of God. To assure us hereof is not the work of a surety, but of any one or any means that may give evidence that so it is. But upon a supposition that what is proposed is his word or promise, there can be no imagination or fear of any defect on his part, so as that there should be any need of a surety for the performance of it. He doth, indeed, make use of witnesses to confirm his word; that is, to testify that such promises he hath made, and so he will do. So the Lord Christ was his witness: Isaiah 43:10, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen.” But they were not at all his sureties. So Christ affirms that he came into the world to “bear witness unto the truth,” John 18:37: that is, the truth of the promises of God; for he was

“a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises unto the fathers,” Romans 15:8.

But a surety for God properly so called he was not, nor could be. The distance and difference are wide enough between a witness and a surety; for a surety must be of more ability, or more credit and reputation, than he for whom he is a surety, or there is no need of his suretiship. This none can be for God, no not the Lord Christ himself, who in his whole work was the servant of the Father. And the apostle doth not use this word in a general, improper sense, for any one that by any means gives assurance of any other thing: for so he had asserted nothing peculiar unto Christ; for in such a sense all the prophets and apostles were sureties for God, and many of them confirmed the truth of his word and promises with the laying down of their lives. But such a surety he intends as undertaketh to do that for others which they cannot do for themselves, or at least are not reputed to be able to do what is required of them.

[3.] The apostle had before at large declared who and what was God's surety in this matter of the covenant, and how impossible it was that he should have any other: and this was himself alone interposing himself by his oath. For in this cause, “because he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself,” Hebrews 6:13-14. Wherefore if God would give any other surety besides himself, it must be one greater than he. This being every way impossible, he swears by himself only. Many ways he may and doth use for the declaring and testifying of his truth unto us, that we may know and believe it to be his word, and so the Lord Christ in his ministry was the principal witness of the truth of God, but other surety than himself he can have none. And therefore,

[4.] When he would have us in this matter, not only to come unto the “full assurance of faith” concerning his promises, but also to have “strong consolation,” he resolves it wholly into “the immutability of his counsel,” as declared by his promise and oath, Hebrews 6:17-19. So that neither is God capable of having any surety properly so called, neither do we stand in need of any on his part, for the confirmation of our faith in the highest degree.

[5.] We on all accounts stand in need of a surety for us, or on our behalf. Neither without the interposition of such a surety could any covenant between God and us be firm and stable, or “an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure.” In the first covenant, made with Adam, there was no surety, but God and man were the immediate covenanters. And although we were then in a state and condition able to perform and answer all the terms of that covenant, yet was it broken and disannulled. If this came to pass by the failure of the promise of God, it was necessary that, on the making of a new covenant, he should have a surety to undertake for him, that the covenant might be stable and everlasting. But this is false, and blasphemous to imagine. It was man alone who failed and brake that covenant. Wherefore it was necessary that, upon the making of the new covenant, and that with a design and purpose that it should never be disannulled as the former was, we should have a surety and undertaker for us; for if that first covenant was not firm and stable, because there was no surety to undertake for us, notwithstanding all that ability which we had to answer the terms of it, how much less can any other be so, now our natures are become depraved and sinful! Wherefore we alone are capable of a surety, properly so called, for us; we alone stood in need of him; and without him the covenant could not be firm and inviolable on our part: the surety, therefore, of this covenant is so with God for us.

[6.] It is the priesthood of Christ that the apostle treats of in this place, and that alone. Wherefore he is a surety as he is a priest, and in the discharge of that office; and is therefore so with God on our behalf. This Schlichtingius observes, and is aware what will ensue thereon against his pretensions, which he endeavors to obviate: “Mirum,” saith he,

“porro alicui videri posset, cur D. Auctor de Christi sacerdotio in superioribus et in sequentibus agens, derepente eum sponsorem foderis, non vero sacerdotem vocet. Cur non dixerit, tanto praestantioris foederis factus est sacerdos Jesus? hoc enim plane requirere videtur totus orationis contextus. Credi-bile est in vote sponsoris sacerdotium quoque Christi intelligi. Spon-sorts enim non est solum alieno nomine quippiam promittere, et fidem suam pro alto interponere; sed etiam, si ira res ferat, alterius nomine id quod spopondit, praestare. In rebus quidem humanis, si id non praestet is pro quo sponsor fidejussit; hic vero propter contrariam causam (nam prior hic locum habere non potest) nempe quatenus ille, pro quo spopondit Christus, per ipsum Christum promissa sua nobis exhibet, qua in re praecipue Christi sacerdotium continetur.”

