6. They differ, and that principally, in the manner of their dedi- cation and sanction. This is that which gives any thing the for- mal nature of a covenant or testament. There may be a promise, there may be an agreement in general, which hath not the formal nature of a covenant, or testament,—and such was the covenant of grace before the death of Christ,—but it is the solemnity and man- ner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or agreement, that give it the formal nature of a covenant or testa- ment. And this is by a sacrifice, wherein there is both bloodshed- ding and death ensuing thereon. Now this, in the confirmation of the old covenant, was only the sacrifice of beasts, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people, Exod. xxiv. 5-8. But the new testament was solemnly confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ him- self, Zech ix. 11; Heb. x. 29, xii, 20. And the Lord Christ dying as the mediator and surety of the covenant, he purchased all good things for the church; and as a testator bequeathed them unto it, Hence he says of the sacramental cup, that it is “ the new testament in his blood,” or the pledge of his bequeathing unto the church all the promises and mercies of the covenant; which is the new testa- ment, or the disposition of his goods unto his children. But be- cause the apostle expressly handleth this difference between these two covenants, chap. ix. 18-23, we must thither refer the full con- sideration of it.
7. They differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in the behalf of the people. In the old covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge that office; in the new, the Son of God himself is the only priest of the church. ‘This difference, with the advantage of the gospel-state thereon, we have handled at large in the exposition of the chapter foregoing.
8. They differ in the sacrifices whereon the peace and reconcili- ation with God which is tendered in them doth depend. And this also must be spoken unto in the ensuing chapter, if God permit.
|
VER. 6.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 91
9. They differ in the way and manner of their solemn writing or enrolment. All covenants were of old solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faitbfully preserved for the use of the parties concerned. So the old covenant, as to the princi- pal, fundamental part of it, was “ engraven in tables of stone,” which were kept in the ark, Exod. xxxi, 18; Deut. ix. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 7. And God did so order it in his providence, that the first draught of them should be broken, to intimate that the covenant contained in them was not everlasting nor unalterable. But the new covenant is written in the “ fleshy tables of the hearts” of them that do be- lieve 2 Cor. iii. 3; Jer. xxxi, 33.
10. They differ in their ends. The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it, and to set bounds unto it. So saith the apostle, “It was added because of transgressions.” And this it did several ways:—
(1.) By conviction: for “by the law is the knowledge of sin;’” it convinced sinners, and caused every mouth to be stopped before God.
(2.) By condemning the sinner, in an application of the sanction of the law unto his conscience.
(3.) By the judgments and punishments wherewith on all occa- sions it was accompanied. In all it manifested and represented the justice and severity of God.
The end of the new covenant is, to declare the love, grace, and mercy of God; and therewith to give repentance, remission of sin, and life eternal.
11. They differed in their effects. For the first covenant being the “ministration of death” and “condemnation,” it brought the minds and spirits of them that were under it into servitude and bondage; whereas spiritual liberty is the immediate effect of the new testament. And there is no one thing wherein the Spirit of God doth more frequently give us an account of the difference between these two covenants, than in this of the liberty of the one and the bondage of the other. See Rom. viii. 15; 2 Cor. iii, 17; Gal. iv. 1-7, 24, 26, 30, 81; Heb. ii. 14, 15. This, therefore, we must a little explain. Wherefore the bondage which was the effect of the ‘old covenant arose from several causes concurring unto the effecting of it:— .
(1.) The renovation of the terms and sanction of the covenant of works contributed much thereunto. For the people saw not how the commands of that covenant could be observed, nor how its curse could be avoided. They saw it not, I say, by any thing in the cove- nant of Sinai; which therefore “gendered unto bondage.” All the prospect they had of deliverance was from the promise.
(2) It arose from the manner of the delivery of the law, and
92 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. VIII
God’s entering thereon into covenant with them. This was ordered on purpose to fill them with dread and fear. And it could not but do so, whenever they called it to remembrance.
(3.) From the severity of the penalties annexed unto the trans- gression of the law. And God had taken upon himself, that where punishment was not exacted according to the law, he himself would “cut them off.” This kept them always anxious and solicitous, not knowing when they were safe or secure.