ose the phrase “ covenanting party.” But from this translation results another difficulty; the death of a covenanting party dissolves rather than confirms a covenant. Ebrard’s solution of this difficulty is ingenious: “The man who will enter into a covenant with God is a sinner, and as such incapable of entering into fellowship with the holy God, nay, even of uppearing before God’s presence, Deut. y. 26. He must die on account of his guilt, if a substitutionary sacrifice be not offered for him. But he must also die to his former life, in order to begin a new life in covenant with God. In short, from a simple view of the symbolical import of the covenant burnt-offering, described in verses 18-22, the following may be stated as the result; When a sinful man will enter into covenant with the holy God, the man must first die,—must first atone for his guilt by a death, (or he must produce a substitutionary burnt-offering.)”—Ep.
HPO TO eee OB
336 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. IX.
this power from men, and you root up the whole foundation of all industry and diligence in the world. For what man will labour to increase his substance, if when he dies he may not dispose of it unto those which by nature, affinity, or other obligations, he hath most respect unto? Wherefore the foundation of the apostle’s arguing from this usage amongst men is firm and stable.
Of the like nature is his observation, that “a testament is of no force whilst the testator liveth.” The nature of the thing itself, expounded by constant practice, will admit no doubt of it. For by what way soever a man disposeth of his goods, so as that it shall take effect whilst he is alive, as by sale or gift, it is not a testament, nor hath any thing of the nature of a testament in it; for that is only the will of a man concerning his goods when he is dead.
These things being unquestionable, we are only to consider whence the apostle takes his argument to prove the necessity of the death of Christ, as he was the mediator of the new testament.
Now this is not merely from the signification of the word d:adjxq, ——which yet is of consideration also, as hath been declared,—but whereas he treats principally of the two covenants, it is the affinity that is between a solemn covenant and a testament that he hath respect unto. For he speaks not of the death of Christ merely as it was death, which is all that is required unto a testament properly so called, without any consideration of what nature it is; but he — speaks of it also as it was a sacrifice; by the effusion of his blood, which belongs unto a covenant, and is no way required unto a tes- tament. Whereas, therefore, the word may signify either a cove- nant or a testament precisely so called, the apostle hath respect unto both the significations of it. And having in these verses men- tioned his death as the death of a testator, which is proper unto a testament, in the 14th verse, and those that follow, he insists on his blood as a sacrifice, which is proper unto a covenant. But these things must be more fully explained, whereby the difficulty which appears in the whole context will be removed.
Unto the confirmation or ratification of a testament, that it may
be Be€asa, “sure, stable, and of force,” there must be
We ) vexpois eath, “the death of the testator.” But there is no need sabe that this should be by blood, the blood of the testator, or any other. Unto the consideration of a covenant, blood was re- quired, the blood of the sacrifice, and death only consequentially, as that which would ensue thereon; but there was no need that it should be the blood or death of him that made the covenant. Wherefore the apostle, declaring the necessity of the death of Christ, both as to the nature of it, that it was really death; and as to the manner of it, that it was by the effusion of his blood; and that from the consideration of the two covenants, the old and the new
VER. 16, 17.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 337
testament, and what was required unto them; he evinceth it by that which was essential unto them both, in a covenant as such, and in a testament precisely so called. That which is most eminent and essential unto a testament, is, that it is confirmed and made irrevocable by the death of the testator; and that which is the ex- cellency of a solemn covenant, whereby it is made firm and stable, is, that it was confirmed with the blood of sacrifices, as he proves in the instance of the covenant made at Sinai, verses 18-20. Wherefore, whatever is excellent in either of these was to be found in the mediator of the new testament. Take it as a testament, which, upon the bequeathment made therein of the goods of the testator unto the heirs of promise, of grace and glory, it hath the nature of, and he died as the testator; whereby the grant of the inhe- ritance was made irrevocableunto them. Hereunto no more is required but his death, without the consideration of the nature of it, in the way of a sacrifice. Take it as a covenant, as, upon the consideration of the promises contained in it, and the prescription of obedience, it hath the nature of a covenant, though not of a covenant strictly so called, and so it was to be confirmed with the blood of the sacrifice of himself; which is the eminency of the solemn confirmation of this covenant. And as his death had an eminency above the death required unto a testament, in that it was by blood, and in the sacrifice of himself, which it is no way necessary that the death of a testator should be, yet it fully answered the death of a testator, in that he truly died; so had it an eminency above all the ways of the confirmation of the old covenant, or any other solemn covenant whatever, in that whereas such a covenant was to be confirmed with the blood of sacrifices, yet was it not required that it should be the blood of him that made the covenant, as here it was.