Ans. 1st. It may indeed seem strange, unto any one who imagineth Christ to be such a surety as he doth, why the apostle should so call him and so introduce him in the description of his priestly office, as that which belongeth thereunto. But grant what is the proper work and duty of a surety, and for whom the Lord Jesus was a surety, and it is evident that nothing more proper or pertinent could be mentioned by him, when he was in the declaration of that office.

2dly . He confesseth that by his exposition of this suretiship of Christ, as making a surety for God, he contradicteth the nature and only notion of a surety among men. For such a one, he acknowledgeth, doth nothing but in the defect and inability of them for whom he is engaged and doth undertake. He is to pay that which they owe, and to do what is to be done by them, which they cannot perform. And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place, the apostle makes use of a word nowhere else used in the whole Scripture, to teach us that which it doth never signify among men: which is improbable and absurd; for the sole reason why he did make use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it among men in other cases, we may understand the signification of it, what he intends by it, and what under that name he ascribes unto the Lord Jesus.

3dly . He hath no way to solve the apostle's mention of Christ being a surety in the description of his priestly office, but by overthrowing the nature of that office also: for, to confirm this absurd notion, that Christ as a priest was a surety for God, he would have us believe that the priesthood of Christ consists in his making effectual unto us the promises of God, or his effectual communicating of the good things promised unto us; the falsehood of which notion, really destructive of the priesthood of Christ, I have elsewhere at large detected and confuted. Wherefore, seeing the Lord Christ is the surety of the covenant as a priest, and all the sacerdotal actings of Christ have God for their immediate object, and are performed with him on our behalf, he was a surety for us also.

(3.) It remaineth that we inquire positively how the Lord Christ was the surety of the new covenant, and what is the benefit we receive thereby. And unto this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the mediation of Christ was only to procure the new covenant: although at first view it be irreconcilable unto the nature and notion of a surety; for a surety is not the procurer of that whereof he is the surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the new covenant by his death and mediation. And to this end we must observe, that the new covenant may be considered divers ways, in various respects:

[1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it distinguished from the decree of election, which first and properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared; for this respects the preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. It is true, this purpose, or counsel of God's will, is not called the covenant of grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The covenant of grace, I say, is only the declaration of this counsel of God's will, accompanied with the means and power of its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration; for nothing can be the procuring cause of this covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it,

of this idea of it in the mind of God. But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ; and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by, any thing that is external and temporal. And besides, it is expressly assigned unto absolute love and grace: see Ephesians 1:4-6, with all those places where the love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the designation of Christ unto his office, and the sending of him.

[2.] It may be considered with respect unto the federal transactions between the Father and Son concerning the accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my exercitations. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture: but it is that wherein it had its establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and by it were all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual unto the glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause but that which was the cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ, by his death, should procure the agreement between God and him that he should die?

[3.] With respect unto the declaration of it. This you may call God's making or establishing of it with us, if you please; though making of the covenant in the Scripture is applied only unto its execution or actual application unto persons. But this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glow, is most usually called the covenant of grace . And this is twofold:

1st . In the way of a singular and absolute promise; as it was first declared unto and thereby established with Adam, and afterwards with Abraham. This is the declaration of the purpose of God, or the free determination of his will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God were the only cause, Hebrews 8:8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he was to do for us, were the substance of that promise wherein this declaration of God's grace and purpose was made, or of this covenant of grace, which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disannulled, as unto the ends and benefits of a covenant. The substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from sin and misery, by his death, Genesis 3:15. Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself, then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.

