“ (2.) What say they unto their temple, that second house where- unto he was to come, and so render the glory of it greater than that of the former? Hag. i; Mal. ui. Of old they unanimously agreed that he was born whilst the temple stood, or that day that it was destroyed, as Aben Ezra confesseth on Isa. lili. Many stories out of them might be told to this purpose,—where he was born, how, and of whom, to whom it was revealed by the Sp-na, who saw him, where he was disposed of, where he is; but being all the fancies of idle, curious headsand unbelieving hearts,—which St Paul calls Be€jAous xal ypawdeis wvdovg, 1 Tim. iv. 7, ‘ profane and old wives’ fables, —we shall not trouble the reader with them. Abarbanel, who in corrupt- ing the prophecies concerning the Messiah hath a reach beyond his fellows, affirms that Haggai speaks not of the second, but of a third temple, to be built under the Messiah; but this is nothing but a bold contradiction of the prophet, who three or four times signally declares that he spake of that house which was then building, which their eyes saw, and which so many contemned as not to be compared with the former: chap. i. 4, ‘This house;’ chap. i. 7, ‘ This house;’ verse 9, ‘ This house;’ so verse 18. Others say that the glory of that house did not consist in the coming of the Messiah unto it, but in its duration and continuance; for it stood ten years longer than the for- mer. But this also is contrary,—[1.] To the catholic persuasion of their forefathers, Targums, Talmuds, and all ancient doctors. [2.] To experience; for what could the miserable languishing of ten years by that house, whilst it was by their own confession ‘a den of thieves,’ contribute unto it to enable it to vie for glory with that wonder of the world, the temple of Solomon ; in comparison whereof their fore- fathers thought it no more than some of them of old thought them- selves compared to the sons of Anak? [3.] To the truth, affirming that the glory of that house was to consist in the coming of the Lord, whom they sought, the desire of all nations, unto it.” All which things are vindicated in our Prolegomena.
“3. Their temple being utterly destroyed, as well as their state, and their Messiah not yet come, what think they of their sacrifices? Daniel tells them that he was to come, and to be cut off, before the ceasing of the daily sacrifices; but they must confess that all sacrifices are long since utterly ceased, for surely their offering of a cock to the devil on the day of expiation is no continuance of them.
VER. 1, 2.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 17
Some say that the Messiah intended by Daniel was king Agrippa, whom Vespasian slew at Rome. But this obstinacy is intolerable. That a semi-pagan, as Agrippa was, should be their Messiah, so honourably foretold of, is a figment which, whatever they pretend, themselves believe not. Nor was Agrippa slain or cut off, but lived in peace to the day of his death. The most of them know not what to say, but only object that the computation of Daniel is dark and obscure, which Christians themselves are not agreed about ;” concern- ing which I must refer the reader to our Prolegomena, as also for the full and large handling of the things here by the way only touched upon.
This makes it evident who were the persons who were spoken unto in these last days, “ To us;” that is, the members of the Judaical church who lived in the days of the personal ministry of Christ, and afterwards under the preaching of the gospel unto that day, chap. ii. 3. The Jews of those days were very apt to think that if they had lived in the times of the former prophets, and had heard them delivering their message from God, they would have received it with a cheerful obedience; their only unhappiness, they thought, was that they were born out of due time as to prophetical revelations. This is intimated of them, Matt. xxii, 30. The apostle, meeting with this persuasion in them, minds them that in the reve- lation of the gospel God had spoken to themselves,—the thing they so much desired, not questioning but that thereon they should be- lieve and obey. If this word, then, they attend not unto, they must needs be self-condemned. Again, that care and love which God manifested towards them in speaking immediately unto them re- quired the same obedience, especially considering the manner of it, so far excelling that which before he had used towards the fathers ; of which afterwards. ’
And these are two instances of the comparison instituted, relating unto times and persons.
The next difference respects the manner of these several revela- tions of the will of God, and that in two particulars; for,—1. The former was made soAvuepiig, “ by divers parts,” one after the other. The branch of the antithesis that should answer hereunto is not ex-
pressed, but implied to be érak or igdrak, “ at once.”
TloAvwepais, “by many parts,” and so, consequently, at sundry times. The gradual discovery of the mind and will of God, by the addition of one thing after another, at several seasons, as the church could bear the light of them, and as it was subserving unto his main design of reserving all pre-eminence to the Messiah, is that which is intended in this expression. How all this is argumentative to the apostle’s purpose will instantly appear. Take the expression absolutely to denote the whole progress of divine re-