Indeed this promise of a new covenant, diverse from that made at Sinai, or not like unto it, as the prophet speaks, is sufficient of itself to overthrow the vain pretences of the Jews wherein they are hardened to this day. The absolute perpetuity of the law and its worship,— that is, of the covenant at Sinai,—is the principal, fundamental article of their present faith, or rather unbelief. But this is framed by them in direct opposition unto the promises of God. For let it be demanded of them, whether they believe that God will make another covenant with the church, not according to the covenant which he made with their fathers at Sinai. If they shall say they do not believe it, then do they plainly renounce the prophets, and the promises of God given by them. If they do grant it, I desire to know of them with what sacrifices this new covenant shall be es-
102 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. VIII.
tablished ; by what priest, with what worship, it shall be adminis- tered. If they say that they shall be done by the sacrifices, priests, and worship of the law, they deny what they granted before, namely, that it is a new and another covenant; for the sacrifices and priests of the law cannot confirm or administer any other covenant, but that which they belong and are confined unto. If it be granted that this new covenant must have a new mediator, a new priest, a new sacrifice,—as it is undeniable it must, or it cannot be a new covenant, —then must the old cease and be removed, that this may come into its place. Nothing but obstinacy and blindness can resist the force of this argument of the apostle.
The general design of the apostle in this verse being cleared, we may eonsider the words more particularly. And there are two things in them: 1. A positive assertion, included in a supposition, “If the first covenant had been blameless,’—had not been defective; that is, it was so. 2. The proof of this assertion: “If it had not been so, place would not have been sought for the second;” which that there was, he proves in the following verses:—
1. In the first part of the words there is, (1.) A causal conjunction, rendering a reason; “for.” (2.) The subject spoken of; “That first cove- nant.” (3, What is affirmed of it, as the affirmation is included ina negative supposition: It was not blameless, it is not blameless:—
(1.) The conjunction, yép, “for,” showeth that the apostle intends the confirmation of what he had before discoursed. But he seems not to refer only unto what he had immediately before affirmed concerning the better promises of the new testament, but unto the whole argument that he hath in hand. For the gene- ral reason which here he insists upon, proves all that he had before delivered concerning the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and the whole worship of the first covenant depending thereon.
(2.) The subject spoken of is 4 spurn éxefvn,—* that first ;” that is, ! _ eporépa, Sicd4xn, that “former covenant:” the covenant ‘a 777 made with the fathers at Sinai, with all the ordinances
of worship thereunto belonging, whose nature and use we have before declared.
(3.) Hereof it is said, <i duswarog jv. Vulg. Lat., “si culpa vacas-
set.” And so we, “if it had been faultless.” I am sure Lae the expression is a little too harsh in our translation, and such as the original word will not bear, at least doth not require. For it seems to intimate, that absolutely there was something faulty or blameworthy in the covenant of God. But this must not be admitted. For besides that the author of it, which was God himself, doth free it from any such charge or imputation, it is in the Scripture everywhere declared to be “holy, just, and good.” There is, indeed, an intimation of a defect in it; but this was not
TZ, pe
VER. 7.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 103
with respect to its own particular end, but with respect to another general end, whereunto it was not designed. That which is defective with respect unto its own particular end whereunto it is ordained, or which it is designed to accomplish, is really faulty; but that which is or may be so with respect unto some other general end, which it was never designed to accomplish, is not so in itself. This the apostle discourseth concerning, Gal. iii. 19-22. We must there- fore state the signification of the word from the subject-matter that he treats about in this place; and this is the perfection and con- summation, or the sanctification and salvation of the church. With respect hereunto alone it is that he asserts the insufficiency and im- perfection of the first covenant. And the inquiry between him and the Hebrews was, not whether the first covenant was not in itself holy, just, good, and blameless, every way perfect with respect unto its own especial ends; but whether it was perfect and effectual unto the general ends mentioned. This it was not, saith the apostle; and proves it undeniably, from the promise of the introduction of another general covenant forthe effecting of them. Whereas, therefore, to be not éueurroc, is either to have some fault or vice accompanying any thing and adhering unto it, whereby it is unsuited unto or insuf- ficient for its own proper end; or it is that whereunto somewhat is wanting with respect unto another general end which is much to be desired, but such as it was never designed to accomplish ;—as the art of arithmetic, if it be perfectly taught, is sufficient to instruct a man in the whole science of numeration; if it be not, it is faulty as unto its particular end ; but it is no way sufficient unto the general end of making a man wise in the whole compass of wisdom, a thing far to be preferred before its particular end, be it never so perfect in its own kind;—it is in the latter sense only that the apostle affirms that the first covenant was not gweuarros, or “ blameless.” Tf it had been such as unto which nothing more was required or needful perfectly to complete and sanctify the church,—which was the general end God aimed at,—it had been absolutely perfect. But this it was not, in that it never was designed for the means of it. To the same purpose he argues, Heb. vii. 11, 19. And with respect unto this end it is said that “the law was weak,” Rom. vii. 3 ; Gal. ii. 21; Acts xiii. 38, 39.