2dly . In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it. Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only-begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted, that the constitution of these terms of the covenant doth respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God's grace; and so, although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of making the new covenant, in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is everywhere expressed in the Scripture.

It may be therefore inquired what respect the covenant of grace hath unto the death of Christ, or what influence it hath thereinto. I answer, it hath a threefold respect thereunto:

[1.] In that it was confirmed, rattled, and made irrevocable thereby. This our apostle insists upon at large, Hebrews 9:15-20. And he compares his blood, in his death and sacrifice of himself, unto the sacrifices and their blood whereby the old covenant was confirmed, purified, dedicated, or established, Hebrews 9:18-19. Now these sacrifices did not procure that covenant, or prevail with God to enter into it, but only ratified and confirmed it; and this was done in the new covenant by the blood of Christ, in the way that shall be afterwards declared.

[2.] He thereby underwent and performed all that which the righteousness and wisdom of God required, that the effects, fruits, benefits, and grace intended, designed, and prepared in the new covenant, might be effectually accomplished and communicated unto sinners. Hence, although he procured not the covenant for us by his death, yet he was, in his person, mediation, life, and death, the only cause and means whereby the whole grace of the covenant is made effectual unto us. For,

[3.] All the benefits of it were procured by him; that is, all the grace, mercy, privileges, and glory that God had prepared in the counsel of his will, and proposed in the covenant or promises of it, are purchased, merited, and procured by his death, and effectually communicated or applied unto all the covenanters, by virtue thereof, with other of his mediatory acts. And this is much more an eminent procuring of the new covenant than what is pretended about the procurement of its terms and conditions. For if he should have procured no more but this, if we owe this only unto his mediation, that God would thereon, and did, grant and establish this rule, law, and promise, that whosoever believed should be saved, it was possible that no one should be saved thereby; yea, if he did no more, considering our state and condition, it was impossible that any one should so be.

These things being premised, we shall now briefly declare how or wherein he was the surety of the covenant, as he is here called. A surety, sponsor, “vas, “praes, “fidejussor, for us the Lord Christ was, by his voluntarily undertaking, out of his rich grace and love, to do, answer, and perform, all that is required on our part, that we may enjoy the benefits of the covenant, the grace and glory prepared, proposed, and promised in it, in the way and manner determined on by divine wisdom. And this may be reduced unto two heads:

[1.] He undertook, as the surety of the covenant, to answer for all the sins of those who are to be and are made partakers of the benefits of it; that is, to undergo the punishment due unto their sins; to make atonement for them, by offering himself a propitiatory sacrifice for their expiation; redeeming them by the price of his blood from their state of misery and bondage under the law and the curse of it, Isaiah 53:4-6; Isaiah 53:10; Matthew 20:28; 1Ti 2:6; 1 Corinthians 6:20; Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 10:5-10; Romans 8:2-3; 2 Corinthians 5:19-21; Galatians 3:13. And this was absolutely necessary, that the grace and glory prepared in the covenant might be communicated unto us. Without this undertaking of his, and performance of it, the righteousness and faithfulness of God would not permit that sinners, such as had apostatized from him, despised his authority, and rebelled against him, falling thereby under the sentence and curse of the law, should again be received into his favor, and be made partakers of grace and glory. This, therefore, the Lord Christ took upon himself, as the surety of the covenant.

[2.] That those who were to be taken into this covenant should receive grace enabling them to comply with the terms of it, fulfill its conditions, and yield the obedience which God required therein. For, by the ordination of God, he was to procure, and did merit and procure, for them the Holy Spirit, and all the needful supplies of grace, to make them new creatures, and enable them to yield obedience unto God from a new principle of spiritual life, and that faithfully unto the end. So was he the surety of this better covenant.

