(1.) The first covenant of works was broken and disannulled, be- cause it had no mediator.
(2.) The covenant at Sinat had no such mediator as could ex- piate sin. Hence,—
(8.) Both of them became means of death and condemnation.
(4.) God saw that, in the making of the new covenant, it was ne- cessary to put all things into the hand of a mediator, that 2 also might not be frustrated,
(5.) This mediator was not in the first place to preserve us in the state of the new covenant, but to deliver us from the guilt of the breach of the former, and the curse thereon. To make provision for this end was the effect of infinite wisdom.
332 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. IX.
7. The especial way and means whereby this effect was wrought by this mediator, was by death: “ Morte obita,” “ facta,” “interveniente,” “intercedente.” ‘“ By means of death,” say we. Death was the means, that whereby the me- diator procured the effect mentioned. That which in the foregoing verse is ascribed unto the blood of Christ, which he offered as a priest, is here ascribed unto his death as a mediator. For both these really are the same: only in the one, the thing itself is ex- pressed, it was death; in the other, the manner of it, it was by blood: in the one, what he did and suffered, with respect unto the curse of the first covenant, it was death; in the other, the ground of his making expiation for sin by his death, or how it came so to do, namely, not merely as it was death or penal, but as it was a voluntary sacrifice or oblation.
It was therefore necessary unto the end mentioned that the me- diator of the new testament should die: not as the high priests of old died, a natural death for themselves; but as the sacrifice died that was slain and offered for others. He was to die that death which was threatened unto transgressors against the first covenant; that is, death under the curse of the law. There must therefore be some great cause and end why this mediator, being the only-be- gotten of the Father, should thus die.
“This was,” say the Socinians, “that he might confirm the doctrine that he taught. He died as a martyr, not as a sacrifice.” But,—
(1.) There was no need that he should die unto that end; for his doctrine was sufficiently confirmed by the scriptures of the Old Testament, the evidence of the presence of God in him, and the miracles which he wrought.
(2.) Notwithstanding their pretence, they do not assign the con- firmation of his doctrine unto his death, but unto his resurrection from the dead. Neither indeed do they allow any gracious eftect unto his death, either towards God or men, but only make it some- thing necessarily antecedent unto what he did of that kind. Nor do they allow that he acted any thing at all towards God on our behalf. Whereas the Scripture constantly assigns our redemption, sanctification, and salvation, to the death and blood of Christ, these persons [1.] Deny that of itself it hath any influence into them: wherefore, [2.] They say that Christ by his death confirmed the new covenant; but hereby they intend nothing but what they do also-in the former, or the confirmation of his doctrine, with an addition of somewhat worse. For they would have him to confirm the promises of God as by him declared, and no more; as though he were God’s surety to us, and nota surety for usunto God. Neither do they assign this unto his death, but unto his resurrection from the dead. But suppose all this, and that the death of Christ were
, Ouvarov yé- yopevou.
VER. 15.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 333
in some sense useful and profitable unto these ends, which is all they plead, yet what use and advantage was it of, with respect unto them, that he should die an accursed death, under the curse of the law and a sense of God’s displeasure? Hereof the Socinians, and those that follow them, can yield no reason at all. It would become these men, so highly pretending unto reason, to give an account upon their own principles of the death of the only-begotten Son of God, in the highest course and most intense acts of obedience, that may be compliant with the wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God, con- sidering the kind of death that he died. ,But what they cannot do, the apostle doth in the next words.
_ 8. The death of the mediator of the new testament was “ for the redemption of transgressions;” and for this end it Sa was necessary. Sin lay in the way of the enjoyment of cpaci cay ra the inheritance which grace had prepared. It did so 647s
in the righteousness and faithfulness of God. Unless it were re- moved, the inheritance could not be received. The way whereby this was to be done, was by redemption. The “redemption of transgressions,” is the deliverance of the transgressors from all the evils they were subject unto on their account, by the payment of a satisfactory price. The words used to express it, Alrpov, dvr/durpoy, Avrpwors, amoAUTpwors, AvTpovodas, Will admit of no other signification. Here it must answer “the purging of conscience by the blood of Christ.” And he calls his life “a ransom,” or price of redemp- tion. And this utterly destroys the foundation of the Socinian - redemption and expiation for sin; for they make it only a freedom from punishment by an act of power. ‘Take off the covering of the words, which they use in a sense foreign to the Scripture and their proper signification, and their sense is expressly contradictory unto the sense and words of the apostle. He declares Christ to have been the high priest and mediator of the new testament in the same acts and duties; they teach that he ceased to be a mediator when he began to be a priest. He affirms that the blood of Christ doth expiate sin; they, that he doth it by an act of power in heaven, where there is no use of his blood. He says that his.death was necessary unto, and was the means or cause of the redemption of transgressions,—that is, to be a price of redemption, or just compen- sation for them; they contend that no such thing is required there- unto, And whereas the Scriptwres do plainly assign the expiation of sin, redemption, reconciliation and peace with God, sanctification and salvation, unto the death and blood-shedding of Christ; they ‘deny them all and every one to be in any sense effects of it, only they say it was an antecedent sign of the truth of his doctrine in his ' resurrection, and an antecedent condition of his exaltation and power: which is to reject the whole mystery of the gospel.