Obs. 11. The stability of the new covenant depends on the suretiship of Christ, and is secured unto believers thereby. The introduction of a surety in any case is to give stability and security; for it is never done but on a supposition of some weakness or defect, on one account or other If, in any contract, bargain, or agreement, a man be esteemed every way responsible, both for ability and fidelity, there is no need of a surety, nor is it required. mentioned by our apostle in the next verse, namely, that they are all mortal and subject unto death, in which case neither ability nor fidelity will avail any thing, men in all cases of importance need sureties. These give the utmost confirmation that affairs among men are capable of. So doth the suretiship of Christ on our behalf in this covenant. For the evidencing whereof, we may consider,

1. The first covenant, as made with Adam, had no surety. As unto that which in the new covenant the suretiship of Christ doth principally respect, it had no need of any: for there was no sin, transgression, or rebellion against God, to be satisfied for; so that it was absolutely incapable of a surety unto that end. But as to the second part of it, or his undertaking for us, that, through supplies of strength from him, we shall abide faithful in the covenant, according to the terms and tenor of it, this had no inconsistency with that first state. As the Lord Christ, upon his undertaking the work of mediation, became an immediate head unto the angels that sinned not, whereby they received their establishment and security from any future defection, so might he have been such a head unto, and such an undertaker for man in innocency. No created nature was, or could have been, unchangeable in its condition and state, merely on its root of creation. As some of the angels fell at first, forsaking their habitation, falling from the principle of obedience, which had no other root but in themselves; so the rest of them, all of them, might afterwards have in like manner apostatized and fallen from their own innate stability, had they not been gathered up into the new head of the creation, the Son of God as mediator, receiving a new relation from thence, and establishment thereby. So it might have been with man in innocency; but God, in his infinite, sovereign wisdom, saw it not meet that so it should be. Man shall be left to the exercise of that ability of living unto God which he had received in his creation, and which was sufficient for that end; a surety God gave him not. And therefore, although he had all the advantage which a sinless nature, filled with holy principles, dispositions, and inclinations, free from all vicious habits, rebellious affections, inordinate imaginations, could afford unto him, yet he brake the covenant, and forfeited all the benefits thereof. Whatever there was besides in that covenant of grace, power, ability, and the highest obligations unto duty, yet all was lost for want of a surety. And this abundantly testifies unto the pre-eminence of Christ in all things For whereas Adam, with all the innumerable advantages he had, that himself to conflict withal, yet utterly brake the covenant wherein he was created and placed; believers, who have little strength in themselves, and a powerful inbred opposition unto their stability, are yet secured in their station, by the interposition of the Lord Christ as their surety.

2. When God made a covenant with the people in the wilderness, to manifest that there could be no stability in it without respect unto a surety, that it could not continue, no, not for a day, he caused it to be dedicated or confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. This the apostle declares, and withal its typicalness with respect unto the new covenant, and the confirmation of it with the blood of Christ, Hebrews 9:18-21. And afterwards, as we have declared, the high priest, in the sacrifices that he offered, was the typical mediator and surety of that covenant. And the end of this appointment of God, was to manifest that it was from the blood of the true sacrifice, namely, that of Jesus Christ, that the new covenant was to receive its stability. And we need a surety unto this purpose,

(1.) Because, in the state and condition of sin, we are not capable of immediate dealing or covenanting with God. There can be no covenanting between God and sinners, unless there be some one to stand forth in our name, to receive the terms of God, and to undertake for us. So when God began to treat immediately from heaven with the people of old, they all jointly professed, such was the greatness and glory of God, such the terror of his majesty, that it was impossible for them so to treat with him; and if he spake unto them any more, they should all die and be consumed. Wherefore, with one consent, they desired that there might be one appointed between God and them, to transact all things and to undertake for them as to their obedience; which God well approved in them, Deuteronomy 5:23-31. Adam, indeed, in the state of innocency, could treat immediately with God, as unto that covenant wherein he was placed; for notwithstanding his infinite distance from God, yet God had made him for converse with himself, and did not despise the work of his own hands. But immediately upon the entrance of sin he was sensible of the loss of that privilege; whereon he both fled and hid himself from the presence of God. And hence those who of old thought they had seen God, concluded that they should die, as being sensible of their incapacity to treat immediately with him. So when the prophet cried out that he was “undone,” or “cut off,” because of the immediate presence of God, “his eyes having seen the King, the LORD of hosts,” Isaiah 6:5, he was not relieved from his apprehensions until “his mouth was touched with a live coal from the altar,” a type of the mediation and sacrifice of Christ. Whilst we have any thing of sin remaining in us, we can have nothing to do with God immediately. Wherefore, that there may be any covenant between God and us, much more such an one as shall be “ordered in all things, and sure,” there must be one to stand before God in our stead, to receive the terms of God and to declare them unto us, and to undertake for us that we shall stand unto them and make them good, to the glory of God. And in this sense was the new covenant firstly made with Christ, not only as he undertook the work of mediation, which he did upon the especial eternal compact which was between the Father and him, but also as he undertook for all the elect to receive the terms of the covenant from God for them, in which sense the promise in the first place was made unto the seed that is one, which is Christ, Galatians 3:16, and to answer for them, that they should receive and stand to those terms. For he said,

“Surely they are my people, children that will not lie; so he was their Savior,” Isaiah 63:8.

Wherefore it could not be, upon the account of God's holiness and glorious greatness, that there should be any new covenant at all between God and sinners, without the interposition of a surety. Nor did it become the infinite wisdom of God, after man had broken and disannulled the covenant made with him in innocency, to enter into a new covenant with him, in his fallen condition, without an immediate undertaker that it should be assuredly kept and the ends of it attained. If you have lent a man a thousand pounds upon his own security, when he owed nothing else, nor was indebted to any other, and he hath not only failed in his payment, but contracted other debts innumerable; will you now lend him ten thousand pounds on the same security, expecting to receive it again? Had God entered into never so many covenants with men, without such a surety and undertaker, they would have been all broken and disannulled, as he well knew. He knew “that we would deal very treacherously, and were” rightly “called transgressors from the womb,” Isaiah 48:8. But so to covenant with us, would no way have become the infinite wisdom of God. Wherefore “he laid help upon one that is mighty, he exalted one chosen out of the people,” Psalms 139:19. He committed this work unto Jesus Christ; and then said concerning us, “Now deliver them, for I have found a ransom.”

(2.) The changeableness of our condition in this world requires a surety for us, to render the covenant firm, stable, and unalterable. So the psalmist, complaining of our frail and mutable condition, shows that it is in Christ alone that we have all our establishment: Psalms 102:25-28, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth,” etc. That it is the Lord Christ, the Son of God, that in an especial manner is intended, I have showed and proved at large on Hebrews 1:10, where this passage in the psalm is applied unto him. And the conclusion that the psalmist makes from the consideration of his immutability is this, “The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee,” verse 28. Without an interest in him and his stability we are subject to change, alter, decline, so as it is impossible the covenant should be sure unto us. The very nature of the principle whereby we live and walk before God in this world, renders our condition alterable in itself; for “we walk by faith, and not by sight,” 2 Corinthians 5:7. It is vision alone, or the immediate enjoyment of God, which will instate us in an unalterable condition. Whilst we walk by faith it is otherwise with us, and we depend wholly on our surety for our security in the covenant.

(3.) Who is it, among the whole society of believers, that is not sensible of such actual dispositions unto change, yea, such actual changes, as that it is evident unto him that his final stability depends on the undertaking of a surety? No man can give an account, from himself, whence it is that he hath not already utterly broken covenant with God. There is no one corruption, no one temptation, but doth evidence a sufficiency in itself to defeat us of our covenant interest, if we stood upon our own bottoms. It is faith alone with respect unto the suretiship of Christ which discovers how we have been kept hitherto, and which gives us any comfortable prospect of our future preservation. And the same is evident from the consideration of all the adversaries of our covenant interest.

Here we might stay a while, to contemplate the glory of divine wisdom and grace in providing this surety of the covenant, and to adore the infinite love and condescension of Him who undertook the discharge of this office for us; but we must proceed, only observing,

Obs. 12. That the Lord Christ's undertaking to be our surety gives the highest obligation unto all duties of obedience according to the covenant. For he hath undertaken for us that we shall yield unto God this covenant obedience, and said, “Surely they are children that will not lie.” He is no believer who understands not somewhat of the force and power of this obligation.